Photography Code of Practice

[Pete Eeles]

Some good points Gibster.

Yet for every three I saw, there was a squished one.

Indeed - I've seen this on several Marsh Frit sites this year. The difference I see is whether this was the result of "didn't know they were there" versus "I knew they were there, but I don't care".

Despite those losses I still feel that habitat trashing is the issue here ... which is where I feel the Birdguides article and the majority of butterfly photographers happily part company.

I agree.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Gibster]

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)!

Well, taking the Oriental Turtle Dove in Oxfordshire as an (almost!) random example...on one morning over 500 people queued for their slot in one chap's kitchen in an attempt to view the bird which spent most mornings in his garden. Hope that helps explain numbers and focus areas for you?

PS That was several weeks ago, but the bird was still there today and people are still going for it. The householder, in an attempt to thwart habitat trashing in his home, ensured all twitchers removed their boots. Maybe this could be applied to selected (thistle and bramble-free) butterfly sites?

Gibster.

[Pete Eeles]

The removal of boots makes all the difference; at least the site wasn't trashed

Thanks for the example. It wasn't just any old Turtle Dove, it was an ... er ... Oriental Turtle Dove! I just don't understand twitching!

Cheers,

- Pete

[Gruditch]

Didn't we discuss this a couple of years ago, and in the end agreed to adopt the BC policy.

UK Butterflies home page - Resources drop down menu - policies - photography

Regards Gruditch

[JohnR]

Didn't we discuss this a couple of years ago, and in the end agreed to adopt the BC policy.
UK Butterflies home page - Resources drop down menu - policies - photography
Regards Gruditch

This led me to

In the case of the various species given full legal protection
in each part of the United Kingdom, activities such as netting, handling, temporary boxing or
other forms of taking from the wild, even for photography and subsequent release, are illegal
unless a licence has been obtained from the appropriate Government Agency (see Appendix).

which causes a problem for a beginner in both moth trapping and butterfly identification. How the dickens am I supposed to know that it is a protected species before I have identified it? A brown moth is a brown moth until checked and recognised, a tatty past its use-by date butterfly can be just that until it is motionless in a net. I have used a net twice in two years to identify species; half my moth catch ends up in tubes or perspex boxes for a short while whilst I record/photograph and otherwise identify them.
How otherwise can I persuade the county recorders that I have seen what I claim in the case of an uncommon beastie?

[Padfield]

Very few butterflies enjoy full legal protection (http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/reports_law.php). Of those that do, the only one that presents the kind of difficulty you envisage, John, is high brown fritillary, which because of its similarity to dark green fritillary might require significant substantiation if it were reported from a new locality. You are absolutely right - netting and releasing would be a quick and safe way of establishing the species and frankly, that's exactly what I'd do if I came across one at some hitherto unrecognised site. I would consider it more important to prove the butterfly's presence (or rather, get my sighting accepted, since a single individual doesn't make a colony), and ultimately get the site protected, than adhere to the letter of the law. With a volatile butterfly like HBF there would be a risk attached to trying to get a free, wild photo.

But such quibbles don't invalidate the law. All laws are silly if you look at their extreme applications, and the laws protecting these rare butterflies seem quite reasonable to me. If you are at a known large blue, heath fritillary or high brown fritillary site you may not net or otherwise trap or harm one of these butterflies.

I can't comment on the mothing side. I have an instinctive dislike of moth traps but I recognise that used sparingly they are the only way of recording some species.

Guy

[JKT]

In such a case I would assume the common species and catch it for verification. If proven wrong the individual is naturally released immediately. Incidentally, the same would apply if proven right.

[JohnR]

The caterpillar on the leaf
Repeats to thee thy mother's grief.
Kill not the moth nor butterfly
For the Last Judgement draweth nigh.

William Blake: Auguries of Innocence

[David M]

Yet for every three I saw, there was a squished one.

Indeed - I've seen this on several Marsh Frit sites this year. The difference I see is whether this was the result of "didn't know they were there" versus "I knew they were there, but I don't care".

Is this attributable to butterfly enthusiasts though?

For instance, Marsh Fritillaries are rare in Wales, but there is a site not far from me where there is a thriving population. This site is located in a 'green' area of countryside at the edge of a small to medium sized town.

There are allotments nearby (ensuring a steady stream of visitors to the top end of the site) and the area includes a former slag heap which is now often used by off-road bikers.

