I have posted a link to this before, but it is a topic very close to my heart, and from time to time some related issues come up. I believe it is very important to keep those rules in mind when out bird watching.
Most of us would have read the Guidelines for birding. But it can't hurt to have another look at them?
Here is the link: http://birdlife.org.au/documents/POL-Ethical-Birding-Guidelines.pdf
Thanks for bringing this up Araminta, I was going to ask about a related topic.
Just how close are you willing to get to birds in order to get 'that' photo? Where should the line between close enough and disturbing the bird be drawn? For instance, terns and waders and their like won't happily let you get anywhere near close enough to take a decent photo; when you try and get closer, you disrupt their feeding, and can potentially send them flying, which uses up valuable energy reserves that are sorely needed. But, without a 500+mm lens it is extremely difficult to get a good photo without upsetting your subject. And, on the surface just upsetting them once or twice may not seem so bad, the cumulative effect somewhere like Fraser Island would be extremely bad for the birds... So should a policy like the national parks "Don't take any natural things out of the park/have a fire, as whilst what you take/have may be small, it all adds up if everyone takes something/has a fire" be implemented? But then you wouldn't get any (good) photos and couldn't drive on the beach at Fraser...
I guess it is the same thing with ducks in parks- whilst you may only feed them a bit of bread and it doesn't harm them, the constant stream of bread from other people going past every day will. Dunno though with things like bush birds- you are still upsetting them and intruding on their activities, but on the other hand, they're all so active it mightn't make a difference anyway? To quote the factsheet: "every effort should be made to ensure that the bird is not stressed in any way."... Doesn't this preclude any relationship with the bird that would alter its natural routines?
Incidentally, Araminta, you were mentioning that you can see no reason for someone to need a lens with a focal length of >300mm. As I see it, the ability to get photos of equal quality from a longer distance away from the bird is one of the most powerful arguments for getting a longer lens. They allow you to stay further away from the bird, and thus you have less (possibly negative) influence on it, and the person holding the camera feels less compelled to try and get closer to the target, as they have already have a exemplary photo from a larger distance. I know that I often feel that I have to get just that little bit close to the bird to try and get photos equal to the quality of someone with a longer lens, and there is that tiny gremlin in the back of my mind that keeps whispering to me "Whatever it takes Lachlan, do it; it'll be worth it for the better photo; it won't really bother the bird much; it has a disturbed lifestyle anyway/came towards me anyway".
I'll get down off my soap box now, its just that this was something I have been puzzling over a lot lately.
For those of you who went TL;DR, the basic gist of it is that I really don't know where to draw the line on the amount of impact I have on wildlife, and would welcome any advice to sort the muddle in my head out.
I'm really done with the soap box now.
Honestly, I promise.
I still think the difference between a 300mm and the 400mm lens I use is not that big.
But anyway,I have talked about "sneaking up on birds recently (a few days ago). I explain, and it becomes quite obvious, that I don't disturb any birds, if I did they would fly away. Most of the time they don't even know I'm there, or don't feel threatened by me.
Last year I had Wrens nesting in a spot I had no problems getting close to. During all the time the hen was sitting on the nest I stayed well away from it. I only took photos of the parents approaching and sitting on a fence.
I wouldn't disturb any bird, or disclose any nesting site, not even to my best friends.
Hopefully that tells you a bit more about my opinion on this topic.
Nothing that upsets a bird or the environment is worth a photo.
M-L
I wasn't so much taking a shot at the difference between a 300 and a 400mm lens, I was more comparing 300/400mm range with the superteles of 500mm upwards...
I'm not that good at sneaking up on things (being tall, clumsy and probably wearing hiking boots), and birds tend to notice me when I'm a long distance away from them. Hence, by the time I get close enough to fill the frame without cropping too much, the bird is nervous or has already flow off. I'm a big fan of the whole sit and wait strategy though, as to me it seems less of a problem if I upset the bird, as I has come towards me.
Obviously it is a bad idea to disturb nesting sites, as it can traumatise the birds and possibly cause them to abandon the nest for the year. I would never go anywhere near an occupied nest. However, my thoughts were more along the lines of normal birds you encounter while out birding- just how close should you approach them to get a photo. Arguably, anything that gets the birds attention upsets it, and thus should be avoided. On the other hand though, most birds can fly a lot faster than I can walk, and if they are tryly bothered by me they will just leave (but, of course, that means I have disturbed them).
See the kind of circular logic I get myself stuck with?
But if this has already be done over on the forums before, I'll drop the subject- don't want to be creating superfluous posts.
