“ the picture is not discussed bella.pero just want to understand why some pictures do the nests are massacred unpleasant comments, I'd like to clarify once and for all the nests which are to be respected and which are not, given that the eye is not a person who is in abondazza, that's all, a greeting „

“ I note that in the forum, in the midst of an uncountable number of great photos, from time to time someone not only makes photos sometimes questionable, though beautiful, but also wants to publish and hear good.
Very often, however, sometimes rightly, this expectation is disappointed, and apart from some critics.
Some stand as champions of nature and attack, "this is not done, that is morally harmful, I do so, it should be done like that, I do it out of love" etc..
In that part of the answer that usually there is at pains to demonstrate their faith supreme nature, "you do not know who I am, who knows me knows I photograph per to show the beauty of nature, I have thirty years of experience, I know that assess nest is photographed and what is not "etc..
It 's our world, the world we live in, full of great hypocrisy. No photographer, the better, nobody does anything for nothing. E 'in our nature. The things we do, all, we do it because we love doing it, because we have some gratification, period.
Then maybe we can find some good mental loopholes, like the hunters who hunt because they love nature, or that of those who keep animals in captivity to protect the wild ones, and even those who photograph wildlife to show its beauty to the world. Do not just say "I like to hunt", "I like to keep animals," "I like taking pictures of nature." Living in this world of children there will never grow.
We all Sidede are what we do because we love it. Point.
Assumiamocene responsibility, without giving the blame on those who do not like our own things.
Everyone has the right to do what he likes, but always respect the freedom of others or, to simplify into a single concept, respect for the law.
Not always we reason, but we are all aware of the world in which we live? Of the suffering farm animals, meat and fur? But they are not gruesome even the terms "meat and fur?" We are all aware of what they are doing some hunters? Of what they do some fishing? And what they do in the cave? Than destroying the speculators? And I will not dwell on other categories. We are a country where we accept all this, because, beyond genresthat opposition facade, like those of certain associations so-called "environmental", there appears to be no real fight to the above. Yet, in a country like this, where nothing is actually done to oppose the above, go to philosophize on baits, photoshop, and nests.
Having set out my thoughts, I think:
a) the photo, then deleted, the pullo of the buzzard nest was deeply flawed, not because you can take pictures of the nests, but because it violated the most basic rules of photography to the nest. Those photos are made at a distance, climb the tree on which the nest is located is simply absurd, even more so when endorsed by some rangers. What speaks volumes about their competence.
If instead of demonizing the photo to the nest should be taught how to do such things would not occur.
b) the photo of Bonelli's eagle with pigeon bound, probably still alive (see the eyes), www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=en&cat=singola&t=167264, it is not a good example of this type the photo were already more than thirty years ago the greatest nature photographers Italian time (Galasso, Ruiu), with hawks and eagles, but at a time when he had not yet developed a real and widespread natural sensitivity. I do not think it is a good example because, together with other similar situations mentioned above, contributes to building and sustaining a tourism fotonaturalistico detrimental to the growth of the inner nature photographer, that doing so can not even understand what is behind all this. It is one thing to organize a photo shoot in a charnel house or shed cranes wintering, another Interactand in a very heavy with a natural predator with a delicate balance. Okay that business is business, but it takes some limits, especially on the part of the employees. The organizing biologists and foresters with laudable goals? Well! If, one-off did photograph a friend or acquaintance, free of charge, I believe that it is in good faith. Since, however, as is, for a fee, I have to question. If it is not degenerate right now, this thing also which I doubt, wait a bit, 'the lust of gain will do the rest. Then the laughable excuse of a foraging Bonelli. The Eagles are not vultures. And what a beautiful foraging in a very rare species, a city chock full of toxic pigeon diseases. And this, finally, to what end? Take pictures all the same, on the same roost, with the approval utter.
A bill was RuiuGalasso and had to look for the eagle and goshawk, create the situation, building the ambush, and especially then take the pigeon, look into his eyes, take responsibility inner tie, touch the being of which were decreeing death, but at least bringing into play, getting his hands dirty. Another is come, pay, photographers, you go. Flying on an ethical issue as big as a house. Just for the record, even at the level of falconry, at least in Europe, it is absolutely impossible to launch a pigeon in a peregrine falcon in training. That falconers (sic), for a number of reasons have developed sensitivity to meet the domestic pigeon polluted polluting the city.
