Southern Lapwing in her nest!

**Ramon M. Casares** · 10-09-2009, 02:57 PM

Attached Images

**Randy Stout** · 10-09-2009, 03:03 PM

Ramon:

Striking picture. I do have some concerns however about working so close to a nesting bird. Many of the birds here will abandon their nest with such an encounter. Even if this were a remote controlled camera, I would be concerned.

Perhaps this species is so tame it doesn't matter to them, but it worries me.

Randy

**Ramon M. Casares** · 10-09-2009, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Randy Stout

Ramon:

Striking picture. I do have some concerns however about working so close to a nesting bird. Many of the birds here will abandon their nest with such an encounter. Even if this were a remote controlled camera, I would be concerned.

Perhaps this species is so tame it doesn't matter to them, but it worries me.

Randy

Randy, don't you worry about this subject, I visited the nest today and she was sitting there :) I can asure you, I will not put in risk a nest to get a shot :) Thanks for your comment.

**John Chardine** · 10-09-2009, 03:20 PM

I like it Ramón. The wide-angle "look" is so rare here at BPN. It provides a real intimacy with the subject. I assume this was remotely triggered.

Randy- I know this species to be very aggressive and territorial and is not easily dissuaded (they are very good "watch-dogs" and will warn of the approach people, predators etc). We use many devices around the nests of related species with no ill-effects- the camera becomes a feature of the nest surroundings that has changed, like a stick that might be blown in, etc. I agree that there are concerns with images at nests if not done with sensitivity, and certain species groups like forest birds seem to be much more vulnerable than the shorebirds (sensu lato including the gulls and terns, sandpipers, plovers, etc, all in the order Charadriiformes).

Christian Dionne · 10-09-2009, 03:23 PM

I love the point of view, and the details are amazing, maybe you will get a better horizon shot next time...
Great shot!

**Jim Fenton** · 10-09-2009, 03:59 PM

Ramon...

Absolutely love this image due to both the subject, the scenery and the wide angle approach.

I have but on nit and that's the hot blades of grass...and I'd still be delighted if I had been the one who created this :)

**Colin Driscoll** · 10-09-2009, 04:07 PM

Great shot showing both the bird detail and surrounding habitat. She sure allowed you to get close but does look like she is on the verge of taking off. Am I right that the red in her right eye (left on screen) is a bit out of control? Love that sheen on the shoulder!

**Ramon M. Casares** · 10-09-2009, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Colin Driscoll

Great shot showing both the bird detail and surrounding habitat. She sure allowed you to get close but does look like she is on the verge of taking off. Am I right that the red in her right eye (left on screen) is a bit out of control? Love that sheen on the shoulder!

Colin, she didn't took off and the reds in the eye got deteriorated due to cormpression :(

Connie Mier · 10-09-2009, 04:15 PM

An interesting shot for sure. I have to admit, I have never seen a "claw" like object sticking out of a bird's wing before. What are those?

**Ramon M. Casares** · 10-09-2009, 04:18 PM

Connie, those are the Spurs (I think) these guys don't really use them, but they are sure intimidating :)

**Tony Whitehead** · 10-09-2009, 04:43 PM

Very nice, Ramon. Pose suits the wideangle perspective. A number of Lapwings have wing spurs.

Ákos Lumnitzer · 10-09-2009, 05:14 PM

Wow brother, this is a winner and only the result of your dedication to your subject and its WELFARE as you have been demonstrating will get this result! So huge congrats on that. I don't care about the horizon, looks fine to me as the eggs appear horizontal and that far line may as well be a slope. I am 100% certain you would have been more concerned with the well being of the lapwing than "getting the shot". But the pommies would still shoot you for this. ;) Hats off mate!

Our Masked Lapwing also has those spurs on the wings. Awesome birds aren't they? FYI, the chick we have been rearing for four weeks has gone to an aviary now, should be released in another three or four weeks. Will keep you posted.

**denise ippolito** · 10-09-2009, 06:22 PM

Ramon, Beautiful wide angle perspective.The BG seems to envelope the bird nicely. Great details and colors.

