The haunting call of the Eurasian Curlew (Numenius arquata) is one of the most iconic, and indeed, enjoyable sounds in nature. The rippling trill of Britain’s largest wading bird evoking mist-clad moorlands, windswept coastal estuaries and other exquisite wild places. It is a sound which, once heard, is not soon forgotten; the very embodiment of our islands rugged yet fragile countryside, and a sound which, to me, brings back myriad fond memories. From childhood walks around the Blyth Estuary – my local patch – and from further afield, in the Scottish uplands during my post-university years. Despite this, however, it is a sound which is heard less often in the present day – due to our own ignorance. The species continued and troubling decline recently highlighted in the State of Birds 2016 report.
The factors attributing to the decline of the Curlew are poorly understood; though a number of explanations have been put forward to explain the current state of the British population. Among these, it is thought that climate change, afforestation, changes in farming practice and a resulting increase in generalist predators such as foxes and corvids may be to blame. With the former resulting in a vast decrease in the availability of suitable breeding habitat and the latter, a woefully low rate of reproductive success. With these factors, together, attributing to a 46% decline in Curlew numbers across the UK between 1994 and the present day.
While the causes of the Curlews woeful decline remain open to debate, the importance of the British population stands clear for all to see: our islands hold 28% of the European population, and as such, are of global importance. It is equally clear that more must be done to halt the decline of this endearing wader – and soon, before it is too late.
Thankfully, more is being done. Largely in the form of vital research and monitoring courtesy of the British Trust for Ornithology who are currently working to better our understanding of the species and provide a sound, scientifically valid basis for future conservation efforts. This work – undertaken through an extensive (and costly) program of ringing, GPS tracking and research – surely vital if we are going to bring Britain’s embattled Curlew back from the brink. This, coupled with our own adoration of the species, is why myself and good friends Sacha Elliott and Tiffany Francis have decided to do something positive and actively support the BTO’s Curlew Appeal.
To raise money in defence of the Curlew, the three of us have opted to commit to the Yorkshire Three Peaks Challenge, with our hike due to take place during August 2017. An event we feel will challenge ourselves physically – we are, by our own admission, not the fittest bunch of young naturalists out there – but also allow us to raise vital funds for what we feel is an incredibly important cause.
The challenge takes in the peaks of Pen-y-ghent, Whernside and Ingleborough and involves some 40km of hiking over often challenging ground: accomplish-able in around 12 hours. This is easily the most walking that any of us have done in one go before and will surely prove testing, yet also, we hope, worthwhile.
Prior to undertaking the trip this Summer, we have set up a Just Giving page to raise money for the BTO and have broadcast an open offer for others to join us in our venture. If you too would like to take part, and thus raise both funds and awareness for the Curlew, you can join our fundraising team. While equally, and perhaps more importantly, you can support our campaign both financially – if you can spare the change – or by sharing it with friends, family or anyone else you feel might like to donate. Every little really does help, and if we are to reach our team target of £2000, we will certainly need your help. And would be incredibly grateful if you would consider supporting our venture.
If you would like to donate, or indeed, learn more about the project. You can visit my own Just Giving through the link below. Though Sacha and Tiffany will also be distributing links their own fundraising pages on social media too.
My views on unpaid, long-term conservation internships undulate substantially. On one hand, and from firsthand experience, I know the benefits such placements bring; in terms of the acquisition of skills, networking opportunities, personal development and, of course, contribution to the great work of our NGOs. I also, however, and again from my own experience, see such positions as exploitative, exclusive and rather detrimental to the sector as a whole. Believing wholeheartedly that volunteer culture decreases diversity in conservation by favouring those with money to flaunt and thus, time to spare.
I am aware that not all agree with my views on internships and that many actively support them, though the topic is one of great interest to me. So interesting, in fact, that a few days past, I put a simple question to a number of young naturalists on social media: what are your personal views on unpaid internships. A question asked absent any mention of my own personal views on the matter and intended to provide a general insight into popular opinion. The topic broached in coorindination with a rather interesting poll I am currently running from New Nature.