The grasslands themselves are an attractive distraction from the austere surroundings of former mining villages, and I daresay even without Marsh Fritillaries, this area would provide a pleasant escape for those who simply wished to spend an hour or two away from the usual suburban machinations of everyday life.

On any given day, I'd venture to wager that those frequenting this site largely have no knowledge of the significance of a highly localised and declining Fritillary butterfly. I've visited the site five times now, and the only person I've met who had any interest in the flora/fauna of the site was a birdwatcher who'd come to observe raptors. The rest were either dog walkers or people just out for a walk with no particular objective in mind.

So, if 95 out of 100 visitors to this site don't even know about Marsh Fritillaries, then it's fair to say roughly 95% of the damage to the terrain will be caused by the same people.

Those who DO come to see the butterflies will (I trust) be far more aware of the need to respect the environment, and would probably be the LEAST likely to go riding bikes through the scabious fields or throwing sticks for their dogs into the undergrowth.

Of course, if butterflies attracted the same level of interest as birds, then the numbers visiting the site would explode. But that is my point. Butterflies DON'T elicit the same level of interest as birds (one only has to look at the respective membership of the RSPB as opposed to BC to understand this).

If there are sites that are SO delicate and tenuous for certain species of butterflies, then they ought to be restricted to the general public (like the Large Blue site in Somerset and the Heath Fritillary site in Lydford).

[Pete Eeles]

Is this attributable to butterfly enthusiasts though?

That's my point. I've seen "butterfly enthusiasts" do anything to get a good photo - including trampling of foodplant on sensitive sites. The photo comes first with this lot.

So, if 95 out of 100 visitors to this site don't even know about Marsh Fritillaries, then it's fair to say roughly 95% of the damage to the terrain will be caused by the same people.

Yes - on this site. But those statistics aren't relevant at all sites.

Those who DO come to see the butterflies will (I trust) be far more aware of the need to respect the environment

Yes they will. Whether they actually respect the environment is another matter.

Of course, if butterflies attracted the same level of interest as birds, then the numbers visiting the site would explode. But that is my point. Butterflies DON'T elicit the same level of interest as birds (one only has to look at the respective membership of the RSPB as opposed to BC to understand this).

That doesn't mean that no damage will be done though!

If there are sites that are SO delicate and tenuous for certain species of butterflies, then they ought to be restricted to the general public (like the Large Blue site in Somerset and the Heath Fritillary site in Lydford).

Not sure that's relevant. The debate here is about acting responsibly when taking photos, no matter where the photos are taken.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Susie]

Can't help feeling you're chasing your own tail on this.

Butterfly enthusiasts/photographers who are responsible will abide by a code but those who are intend upon their own gratification above all else will always consider themselves to be an exception. No one can enforce it.

Going back to the point about butterfly trampling, if anyone goes to denbies hillside at the peak blues emergences have a look at the main footpaths. They will be dotted with squashed males who were taking mineral salts from the dog poo rich soil and mating pairs who were too preoccupied to avoid the footfall of the general public. Some people even stamp on butterflies on purpose classing them generically as insects and therefore something which buzzes and stings.

[millerd]

Going back to the point about butterfly trampling, if anyone goes to denbies hillside at the peak blues emergences have a look at the main footpaths. They will be dotted with squashed males who were taking mineral salts from the dog poo rich soil and mating pairs who were too preoccupied to avoid the footfall of the general public. Some people even stamp on butterflies on purpose classing them generically as insects and therefore something which buzzes and stings.

Indeed. I have a colleague at work who is exceedingly uncomfortable withy my computer desktop background - which to my mind is an exquisite example of a beautiful and uncommon butterfly. To her it is a fluttering insect that turns her stomach and if it were real she would attempt to squash it by any means. Some folk feel like that about spiders. There's not much we can do about that.

Dave

[David M]

Can't help feeling you're chasing your own tail on this.

Butterfly enthusiasts/photographers who are responsible will abide by a code but those who are intend upon their own gratification above all else will always consider themselves to be an exception. No one can enforce it.

Going back to the point about butterfly trampling, if anyone goes to denbies hillside at the peak blues emergences have a look at the main footpaths. They will be dotted with squashed males who were taking mineral salts from the dog poo rich soil and mating pairs who were too preoccupied to avoid the footfall of the general public. Some people even stamp on butterflies on purpose classing them generically as insects and therefore something which buzzes and stings.

Those are excellent points, Susie, and I feel that this kind of behaviour causes far more casualties than those brought on by inconsiderate butterfly photographers. I've seen people actively try to swat butterflies because they are of the mind that if it's a winged insect then it must be considered a threat to personal well-being.

