UKC

Can anyone enlighten me as to the legal situation regarding gamekeepers wandering around open access land carrying shotguns (in January)?

Is it allowed? What do they need a the gun for?

Why did the gamekeeper go absolutely ballistic (not literally) when I took his photo? Are gamekeepers inherently shy?

Does the open access land you refer to have an owner?

I believe it’s the Duke of Rutland.

Then I suppose it's his nibs's decision as to whether or not his employees carry guns around.

As to being photographed, a lot of people don't like being photographed without consent: I don't think it's a trait peculiar to gamekeepers.

No they can wander around with a shotgun, it should be broken if around a member of the public though I think. 
 

As for his shyness, they’re usually up to no good trapping our native fauna, promoting the monoculture of heather (well, round here anyway) and are likely suspects in many raptor disappearances. 

They’re not all bad eggs. 

Even is it's open access land someone probably owns it, and they get to say who can shoot on it.

A) Legal 

B) Yes 

C) Shooting things 

D) Same reason you would if I came to your workplace and started to take photos of you and shit on your desk. 
E) No 

JRJG 

I don't think fredt was suggesting having a shit...

Ah: probably protecting the borders from covid, then...

Moscar?

A lot of people are under the misapprehension that you can't take photos of them in a public place and subsequently kick up a fuss about it. 

If the shooting is let to syndicate you might try the owners. In my area it's Yorkshire Water. They're definitely getting nervous about managed grouse moor.

Yes. Close to Stanage.

Now I don't think all gamekeepers are bad eggs, far from it in fact, but the ones on that estate are the sort that give the whole lot a bad name.

One time one came up to me (with a shotgun, bottom of face covered and this was pre-covid) to aggressively tell me I had no right to be where I was. A quick point to the map, the lack of closure signs at access points and the lack of a closure notice on the NE site later, and he called me every name under the sun before walking off. Sure it was nothing to do with the stink pit nearby...

I've also had a guy watch me with binoculars there, which is plain creepy.

As an aside, it's also worth noting that they were one of the estates accused (emphasis on accused) of flouting the voluntary burning ban, to the shock of absolutely no one.

Absolutely not — but simply by existing, they probably put themselves at odds with most who feel any meaningful connection with the natural world as nature intends it. That's not a good starting point.

It sounds like he was out to intimidate you, probably merely on the grounds that you had the audacity to be there. Personally, I take exception to having people vaguely insinuate they might shoot me. That aside, gamekeepers are a mix of people, but the tax-dodging scum who own these grousemoors, who are paid tax payers' money for conservation efforts that involve poisoning and trapping mammals, shooting raptors, burning heather and damaging peat habitats that should be storing vast amounts of CO2 and helping to prevent floods - they are lower than the lowest. Unfortunately, their Tory friends won't be the ones to put a stop to this behaviour.

Now you're sounding like one of those inherently shy types the OP mentions.

Ye down with Grouse moors and shooting wildlife to make way for targets. This country is brill, but it's constantly shat on by tossers.

haha lets be honest it's clearly because the implication of someone taking a photo of you in public is either a) they're a pervert or b) they are implying you are doing something wrong that they need to record to get you in trouble.

Either way, whether you're doing something wrong or not you're gonna be annoyed - either because you've been caught or because you're innocent and and being told your guilty.

Have a look at 'Moorland Monitors' on FB

In addition to ^ this, here's a clip that might go some way to explaining why these absolute charmers are particularly camera shy:
youtube.com/watch?v=1inifASOJAo&

Also who can photograph on it. I would regard a gamekeeper as agent of the landowner in this matter and desist from photography.

Why did you feel a need to take his photo and how did you go aboout it?

Generally speaking, if you go around taking photos of people without their permission eventually one will attempt to ram your camera/phone down your throat. I'm surprised at your age you've yet to learn that. I'll add that taking pictures of people carrying firearms without their permission is even more ill-advised. 

In a public place, they have no permission to give.  You are allowed to take the photo.  

Are you suggesting that you should voluntarily give up rights, just because a person happens to be carrying a gun?  I don't like where that line of reasoning heads.

Just because the law allows you to do something, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so, whether from a personal safety point of view or a general point of good manners. Of course, if you're a professional trouble maker with a big chip on your shoulder I understand you might not agree. In that case I have no sympathy if you get thumped.

