Ethics of Nest Photography

[daniel.barton]

Dear All,

Photography of birds at their nests can clearly precipitate predation or abandonment of nests. For this

reason, many wildlife photographers have rightfully avoided or shunned this practice and branded it unethical (I

would like to point out that disturbing birds at nests is not only unethical, but illegal in the United States

without permits). Given the paramount importance of bird conservation, this is a critical consideration. I was

today anonymously remonstrated in another thread for photographing birds at nests. This raised, what, to me, is

an interesting question. If one is in the position (such as I am) to legally photograph bird nests as part of a

permitted research program that involves greater disturbances to nests than photography (e.g. weighing and

measuring eggs and young, videotaping of parental behaviors, capture of parents, collection of genetic samples

from offspring and parents, etc.), does this community still consider it unethical to take such photos? Is it

unethical for me to display such photos that were legally taken, as it may encourage other photographers to

attempt to do the same thing illegally?

 

This is an interesting issue to me for several reasons, but please note that my observations are specific

to songbirds (this is what I professionally study). Firstly, I do believe that many serious wildlife

photographers disturb adults near nests without realizing so. Pretty much every single adult bird one sees and

photographs during the summer (i.e. not migration) has an active nest or fledglings. If it's just sitting there

'being photographed' it is probably doing so because it's trying to return to its nest and you are standing very

close to it. The only exceptions to this rule are foraging birds and singing males. Thus, summer songbird

photography generally involves disturbing nesting birds whether one knows it or not. Second, no one seems to

care about photographing and thus drawing attention to fledglings, yet during this time period young are

generally just as subject to mortality (usually predation) as during the nestling period. Third, I've never

heard a peep about the ethics of photographing birds in the hand while handling them for research, but there are

tens of thousands (literally) of such photos on the internet. I've taken hundreds of such photos while

banding birds but I've always found them a little distasteful relative to free-ranging birds.

 

Any opinions are welcome, and I am more than happy to remove every nest photo (what, all 2 I've posted

thus far) I have from photo.net if anyone thinks that this encourages people to disturb nesting birds.

 

Best,

Dan

 

p.s. I never alter vegetation at nests for any reason, research or photographic.

[greg s]

I'm not a fan of people displaying nest photos on the web, basically for the reasons you describe = potential encouragement for others to do likewise. Digital cameras were a cool invention, but the large number of people roaming around trying to take 'wildlife' photos these days is a bit worrisome. It's a good question and my general approach is to error on the side of caution. Cheers, -Greg-

[SCL]

I think publishing photos such as you describe, on a general web photo forum rather than a scientific journal, encourages oneupmanship in less sensitive or less well informed photographers. I'm sure you'll hear a variety of opinions on the ethics.

[ed_erkes]

You stated that "disturbing" birds at nest sites is illegal in the United States. I don't believe that this is true and wonder what source you have for this information. I have maintained a bluebird box trail for over twenty years, am a member of the North American Bluebird Society (which has provided guidelines on what is legal and illegal regarding monitoring of nestboxes) and also do volunteer work monitoring bluebird and wood duck nestboxes at a local refuge---no permits required for monitoring. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology has an active Citizen Science NestWatch Monitoring program where they actually encourage people to monitor not only cavity-nesting but also cup nesting birds--with guidance on how to monitor while minimizing disturbance. No one should photograph birds at the nest without careful research, observation, extreme care. But illegal-- I don't think so.

[david_moreland]

Does this...

 

'(e.g. weighing and measuring eggs and young, videotaping of parental behaviors, capture of parents, collection of genetic samples from offspring and parents, etc.)'

 

ever...

 

'precipitate predation or abandonment of nests.' ?

 

I am not sure about the predation/abandonment problem I see often cited. While I am sure it can happen, I see a lot of bird activity around nests that is easy enough for me to spot, let alone a hawk, cat, or other predator. (i wonder if snakes have much ability to 'see' the parent birds coming and going? i do know they are very skilled and getting to nests.) Parent birds coming and going, little ones flopping around and practicing for flight, etc. are usually easy to spot.

I am open to the discussion, but, like Ed Erkes, have maintained bluebird boxes, as well as wood duck boxes, for many years and have not seen a lot of abandonment. Plenty of predation, but I don't think I caused it, though I guess I could have without understanding what I was doing.

I am not sure about display of nest images and would like more comments on the subject.

[geoffm]

I wonder how much of a problem this really is. Photography of birds in the nest is advanced stuff, requiring specialised equipment and techniques. The average digicam user may be inspired to try, but is likely to give up pretty soon when he/she realises the results aren't worth the effort. Conversely, if someone goes to the trouble of learning the necessary techniques and the expense of purchasing the equipment, they may well pick up some of the ethics along the way.

