An owl and photographers rights

An irate homeowner did not want anyone taking photographs of his property or anything on it.  He firmly stated that binoculars and scope was ok but absolutely no photos.  People,explained that likely the only thing in the photos were likely the tree and the owl.  But he was adamant, no one can point a camera at his property. 

Things must have escalated to the point where the owl was found dead hanging from a branch.  Think it had been shot.  The homeowner later razed a building and cut down all the trees where the northern hawk owl had been seen perched in.  Then he burned it all.  

This guy was likely unbalanced.  This reminds me of a situation last winter with a northern hawk owl.  It drew many birders and photographers to the location.  Unfortunately, there was a house across from where the owl usually perched..  And a feeder hung next to her kitchen window.  She had redpolls, evening grosbeak and pine grosbeak.  Of course people pointed their cameras at the birds.  She did not like it one bit.  She called the police and sometimes confronted the people taking photos.   The above story reminded me of the situation last winter.

A discussion on the forum discussing the dead owl and photographer rights.



http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/piperm ... 12082.html


The news article.
http://www.king5.com/story/tech/science ... /78659450/

The debacle of which you speak occurred about 20 miles from my home. The property owner hated anyone being there to see or photograph the owl, despite the fact that all of the birders and photographers stayed on the public (county) road and did not step foot onto his property at any time.

I dare say that his attitude towards "nature lovers" is one that is shared by many who live here in my area, and I would not pass it off as the isolated views of one unbalanced individual. In fact, most people around here see Ammon Bundy and his armed militia as heroes who are "finally taking a stand against the tree huggers"......I mention that to give you an idea as to the general tide of public opinion around here concerning things that are related to nature and the environment.

So, while the rest of the civilized world sees this owl-killing property owner as a criminal and a twisted, unbalanced man, a large segment of the community here sees him as a bit of a hero for "doing what had to be done to keep those coasties away."

American philosophy on property rights: No trespassing! It's mine; I own it: I do nothing with it but you can't enjoy it, use it, or even observe it even if you don't affect it because...IT'S MINE, I OWN IT!

WDCarrier wrote:American philosophy on property rights:  No trespassing!  It's mine; I own it: I do nothing with it but you can't enjoy it, use it, or even observe it even if you don't affect it  because...IT'S MINE, I OWN IT!

I love New Zealand, common law allows a person to fish along the rivers even if on private property (close the gates).  The only no trespassing signs were on a section of river that American doctors bought.

WDCarrier wrote:American philosophy on property rights:  No trespassing!  It's mine; I own it: I do nothing with it but you can't enjoy it, use it, or even observe it even if you don't affect it  because...IT'S MINE, I OWN IT!

I understand your point of view and some people take it too far but what's the alternative? Can anyone walk through your yard? Can they walk up to your house and look in your window? Can they lie down in your driveway when you're trying to get in or out?

Pointing a camera at people or their personal space is a personal intrusion...Some might start a song and dance routine if you point a camera at them, but I think most are going to get real ticked off if you don't stop, especially after you have been asked to.  I was just going over the rights to privacy laws for the US for that drone thread and it is possible to cross over and break 3 different constitutional laws as far as personal privacy are concerned. Maybe not at all in most  situations, but something to think about

They say:
"Although the word "privacy" is actually never used in the text of the United States Constitution,[17] there are Constitutional limits to the government's intrusion into individuals' right to privacy. This is true even when pursuing a public purpose such as exercising police powers or passing legislation. The Constitution, however, only protects against state actors. Invasions of privacy by individuals can only be remedied under previous court decisions."

"The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ensures that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

The First Amendment protects the right to free assembly, broadening privacy rights. The Ninth Amendment declares that the fact that a right is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that the government can infringe on that right. The Supreme Court recognized the Fourteenth Amendment as providing a substantive due process right to privacy."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_l ... ted_States

First paragraph:
"The privacy laws of the United States deal with several different legal concepts. One is the invasion of privacy, a tort based in common law allowing an aggrieved party to bring a lawsuit against an individual who unlawfully intrudes into his or her private affairs, discloses his or her private information, publicizes him or her in a false light, or appropriates his or her name for personal gain"

I'm no lawyer, but I think pointing a camera into someones yard against their wishes is indeed invasion of privacy. Even if the law says it isn't it still is if the home owner feels that way. That would be a matter of ethics not law..

Further:
"In the United States today, "invasion of privacy" is a commonly used cause of action in legal pleadings. Modern tort law includes four categories of invasion of privacy:"

  * Intrusion of solitude: physical or electronic intrusion into one's private quarters
(and a few more but they do not apply here........)



I hate that an owl now is dead...maybe more than one has been killed that no one knows about...Is the guy a nut job?..who can judge accurately until you would know more about him...

But certainly if the photographers left him alone, the owl would still be alive and maybe that is the absolute most important consideration here..

Very important story to post ontphoto....

The homeowner was given a $5000.00 fine.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors ... -citation/

merlinator wrote:The homeowner was given a $5000.00 fine.

It should have 100 times that, IMO!

First, the legal control of wildlife is recognized under the state ownership doctrine and, in essence, the property of the public within the state unless that jurisdiction has been usurped by the federal government, as it is in the case of endangered species and migratory birds. As the owl in question is considered a migratory bird under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, see Fed. Reg. Vol. 78, No. 20 page 65853), thus under the jurisdiction of the federal government, making it a nationally publically-owned and protected species. The Act renders it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to Federal regulations. The northern hawk owl is included on the list of protected migratory bird species Thus, whoever killed the owl was in violation of federal regulations whether the bird was on private property or not.