I have the same problem getting stuck in circular thoughts
I also think like that, it happens when you are trying to incorporate other people's idea into your thoughts.
And I also wear hiking boots
, I haven't taken them off all winter, only when I go to bed. I'm that kind of girl
, don't dress up for anybody. The last time I wore high heels was at my wedding day, that was a looooong time ago.
I'm always up for a circular discussion
, bring them on, that is if you can cope with my bad English?
I also hope more people will read the
http://birdlife.org.au/documents/POL-Ethical-Birding-Guidelines.pdf
M-L
Hey, hiking boots are comfy, which is more than can be said of most shoes.
Part of the reason I have so many conflicting thoughts is that I'm pretty new to the whole birding thing- I've only got a few years experience at birding proper, and have only had a DSLR for half a year or so. Prior to that I was just using Point and Shoot type things, and with them quality really doesn't seem a concern- you're just happy to get a photo of the target. So I'm on a bit on a learning curve... Or at least I hope I'm getting better!
The ethical birding guidelines are certainly interesting, I think I've read them a few times recently looking for different things. I do agree with you that it would be nice if people had a greater concern for them. Sometimes I just don't understand though, like with the massacre of ducks earlier this year in Victoria. What would compel someone to do something like that? I can understand the thrill people get out of hunting(even if I disapprove of it), but a massacre?
I'm so with you on the duck shooting issue. When I was younger and braver, I was one of the protesters against it on the steps of Parliament House in Melbourne. (These days I can't run fast enough to get away from some of those:
"Big brave men with guns, against defenceless ducks". Those "heros" that stated last season: It is an Australian tradition to go out shooting ducks
I'm glad there are many men and women who don't want to be part of that tradition
M-L
Since when has it been an Australian tradition?
Sounds almost exactly like what the hunters say up here when anyone suggests curtailing their 'rights'. Thankfully, O'Farrell has pulled the Game Council; but it's still a pity that they're still going ahead with the hunting scheme (even if it is still on a smaller scale).
I don't know how the duck shooting can still be legal in Vic when the shooters can't even tell the difference between a duck and a Whistling Kite. But then, I don't know how hunting is going to be legal in NSW when the shooters can differentiate between a kangaroo and a fox.
I had better be careful, I'm edging towards soapbox territory again.
Don't be careful Lachlan, in my opinion we all are far too careful (some people even too scared) to make our voices heard when it comes to the protection of animals , the environment and humans.
M-L
Sadly, in NSW making your voice heard wouldn't do any good...
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/economy-trumps-environment-in-new-mining-guidelines-20130729-2qu4i.html
In addition to the reform of the planning laws so that locals can't resist development, the regulations surrounding the approval of mines are being changed. The residents made their voices heard; Rio Tinto is going to squash them anyway. Basically, it seems no one at a governmental level cares about the environment in Australia.
Lachlan, my approach to bird watching & photography is that if both the bird & I can have our needs met then that's all to the good. E.g., if I can sit quietly & watch birds while they go about their business then the birds & I can be satisfied. But if I'm focussing just on my needs without regard to the bird's needs then that's bad. E.g., if I get enjoyment from feeding birds bread but don't give a stuff about the health of the birds then I'm focussed entirely on my needs & not the birds'. Or if my desire for a photograph of nesting birds means that the birds abandon the nest then, again, I'm focussed on my need, not the birds'.
And yes, I think we can be forgiven for thinking that the environment is way down the list of government priorities at state & federal levels. This destructive approach will eventually bite us on the bum big time if it hasn't already. Hence the need for environmentally sensitive people to be voicing their concerns & arguing their cases at all levels so that politicians eventually have their power threatened big time.
I'm a big fan of the sit and wait approach too Lachlan. I like to treat my bird outings a little like going fishing. I wouldn't jump into the ocean with my fishing rod and chase the fish around. So I kinda take the same tack with birds & I quite often hike, with fold out stool and all, along designated bush tracks until I find a nice noisy (bird noisy) spot, and sit & wait for a while. Although, I do implement a bit of sneaky sometimes, but I have a little of that clumsi-itis problem also
so generally find, for me anyway, the stakeout is the most effective and least disruptive. I have been "discovered" from time to time though - a few weeks ago by a very cranky Grey Fantail who swooped me then pooped on my hat, and yesterday by a pair of irate Tasmanian Scrubwrens. Both times I took this as a clear sign that I needed to move somewhere else & so did. Just my way of trying to do the right thing I guess.