**Arthur Morris** · 10-09-2009, 07:34 PM

Pretty wicked. I am guessing that this was NOT remotely triggered. Ramon, were you holding the camera and pressing the shutter button here?
Also, I am betting that if you followed the suggestions in Reducation in the ER that you could easily tone down the enamel bright oversaturated red of the eye. I love the look and the careful framing at the bottom to get the feet in the frame.

Buy a bubble level and use it.... I find them especially helpful when doing extreme wide angle stuff.

**paul leverington** · 10-09-2009, 07:37 PM

WOW! Fairly awesome Ramon! Must of taken a while to get that close. The spurs look a bit wicked, but boy what a beautiful bird. Getting this close on more than one occasion is something you might want to put a little thought into mate. the angle could be slightly less maybe but it kindof adds a nice dynamic to the whole thing.

Paul

**Ramon M. Casares** · 10-09-2009, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Pretty wicked. I am guessing that this was NOT remotely triggered. Ramon, were you holding the camera and pressing the shutter button here?
Also, I am betting that if you followed the suggestions in Reducation in the ER that you could easily tone down the enamel bright oversaturated red of the eye. I love the look and the careful framing at the bottom to get the feet in the frame.

Buy a bubble level and use it.... I find them especially helpful when doing extreme wide angle stuff.

Yes Artie, I was pressing the shutter button :)
The reds are not oversaturated, the image has so much color info that the compression I had to give to it to reach the 200kb was kind of a lot and that is why the eye has a poor IQ.
Glad you like it :) and yes, a bubble level would've been very usefull here :)

**Raymond Barlow** · 10-09-2009, 08:49 PM

wonderful stuff Ramon, what a cool bird., and i see no need to make sure all our shots are dead level, I like the tilt here, it adds to the awkwardness of the capture.

**Stu Bowie** · 10-10-2009, 01:19 AM

Ramon, just love the closeness and wide angle perspective here. Lovely inquisitive pose, and I really like the soft light and colours. Congrats on a fine image.

**Arthur Morris** · 10-10-2009, 02:14 AM

Ramon,

re:

Yes Artie, I was pressing the shutter button

As I figured.

The reds are not oversaturated, the image has so much color info that the compression I had to give to it to reach the 200kb was kind of a lot and that is why the eye has a poor IQ.

As presented, the reds are oversaturated. And as I said above, the fix is both easy and available for free in the ER.

Glad you like it and yes, a bubble level would've been very useful here.

That's why we sell them at BAA :)

**Arthur Morris** · 10-10-2009, 02:27 AM

OK. I am gonna play devil's advocate here. From above:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy Stout

Ramon:

Striking picture. I do have some concerns however about working so close to a nesting bird. Many of the birds here will abandon their nest with such an encounter. Even if this were a remote controlled camera, I would be concerned.

Perhaps this species is so tame it doesn't matter to them, but it worries me.

Randy

Randy, don't you worry about this subject, I visited the nest today and she was sitting there :) I can assure you, I will not put in risk a nest to get a shot :) Thanks for your comment.

Question for Ramon: how can you know for sure in advance that your actions, getting just inches from the bird and the nest, will have no detrimental effect on the nesting effort. One might argue that it is impossible to know for sure.... Even if the nest does well and all three of the hatchlings survive till fledging, there is no way that you could have known this in advance. And if you go back today and the bird is gone, you most likely would not be sharing that information here.

On a related note, every time that I ask a photographer who has been working at a songbird nest how the birds did, I am told, "all of the young fledged." 100% fledging rate every time. Well, in nature there is an average of about 50% mortality at songbird nests. So here is my plan, have folks photograph at every songbird nest on the planet. With the resulting 100% survival rate songbird population declines will be reversed.... Tongue in cheek of course, but my point is that folks are quick to share the information when a nest that they photographed succeeded, but would almost never volunteer the fact that the nest that they photographed failed.

So I ask again, how could you know in advance that your actions would not have a detrimental effect on this particular bird? (Remember, I am playing devil's advocate here....)

On a somewhat related note, those spurs are there for a purplose.

**Harshad Barve** · 10-10-2009, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by Randy Stout

Ramon:

Striking picture. I do have some concerns however about working so close to a nesting bird. Many of the birds here will abandon their nest with such an encounter. Even if this were a remote controlled camera, I would be concerned.

Perhaps this species is so tame it doesn't matter to them, but it worries me.