I can understand why some internships are unpaid – the field has limited funding, we all want more money to go into conserving habitats/wildlife than overhead costs – but it is unfair for fresh graduates trying to find work, especially if one has a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in relevant fields. Many jobs require at least one, usually five years of experience, but it seems impossible to get any experience without having to pay for it. The salary of higher executives in large NGOs can be quite high, and for interns to be expected to work for free is a discrepancy that blocks the younger generation from entering the field. This trend also disadvantages those of lower socio-economic classes who are not privileged enough to be able to afford to work for no/little money, and limits the diversity of conservationists. If organisations genuinely cannot afford to pay, there should at least be tangible beneficial outcomes for interns such as making an effort to find a job for them subsequently or putting them in touch with other organisations. Unpaid conservation internships exploit the ready supply of fresh graduates who want to do good but seem to be here to stay.
Spending time getting practical conservation experience can be great, especially when you’re young and have time away from education to volunteer. However, I think that the feasibility for these unpaid internships, especially ones that require a lot of time and effort, rapidly drops away as soon as your financial responsibilities become a priority. Doing work for free that you know you should be getting paid to do isn’t a luxury that everyone has, and will leave many interested and qualified people unable to apply for these positions. That’s not a sign of a candidate’s commitment to conservation or lack thereof, it’s simply a matter of time requirements and financial burdens. This only makes it infinitely more frustrating when you find that the requirements of some internships are aimed specifically at graduates that will be looking to support themselves fresh out of university. I’m not saying people shouldn’t go for unpaid internships if they have the resources to do so, but employers should think carefully before offering them and consider that applications for unpaid internships won’t be from the most suitable or worthy candidates, but will be from those that are lucky enough to have the time and money to spare.
I’ve done two unpaid internships and the experiences couldn’t have been more different. The first was a year at two nature reserves with a major NGO. It provided some good experience but was poorly organised at times and even though some individual staff members were great with career advice it had an overall feeling of a conveyer belt. The second was a short-term placement with a major conservation project and everything was fantastic, the staff went out of their way to provide experience of all aspects of the project and it was a huge boost to my career skills. So overall, I would say that short-term volunteer placements or internships in conservation are acceptable, especially if they allow you to explore a role that in the paid ranks would be well above your current experience level. They are also probably easier for people to commit to with time and money.
With the full year unpaid internship I think the charities running them need a major reality check. I was lucky to be able to fund mine through a previous paid job but they wouldn’t be a viable option for many people for a whole range of justified reasons. We already know that conservation fails to attract people from a diverse range of backgrounds – so do they want to provide funds to create a dynamic and vibrant future staff base or for fancy visitor centres and “rebranding”? Another point to make is the job market – once you have finished the year options are limited – all these warden type internships do is to reduce the number of paid opportunities available once you have finished. It’s time they were consigned to the dark ages and people should be more vocal about it. How can you be expected to work for long periods of time for free to come out into a limited job market and then fund your personal long term security? Common sense suggests that this is totally unrealistic, especially when the organisations doing so pay some people as much as the prime minister!
Background: went to university; joined conservation society (hedge planting, scrub clearance etc.); got hooked; graduated; moved home; volunteered some more; landed twelve month traineeship with Yorkshire Wildlife Trust; twelve months chasing a fantastically knowledgeable man around Yorkshire; bow saws, chainsaws, pesticides, spades, rakes, rain, sunshine, wind, rain (yep, rain again), pond nets, training courses, physical exertion, laughter. There were three main positives for me: -I had a fantastic time -I learnt a lot, about the practical work I wanted to do, in a short space of time -The cliché of ‘networking’ (wink-wink, nudge-nudge, any jobs going?) I wouldn’t say there were any negatives, but just some things to think about: -I was lucky. I could afford it; my parents (and a pub job filling in all the gaps in my diary) supported me. I don’t think it’s possible to go unpaid if you haven’t got someone backing you up -Doing an internship doesn’t guarantee you a job straight away. It took me six more months of volunteering after my internship to get a job in the sector. And that wasn’t a permanent one. I certainly don’t regret it; best time of my life.