I would suggest asking the proposed "target" as a matter of courtesy. I believe there is a world of difference between taking a photograph in a public place for, perhaps, landscape purpose and specifically pointing your camera at a particular individual.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, that it is nice to ask, it's not required.

There is no expectations of privacy in a public place.

The police got a bit shirty about being photographed, but they then provided some guidelines.

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/photography-advi...

But it's NOT a public place. It's a privately owned place to which CROW Act has given certain access rights. 

The right to take photographs is not mentioned in the act (apart from commercial photography which is definitely NOT allowed without landowner permission). 

As I said before, it's about courtesy along with a generous helping of common sense.

I suggest you stand outside your local junior school on a public thoroughfare and photograph the mums and their toddlers on the same public thoroughfare.

No, actually you seem a nice bloke and I wouldn't want you to get in trouble, because I'm sure you would.

In reply to 

Because I was surprised to see a gamekeeper carrying a gun (they usually keep them out of sight) and it was in a place where gamekeepers have in the recent past shot and trapped various wildlife illegally. 

^ This

It's context dependent. I don't particularly mind if I'm in the background of someone's photo.

If someone's deliberately taking photos of me or my family in a public place I'll be enquring what they think they're doing.

In the case of people other than the police (and possibly accredited media) photographing and videoing road accidents and other distressing incidents I think kicking the tw*ts senseless is a.pefectly acceptable response, even if it is in a public place.

The old smoking gun, eh?

Surely it's not surprising to see a gamekeeper carrying a gun?

Beyond that waving a camera about is very often going to escalate tensions.  If you've ever done any training in avoiding and defusing confrontation you will very likely have been advised to avoid it.

The motorcyclist don’t like it much when I take photographs of them on my local moorland. There is a reason they don’t like it.

I think it's worth mentioning that in quite a few countries, whilst photography in public places is not banned, it his considered EXTREMELY discourteous to photograph somebody without asking them first. In Pashupatinath(the Hindu cremation sitein Kathmandu) I took what I considered to be a "general view" photograph only to be berated and chased by a gentleman wearing a turban and wielding an umbrella because he was convinced I'd pointed my camera a him. Conversely, on seeing a group of sadhus, I asked my guide about photographing them. He said they would be happy for me to do so as long as I paid them. I was able to get rid of a five dollar nit which I really had no further use for. BTW I think the first chap threatened to put a curse on me

Are you a gamekeeper or are you just (hugely) pleased to see me?

Bet the gamekeeper had read your profile,

Interests Outside Climbing

Cycling, birding, photography, shitting in grouse butts.

The law is pretty clear: in a place that the public has access to, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.  That includes public land (with a few very specific exceptions) and also includes public rights of way.  It doesn't matter if some gamekeeper with an unbroken twelve-bore thinks they know better; thankfully they don't get to set the law, and given their reputation I wouldn't be terribly inclined to pay much attention to their interpretation of it!

CRoW land is not very different.  The Act specifies a few very broad activities that are explicitly permitted, and then a much longer list of actions that specifically are not allowed.  That list includes commercial photography, so there is a strong case that non-commercial photography is permitted.  I'm not aware that this has ever been tested.

I've done my fair share of street photography and I know full well that some people have an incorrect belief that they somehow own the rights to their own image in a public place.  I've had very few confrontations, mostly because if you're half decent then you're in, one shot, and out again.  Near silent rangefinders help. 

Wurzel: no, if a gamekeeper with a gun started threatening me with that gun, then I wouldn't continue to take photos, mostly because my hands would be busy calling the police.

Tom: I agree that if you hang around outside a school taking lots of photos of children then you will have a few issues, and I would not do it.  But that's because the mummies will probably find it intimidating - that's the thing that would be illegal, not the photography itself - and I don't want to do that because I'm not an arseh*le.

Why? A gamekeeper going about his lawful concerns, a photographer doing likewise. Why should there be any tension? 

I'm not surprised you got that response then.  I find you acted provocatively if you knew that context at the time you were there and pointed the camera at him.

In Spain and Switzerland, it's actually a legal requirement to ask permission before taking someone's photo if they are recognisable and/or publishing that photo, etc.

shamelessly sticking cameras in peoples faces?

you got nothing on this guy (Dougie Wallace). this vid it's well worth a 1/2 hour of anyone's time.

vimeo.com/194869208

p.s. - it's art, don't you know

Okay; I take back my earlier comment...