 

Further, the average guy with a camera is only likely to find a nest in his own backyard or street tree. These birds are likely to be pretty used to human contact, and probably abundant, too.

 

I tend to believe that the presentation of high quality nature photography and cinematography to the public results in more respect for the natural world, not less. Photos like Mark B Bartosik's, that make you say "Wow, what a stunning shot of an amazing creature!" make you want to preserve such things. OTOH, ignorance causes lack of respect, as in this thread, http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00QI1y where the impression was "I don't know what it is; squash it."

[steveshinn]

Answering the original post; if you enter "nest" in the search window of this page under "photo captions" you will get over 600 matches... most of which involve birds in a nest. The "ethics" of the nude in a nest..... well

 

Is it "ethical" to disturb a nest? Duh, no and it's usually illegal BUT to simply take a picture of "birds at nest" and post it? Come on! Granted, the shots looking down the throats of the hatchings might have caused some stir but any of us who became interested in birds in our naive youth know that you might get pecked on the head for sneaking a peek but did the birds ever abandon the nest? No sparrow, dove, mocking bird, humming bird, shrike, swallow.... etc ever left after our considerable curiosity was sated.

 

As educated adults we know that endangered species need wider birth ditto those birds that don't build their nests on our barbecues and live in wild areas that are uncomfortable with humans getting close. But, with digital cameras and long lenses we don't even need to get close to the nest. So is it "unethical" to take and post a shot at a non disturbing distance and post it? Pretty silly question says I!

 

Should properly certificated researchers take and post images of their work in the field with nesting birds? Well I HOPE so! I don't want to google my life away hunting for some obscure academic post to find those wonderful images which, though my tax dollars, I likely help fund.

 

Please keep on shooting and posting and let me know where I can enjoy these works. I pay little attention to anonymous posts or criticism, if there is an issue let them discuss it with you. Ignore the weak minds that fear any challenge of their thoughts. Sheesh, I'd better quit before I wax political here.

[daniel.barton]

Wow, thanks for many thoughtful replies. I only have a couple of comments to add:

 

First, it IS illegal to harass wildlife under a variety of state statutes, and for migratory birds, under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. This is applied to nesting birds. I am a biologist, not a lawyer, but harassing birds protected under this statute (which counts as 'take') is a crime. So if photography at nests is not harassment then it is not illegal, but in my humble opinion it often is and it has been considered so, but only with colonial-nesting birds and waterfowl. I don't think that many conservation officers worry much about people harassing the Yellow Warbler ('dickey-bird') nesting on their local creek. I was being a bit dramatic there, but people have certainly been charged with misdemeanors for harassing nesting birds. I think nest boxes have always been loosely considered (e.g. ignored) under this body of law, because there is clear intent to benefit migratory birds (but consider cleaning an active House Wren nest out of a bluebird box - technically a felony, I believe). Monitoring of bird nests through Cornell's citizen science work is almost certainly covered under some permit or another they have, just as the British Trust for Ornithology's nest card scheme is. I am grateful to those of you who participate, because birds are one of our most beautiful natural resources and deserve greater protection and respect.

 

Second, there's no way to tell if monitoring nests affects nest success because assessing success at unmonitored nests is basically impossible. Numerous researchers have addressed this in ways I won't get into, but the basic problem is: if a bird nest gets eaten in a forest and no one is around to watch, does it still get eaten? I will say two things on this, that are well-supported by my own experience and the primary literature on this subject: birds sometimes abandon nests in response to disturbance, and it is certainly possible to lead predators to nests. I'll say it again, because I think bird conservation is really important: disturbance at nests CAN cause abandonment and predation. Yet, this is incredibly rare in cavity nesting birds and thus they are very tenable to both monitoring and research. This is a major reason so many people (citizen-scientists and scientists) work with boxes. Plus, you don't have to 'find' nest boxes which is a major investment of time and energy when studying open cup-nesting species.

 

And Steve: you do pay for a lot of research, including mine, with your tax money. I'm happy to share it, it's my job.

[ed_erkes]

Sorry to disagree with you but, again, PHOTOGRAPHY of birds at the nest IS NOT Illegal. And the law makes no distinctions between cavity and cup nesting birds.The Cornell Lab of Ornithology had a home study bird photography course in the early 1980's (long after the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty) and discussed in detail the photography of birds at the nest. I agree that there are serious risks involved and if you want to advocate no nest photography that is fine, but to state that it is illegal is inacurrate. How could the Cornell Lab promote a CitizenScience Nest Monitoring program if it were illegal.

