Whilst people have been engaged in the frenzy of
Black Friday (Saturday, Sunday, Monday….) profligacy, efficiently clearing the
shelves of various 'discounted' goods they believe they need, I have been
reading a book by Mark Avery entitled ‘Message from Martha’ documenting the
frenzy with which the passenger pigeon was even more efficiently cleared from
the ecological shelves of North America. It is an incredulous read, at once
bewildering, beguiling and utterly depressing. At least I found it a struggle
not to become hopelessly sad and deflated over the way in which man drove a
bird, once the most numerous on earth, to utter extinction within a few
decades. The scale of slaughter is incomprehensible, just as the scale of the
passenger pigeon population was incomprehensible; billions of birds darkening
the skies for days on end as they migrated across the vastness of the continent
we now call USA on a front wider than a mile; breeding colonies that stretched
for tens of miles; roosting sites so thick with birds that stout branches from
sturdy trees crashed to earth under the accumulated weight. And now they are
gone. Gone forever in what is in evolutionary terms a blink of an eye.
I remember being aware of the demise of the
passenger pigeon when I was a lad (no, I'm not old enough to have seen them),
and naively assumed every one of my generation would have been aware of their
disastrous plight. Seems I was wrong. Certainly people I've spoken to recently,
including my mum and dad, were ignorant of the story which surprised and rather
perplexed me. Surely the phenomenon of mass extermination would be high in the
consciousness of anybody born within a couple of decades of the event? Surely
it is from horrendous episodes like this that we humans must learn and gain
wisdom? My naivety it seems knows no bounds.
But you know what really depressed me more than
anything is that the same thing is happening now. Maybe not so dramatically or
so speedily, but nevertheless as assuredly.
Let's think about what extinction really means.
It means a species that took thousands, maybe millions, of years to evolve is
gone forever; never, ever to be seen again. It's not just the death of a single
entity; it's the total extermination of a unique organism, one that occupied an
important niche in the ecosystem in which it dwelled. Extinction is permanent.
Ok, so the passenger pigeon is history and there
is nothing to be done to secure its return, but what of today? It would be
heartening to think it could not ever happen again, that us humans simply would
not allow such a shameful scene to unravel. Think again. It could well be
happening under our very noses to one of our most favoured and familiar animals:
the hedgehog. Numbers of this prickly garden inhabitant have been slowly
dwindling for the last few decades and nothing has been done to halt the
decline. I watched a brief report (and it was brief), on the TV news recently
when the drastic slump in hedgehog numbers was treated almost as a lighthearted
bit of trivia, a kind of 'well isn't this a fun fact' approach. The word
'extinction' was used, i.e. the species is heading that way, but it was not
delivered with gravitas. It should have been because if we allow our hedgehogs
to disappear into oblivion God help us all. To compare the way we consider
items newsworthy, the hedgehog snippet was followed by a longer piece informing
us about a record breaking number of lights decorating a Christmas tree
somewhere in Canada. This wondrous phenomenon caused a bit of banter between
the presenters: seems to me that priorities are somewhat skewed there.
It really stuns me that we all regard the
continued persecution of whales and the obscene poaching of African elephants
and rhinos with (rightful) dismay, yet nobody seems to actually care that our
own mammals are under just as much threat, albeit from differing causes. And
those causes are pretty much down to us. We concrete our gardens, we fragment
their habitat, we run over them in our fast cars, we tidy our countryside and
gardens so that hibernation sites disappear, we burn them alive in our bonfires
and we poison them with slug pellets. Not to mention the effects of human
induced climate change which may well be affecting breeding cycles. A lot of
pressure on a small vulnerable mammal. It may not cope for much longer. What
then? Will anybody care? Will we look fondly at old drawings of Mrs
Tigggywinkle and sadly shake our heads? What does it need before people take it
all seriously? Something is horribly wrong with our psyche and terribly wrong
with our environment.
