I began writing this account as a reply to Ian Wilson's frustration with the behaviour of some bird photographers but think it is probably better as a topic on its own. I was looking at a stunning image of a Brolga chick and parent in the advanced competition and am questioning what are our code of ethics in relation to the chicks of precocial species. That is, species that are well developed at hatching and leave the nest almost immediately. In this image the birds appear relaxed and undisturbed- in fact the adult looks to be about to feed the chick. The problem is that this type of image promotes other, maybe less experienced photographers, to push the boundaries. And they no doubt do.
I have worked with beach-nesting birds for many years and have had numerous discussions with the birdlife team about the dangers of images of nests, eggs and chicks. They encourage a few of us to take the images because they are essential for the production of signs, promotional articles and general educational programs. But with this comes the problem of encouraging an increasing number of bird photographers to do the same. Photographers that may have little understanding of the threats they impose by encroaching for too long or at the wrong times on these chicks. When using such images, Birdlife have started to attach explanatory notes, describing that such images have been and must be taken by a photographer experienced with the species.
So just as I am comfortable with my understanding of when and when not to photograph Hooded Plover or Red-capped Plover chicks, I have no experience with the threats I would impose on the chicks of many other precocial species. So i am wondering that when we invoke the 'precautionary principle' for our code of ethics for nesting birds and the use of call playback, why don't we recognize that there is some risk in accepting images of these chicks. I fear that with such an expanding membership we must understand that without adequate education on acceptable photographer behaviour that brilliant images , like that of the Brolga chick, may unfortunately promote more selfish, threatening behaviour by some individuals. So should that risk preclude the use of such images in a gallery situation?
Just my thoughts
Mark Lethlean

Hi Mark and Group,
Forgive me for stating the obvious but it is illegal to photograph nesting birds in some countries. While I don't see any reason, yet, for us to follow, the mountain of evidence is growing larger every day.
I recently had an argument with a woman who posted filum footage of a Wedge-tailed eagle 'seriously' defending its nest against her and her companions intrusion.
Rather than leave the area immediately, they stood around and continued to film the bird getting closer and closer in its attempts to ward them off. She then had the 'nerve' to call me a "Tossa" for complaining about her attitude to the nesting bird, for not leaving and for even posting the footage in the first place!
More upsetting were the stupid, one-liners from her cohorts, with comments of beautiful footage, gee they get angry, etc.
In the end, I lodged a complaint to the Forum involved but the damage is already done and obviously no lesson learned.
Sorry Mark, I didn't want to hijack your thread, but I just wanted to highlight what I consider to be a rapidly growing problem. . .
Bruce

Thanks Mark for your thoughtful contribution. I do not have the answers but I do have some observations that might be a useful addition to the discussion, more specifically, the example you have mentioned, Brolga with chick.

In 2016 the BirdLife Melbourne Photography Group had an outing to the Western Treatment Plant led by John Barkla. Before our departure for the T-Section he mentioned that we would come across a Brolga nest close to the road and that under no circumstances should we stop for photographs as the birds were incubating eggs. I think most of our convoy obeyed this request but on the return drive past the nest I notices at least one car stop for photographs. Not long after I became aware the nest was an open secret and that pictures were appearing on social media sites. Our friends over at Feathers and Photos got wind of the accessible nest and at least one of their leaders came in from interstate to join the local boys on a photo-shoot. This resulted in some great images on the Feathers and Photos website, and I recently noticed one in a national bird photography competition. Feathers and Photos do not have the kind of ethical bird photography covenant that we have at Birdlife Photography regarding nesting birds and call playback. Some time later, Georgina Steytler sent me a social media link with video showing a photographer chasing after the Brolga chick, trying to get close enough for meaningful photography using a short focal length lens. The intent of the video was to show bird photographers in a poor light; it succeeded. This example illustrates your well-made point that even when photographs are captured by experienced photographers with the right gear in situations causing no concern for the bird's welfare, the resulting images in the public domain may encourage others photographers who are not so skilled or concerned about the welfare of the birds.

As a footnote, I recollect that a couple of years ago the WTP managers closed access to part of the Plant where the Brolgas were nesting, maybe that is the answer for these birds but what to do in general is of growing concern. I think we must come to terms with the fact that birds are coming under ever increasing pressures and that we must get serious about not using call playback and not photographing birds/chicks in vulnerable situations. It is not easy to draw the line. The policy we have at BLP is all well and good in principle but I note that our President has made the case for allowing call playback in certain situations in remote places and I have photographed nesting Lyrebirds and chicks for specific purposes and restricted viewing. I find it hard to advocate for rigorous compliance with our BLP principles when I am not strictly adhering to those principles.

Hi Ian, Mark and others,

I have a simple belief that while competitions exist, rules will be pushed and broken. Mankind, in general, is very competitive and you only have to introduce the title of 'Winner' into a subject and the 'competitive nature' juices begin to bubble. I'm not suggesting that we cut out competitions, although "Best of 2017" is certainly enticing enough for some people?
But Guys, it's the same old problem, the right people will do the 'right' thing and then there's the 'rest'. . .
In the WTP situation, I think closing areas off during the breeding season is a great idea and I also think that if you want to photograph birds inside the WTP you have your own key with No Guests allowed and this will stop the Interstate photo bombers from trying to get their money's worth with the single opportunity, and to be honest, I don't care who this insults.
Ian, you and I have spoken of your 'work' with the LyreBirds and that comes under "research" in my opinion and does not belong in this conversation. . .
As for call playback? I recently left a local Field Conservationists Club after going on two of their outings and on both times most of the club were playing recorded bird sounds and half of the group were recording the played sounds while the other half were wandering around in the bush looking for where the sounds were coming from. . .bloody ridiculous.
I'm sorry, but I don't have the answers, but then again I'm certainly willing to assist on any group conversation as to the setting up of a proper list of ethical guidelines. After all, if you read the 'blurb' about how TheForum is trying to source the "GO TO" photo list of birds of Australia, I think that we should be able to also show that the photos on our lists were 'ethically obtained'. . .
Bruce

Thanks Ian and Bruce, i appreciate your contributions
I feel that one initial rule the committee could consider adding to their code of ethics is that images of precocial chicks are banned if the species is federally or state listed. Thus for the image of the Brolga chick, for example, the species is federally secure but is listed as vulnerable in NSW, SA and Vic. So as a starting point, this image would be disqualified if taken in those 3 states. Hopefully then our photographic members would have to understand more about the conservation status of their subjects.
I would like to also stress that i am not accusing the photographer of the Brolga chick of any wrong doing. It just happened to be an image i saw that made me think about my own behaviour and attitudes- in many regards it it is good that it is an anonymous contributor
In line with Ian's comments, I cannot claim to have the perfect ethical record but i am slowly learning and am far more aware of my impact than i was 10 years ago. And today there appears to an exponential increase in the numbers of bird photographers all fighting for the perfect image. Maybe it is time for Ian to write a major article for the Birdlife magazine focusing on unethical behaviour - some of us need to be told and others need to be reminded.
Mark