West Coast Tasmania
If you visit the same spot regularly and always act in a calm quiet manner the birds will eventually get to know you and be a bit less shy. Of course this is a lot easier if you live near some bushland and can take the time for regular walks in the same area - some might find it boring.
Also if you walk slowly in a direct line towards a bird without any sideways movement it isn't obvious to the bird that you are getting closer, you just look a little bigger.
Like Greg says:
Also if you walk slowly in a direct line towards a bird without any sideways movement it isn't obvious to the bird that you are getting closer, you just look a little bigger.
I also stop from time to time or when the birds look worried, they will get used to your presence and not threatened.
M-L
Especially when they are feeding - you can advance when they're feeding with their heads down, and whenever they pause for a moment to look around,you freeze - and repeat the process. I use this "tactic" to get near my targets nearly all the time.
The local birds still seem to spot me from a mile away. Maybe it is because of all the people in the area who walk dogs? My theory is that the birds get used to moving away whenever people come near because the have dogs with them that chase the birds. Otherwise, with the number of people out walking in the area you'd think that the thornbills, wrens, cisticolas etc would get used to people.
Either that, or I have a convenient excuse for my own inability to be stealthy!
Just another point that I often make to my hiking friends and end up being critisised for because it's perhaps a little confrontational They are all guilty of it, catching a plane and driving a Car to go vist the Tarkine or hike in Tasmania or some such nonsense.. sigh.. never mind.
Driving all over the place to look at birds (go hiking or whatever nature based activity engaged in) is something I could never agree with. The pollution caused (CO2, NO2, particulates etc etc) is terrible and shared with everyone and everything and who knows the provinence of the source of Oil you use for petrol/diesel ? Is it from Shells facilities in the Niger delta (check these pics) they do incredibale damage there. Or from the Gulf of Mexico where 1000's of brids were killed in the BP oil spill. We (I mean the people you see in the mirror when you brush your teeth) are effectivly killing off the Planet and birds elsewhere, just so we can look at birds a few 100k away, let alone the amount of fauna killed by cars. They want to drill for oil on the Barrier Reef and in the Artic not because they like doing it but because it makes them money from people driving ther cars to look at birds (amongst other things) and consuming, it's the demand side that makes it "worthwhile".
Don't get me started on people cooking or heating with natural gas (CH4) and then complaining about CSG (CH4) ! :)
I say this to ask people to have an holistic look. It's all very well and good not sneaking up on a bird but if your CO2 pollution destroys the natural habitat from AGW whats was the point ? I hike locally, ride my moutnin bike on fire trails at my back door, and have a little inflatable raft I use to raft down the nearby river (can put it in a back packm hike up the river, raft down and cycle home) all for those very reasons, I don't want to kill what I love.
One remark to this, while you were typing this and sending it , have you thought about the fact that you are using a “computer” to do this? The toxic components used in computers, deposited in landfills, or taken apart by children in third world countries being exposed to the deadly poisons when they so called recycle them, is the biggest problem our planet faces. People replace PC at an alarming rate, you only have to look at the rubbish dumped outside houses. The same toxic components are in mobile phones, people buy and throw out phones every day. I think we should all be aware of this problem, computers are the most harmful thing for our environment
I was going to put up some links worth reading, but a quick Google search brought up far too many, so please investigate yourself.
M-L
They don't care because the people don't care. As long as they can buy a Maccas and drive ther car, peopel are happy.... I mean you know the LNP is goign to ignore the enviroment, along with the ALP and even the Greens
George Carlin said it best, blame the voters
Hi greviousbh, here is something to think about if you have a mobile phone. (I don't own one)
http://www.whatsinmystuff.org/key-facts/
M-L
The most dangerous part is "indium"
China is the main producer of Indium (In). It is essential in the manufacture of LCD TV’s, computers and touch screens as indium tin oxide (ITO). No viable alternative to ITO has yet been developed.
M-L
greviousbh's conscientious lifestyle is commendable and he is correct in saying that people (the majority of) just don't care. And it is those that don't care who will continue to breed up in their billions and grab whatever they can to make themselves "richer". By all means keep up the pressure and try to make the care-nots at least feel guilty for their selfishness and excesses. But they never will. There's pessimism for you.
