Photography Code of Practice

[Pete Eeles]

Interesting article from the birding community:

http://www.birdguides.com/webzine/article.asp?a=2667

Do we need an equivalent for butterflies and moths? Discuss

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

Excellent thread, Pete.

Whatever the outcome, I think the very act of discussing good and bad practice, as a community, can only be beneficial.

Guy

[David M]

Interesting article, but photographing butterflies is totally different to photographing birds.

Butterflies are far, far easier (in most cases) to get close to and generally far less likely to get spooked, fly away and never return.

What's more, there are fewer butterfly enthusiasts than their bird equivalents, meaning that there will always be far fewer occasions when large numbers will assemble in the same locality all with the same intent.

[Pete Eeles]

but photographing butterflies is totally different to photographing birds.

Totally? Really? I think there are more similarities than differences in terms of a code of practice.

Butterflies are far, far easier (in most cases) to get close to and generally far less likely to get spooked, fly away and never return.

I agree that the impact of spooking a butterfly is far less worrying than, say, spooking a nesting bird. However, there can still be an impact. But I guess I'm thinking about this from the perspective of the butterfly though, rather than the photographer.

... there will always be far fewer occasions when large numbers will assemble in the same locality all with the same intent.

Yes, fewer occasions, but "large numbers assembling in the same locality with the same intent" can be a problem, especially when nectar sources and larval foodplant (something that doesn't affect birds, obviously!) is trampled.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Gibster]

Certainly (in the bird twitching fraternity) the ever increasing number of individuals toting huge lenses and exhibiting not a jot of decent fieldcraft or understanding of the welfare of their target is becoming a very annoying factor of watching 'rare' birds in Britain. It's a growing obsession. Added to this, the widespread attitude of "I have a big lens, hence I NEED to be at the front, hogging the hide/best viewpoint. Everybody else can shut up and put up" is creating some strong factions in the birding world. It's (currently) rare, but fights have broken out.

The fact that Birdguides have found it necessary to offer the article forward for public discussion shows the level of unrest.


Regards butterflies - madcap twitches rarely happen, although I did hear that the Black-veined White caused a large scale twitch resulting in trashed habitat (probably caused by a bunch of bird twitchers wondering what to chase after during the summer doldrums ) Imagine the face of the transect chap arriving the following day to conduct his count..!

I met a guy last week who habitually carries a pair of scissors for removing unwanted vegetation when composing his shots. He seemed quite pleased with his skill in removing offending stems whilst not disturbing the butterfly in question. But he repeatedly cast his shadow across his subject, crashed through the herbage and seemed pretty delinquent when it came to everyday common sense.

Sometimes rules and guidelines are unworkable in practice, but sometimes they stand for a very good set of reasons. But try telling that to the plebs, the excited ones, those who really want to get the species/image, and those who think it doesn't apply to us.

Gibster.

EDIT - Just re-read that, and I'm not really happy with the wording. Too much vino! But I'll leave it. Another thought though - with bird twitching, vast distances are sometimes covered. Sussex to Ireland, or Cornwall to North Uist for example. It's a hell of a long way to go and not 'get the killer shot' and expenses can be appallingly high. Butterfly photography is (usually?) much less intense and there are often several, or several hundreds, of individuals to aim your lens at. Habitat trashing would appear to be the bigger issue here.

[Wurzel]

I think something would be a good idea - but as Dave says there are differences - generally the birds that cause the biggest crowds are totally out of place, pretty knackered and the last thing they need is to be hassled by a multitude of humans staring at them and chasing them round and about. I've never been to a major twitch but I have seen unusual brids in largish groups and these have usually been polite and hushed affairs with the occassional curse as the bird takes cover and then a chinese whisper of " it's in the next bush along etc. So perhaps it would be the same for butterflies? I do agree with Gibster though in that habitat trashing is definitely the biggest concern.

After the recent rigmorole that i found myself embroiled in with Grudditch (regarding requesting information) I think that perhaps there should be some form of policy for this site for reporting the whereabouts of butterflies. This would mean that everyone knows where they stand when it comes to what they can and can't ask about. Perhaps there should be a list of species or sites that information is restricted for displayed on the homepage. The level of information could be restricted to something along the lines of Bentley Wood, Eastern clearing or Martin Down, Sillen's Lane end for particular species of very sensitive sites.

If someone feels the need or some more information about "unrestricted species" they could private message the individual that reported it so keeping the level of information that is in the public forum to a minimum.

Just an idea - it would allow people access to information whilst protecting the butterflies from the hoards and "lurkers"

Have a goodun

Wurzel

ps if there is such a policy already then I apologise but ask that if it could be in bigger or bolder type...

[David M]

but photographing butterflies is totally different to photographing birds.

Totally? Really? I think there are more similarities than differences in terms of a code of practice.

The code of practice is based on principles that apply to both birds and butterflies, but in general birds attract greater obsessive attention and the potential damage to their well-being is more serious given that they are higher order animals with much more complex brains.