The CRoW act allows for recreation on foot and specifically includes such activities as climbing, hiking, running. As photography is 'on foot' then you're perfectly entitled to take pictures as you please (of course persistent photography of individuals may result in you falling foul of harassment laws however). I think a limit may be drawn at setting up a tripod as then you're setting up camp. You are correct that commercial photography would be ruled out as that would not be considered recreation.

I think it needs to be understood that the game keeper in all likelihood had his gun with him for any one of a number of reasons and nor for the sole purpose of intimidating somebody who was possibly exercising their right of access. If I had been that gamekeeper I imagine that I too would have felt intimidated if somebody, for no obvious reason and without asking poked a camera at me whilst I was going about my lawful business. In years past I have shot game and I also take photographs.

You asked if gamekeepers were inherently shy. A lot of people are shy when a stranger points a camera at them.

Sounds to me like he was doing his job and you walked up to him and intrusively and invasively took a photo of his face because you don't like country sports such as shooting.  Although what you did isn't illegal I'd recommend you ask yourself who is really in the 'wrong' here.

Yes, there's plenty of traps with live birds in (to lure predators) and stink pits etc on the Moscar estate.

It's not a question of if you can surely, but if you should. It sounds like the op had an issue with the gun thing and thought they'd grab a photo as evidence. Sounds quite intrusive to me.

I know it's legal, but be certain, if you ever blatantly point a camera at my face in a public place, you will get a similar reaction.  It's just rude.  If you want my photo for some reason please ask first.   

Problem is that taking the photo is legal, swearing at someone and intimidating/ threatening them is illegal

it is allowed

I don't know the area or circumstance but the gamekeeper likely has a good reason for carrying:

Pest control (all year) or as they near the end of the various shooting seasons (31st Jan/ 1st Feb) they may be getting some late walked up shooting. 

I understand why he may not want his photo taken, the guys working and social media isn't sensitive to the nature of his profession and he has no idea what you're going to do with it.

Is access land a public place though? Access can be denied and if access can be denied it isn't a 'public place'.

Fred said the gamekeeper "went ballistic".

If he said that the gamekeeper threatened  him with the gun, it would be a serious matter. I can't see where he says that happened. As to swearing at someone being illegal, that's a new one to me.

Section 5, Public Order Act 1986. 

Thanks for the suggestion. Reading up on the background provides some interesting insights into the problems of actually defining what "swearing" or "insulting" is when it comes down practical law enforcement: the best two examples being a student who was arrested for using the word "cult" on a placard and a man who was arrested for growling at a dog. Both prosecutions failed.

I don't think it's quite as one sided as you make out. My newspaper today has an article about breeding hen harriers and says that two thirds of all the successful fledgings last year came from managed moorland with shooting interests. I checked with the RSPB website and the figure was confirmed.

That's only half the picture though. How much of our moorland is managed with shooting interests? If it's more than two thirds then it's a poor return, wouldn't you say? Of the chicks that fledge, how many go on to reach maturity? There's no point fledging two thirds of all chicks if they all immediately get blasted out of the sky for having the audacity of being born.

There are of course 'good' estates, the keepers on the Swinton estate built a hide for public use and have an excellent number of harriers roosting there. However it's the repeated failure of shooting organisations and individuals to call out the bad behaviour of fellow 'professionals'. 

Having previously owned shotguns I don't think ANY gamekeeper would be so stupid as to brandish a gun in such a way that could be construed as menacing or threatening. Apart from the risk of police action he or she would stand a fair chance of being dismissed. Most(legal) gun owners take such matters quite seriously and observe the rules such as breaking the gun when walking with it, keeping the barrel(s) pointing downwards, not shooting within 50 yards of a road, etc

I would find it offensive if someone felt that they could take a photo of me without having the common courtesy to ask if I was working on our alongside a public footpath.

Good manners cost nothing and there is a huge difference between a photo of a view that includes people and a photo where an individual is the subject.

That raises a couple of questions though, namely what proportion of land suitable for hen harrier breeding consists of managed estates, not to mention whether the land management actively benefits the breeding or whether it is a coincidence.

I have no doubt that the good estates try to encourage such breeding (merlins are a slightly different matter), but the acts of those good estates must be weighed against those of the estates, over which harriers and goshawks tend to magically vanish.

You could be as offended as you like, but they still won't have done anything illegal.

One of the problems here is that the very nature of documentary photography is to capture the moment.  If you take the time to ask everyone if they mind, then the moment is long gone.  Take this, one of my favourite photos by HCB; there is no way he could have asked permission and still got the shot.

https://www.icp.org/browse/archive/objects/gestapo-informer-recognized-by-a...