[derek_thornton1]

Daniel, I agree with you. You, the biologist, should have every right to photograph birds in any situation. I would imagine the photos would do as much to answer your questions as netting/weighing/measuring.

 

What an awesome job that must be!

[daniel.barton]

Ed, please read what I wrote:

 

"disturbing birds at nests is not only unethical, but illegal in the United States without permits" <--- disturbing

 

"harassing birds protected under this statute (which counts as 'take') is a crime" <--- harassing

 

"if photography at nests is not harassment then it is not illegal" <--- !

 

So I believe you misunderstood my original post and the follow-up.

 

I never said the law about photography (there actually is none, which I am fully aware of if you read what I

wrote) made a distinction between cavity nesters and open cup nesters, just that nest boxes are clearly a special

case when considering what constitutes harassment. I also never said the Citizen Science program is illegal, or

anything even remotely resembling that, just that Cornell probably works with USFWS to get a permit.

[ed_erkes]

Sorry but I don't think I misinterpreted your post. Why mention that the disturbance of birds at the nest is illegal in a post about nest photography if it was not related to the topic. Also, you state later, "If one is in the position (such as I am) to legally photograph bird nests as part of a permitted research program....".

Maybe we are just arguing about semantics---my intent was only to clarify that nest photgraphy is not illegal. The issue of nest photgraphy is largely an ethical one since we all can "legally" photograph nesting birds. Whether we do it or not is an ethical issue, not a legal one.

[mrraz]

I was lucky enough to have a pair of Northern Cardinals nest in a bush 18 inches outside one of our back windows

a couple of years ago. We put up a cover with a 5 inch hole on the inside of the window, so we could observe and

photograph the nest activity. I also trimmed a few leaves while the male and female were away from the nest to

make for better viewing. It was difficult getting good shots through 2 layers of glass, but over 6 weeks we were

able to shoot a fine series of shots while the young were raise.

 

The Cardinals were never disturbed or approached outside. Both chicks fledged successfully. Here's one of the

first shots of the female on the nest.<div></div>

[daniel.barton]

Semantics. But don't forget this part.

 

"if photography at nests is not harassment then it is not illegal" <--- !

[greg stephens]

I was lucky in the 90's to be a volunteer with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Due to questions of impact of lake drawdown in Central Florida, the Commission decided to study Snail Kites in the area lakes to see how they would respond to the change in water levels and habitat. The Snail Kite, Rostrhamus sociabilis, is present, as most bird people know, in South and Central Florida, as well as South and Central America.

 

The method of study for this unique raptor is to sneak up on the nest with an airboat, (try to use the most quiet one you can get), catch the little critters on the nest, grab them before they jump off, and take them to the boat. One of the biologist then bands them, weighs them, and marks them with red spray dye on their tail feathers. (The red dye indicates that the bird is a recent flyer. If I remember correctly, their tail feathers fell out in about 8 to 10 weeks after birth.) Replace the birds back on the nest and then quietly crank up the airboat and drive on to the next nest. We checked each nest each week, and watched as the birds hatched, grew and went on to fly away.

 

Very seldom did we ever find any evidence of predation, or did their seem to be problems with this rather intrusive method of capture and tagging.

 

And, we never ever disturbed any vegetation... well, maybe a little :)

 

I am not a biologist, and was not involved in this study on a formal level, but simply there to assist a trained biologist with Florida GFC, Jon Buntz.

 

But as an observer of nature, and an avid birder since then, I find it a little ridiculous to make statements such as some made above. Use common sense.

 

The final observation on this type of photography is that anything that brings people into photography and birding is a good thing. Again, just use common sense.

[greg stephens]

I was lucky in the 90's to be a volunteer with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Due to questions

of impact of lake drawdown in Central Florida, the Commission decided to study Snail Kites in the area lakes to see

how they would respond to the change in water levels and habitat. The Snail Kite, Rostrhamus sociabilis, is present,

as most bird people know, in South and Central Florida, as well as South and Central America.

 

The method of study for this unique raptor is to sneak up on the nest with an airboat, (try to use the most quiet one

you can get), catch the little critters on the nest, grab them before they jump off, and take them to the boat. One of

the biologist then bands them, weighs them, and marks them with red spray dye on their tail feathers. (The red dye

indicates that the bird is a recent flyer. If I remember correctly, their tail feathers fell out in about 8 to 10 weeks after

birth.) Replace the birds back on the nest and then quietly crank up the airboat and drive on to the next nest. We

checked each nest each week, and watched as the birds hatched, grew and went on to fly away.

 

Very seldom did we ever find any evidence of predation, or did their seem to be problems with this rather intrusive

method of capture and tagging.