I’m of the opinion that unpaid internships are around for a reason; they exist because there is a need for them! Habitat management requires specialist skills and knowledge, which unfortunately for some people, cannot be gained from a degree. At school we’re told to go to uni and get a degree to get a job but are not told what working in conservation actually involves. Graduates start applying for jobs but have no experience of using a chainsaw or spending all day in the pouring rain battling through chalk to install a fence post. Most conservation work is done by NGO’s who struggle for money and they just cannot afford to employ someone who doesn’t have the skills to look after a reserve. Unpaid internships are a way for people to gain this valuable experience and often expensive qualifications to land themselves a job. Maybe if we had better careers advice at school for people who wanted to work in conservation, so they did practical courses and gained skills that could get them a job, rather than spending three years in a lecture theatre, unpaid internships wouldn’t need to exist. Sadly that isn’t the case and if we want our nature reserves to be looked after by competent people then we need them!
I couldn’t afford to do one. I needed paid work during all the holidays and breaks of my undergraduate degree so I could pay my rent. Not only could I not afford to not work for free, I could also not afford to travel elsewhere to do an internship. Would have loved to do one later but with a young family it was doubly impossible! If I could do it again I would have spent a few years working/saving and volunteering in cycles – but how much longer would that delay starting a career? Long, full-time unpaid internships are discriminatory.
For clarities sake, let us get this out of the way first: I, personally, am a fan of both the Planet Earth series and presenter Martin Hughes-Games. More fond of the former than the latter, in truth, but boasting a positive perception of both. This post is not at all intended as an attack on Martin. Though, with that said…
I was a taken aback somewhat this week when MHG took aim at Planet Earth II; setting social media ablaze as he accused natural history broadcasters of lulling viewers into a false sense of security by glossing over the woes of the natural world in favour of an enjoyable viewing experience. Openly, and rather bravely, lambasting the producers of the wildly popular BBC show for painting a false picture of the natural world and, ultimately, contributing little to the conservation of the embattled species it brings to our screens.
If the purpose of Martin’s piece was to generate debate, it was certainly successful; with many and more environmentalists discussing the Guardian piece over recent days. It was interesting and I enjoyed reading it. If only for the brief period of soul-searching which ensued upon its completion. Searching which, ultimately, did little to alter my stance on such shows; my adoration of Planet Earth and other, similar, documentaries, utterly unphased. I disagree with Martin (and others) most strongly on this matter.
In his article, MHG makes reference to a line commonly touted by broadcasters: that through showcasing the natural world in all its beauty and thus generating interest in wildlife, that more people at home will be inclined to conserve the species seen on their screens. A justification Martin labels as nonsensical yet I buy into hook, line, and sinker. For one reason alone: because of the profound effect shows such as this have had on my own life.
Of course, many things attributed to my current fascination with nature – family members, the beauty of my home county, even books – though I would be lying if I said that the sight of tigers, orca, elephants and other iconic creatures on my TV did not influence me. The beauty of such things, coupled with the unparalleled enthusiasm of Attenborough, Irwin and other childhood favourites, igniting the spark of curiosity for the wonders that lie beyond my front door. For the beauty of nature and the weird and wonderful creatures with whom we share our world. Curiosity which, later, lead me to explore the natural world for myself – propelling outwards to enjoy such things first hand; towards enjoyable encounters with wildlife which, later, attributed to a growing will to protect it. I agree fully with the BBC logic on this and I suspect many other young conservationists will too. At least in part.
That said, and while I boast sincere admiration of such documentaries, I agree with Martin that greater air-time should be dedicated to conservation. That we must present a realistic picture of what is going on in the world beyond our own ignorant bubbles. I would certainly watch shows dedicated solely to the topic of conservation and I suspect many of those reading this blog would too. Most being ecologists, nature writers or others already inspired to take up arms in defense of nature. This willingness to listen and learn does not, however, extend to all. And I suspect the vast majority of people would be turned off when faced with an hours worth of stern-faced preaching courtesy of a troubled TV naturalist.