FAO Pete:

You seem to have a fair amount of pent-up angst about this issue, and as someone who has thankfully not yet encountered first hand any obvious wanton disregard to habitat brought about by those photographing butterflies, I feel you are going to need to give some specific examples of behaviour that has had a genuinely destructive effect on certain sensitive butterfly sites. Sadly, I'm not an individual who has much experience of such sites and consequently I can only generalise about the relative levels of threat vis-à-vis those brought about by avid bird photographers.

I'm actually starting to feel a bit neurotic at having the temerity to 'trespass' on butterfly habitats in order to derive the simple yet unadulterated pleasure of capturing these beautiful insects on film.

[millerd]

Balance is all. Pete mentioned Collard Hill: This is the only Large Blue site open to the public at all throughout the season, and consequently attracts considerable interest. I assume that a balance is sought between the publicity of a major conservation success and the risks involved in opening the site to all. There are a number of other Large Blue sites along the Polden Hills, but none of the others are open, and only one other (Green Down) is generally identified. In this way, even if some damage is accidentally done at Collard Hill (and surely it must be), the other, safer, sites maintain the species. But thus far, it is still a very successful site.

I remember the sharp intakes of breath on my only visit to Collard Hill when I stepped back to avoid treading on a butterfly, only to very nearly flatten a splendid orchid. You just cannot be too careful.

Dave

[Pete Eeles]

FAO Pete: You seem to have a fair amount of pent-up angst about this issue.

Yes I do - I think certain individuals could be more considerate and careful when they're photographing butterflies, for the sake of the butterflies and enthusiasts. Which is why I thought I'd post the link to the article focused on bird photography since I think a lot of that is relevant to butterflies and moths.

I feel you are going to need to give some specific examples of behaviour that has had a genuinely destructive effect

What - you've never come across someone trampling down nectar sources or larval foodplants to get a photo? Crikey! Anyway - a couple of more-serious examples brought about by carelessness:
- Masses of visitors going to Stockbridge Down to see Black-veined White. The best part of the down for Marbled White was trashed.
- Wood White larval foodplants trashed at Whitecross Green Wood due to photographers. There were even notices placed on the reserve to try and combat the impact. They've since been lost from the site although the root cause is unknown.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Pete Eeles]

Butterfly enthusiasts/photographers who are responsible will abide by a code but those who are intend upon their own gratification above all else will always consider themselves to be an exception. No one can enforce it.

True - but only if there is a code! I have to say, I admire the chap who wrote the birding-related article, since he really stuck his neck out - some would consider his comments patronising. My view is that it does no harm to state common sense, raise awareness of the law, point out not-so-obvious things to watch out for, define some level of etiquette between photographers etc. etc. Which is why I asked the original question

Cheers,

- Pete

[Pete Eeles]

Didn't we discuss this a couple of years ago, and in the end agreed to adopt the BC policy.

We did, although it doesn't really say much - and doesn't mention certain items that the original article I mentioned brought up - such as "photography etiquette".

Cheers,

- Pete

[Susie]

But there basically is a code already for anyone with common sense:

Don't trample the food plant (and be mindful that other plants may be foodplants for other species)

Careful where you put your boots! You never know what might be under the next footfall.

Don't harrass the pwetty butterflies. A short while photographing each one is enough. They're busy critters and have stuff to do which doesn't involve posing for photographs or signing autographs regardless of how rare/famous they may be.

Photographers: play nicely children. We are not toddlers who can't share our toys. It's polite to offer somene else a crack at the subject if you already have a shot.

[Pete Eeles]

But there basically is a code already

Not until you wrote it down

... for anyone with common sense

Ah! Therein lies the problem

Cheers.

- Pete

[P.J.Underwood]

I feel I would like to add to this discussion.When I visited Hod Hill recently for the first time I was struck by the different habitat compared with Lydlinch Common.At the latter kicking the plants to disturb the Marsh Frits. would do little harm,due to the taller and more springy nature of the plants.But in the dips at Hod Hill,they would not stand a chance.By the time I visited the site there was evidence that the soft and low vegetation in the dips and on the sides had been well trampled.This would certainly damage or kill many of the Frits.If what I say is right,I would expect the numbers to decline rapidly.The problem is that more and more birdwatchers have expensive cameras and gear,and turn to using them on butterflies in the summer,without having the knowledge of the species they are after. In the case of Hod Hill,some simple notices to tell people to keep out of the soft vegetation would probably help.