It's not just hedgehogs of course. Considering
the birdlife in our own garden for a moment, the changes over the past thirty
years is profound: bullfinches - gone, redpoll - gone, house sparrow - gone,
songthrush - gone, and still more recently greenfinch - gone. Five species of
once common, even abundant, birds have disappeared from our local environs in
such a relatively short time span. It won't be long before starlings join them;
a single pair hangs on where once dozens existed. It would be wrong to suggest
there have been no gains; sparrowhawks, jays, magpies and goldfinches are more
regular now, but in most instances these are simply bouncing back from low
points endured through decades of persecution - poisoning, trapping, shooting -
that population levels. Only goldfinches seem to have really bucked the trend.
There is, by the way, no correlation between increases in predators and demise
of potential prey items. Maybe they have some effect, but these species have
been coexisting for tens of thousands of years and will always live in a kind
of harmony. In any event if predation by corvids and sparrowhawks was
destroying songthrushes, why not blackbirds? If greenfinches why not
chaffinches? No, there are other, man-made, factors driving declines. And that
problem must lie in the wider countryside, particularly with the way in which
our environment is managed.
For a species to decline it must suffer from
such things as food shortages, habitat destruction, unnatural levels of persecution,
interruption of breeding cycles or a combination of these factors. The more
specialised the species the more susceptible they become to change. If we take
the case of the songthrush, it has shown huge declines in the wider countryside
where intensive agricultural practices have degraded nesting and feeding sites
as well as diminishing the volume of available food. All this leads to an
inability of the species to breed successfully to a degree necessary to sustain
the population. Mortality is high amongst birds and it seems year on year the
number of fledglings making it through the winter to breed the following spring
is too low to replenish those adults and young that die during the harshness of
that season. In our gardens we poison slugs and snails, use pesticides to kill
insects, tidy away anything we consider unsightly and effectively create a
sterile mini landscape. No refuge here for our bespeckled friends. So numbers
decline, and continue to decline year on year in a slow inexorable slide to local
extinction. Blackbirds on the other hand are much better adapted to garden
life, they are bigger, more aggressive and bolder than the thrushes, and will
try their beaks out on a wider range of food. And I bet their density is higher
in urban and suburban environments as opposed to the wider countryside. It
really cannot be coincidence that declines in our wildlife populations - birds,
mammals, invertebrates and flowers - over the last 50 years is matched to the
changes in land management over the same period. And the maddening thing is we
know it is so but are doing nothing about it. More infuriating still is the
fact that we know how to fix things but simply don't seem at all inclined to do
so.
Without wishing to be at all political (because
it applies to some degree to all major parties), I listened to the economic
statement given by the chancellor last week and not once was the environment
mentioned. Not once was there any indication that nature in any form was
valued, not once was there any pledge to plough cash into conservation. Plenty
on home building, lots about investment on infrastructure, much about defence:
nothing about the environment in which we all play out our lives. Economics and
nature should not be mutually exclusive.
So, you may quite reasonably ask, where is this
ramble leading? What answers is Madden going to bestow upon us? Sadly I don't
have any answers, I'm not sure anyone does. But that shouldn't prevent us from
caring, because if we truly care we may be moved to do something, or more to
the point may mobilise the powers that be, i.e our government, to do something.
Effectively force them to carry out their legal and moral obligations and start
implementing the accumulated wisdom of a 21st century society. There
are
a few things we can do and for what it’s worth here is my take (not an
exhaustive list). Sorry if I’m preaching to the converted and for clarity there
is nothing in the list that I don’t do myself, so I know these things are very
simple and very effective:
·
Lobby your MP - we all have an elected MP representing us, why not take a few
minutes to write to them on environmental issues you feel strongly about? Persecution
of hen harriers, lead shot poisoning our countryside, sustainable palm oil
supply would be a good start. They have a duty to listen and if enough people
contact them over a particular issue they will be forced to take it seriously. You
could also pen a missive to your local paper to document your concern. They
seem only too willing to print well expressed letters which are likely to stimulate
debate. At the very least you will be bringing an issue into the consciousness of
the readership.
·
Sign petitions - when an issue of real conservation concern surfaces, it is quite
often the case that somebody, or some organisation, will start an on line
petition through Gov UK. As I understand it these petitions have a six month
life during which they need to attract 100,000 signatures to force a debate
within parliament. If you read about such a petition and you agree with its
sentiments then you should sign it. Not only should you sign it but you should
share it with as many friends, family and acquaintances as possible. These
things don't happen by themselves, they need people to make them happen. Good
places to start are here and here.