In short, nature photography in a destructive consumerism linked to excess money and fake hands are clean, justthe one that created the world distorted and dark period in which we live.
c) the pictures to the nest with eggs are very risky, much more than those with small, I have never seen nests with abandoned children, although very disturbed, if the cause of the disorder a good time to cease, while I've seen abandoned with eggs , so a picture like that I think it is wrong at least publish it on a general forum, with a large following and without specialization. I would have still seen in science, but to the gallery forum, does not bring anything to anyone, least of all those who made it, apart from a few fleeting praise.
Then I think of the inadequacy of the responses of those who self-declares its superiority, but at least take pictures that wants to do, and is not to be hypocritical to criticize others who do the same things.
In my opinion, in fact, the worstit is these, the self-referential to the Marchese del Grillo, who "I know me, and you thirst n'caxxo nun", to clarify, those who make photo risky, but then the mask and then bacchettano who does the same photos but does not have the malice of camuffarle.
And I do another striking example, taking a cue from Occhiato, always www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=en&cat=singola&t=167264, but I do not want too, that for him as for some who are in some organizations environmental groups, often at the top, type Ebn.
Occhiato, take beautiful photos, you know the animals that few photographers like, you have a total technical competence and maturity, but this does not seem to help you grow, it 'as naturalist, I' in human terms. In this particular case, all you do is hide behind a finger. Criticize others, but when rightly criticize you for uI know that you admit you make calls, you use to philosophize between "wide" and use "every now and then." And what is the line? "About twenty species in all," you say. So make references to "About twenty species" okay, no more. You've established you? Can you tell us please on the basis of what criteria, other than your opinion?
But do not you think sopravvalutarti a little? You who criticize those who make photos to the nest.
The self-reference, as already said, is not enough. First, cosiccome (you, that "like" take a picture with references) on the basis of your experience, with no relief of any kind, let alone scientific, believe that "twenty species" is going well, there is the one who likes take pictures nests and that based on your experience, feel you know how to do these photos.
But then, well let opinarand the veracity of when you say "NEVER when we are around the nests."
But do not you think you're kidding yourself, as well as those who read, with these white lies?
And the images of people in the act of building a nest where you made, if not a few meters from the nest?
www.pbase.com/dophoto/image/42055849, www.pbase.com/dophoto/image/42178355
And the images of subjects with the cue, how far are the nest?
www.pbase.com/dophoto/image/135968841, www.pbase.com/dophoto/image/125647461
And all those territorial males in wedding dress singing their hearts out and make the wheel with the tail?
www.pbase.com/dophoto/image/125291518, www.pbase.com/dophoto/image/143437508
www.pbase.com/dophoto/image/104896632, www.pbase.com/dophoto/image/61514156
How far and at what time did you photographed? You write it yourself, 7.6 meters in April-May-June. In all these situations, you are not perhaps gone a few meters from the nest, without knowing where it is, maybe even close? Or what do you do, look for the nest, find it, and then you walk away? You did not perhaps quite stressed, those males, making him feel the presence of other males that threaten them? Give me a break. All these types of images, female with lint, adults with cue, males singing parossisitico, while not directly portraying a nest, are part of the same family are photos made deliberately entering an area where there is a nest, otherwise the parties would not be absolutely willing to be filmed.
Much better Meroni and Luzzini at least take their responsskills and do not try to deny the obvious.
Occhiato dear, I do not know if these things yourself one has ever pointed out to someone. But I do not think so, because you beautiful photos and dazzled by the beauty, maybe not seeing a nest and not knowing how these things work most of those who see no think.
Advice. "Free". You, like all the others. Put aside the hypocrisy and leaves to others the freedom to make mistakes as you are free to make mistakes, that is trying to be more consistent. Keep doing your photos, perhaps avoiding, as you do, (you and some others, also known, major associations), to use the calls near the nest, but not in the breeding season, since you believe that the same does not go well (in fact, and not dwell on to explain why, no good ever). Then organszza your beautiful travels, raccontaceli of Juza if you want and let us dream, but you and others, do not criticize before criticizing yourself, believe me, do not make us a great figure.
Finally, you convince yourself and others that the fact to be an excellent photographer of birds, or a skilled birdwatcher or officer of an association called environmentalist, does not, automatically, anything.
Maturity, natural and / or human, are another matter, and shall be demonstrated in practice.
Believe me, these attitudes and professors, forgive, a little 'presumptuous, one can not take it anymore.

Ps I apologize for leaving the length and the tone is not benevolent, I carefully tried not to use offensive words even if sometimes not soft, but if I had missed something, however, guarantee that this was not the intent and comunqu say the utmost respect for everyone (but also for the intelligence of all, that she, poor thing, deserves respect, and should not be offended). Greetings.
„