Randy

Disturbing image

Fabs Forns · 10-10-2009, 07:00 AM

This is how this image was made:

http://birdphotographers.net/forums/...isplay.php?f=8

No further comment necessary.

**Mike Tracy** · 10-10-2009, 08:00 AM

While not keen on the means I do like your thinking regarding photographing at wide angles for a fresh perspective.

It would be in your best interests publicly and those of your subjects to concentrate on photos where the parties viewing and photographed are at ease (photojournalism not being the case).

**John Chardine** · 10-10-2009, 08:25 AM

Not exactly relevant but-

in Antarctica, friends and colleagues have done quite a bit of work on the effects of tourists visiting penguin colonies. Studies looked at behaviour, nest success and even adult heart rates as measured by a "dummy" egg added to the nest. The results show that although the heart rate of the incubating bird goes up when people approach to with 5m of the nest (it also goes up when a skua flies over), this does not translate to lower nest success. The particular study in question was BTW published in Nature.

The big "but" here is that as mentioned earlier, species and species groups differ widely in their tolerance to disturbance so it is not easy to extrapolate beyond.

I am photo editor for our Maritimes Breeding Bird Atlas, and our policy is not to accept images of birds at the nest. It is "better to be safe than sorry" in these cases.

**Ramon M. Casares** · 10-10-2009, 10:45 AM

Mi english ios not the best but I hope I can make myself clear... :) First, thank you all for your honest comments as I apreciate thewm very much but let me say that I have been working with Lapwings for many years now as I am big fan of this species, I KNOW that these particular birds will not abandon their nest just because someone got close to them... after all the energy they put on building the nest and putting the eggs and incubating these birds will not just "leave" because someone or something got close... they nest in the ground... their nest is very likely to get depredated and they know it and that is why they are always screaming when someone gets close, not because they are really "worried" but because they try to call the predator attention to guide the predator away from ther nest, that is their NATURAL behaviour... they will not go bold and get stressed for this and they will not abandon their nest. Believe me, I kow it for sure regarding Southern Lapwings. :)

**Arthur Morris** · 10-10-2009, 11:29 AM

As I said, a bird that is screaming at you is distressed.

**Ramon M. Casares** · 10-10-2009, 11:35 AM

Attached Images

**Ramon M. Casares** · 10-10-2009, 11:40 AM

Artie, I realized that when my movements were quick the bird would get scared so I only needed to move slow and that was it... this guy was actually very calm... calm enough to get up, feed and come back :)

**Chris Kotze** · 10-10-2009, 01:25 PM

Excellent looking bird well captured I like the angle .

**Arthur Morris** · 10-10-2009, 03:21 PM

I thought that I was posting the stuff below here but it turned out to be at the related post in Friends and Family. Anyway, it is relevant here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramon M. Casares

Don't worry Dave, I am not taking it personally at all, I understand what you all are saying and I myslef had never worked with nesting birds for the same reasons you are all talking abut, but with Southern Lapwings I DO know that the nest is not put in risk. :)

As I said in my first post here, there is no way for you to absolutely know in advance that your actions did not put the nest at risk. If you returned tomorrow and found that the nest had been visited by a predator how could you know that the human odor, your human odor, did not lead the predator to the nest?

It is one thing to believe something to be true, another thing to absolutely know that it is true.

**Arthur Morris** · 10-10-2009, 04:02 PM

Another relevant pane from the Friends and Family post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramon M. Casares

As I said Artie, the bird got scared if my movements were quick, but after realizing than I just needed to move slowly so not to bother the Lapwing :)

Well, we are making progress at least. Above you are admitting that your actions distressed the bird.

**Arthur Morris** · 10-10-2009, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by John Chardine

Not exactly relevant but-

in Antarctica, friends and colleagues have done quite a bit of work on the effects of tourists visiting penguin colonies. Studies looked at behaviour, nest success and even adult heart rates as measured by a "dummy" egg added to the nest. The results show that although the heart rate of the incubating bird goes up when people approach to with 5m of the nest (it also goes up when a skua flies over), this does not translate to lower nest success. The particular study in question was BTW published in Nature.

The big "but" here is that as mentioned earlier, species and species groups differ widely in their tolerance to disturbance so it is not easy to extrapolate beyond.