If we make the OP's actions (taking a shot of a gamekeeper with the tools of his trade in hand) illegal, then we're preventing any more shots like these.  

I accept that there is a line - if I followed someone around and took shot after shot, and ignored their requests not to, then we're into the realm of intimidatory behaviour and there are laws against that.

You seem to be saying that the justification for the OP to rudely poke his camera in the gamekeeper's face was because he had some sort of issue with the said gamekeeper going about his lawful business.

If you expect the right to take the photo it you should maybe accept  that people also have the right express their displeasure at the intrusion.
 

They can, as long as they do so legally.  At a face reading of the OP, the only person who broke the law was the gamekeeper by responding in an overly aggressive way.

In reply to Chopper:

Not at all.  The OP did not need a justification to take the photo, as he was allowed to.

Of course, we all know that gamekeepers are always perfectly law abiding.

It's far from clear that the gamekeeper's response was an illegal one , however much you would like to define it as such. There are many instances where people might react angrily to having their photo taken, and strong language might be a part of that angry reaction, but the fact that he is a gamekeeper doesn't make his reaction any more illegal than that of an angry parent who objects to you photographing kids leaving the local junior school.

I'm not sure that the OP is either an impartial or subtle

Like this you mean?  (This is a still taken from the youtube vid I posted a link to further up.)  That's the same estate, and quite likely the same gamekeeper the OP is talking about. 

That's from 2017 btw, the mask is nothing to do with Covid, the Moscar gamekeepers have been routinely keeping their faces covered for years.

So, according to your logic:

Intrusive knobs with a camera = Good

Gamekeepers going about their lawful business = Bad

I despair

No, that's your logic.  What the post you're replying to actually says is:

I'm telling you what the state of the law is.  If you don't like it, you need to rant at your MP, not me.

As I said, at a face reading of the OP.  We don't know what the gamekeeper said or did, only that he 'went ballistic'.  Perhaps he just told the OP that he didn't want his photo taken - completely legal.  Perhaps he said 'f*ck off' - probably still legal.  Perhaps he said 'f*ck off or I will kill you' - probably not legal.  Perhaps he said that whilst gesturing towards his gun - certainly not legal.  My only thought here is that it's rather easier to breach the threshold of causing alarm or distress when you've got a twelve-bore in your hands.

The point I am labouring is not about the gamekeeper, though; it is that the actions of the OP were (again, at face reading) completely legal.

It's hard to tell from that if it's a rifle or semi-auto (don't think it's pump action) shotgun. None of which you can carry broken.

That does sound distinctly odd behaviour. However, like photographing someone going about their business, it's not illegal.

FWIW I think it's pretty certain that most big estates deliberately kill protected species, but until the law is changed to make owners liable that's never going to change.

I know nothing about guns, ta.  So if it can't be carried broken, walking about with it over one shoulder with the barrel pointing up into the air behind you is ok I guess.

It isn't odd at all if you've been covertly filmed breaking the law before and are concerned that it might happen again.  That might go some way to explain being somewhat camera shy and a tad aggressive about expressing it too.

I've occasionally bumped into gamekeepers on access land on the other estates hereabouts, and while they may or may not be murderers from a hen harrier's point of view, they've been perfectly pleasant to me. 

The Moscar estate is something else though and I'm not sure the people in this thread defending gamekeepers in general are aware of just how much their gamekeepers in particular have done, and continue to do, to earn all gamekeepers the evil reputation that many of them don't deserve.

I have no doubt at all that you're right about that, unfortunately.

That's why I quite like the Scottish idea of licensing estates. Damn near impossible to secure a criminal conviction for raptor persecution due to the standard of proof required. The threat of losing your licence due to illegal traps, raptors disappearing over your estate, burning (in the unlikely event an actual ban is implemented, rather than the oft-flouted voluntary one) etc could prove a far stronger deterrent.

As for Moscar generally, everyone who is pro-grouse-shooting, including myself (all for it in theory, just often not in practice) and all responsible gamekeepers, should be condemning that lot. The Moscar lot make life harder for everyone else in the business.

F) Should some person be able to have say so over huge tracts of land because their ancestor was a chum of William the Conqueror or did well out of the slave trade.    No

I see the Scottish gamekeepers are once again pushing to be allowed to control Sea Eagle population.

W&nkers.