Butterflies are far, far easier (in most cases) to get close to and generally far less likely to get spooked, fly away and never return.

I agree that the impact of spooking a butterfly is far less worrying than, say, spooking a nesting bird. However, there can still be an impact. But I guess I'm thinking about this from the perspective of the butterfly though, rather than the photographer.

I don't doubt that there's an impact, but I believe any impact towards a butterfly would normally be significantly less threatening than that suffered by a bird.

... there will always be far fewer occasions when large numbers will assemble in the same locality all with the same intent.

Yes, fewer occasions, but "large numbers assembling in the same locality with the same intent" can be a problem, especially when nectar sources and larval foodplant (something that doesn't affect birds, obviously!) is trampled.

Good point, Pete, but one could also argue that assembling in huge numbers to photograph birds could actually cause more coincidental footfall damage to butterfly foodplants than those rare occasions when the footfall arises purely as a result of butterfly enthusiasts gathering to photograph their quarry!

[Pete Eeles]

I think that perhaps there should be some form of policy for this site for reporting the whereabouts of butterflies.

You read our minds, Wurzel! I met with Gruditch last night and after discussing this with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight branch main committee (and informing BC head office), we decided that (as a "trial") we'd contact all BC branches to allow them to provide their input in terms of items that should not be reported on a public forum. The Hants/IOW branch is quite explicit on its sightings page:

http://www.hantsiow-butterflies.org.uk/sightings.htm

Specifically, "Please note that it is branch policy to restrict sightings of sensitive species, and sensitive sites, from this sightings page. This includes sightings of Marsh Fritillary, Small Eggar and Reddish Buff, and also sites that are on private land.". We let the Marsh Fritillary sightings at Magdalen Hill Down (99% a captive release!) go.

Gruditch and I try and moderate based on this policy, but we don't have the full picture of restrictions. Depending on the feedback received, we may publish the restrictions (i.e. we don't want to publicise sensitive sites!). We'll keep you informed.

Great debate.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Pete Eeles]

I believe any impact towards a butterfly would normally be significantly less threatening than that suffered by a bird.

Absolutely.

... one could also argue that assembling in huge numbers to photograph birds could actually cause more coincidental footfall damage to butterfly foodplants than those rare occasions when the footfall arises purely as a result of butterfly enthusiasts gathering to photograph their quarry!

One could. But I disagree on the basis that the coincidence of a bird "twitch" aligning with "sensitive butterfly site and foodplants" is pretty small when compared with a more-focused gathering at a sensitive butterfly site.

Cheers

- Pete

[David M]

Pete, you are in a better position than I am to comment on threats to sensitive butterfly sites.

My sketchy knowledge of the above would stretch only to periodic attempts to photograph Purple Emperors (which use trees as foodplants meaning trampling would not be an issue), Black Hairstreaks (trees - or shrubs - being the foodplant again), Swallowtails (anyone wishing to trample this environment would need to be prepared to get wet) and Dukes of Burgundy (admittedly, trampling COULD be a cause for concern).

Large Blue sites would be an obvious issue but there is only one major site open to the public and I believe this is well policed to prevent such damage occurring.

I suppose if butterflies attracted anything like the sheer numbers of camera wielding enthusiasts that birds do then we could well have a problem on our hands, but this simply isn't the case, and whilst I'm not dismissing the potential for habitats to be adversely affected, I'm looking at things in perspective and the overwhelming conclusion I'm drawn to is that there's precious little comparison between the two.

[Susie]

Oh dear, looks like I cocked up on my marsh frit thread then!

[Pete Eeles]

I suppose if butterflies attracted anything like the sheer numbers of camera wielding enthusiasts that birds do then we could well have a problem on our hands, but this simply isn't the case, and whilst I'm not dismissing the potential for habitats to be adversely affected, I'm looking at things in perspective and the overwhelming conclusion I'm drawn to is that there's precious little comparison between the two.

Thanks David - then I guess we should agree to disagree. As a Lepidopterist first and foremost, then the habitat damage I see at certain sites due to visitor numbers is on a par (to me), at least, with the level of disturbance caused to our feathered friends.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Pete Eeles]

Oh dear, looks like I cocked up on my marsh frit thread then!

Don't think so Sooz - I've not been informed that sightings of Marsh Fritillary at Hod Hill are considered sensitive. Then again, I've not contacted Dorset BC yet

Cheers,

- Pete

[millerd]

I suppose where a site straddles a county boundary, any restriction would have to be agreed to apply to that site. Or some sites within a county might be considered OK, but not others. It may be a mighty complicated document at the end. But that's not a reason for not doing it of course.

Dave

[Pete Eeles]

I suppose where a site straddles a county boundary, any restriction would have to be agreed to apply to that site. Or some sites within a county might be considered OK, but not others. It may be a mighty complicated document at the end. But that's not a reason for not doing it of course.