I am photo editor for our Maritimes Breeding Bird Atlas, and our policy is not to accept images of birds at the nest. It is "better to be safe than sorry" in these cases.

Well, I promised in my original post here to play devil's advocate, so here goes:

As most of you know, I have taken researchers in general to task for various banding and field study practices and will do the same here.

#1: Did the scientists above measure the heart rates of the penguins as they placed the phony eggs under the nesting birds? It is likely that they had to physically move the birds off the nest as they sit quite tightly. Surely those actions were more disruptive and invasive than Ramon's actions here. But, researchers are often given a free pass on disturbance while photographers are often taken to task for behaviors that pale in comparison to what the researchers do on a daily basis.

#2: I asked this question of John in another BPN thread but it was never answered so I will try again here. (Note: gannets are one of his fields of great expertise.) John, how do you justify the yanking of gannets off of their nests via a wire loop that is placed around their necks when the species is doing fantastically well? (I witnessed this researcher behavior most days when I visited Bonaventure which to the best of my understanding is the world's largest gannetry.) So if there is no need to study and save this species, why the disturbance.

#3: Speaking of disturbance, I met two shorebird banders while I was at the Midwest Birding Symposium in mid-September. Being a shorebird lover myself, we got along quite well and had some interesting conversations. They told me that they were asked to help a team of US Department of Agriculture folks who were banding shorebirds on a private hunting preserve in Ohio as there was some excellent shorebird habitat there. They were aghast to see upon their arrival that the team was maiming and killing more than a few shorebirds each time that they checked their nets. When they commented that the folks did need lots of help they were promptly uninvited.

They went on to tell me that though they had had a poor year banding shorebirds that they had "taken" about 500 birds that were tested for Avian flu but that none of the tests were positive. "Taken" means killed for scientific study. Now I was the one aghast; this was just one team of researchers, dedicated caring folks who were good at what they were doing but they thought nothing of killing 500 birds in a season while knowing full well that global shorebird populations are and have been declining precipititously over the past few decades with declines in some species as high as 80-90 percent.

My questions above and the additional points that I made were not posted to get John pissed off or to show that all researchers are criminals but to help us to take a step back and look at some larger questions. As I stated previously researchers of often given free passes on disturbance that they cause while photographers are called to task for far lesser transgressions that might not in fact be transgressions at all.

About 23 years ago I crawled--with permission from a shorebird researcher--within a foot of a Piping Plover nest to photograph the bird with a 50 mm lens. Would I do the same thing today? Perhaps.....

**John Chardine** · 10-10-2009, 04:57 PM

Hi Artie- I'll respond to this more fully later but just to say I did make a lengthy response to your query about banding gannets and was surprised that you didn't respond. Here's the link:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ing+snail+kite

(scroll down)

**Arthur Morris** · 10-10-2009, 05:46 PM

Thanks John. I try not to miss anything but obviously I did. I am gonna go there now.

**John Chardine** · 10-10-2009, 07:46 PM

Artie- I won't go point-by point but just make some general comment on what you said.

1. Very few studies have been done on the effects of tourists on penguins. The few that have been done are used to generalise on effects on different species and different places and inform the process of controlling human disturbance from tourism. Thus, one or a few studies can be immensely helpful for conservation. This is not theoretical- IAATO (International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators) uses this information to set guidelines for tourists in "the Last Continent".

2. Given the huge value of work like this, the costs of disturbing 50 pairs in one colony twice, once to add the dummy egg to the nest, and once to remove it, is well worth it. The mere act of adding and removing an egg was studied in relation to the effects on breeding success by comparing with control nests that were not visited at all. The results showed no effect. All good field studies have a component that looks at the effect of the study itself. This is the only way you can interpret your results unambiguously.

3. So, field biologists KNOW they affect their study organisms, do all in their power to minimise effects, for good measure actually build-in studies of these effects into their overall protocols, and finally report any effects in their papers. This was not always done, but these days are long-gone.

4. If there were zero-tolerance for any disturbance of wild organisms during research, our knowledge would still be in the dark-ages and many more species than at present would be joining the ranks of the Dodo. An analogous argument is a very familiar one in medical research.