For the vast majority of people, documentaries must “light” if they are going to have any lasting impact. They must be fun, exhilarating, breath-taking if they are to build curiosity and, almost certainly, must showcase splendor if they are to spark any sort of interest in wildlife. Something which is particularly true for younger viewers seeking thrills and action-packed spectacle – more and more of whom are currently tuning into such shows. I know that, in my youth, had I been presented with drier, less uplifting material, as opposed to the sight of hunting orca or displaying birds of paradise, my enthusiasm would have burnt out rather quickly. In this sense, I find it hard to fault Planet Earth; it provided all of this by the bucket-load, and I cannot begrudge the BBC for favouring such material. Better to inspire through spectacle, in keeping with what I mentioned above, than bore the nation senseless with a prolonged bout of worried grumbling.
Reading Martin’s rather eloquent article, another thing also sprang to mind: centered on his portrayal of Planet Earth as little other than a beautifully filmed soap opera. You would be forgiven, after reading, for believing that the show had given no mention to conservation at all and that it failed, entirely, to mention the myriad problems facing the world’s wildlife. I am pretty sure it did, and recall Sir David, on a number of occasions, highlighting the woes of the species shown during the show. Were we watching the same show Martin? The end of episode segments, in particular, giving mention to climate change, habitat loss and other problems caused by mankind. Something which goes without mentioning the sight of those turtles floundering amid the blights of human dominion over the world. I could be wrong, but surely such things count as an honest portrayal of the threats facing our wildlife?
I feel Planet Earth did dedicate time to conservation – perhaps not enough to satisfy the experts, but more than enough to inform the general public that there is, indeed, a problem. With such information presented in such a way that it did not appear preachy, nor tedious; secreted amid the uplifting sight of majestic creatures in all their glory. In a similar manner to what Springwatch does, no less, when it blends fun and serious discussion – amalgamating talk of declining hen harriers with the sight of a wood mouse deftly navigating a maze. Presenting vital information in a much more palatable manner, rife with fun and appeal. I will, however, resist the urge to point out that Martin himself works on a show that, arguably, does equally as “little for conservation”.
Ultimately, Planet Earth (and similar shows) provide a vital link to the natural world for millions, many of whom lack a great deal of nature in their daily lives. They have the potential to inspire, greatly and on a number of different levels, and remind each and every one of us, through no end of breathtaking sights, just what it is we are fighting for. Alternating between beauty and honestly in such a way to keep viewers hooked and in doing so, maintaining their potential to alter lives. Often motivating people to such an extent that they delve head-first into conservation, or, at the very least, build sympathy for the plight of our wildlife. In this sense, I feel shows such as this are important, vital even, and very much disagree with Martin Hughes-Games’s dismissive and wholly negative stance.
The haunting call of the Curlew is one of the most iconic, and enjoyable, sounds in nature. Especially in Britain: where rippling trill of our largest wading bird evokes images of heather clad, misty moorlands and windswept coastal estuaries. It is a sound that ensnares many, myself included; though one that, sadly, is heard less often these days. With Britain’s Curlew population currently plummeting and the endearing birds spiraling ever close to extinction on our shores – the Curlew subject to a 46% decline in numbers between 1994-2010 alone.
The factors attributing to the decline of the Curlew are not widely known, though a number of explanations have been put forward. Among these, it is thought that climate change, afforestation, changes in farming practice and an increase in generalist predators such as foxes and crows may be to blame. All of which, through a decrease in suitable habitat and an increasingly low rate of nest success, have placed our breeding Curlew under substantial pressure. The situation facing the Curlew in the UK is not bright, nor hopeful, though while the causes of their woeful decline remain open to speculation, the importance of the British population of these endearing birds lies clear for all to see: Britain holds 28% of Europe’s Curlew population, and more must be done in order to protect them.
Thankfully, more is being done. In the form of vital research and monitoring courtesy of the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO). The body working to better our knowledge of the species and provide a sound, scientifically valid basis for future conservation work. Something undertaken through an extensive (and costly) program of ringing, GPS tracking, remote tracking and research. Work which, now more than ever, is vital if we are going to bring the Curlew back from the brink which cannot take place absent public support. This is why, following no end of brainstorming, myself and good friend Sacha Elliott have decided to do something positive and actively support the BTO’s recently launched Curlew Appeal.
