cgeoff

I believe that those posting photographs on this website should be required to indicate if any of the following applies to the photographs:

1. Playback of song or calls.
2. Baiting with food.
3. Photograph taken at or near the nest.

For some photographs, it seems fairly obvious that one of these has occurred. All three have the potential to disturb a bird's natural activities, and I am concerned at the number of photos appearing on the site that appear to have been obtained in this way. While I think these activities can be used sparingly in certain circumstances without undue harm, the issue we face is that certain locations and certain individual birds are being over-exposed to this kind of disturbance, which will impact their survival and breeding success.

GeoffC

cgeoff

I certainly don't think that shots of birds taken from publicly-accessible birdwatching hides at MPNR come under the category of those that I'm concerned about. I'm not against photographs of birds at or near the nest per se, merely that I think it's important we know if this is how they were obtained. I know of barbet nests in Thailand that were seriously affected by disturbance due to the persistent, if not continuous, presence of photographers.

There have been a number of shots posted over the years which seem to me have been obtained using playback. For example, otherwise highly secretive territorial song birds in Tai Po Kau such as Lesser Shortwing and Pygmy Wren Babbler, both of which are relatively restricted in their breeding range in HK. I also remember walking past a photographer at TPK a few years ago playing back the song of Hainan Blue Fly to a male about 15m away for at least ten minutes. This kind of behaviour, especially if repeated by others (which quite often happens with rare or shy species) could have an impact on breeding success if the individual is forced to behave abnormally for prolonged periods of time or decides to abandon its territory. The problem with playback is that it never backs down, not until the batteries give out anyway.

cgeoff

I am glad my initial post has generated some debate. I’d like to respond to some the various points raised above.

While declaring whether a photograph was obtained using artificial assistance or close to the nest will not solve any problem per se, what it will do is alert people to the potential impact obtaining such shots may have had on the individual birds. Raising awareness of any issue is a necessary and important part of dealing with problems. If it makes a photographer think twice about using such methods, then, as far as I’m concerned, fine.

I disagree that putting effort into discouraging hunting and eating of birds in China, however laudable and effective, means that we do not need to worry about what is happening on our doorstep. That would simply be ignoring the problem. I do, however, agree that we may be using an inappropriate method of connecting with bird photographers, though I have no suggestions as to how to do this more effectively. Unfortunately, there does appear to be a small proportion of photographers who are not prepared to seriously consider a bird’s welfare; reaching this particular group will be very difficult, of course.

It is true that non-photographers may use some of these methods, but it is likely to be at a much lower level than is the case with photographers. Without the motive of obtaining a photograph, such activities as baiting and playback will be too troublesome. It’s not a question of targeting photographers only, but one of targeting those who potentially impose the greatest impact. As Jonathan mentions, it is the activities, not the people.

While my suggestion would not have helped directly in the Black Drongo and TPK Egretry cases, by raising awareness generally it is more likely that in forums where such photos are posted, there is more likely to be a negative response to such photos.

Fundamentally, I believe that the HKBWS should be setting an example, and requiring photographers to indicate the circumstances of their photos is one way of doing this.

[ Last edited by cgeoff at 10/06/2015 11:30 ]

cgeoff

While there are many trustworthy members who abide by the Code of Conduct, it appears (to my eyes at least) that certain photographs have been obtained by playback. Anyway, responsible photographers should, by definition, be willing to state if a posted photograph was obtained using artificial means (note, this will not be every time a photo is posted). While the idea of purpose-built hides for photographers is great, it's unlikely to happen any time soon, if at all.

I must emphasise (again) I'm not against these activities per se, but I feel we need to know when they are being used. I am also not proposing 'policing' them, as I realise that is not possible. All I suggest is that some indication is provided if the shot was obtained using artificial means. Can we not expect that and work to conserve Yellow-breasted Bunting?

In regard to the final point, I don't think anybody is suggesting we are spending, or should spend, 'most' of our efforts on policing bird photography; to reduce my mild suggestion to this is absurd. I agree there are bigger issues such as wild bird consumption and, closer to home and more relevant surely, the trade in wild birds through and to HK. Almost all the birds in local bird markets are wild-caught and destined for an early death, yet the Society is strangely quiet on this activity. That's another issue, however...