One technical point- we have done a lot of testing to H1N5 avian flu over the last while and birds are not killed to take the sample. A simple Q-tip in the cloaca is all that is needed. In case you are wondering, this is done gently and quickly, and according to a lengthy protocol developed and reviewed by veterinarians. Birds dying incidentally in studies are sometimes sampled but it is not standard protocol to collect the birds to do this. The example you give of USDA folks mist-netting and killing shorebirds is disturbing if true, but I can tell you it is not representative of the vast majority of studies going on all the time.

A final point I'll make returns to this idea of costs and benefits of working on wild organisms. Perceived benefits have to outweigh costs for field work to be permitted- literally permitted, permits from state/provincial and federal agencies as well as animal care committees HAVE to be obtained beforehand. If photographers should to be given the same treatment as biologists then the ball is in the photographer's court. We have to define our impacts as photographers on our subjects through well-controlled field studies (like biologists do), obtain permits to photograph if this involves disturbance, and finally show that the benefits of what we do as photographers outweigh the costs. I am not sure many photographers would really want a level playing-field.

"be careful what you wish for, lest it come true"

Lance Peters · 10-10-2009, 11:12 PM

Late to this one - absolutely amazed that they let you get so close - Our lapwings here will not let you within 50 feet of their nest or their young and will vigorously defend by swooping any intruders - which were I live can be quite a challenge as they do nest everywhere and even just walking to work is going to get you swooped by a protective parent. Interestingly enough not at all threatened by cars - they nest in the middle of a busy round about here in town. As Artie mentioned those spurs do have a use.

Ramon - An amazing perspective, would I do it myself - hmmmmmm not sure.

Daniel Belasco · 10-11-2009, 12:20 AM

Absolutely cartoonist. Beautiful.
I read the disturbing debate. I can see the temtation on getting close to obtain an image such as this. However I wouldn't do it.

**paul leverington** · 10-11-2009, 10:11 AM

One of the things here that is so refreshing for me to witness, is the concern of PHOTOGRAPHERS for a nesting bird. Not of course to say there hasn't always been those who refrained from bothering a nest--there always have been. But most of the time photographers argue that they are not really hurting anything--but they don't really know that. Here I think we're witnessing the results of the information age educating and making folks aware of the facts--which then influences their believe systems.

Ramon--don't feel I'm adding to the goose pile here but I wanted to say a couple of things.

1) A person literally cannot go to the edge of the woods and look in without affecting in some manner most everything in that woods. It's something on a level of sensitivity that most of us urbanites have lost, not turned on by it, or never had it at all. When people for example lived WITH the animals and considered them as brothers and sisters--their religions were EARTH religions. Our religions now reflect MAN--this reflects how our attitude is. A religion reflects what the people of that time feel and want to believe--not the other way around. A greater sensitivity, for anyone who is interested, can be taught from a guy named Tom Brown--on the east coast. He's a professional tracker but found that his intimate knowledge of nature benefits others to get close and understand nature on a level that the average person typically does not know. There's a website, books, workshops ect.. Check him out.

2)Every animal within a species type has a different personality, therefore a different tolerance level, and stress level. Just like several cats or dogs or your own families are worlds apart in personality, some mother birds on a nest will freak out completely and some will tolerarte anything. Some ducks who have witnessed hunting are totally paranoid of humans, others that have not are farily tolerant of us. I think because we have to make the effort to understand the animals, because they can't talk to us, not much usually happens in that sort of disscussion. So us humans tend to think all birds of a species are just alike to each other--like they were made from a cookie cutter. There's no way you could be certain that just because this one bird allows you close, that all others will have the same tolerance reaction.

3) Repetitive shooting of the nest over successive days has accumilated affect. You can't predict that affect at all. The bird might get more comfortable with each day through acclimation--but more likely in my opinion, they will get less comfortable. You gotta remember that in their world, most things that are bigger than them, want to eat them. They aren't going to know you mean no harm to them, let alone what that thing with the big eye on the front is-- that keeps getting shoved in their face making clicking noises.