I take your point Night Parrot, I have and always will be the first one in the shooting line for all sorts of issues , fighting for the disadvantaged in this world, equal rights for everyone and the list goes on. Most ideas I share with greviousbh , I was one of the founders of the Greens Party in Germany, the country I grew up in, although my heritage is not German but French. All my life I stood up for all kinds of different issues, with some success. My children were educated in the tradition of Rudolf Steiner, both gently walking on this earth, with respect to every living thing. I’m more my Philosopher mother’s child, a woman risking her own life working as a spy in the French Resistance who was offered a medal for her achievements after the war. (one she rejected and refused to accept)
Her advice to me, a week before she died at the age of 100 was: If you believe in something, don’t let anything or anybody stop you. Don’t trust anybody who claims to know the truth, and make your own decisions and if you were wrong , take the consequences , admit to having been wrong and change . And don’t be afraid of people that attack and challenge your beliefs. Now, she also always said exactly what you say, only in different words.
She said: the problem is, the majority of the non-thinking people is never right, but unfortunately will dictate the world.
This is why we should be working to convince the majority of how important it is for all of humanity to care for the environment.
M-L
I heard Gerry Harvey, he of Harvey Norperson, talking on my indium-driven TV set (Shame, oh shame! Why wasn't I told of this when I bought it?) this morning. He said there needed to be more housing built so that his profits could rise. There was no environmental context to what he was saying & advocating, no thought given to the damage to the environment that would be caused by what he was advocating. He's not the only one, of course. Few people seem to be aware that we depend on a healthy environment & high value biodiversity for our very existence. Ah, well, keep plugging away.
This forum seems to be 'Ethical living' now... I like it.
Playing the devils advocate here...You can also add land clearing for livestock or for food production in general to our sins. (carnivores in particular) Especially the American way of farming we seem to have adopted, Most of the food crops are introduced as are the livestock. Cotton is also a problem crop. Having introduced species for pets (dogs, cats etc) cause a lot of harm. Don't forget we, who do all this damage, are also an introduced species and a plague species to boot.
I think the sheer volume of toxic plastics that we all use daily are more problematic than rare metals and minerals from mobile phones that are also used in our cameras (and where would we be without them?). I don't want to go back to a box with a pinhole in it. (selfish I know) and life would be a lot harder without my computers.
Most plastics we use could be made from hemp, Clothes, food and also fuel can also be made from hemp and it also helps rejuvenate the soil for farmers if you rotate the crops with hemp. Why don't we grow hemp? (Dupont, America) Plus it is an introduced plant which wouldn't go down well with some of us.
I feel a rant coming on... Oh dear look over there Miley Cyrus has done something, Don't look over here where we are legislating the end of another species or attacking another middle eastern country with seriously pollutive weapons.
Someone voted them in (didn't they?) Was it you?
Unfortunately M-L's mum was right "the majority of the non-thinking people are rarely right" but as long as they have their huge new LCD 3D TV in their mcmansion and new 4 wheel drive to drop the kids of to school that never even see mud. Then drink their store bought water out of plastic bottles with pretty green labels that say 'natural' or 'organic'. Then whip off down to 'Hardly Normal' to get an updated new iPhone and iPad combo with newest 'bling" cover then they are happy. Is there anything I have forgotten?
And Grevious... I like what you are saying. I ride my bike to go birding quite often. I liberated it from a metal recycling facility, there were a large selection to choose from, all perfectly good operational bikes just ditched by people who probably got one in a new style or colour. Here's the but. It was made in china by exploited underpaid peasants from metal that is mined from the earth and no doubt smelted by gas or coal. The tyres are a strange combination of natural and non natural ingredients and are toxic. The all important seat is plastic. Not even the bike is pure enough. I have often joked that I will have to get a car to go bushwalking (in some of the spots I want to go,) but I wont. I catch the train and walk mostly. Trains are run by power made from coal. Is there no escape?
We are all guilty...(mea culpa) none of us can deny we all contribute. It is easy to try and lay blame on someone else but it's us. Maybe one must ask oneself 'What more can I do?" (or should that be 'what can I do without?') Rant over.
Thanks Richard. There is so much one can think about for a while. But most of all I like your last sentence:
"What more can I do?" - or- "What can I do without?"
We have put our TV in the shed. We mostly listen to Classical Music and while doing so, we can read.
When I have to go to Melbourne, I take the train, but I have to get to the train first. So the 12 km to the station I have to take my car.
Anyway, like Richard I can think of so many things that are bad for the environment. Don't get me started on Baby Nappies. I wonder if anyone has ever measured the volume of dirty nappies neatly sealed in plastic bags and dumped on tips? I'm old, but not that old? I used to wash cloth nappies, I didn't even have a washing machine until my son was almost one. How about dryers ? What's wrong with washing lines?
I could go on......., but won't either
M-L