Dave

That's a very good point. For some reason, butterflies don't respect county boundaries. Darn rude of them

Bentley Wood is a case in point which is in both Hampshire and Wiltshire. Which is one of the reasons we wanted input from BC head office.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Susie]

Ahh, I see. So I can mention a Dorset Marsh Frit but not a Hampshire one. Right.

I'll be the first to admit that I have squashed food plant. Anyone walking on chalk downland and not sticking completely to the path will have. I try not to step on anything sensitive but if I get excited when I see something, such as the Marsh Frit, I'm off after it and I am sure I break several as yet unwritten rules in the process...

[Padfield]

I agree it is misleading to make comparisons between birds and butterflies, particularly in regard to considerations of welfare. Individual birds manifest far greater signs of physical and emotional distress than butterflies, and, as has been pointed out, reasonably demand from us a higher duty of care.

But that doesn't mean butterfly photographers have no duty of care at all towards the subjects they gain so much pleasure from. Nor does the fact only a small number of individuals visit a particular site give those individuals an excuse for leaving it in any condition other than that in which they found it. Even where no great conservation issue is at stake, it is surely a good thing for good practices to be identified and promoted on this site. It won't make any difference to that selfish minority who just care about getting their pictures, nor will it make any difference to the majority who already treat the living world with respect. But it could be helpful all the same. As a teacher, I'm thinking about children too, learning about the countryside and about respecting nature, who increasingly get a lot of their information and ideas from websites.

I'm not convinced a 'code' is necessarily the right approach, because it has legalistic overtones that probably aren't necessary here (except regarding sensitive conservation issues &c.). But maybe if we share ideas on what constitute good and bad practice on this thread or elsewhere, Pete could sum them up in his expert way in a page introducing beginners to butterfly photography.

For example:

'Remember that many species have complex territorial, social and reproductive behaviour. Chasing an individual around until you get the perfect photograph will interfere with this, disadvantaging the butterfly and depriving you of the chance to observe the behaviour'.

I bet a lot of beginners have no idea how amazing butterfly behaviour is. I NEVER pursue a butterfly after I've spooked it three times - I just let it go. If something else spooks it, like another butterfly, it doesn't count.

Or, 'Remember that in cool weather many butterflies (for example, small mountain ringlet) dive down into the undergrowth where they are invisible and vulnerable to being trodden on'.

It's not the Geneva Convention, but as more and more people get cameras and seem to be intent on photographing every species, it can only be a good thing to help beginners by laying out some suggestions for good practice.

Guy

[David M]

I think most people who enjoy photographing butterflies are mindful of their responsibilities towards the butterflies themselves along with the wider habitat in which they live. That said, some invasion HAS to take place otherwise there wouldn't be any pastime to enjoy. Fortunately, the numbers of people pursuing butterflies in this manner are far fewer in number than those whose interest is in photographing and watching birds. Fewer people equates to less strain on the environment in which the activity takes place, but we're all guilty of having trampled vegetation and, very probably (and inadvertantly) the odd butterfly as well.

If a site is sensitive then each visitor is surely equally culpable and the only solution is to restrict access, but given that the 'Large Blue blog' reported that the peak number of visitors received in a single day last year was around 50, then I don't really see how butterfly observing is anything like the cause for concern as bird watching can often be.

[Gibster]

I'll be the first to admit that I have squashed food plant

I can top that.

I was at Dungeness in Kent yesterday. I noticed lots of large Lasiocampid larva wandering across the roads and tracks. Turns out they are Pale Grass Eggars. A Red Data Book species no less, and exceedingly localised in Britain. Yet for every three I saw, there was a squished one - flattened by cars or feet. Who knows how many were stomped into the shingle where they are a lot less conspicuous??? Going back to your Marsh Frits, Zonda (I think) mentioned that it was impossible not to stand on the larva, so numerous were they at his Dorset site.

Despite those losses I still feel that habitat trashing, whether by farming methods or via council mowing/strimming regimes, poorly timed/thought out habitat management works (yep!), overgrazing, undergrazing, twitching, educational school parties, etc etc is the issue here. Cutting back of vegetation, however judicious, and the selfish hogging of a butterfly with your lens whilst others politely queue up waiting for their turn (whilst not to be encouraged or ignored) is only part of the issue.

Which is where I feel the Birdguides article and the majority of butterfly photographers happily part company.

Gibster.

[Pete Eeles]

Nice responses all - this is a great discussion!

I agree that any "code" (probably implemented as a "beginner's guide to butterflies" or some such) would be focused on the majority (who out of innocence/ignorance are simply unaware of how to approach this absorbing hobby) rather than the minority (I won't describe them, but I don't like them since they'd ignore any friendly advice!).

I've also decided that I'm, actually, ignorant of the bird twitching community and the numbers involved (and also agree that a comparison of birds and butterflies, in terms of their welfare, is not sensible). But 50 people at one butterfly site in a day seems a lot to me (especially Collard Hill where the focus area is really small)! So yes, maybe the comparison is off base, but the discussion isn't

Cheers,

- Pete