4) Everything has a personal space boundary. This is proven with humans, I'll go ahead and make the assumption with animals that this is true too. Cross into that personal space, the birds heart rate goes way up, the eyes widen, they lock attention on you, they fidget then freeze--which is a sign they are about to take action--flight or fight. Stay out of this personal space boundary and the bird will be watching you, but the imminant threat level goes way down. Why not shoot with a longer lens, and then put the lens in manual focus, and the white balance in manual also, and shoot the scene all around your subject and stitch together later in whatever program--instead of all the risk of a wide angle with which you HAVE to get close?. I mean if your going for that enviormental shot. I'm sure you could get some great shots at 5 to fifteen feet away rather than be a foot to inches away.

5)Why even get this close unless the shot will be awesome. Most nest shots I personally have seen were not at all necessary on a photographic power level. They can be so bad as to just throw them away, yet the person taking them just had to do it. This is selfish. Unless you can definitely have a great light, viewing angle, and composition, or selling value or research document value, there is little reason for the photographer to pursue a nest. 9 out of ten times this is true I feel. (Ramon -this is a very good shot by my eyes and what I just said was not directed at you or your image but a rather general blanket statement.)

6) Would any bird allow you to get inches away from it clicking a camera with a wide angle lens if it weren't on a nest? The answer is no way. So a photographer is totally relying on and pressuring the birds maternal instinct when approaching a nest. That bond is the only safety net, it's being totally taxed. Again accumilative affect and boundary levels play into this. Once it snaps, even if the bird wants to go back, the mama bird will feel safe at a distance all of a sudden away from you and her eggs. Her own personal self survival instinct will again be more apparent and noticed to her, and that then might overpower her return and the maternal feelings she has. Once she bolts off the nest she may not come back--and of course you cannot be sure of any of this 100 %. Usually if you leave immediately she will come right back I have found. But I have seen it goe the other way too.

7) The risk of abandonment is far geater when the mother is on eggs that when it is after she has seen her children's eyes looking up at her.

Paul

**Lorant Voros** · 10-11-2009, 11:18 AM

I have been visiting and re-visiting this thread, read all the attached link as well. I have to agree with Paul and many other people expressing their opinion here. In many counties you'd get a fine and loose your reputation for this. I think we are all here to learn. I am happy that so many members of this forum think that way and believe the subject's life and safety is more important than any photo. I respect your work, Ramon and I hope you understand the concerns; even the potential risk of harming the subject is unacceptable. It is a chance again to learn....

**philperry** · 10-12-2009, 08:32 AM

A friend of mine did measure the heart rates of nesting birds that sit tight when approached by humans. Their heart rates went way up. They may stay sitting on the nest but they are certainly affected.

**Roger Clark** · 10-12-2009, 02:40 PM

After reading this thread I have a question and a concern that I have not seen mentioned.

Question, while the effects of a wide angle image are interesting, I don't feel the benefit outweighs the risk. Why couldn't you get a similar shot with a telephoto on the ground from much further away?

Second, regardless of how well you know the bird/species, the mere fact that many photographers have responded WOW what a great image implies others might try the same thing, probably with disastrous results for the birds. So I don't think such images should be shown.

Roger

**Ramon M. Casares** · 10-12-2009, 07:33 PM

I am sorry for the daleyed answer, I have very little internet access. Thank you all for all your opinions, info and honest critiques, I am sorry many of you have felt ofended by this image.
The option of getting a similar shot with a telephoto lens IMO is not really an option as what I wanted to get was what you see, the persepctive I get from a wide-angle lens cannot be acieved with a telephoto.
Again, I really apreciate all the info given, the comments and advice. I thank those who have been respectfull when giving their opinions.
Again, I have been photographing Lapwings for a lot of years now and I have never witnessed any nest abandonment. These birds would usually get off the eggs and leave the nest even when you (or a predator) are walking about 120 feet away so the fact that a Lapwing leaves the nest a moment it is not really a risk and this Lapwing only left the nest to feed and came right back to the nest with me being right there, she never left the nest because of my presence, she even landed near me and just walk to the nest to keep incubating... I can't say much more than what I have already told you guys, I do not expect to change anybody's opinion, but at least give me some credit and don't just assume that I would simply put a nest in risk for a shot... becasue I wouldn't.
Again ,thank you to all who has participated in this debate as it has been, at least to me, very interesting and usefull.

Thread: Southern Lapwing in her nest!

Thread Tools

Display

Southern Lapwing in her nest!

Posting Permissions