In response to 'No Photos' by Jonny Rankin.
A confession: I once flushed a bird. It was midweek, April,
2009, and I was Landguard searching for a bird that would’ve been a lifer. It
hadn’t been seen since the middle of the day, and now it was late afternoon:
overcast, an icy breeze had sprung up and there were only about four other
birders out searching. I’d chosen to check the tip of the point when I was
coming back around to face the observatory, when out of a hollow with long
grass, completely out of my sight but just in front of me, the Hoopoe sprung
out. For a split-second the dazzle camouflage of pink, black and white stripes
really works, by which time it was over the next bush and lost to sight for
another hour or so.
Did you spot the lie in that paragraph?
Of course I haven’t flushed one bird. I flush a Blackbird
from the hedge by the front door of my flat every time I leave. I panic the
pigeon on my bird feeder every time I open my bedroom blind or window. I give a
pheasant pulmonary trouble every time I walk the local fields. It was a lie by
omission of the word ‘rare’. I was birding/twitching at the time too: not
photographing.
|
There's no problem when the bird pops up in front of you, blissfully unconcerned.
|
The birding ‘scene’ is a relatively small pond with not much
in the way of right and wrong. Issues flare up, die down, and then reappear
several months later once they’ve left everybody’s goldfish memories. One of
the most regularly reoccurring is the issue of behaviour, which has been
polarised into birders (us, real men) V.s photographers (them, monsters). For
one of the most recent examples, see Jonny’s provocative blogpost, ‘No Photos’.
And while I agree that there are more photos of the Aldeburgh Arctic Redpoll on
the internet than there are of Jordan’s tits (it’s empirically true… probably)
and we’re all bored of seeing them, this is an issue that could benefit from a
bit less polarity.
I am a birder, foremost, photographer second. Except for
when I wake up photographer foremost, birder second. It’s hard to take a side
in an issue when you occupy and enjoy both sides. There is one things both
sides can agree on though: causing unnecessary disturbance to wildlife is
wrong. A photograph, as Jonny’s blogpost says, is not a necessary reason, but
neither is getting a good view. I have never seen bad behaviour in the field
from a photographer that I haven’t also seen a birder doing, and that includes
getting too close to birds, trampling habitat, entering areas they shouldn’t
be. I remember one particular instance of a footpath to a viewpoint by a
military firing range and two birders stood all of five metres into the range,
in nesting Woodlark habitat. I didn’t say anything at the time, perhaps I
should’ve. In my defence, I was a shy spotty sixteen year old and nobody really
takes kindly to being told off by a teenager.
|
A mildly controversial twitch. |
The crux of the issue though is flushing: birders blame
photographers for intentionally flushing birds to take photos, photographers
protest their innocence. This is behaviour a lot of people report, less people
have seen: I certainly haven’t. If it does happen (and I’m sure occasionally it
must), it is idiotic. A flushed bird flies away, looks unnatural and makes a
bad photograph and a bad photographer. I believe we’re guilty of making
scapegoats of photographers though, and not examining our own behaviour; as if
taking a photograph is a lesser act than merely looking, and thus easier to
blame. It is ludicrous to imagine a situation in which a birder has never
accidentally flushed a bird through ignorance or to get a better view (even if
it’s just a pheasant).
But also it does depend on how you interpret events. I
was with Jonny at the Aldeburgh Arctic Redpoll twitch; an event that he has
said a few times featured bad behaviour by photographers. I disagree. As the
bird was refound, photographers and birders lined up together to look at the
bush in which the bird was feeding. No photographer selfishly went closer than
any birder and at no point did the bird – a famously confiding bird that
perched on people’s scopes* – appear concerned, worried or generally affected by
the behaviour of those present. I also have the idea that the Sparrowhawk
present at the site was deterred from attempting to make a meal of the big
white finch by the presence of the twitchers. Certainly it wasn’t the most
edifying behaviour or the greatest example of field craft, but this doesn’t
necessarily make it bad behaviour.
|
|
Let’s be reasonable about this: a few photographers give
them all a bad name. Same for birders, twitchers, gamekeepers, and the rest of
Homo sapiens. Internet rants might be
cathartic but they serve only to unreasonably polarise the debate. Mutterings
of a code of conduct for photographers** are reasonable if you apply it to
birders and dog-walkers too: both are causes of disturbance. It is much better,
and more productive to talk about this politely, in the field, where you see it
happening, regardless of whether they’re a birder, photographer, dog-walker,
etc.
* Edit: I found the photo to prove my point, although it wasn't quite as I
remembered it...
**One further point: We’re all photographers now. At the last
few twitches I’ve been at and hides I’ve been in, there’s always a bloke with a
scope and an iPhone, snapping away, who’d never call himself a photographer.