 

And, we never ever disturbed any vegetation... well, maybe a little :)

 

I am not a biologist, and was not involved in this study on a formal level, but simply there to assist a trained biologist

with Florida GFC, Jon Buntz.

 

But as an observer of nature, and an avid birder since then, I find it a little ridiculous to make statements such as

some made above. Use common sense.

 

The final observation on this type of photography is that anything that brings people into photography and birding is a

good thing. Again, just use common sense.

[greg stephens]

Sorry for the double post, I attempted to add some photos to illustrate point.

 

GS<div></div>

[greg stephens]

Another Photo of snail kite banding.<div></div>

[alex_smith13]

Just a few thoughts from a biologist that surveyed and nest monitored for endangered birds (mainly passerines) for ~10 years.

 

Illegal and unethical are two drastically different things. Illegal "is" (read as "should be") a fixed constant that only changes as laws or regulations change. Unethical is never a fixed constant and varies from person to person. My opinion is that the more open-minded discussion about the issue there is, the better.

 

Legal - As far as illegal I had a different impression of federal law than yours. (though I am not sure I am completely correct, and state law is obviously different). The ESA prohibits "take" of endangered species and threatened species via the CFR. "Take" as defined in the ESA to also include "harm" and "harass" which could easily include photography that disturbs. There has been little litigation of what exactly "harass" is defined to be, so the definition of "harass" is relatively open to interpretation. "Take" in the ESA on the other hand was defined by the supreme court as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife..." "Take" as used in the MBTA I believe is interpreted differently to include more direct injuring or killing of migratory birds or removal of nests. Excluded from "take" under the MBTA is "harass." So basically the ESA is more expansive in the protections ans includes "harass" where the MBTA does not. (Sorry for the dense rambling paragraph, of little use.)

 

Ethics - Since as above, I stated that ethics are a personal thing I can only tell you where my ethics rest. I have no problem with knowledgeable photography at the nest of most birds whose population is sustainable and stable. I consider it unethical to photographic nests in a way that violates the laws and regulations of where you are. I consider it unethical to remove vegetation that would conceal the nest from predators. I consider it unethical to leave a dead end scent trail to a nest. I consider it unethical for multiple photographers or birders to hammer a nest day in and day out because it is an unusual bird. Birds need a break. Most importantly I consider it unethical to photograph a nest when you do not know what the alarm calls of the birds are and/or you do not know how to tell if the bird is disturbed by its behavior. In fact I consider this irresponsible and will happily and publicly chastise anyone doing this.

 

Biologically - After personally or via a field crew monitoring thousands of nests I can tell you there are many variables that enter into the equation determining if a nest fledges or fails. I will only post a few of the more accepted trends. Some species are more prone to abandoning a nest because of human activity than others. Within a single species, within a single population, some individuals will be more likely to abandon a nest than others. Generally a bird is more likely to abandon a nest early in the nesting cycle then when their are nestlings. That said if one gets to close to older nestlings they can be forced fledged and end up on the ground before they can fly. Predation or parasitism by cowbirds tends to increase with length and intensity of disturbance. All of these are generalizations and do not hold true for all species.

 

Just a few thoughts

[daniel.barton]

Thanks for the thoughtful post Alex. I decided to actually talk to some PhDs who study the legal (rather than

ethical) issues behind the MBTA and ESA instead of spouting off on my own anecdotal knowledge/experience of these

issues. The rub is that 'take' is a vaguely defined term. It is essentially up to enforcement & individual

prosecuters to decide what they'd like a court to decide is actually 'illegal'. The reason for this ambiguity is

this passage, the definition of 'take' from 50 CFR 10.12 (the definitions section of the MBTA):

 

"Take means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or

collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,

or collect. (With reference to marine mammals, see Part 18 of this

subchapter.)"

 

Apparently, the main problem is no one knows what 'attempt to pursue' actually means. State laws are often just

as ambiguous because they lifted the definition of take from the MBTA. As Alex noted, the ESA imposes stronger

protections in terms of 'take'. We really all don't have any business messing with nesting federally threatened

or endangered except in cases such as that described by Greg Stephens. I don't work on any T & E species at the

moment so I hadn't thought about the ESA much. One thought would be that disturbing state T & E species, of

which there are many more than federal species, is illegal and certainly unethical.

 

So, after talking to people who actually work on legal issues with wildlife professionally, I feel slightly

corrected in the sense that 'disturbing' non T & E bird species usually wouldn't be considered illegal and that

'harassing' would only be if such harassment were egregious. Permits are required to do things like seriously

disturb nests for collection of morphometric data, filming behavior, banding, etc. Nest boxes are generally

completely overlooked (as I noted above) because there is clear intent to benefit birds.

 

Thanks for many thoughts on the ethical issues.<div></div>