·
Join your local wildlife
trust - in Norfolk it is of course Norfolk Wildlife
Trust, but there is one representing every county. These organisations do a
fantastic amount of high impact conservation work and channel their energies
into local habitat acquisition and management as well as very important
educational activity. It is well worth trawling through a website or two - this
will be an excellent start - and you will see the range of activities
undertaken by these immensely valuable bodies. Join today and directly help
support wildlife in your own neck of the woods. If finance and inclination
allows, you could also do much good by joining the RSPB thereby adding your
voice to a body that now has real clout.
·
Survey work - several organisations rely heavily on voluntary surveyors to help
monitor populations of wild creatures. The British Trust for Ornithology (BTO)
probably runs the most comprehensive set, some of which rely on casual
observations of birds by members of the public. Birdtrack is one such survey
and anybody can contribute. See here for more details. If you
feel you have more time and appropriate identification skills there are several
other surveys that provide invaluable data to inform government decision making
on matters of serious conservation weight. Many other organisations run annual
or occasional surveys that are aimed at the general public, i.e, all of us. You
should all take part in such things as the RSPB Big Garden Birdwatch (next
scheduled for 30th/31st January 2016) and Butterfly
Conservation’s Garden Butterfly Survey, these take little time, are great fun and help
collect information on population distribution and abundance that can be used
to target conservation activity.
·
Feed the birds - any argument along the lines that feeding birds in your garden is
wrong because they become over dependent on artificial food sources should be
ignored. Birds everywhere are under immense pressure and their natural food
supplies are being depleted both in the wider countryside and nearer home.
Feeding them regularly with high energy food can only be good. If you are
worried about the over dependence argument then you can always stop the feeding
for a few days so that the birds forage over a wider zone for a spell. Every
day is a matter of survival for wild creatures: find food you live, fail and
you die. Feed them, they need it.
It is certainly well too late for the poor
passenger pigeon but it is not too late for the hedgehog and many other wild
creatures in the UK and around the world. It was an inconceivable notion for
the government of the USA that passenger pigeons would ever become threatened,
let alone extinct. They were wrong. We must not make the same mistakes.
It's a sad fact that we (by we I mean the general ethos of a country) value only money over everything, from the environment to human life. Money dictates that farmers are allowed to use neonicotinoids no matter the harm they are clearly doing. It is money that dictates fossil fuels get pushed over renewables (of any type), money is always available for wars (topical!) yet cut from environmental issues, and money can, hopefully, be used to promote a better world.
ReplyDeleteThose of us who care, which is I think a growing number, need to start using our spending power to affect change, buying only products that we know are sustainable, supporting only those organisations that are clean and support the world we live in etc. It always concerns me how little some people care, maybe it is the blinkers they wear or the medias total aversion to showing the truth, offering "balance" where none should be given (some things really are black or white).
Sadly I'm starting to feel petitions and lobbying MP's does little apart from make us feel we are doing the right thing, petitions are seldom listened too and money from backers out weighs constituents to many of our MP's.
Hi Ashley, thanks for your comments. I agree that most factors driving environmental damage stem from money/greed, but I also think there is a tremendous amount of ignorance. If you take the palm oil situation, I'm sure if people really understood what it means then they would be moved to change their ways. However, peeling away the layers that would allow transparency is (not surprisingly) difficult because the economic imperative will always be at the forefront of some corporations thinking.
ReplyDeleteI agree there is a growing number of people who care, especially amongst the young, but the trick is turning a basic concern, i.e. 'liking' a Facebook post into action, e.g. not buying products containing palm oil, or better still writing to the offending companies and demanding they clean up their act.
Sometimes it is hard not to get depressed over the state of the world, but as mere individuals all we can realistically do is look after our own backyard, try to raise issues and awareness and hope some of it rubs off.
Don't know about petitions yet because I'm new to that game, but again at the very least it does force the issue into peoples consciousness.
Like your blog. Stay in touch.
Barry