The more confusing aspect of this would be the right of the public to take photographs of a publically-owned species while it is on private property if the photographers did not access the property against the owner’s wishes (Paul’s discussion of invasion of property regulations would apply here).

In actuality, the land-owner is an absolute jerk. He should take note of the community of Portal, Arizona where many residents have bird feeders and signs on their yards that say “Birders Welcome.”

WDCarrier wrote:First, the legal control of wildlife is recognized under the state ownership doctrine and, in essence, the property of the public within the state unless that jurisdiction has been usurped by the federal government, as it is in the case of endangered species and migratory birds.  As the owl in question is considered a migratory bird under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, see Fed. Reg. Vol. 78, No. 20 page 65853), thus under the jurisdiction of the federal government, making it a nationally publically-owned and protected species.   

The more confusing aspect of this would be the right of the public to take photographs of a publically-owned species while it is on private property if the photographers did not access the property against the owner’s wishes (Paul’s discussion of invasion of property regulations would apply here).

Not sure if you already knew this, but after reading your post it seems that you might not realize that the owl was on an indian reservation, and the Confederated Colville Tribes consider themselves to be a sovereign nation.  That is why the case was investigated by the Tribes' wildlife department, and why state or federal authorities were not directly conducting the investigation.

Also to clarify what might be a misunderstanding by some, I do not know of anyone, no photographer and no birder, who made any attempt to step foot onto this man's property.  To the best of my knowledge, everyone who visited the area to see the owl stayed on the county-owned road (yes, county and state owned roads are common even within the boundaries of the indian reservation).   Everyone completely left the property owner alone - no knocking at the door, no parking in a way that would impede his access to his own driveway, no pointing cameras at the house, etc.  It was the property owner who did not leave the birders alone, not the other way around.

People are starting to realize what kind of attention a rare bird is going to draw and the resulting crowds that are sure to show up.  A birder kept a location quiet where boreal chickadees were showing up not too far from Ottawa.  I was given the location but told to keep it quiet which I did.  I got to be friendly with the homeowner and he'd tell me stories of who would show up each time I visited. Sometimes it made me chuckle.  He'd see a car parked near his house, someone with a pair of binoculars.  He'd walk out to maybe chat and the guy would just drive away.  One time he would trace the footprints in the snow and see where the guy was dropped off by a car and where he went after.  The homeowner turned out to be a friendly person but didn't want hundreds of birders showing up.  

This winter a rare golden-crowned sparrow has been feeding in someone's backyard in Aylmer, Quebec for the past couple of months.  The location of that bird is also being kept quiet.  The homeowner did not want her backyard to be filled with birders let alone photographers.  So, to allow homeowners their privacy, many such sightings on private property are now being kept quiet.

OntPhoto wrote:People are starting to realize what kind of attention a rare bird is going to draw and the resulting crowds that are sure to show up.  A birder kept a location quiet where boreal chickadees were showing up not too far from Ottawa.  I was given the location but told to keep it quiet which I did.  I got to be friendly with the homeowner and he'd tell me stories of who would show up each time I visited. Sometimes it made me chuckle.  He'd see a car parked near his house, someone with a pair of binoculars.  He'd walk out to maybe chat and the guy would just drive away.  One time he would trace the footprints in the snow and see where the guy was dropped off by a car and where he went after.  The homeowner turned out to be a friendly person but didn't want hundreds of birders showing up.  

This winter a rare golden-crowned sparrow has been feeding in someone's backyard in Aylmer, Quebec for the past couple of months.  The location of that bird is also being kept quiet.  The homeowner did not want her backyard to be filled with birders let alone photographers.  So, to allow homeowners their privacy, many such sightings on private property are now being kept quiet.

And that's the way it should be. Sometimes even if you are within your rights...it's still the wrong thing to do. The proper thing would have been to ask the property owner if you could photograph the bird on his property. If the answer was NO...then thank the person for his time and move on. I personally would not want to have a bunch of photographers camped out with their vehicles and equipment lined up on my property line taking photos of a bird. I'd feel my privacy being violated...even through by the law it was not.

Sometimes its better to use our own moral judgment...our brains rather then letting some law written by people not close to the issue dictate how we behave.

chez wrote:

And that's the way it should be. Sometimes even if you are within your rights...it's still the wrong thing to do. The proper thing would have been to ask the property owner if you could photograph the bird on his property. If the answer was NO...then thank the person for his time and move on. I personally would not want to have a bunch of photographers camped out with their vehicles and equipment lined up on my property line taking photos of a bird. I'd feel my privacy being violated...even through by the law it was not.

Sometimes its better to use our own moral judgment...our brains rather then letting some law written by people not close to the issue dictate how we behave.

While I do not disagree with you, if we get back to the original story, I don't care how you may feel about people pointing a camera toward your property, it is absolutely selfish and inexcusable to go and shoot a bird just because people are doing that. 

This is hindsight as no one knew the property owner was actually going to shoot the owl.  But if there had been any inkling that was going to happen, I would have trapped the owl and relocated it elsewhere. 

Two winters ago here in Ottawa, we had a Northern Hawk Owl that was hunting along a median of a highway.  I just had a bad feeling the owl was not going to survive.  It was more than just a bad feeling as any thinking person knew its survival rate was going to be very low along that highway. I suggested to one birder that maybe they should consider trapping it (by people with the proper permits and authourity to do so) and relocating it well away from that area. 

The response I got back was, the owl chose that spot for a reason (yeah, it doesn't know any better) and relocating it may mean it might not survive (I highly doubt that but its chance of survival hunting that median with vehicles on both sides going 100 km/hr plus was lot worse than had it been relocated).  A couple of weeks later the owl was found dead.  Something to be said for intervening in such cases and not take the "que sera, sera", naturalist, it's natures way line of thinking.