When toying with ideas on how to raise funds for the appeal, both myself and Sacha wanted to do something a little out of our zone of comfort, thus something energetic seemed like the obvious choice. We are, after all (and by our own admission), not particularly fit. The reason why we have opted to commit to the Yorkshire ‘Three Peaks Challenge‘ during June 2017. To challenge ourselves physically and a fund-raise for what we feel is an incredibly important cause. We all cherish our Curlew, right?
The challenge takes in the peaks of Pen-y-ghent, Whernside and Ingleborough and involves some 40km of hiking over often challenging ground: accomplish-able in around 12 hours. This is easily the most walking that either of us have done before and will surely prove testing. Especially for moi, a beer-bellied former smoker with a particular aversion to anything that vaguely resembles exercise. It will not be easy but we are determined to see it through.
Prior to undertaking the trip next Summer, we have set up a Just Giving page to raise money for the BTO and have broadcast an open offer for others to join us in our venture. If you too would like to take part, and thus raise both funds and awareness for the fight to protect our Curlew, you can join our fundraising team. While equally, and perhaps more importantly, you can support our campaign both financially – if you can spare the change – or by sharing it with friends, family or anyone else you feel might like to donate. Every little really does help, and if we are to reach our team target of £1000, we will certainly need your help. And would be incredibly grateful if you would consider supporting.
If you would like to donate, or indeed, learn more about the project. You can visit ‘Just Giving’ through the link below. Though Sacha will also be distributing links to her fundraising page on social media too.
It has become somewhat of a tradition on this blog to, near the turn of the year, dwell momentarily on the high-points of the months past. To look back over my experiences and attempt to rank them based on my own enjoyment – if only for a spot of personal amusement. Truthfully, 2016 has been brilliant year (my best yet): jam-packed with wonderful sensory experiences, great wildlife and memorable moments. It has seen me progress a little further towards goals, involved no end of travelling and, at times, has left me both dumbfounded and reeling. For those interested, here is this years reflective post.
1 – A Scottish Summer
As in 2015, 2016 once again found me in the highlands of Scotland: working as an ecological field assistant for a consultancy firm. A great little job, in truth, and one that saw me living and working in one of the most beautiful settings in the UK. Providing yet another chance to better my identification and surveying skills and, more importantly, allowing me to, once again, immerse myself fully in the best of Scottish wildlife. It really was rather fun.
Here, at various locations, I enjoyed Golden Eagles, Ospreys and Hen Harriers: some of the most enigmatic sights in British nature. I had up close run-ins with Ptarmigan, Mountain Hares, Red Deer and Adders; enjoyed the sight of hunting Merlin and the sound of “bubbling” Black cock. In addition to no end of Crested Tits, Crossbill’s and other highland wonders. It was delightful, though one sight here trumped all others in the splendor stakes: that of an immature White-Tailed Eagle skirmishing with an Osprey over a rather unlucky Trout. The eagle won, of course, and I left feeling thoroughly fulfilled, my love of the Northern wilds reaching new heights – as if that was possible.
Mountain Hare
????????????????????????????????????
2 – Fuerteventura Press Trip
On a surprising note, and due to a kind recommendation from TV’s David Lindo, February found me jetting off to Spain: to the unparalleled region of Extremadura as part of a press-trip involving no end of wonderful, accomplished individuals. It was quite strange to find myself in such esteemed company, more so when the grandiose nature of the trip is considered, though the week was undeniably fabulous. Here we enjoyed Cinnerous and Egyptian Vultures floating on the thermals above us: in addition to Spanish Imperial Eagles, tropical looking butterflies and no end of exquisite scarcities. The experience only amplified by a trip to the Spanish Bird Fair, an interview for their promotional video and, of course, the fantastic cuisine the region has to offer. My inclusion on the trip giving me hope that, despite a few slip-ups, I am on the right lines as far as my career goes.
White Stork
3 – Writing picks up
2016 has also seen me take a few more tentative steps into the realm of “true” nature writing, due in no small part, to the wonderful opportunity to contribute to not one but two of the delightful ‘Anthology for the Changing Seasons‘ books by Melissa Harrison. With my writing here – regarding the Chiffchaff and the Farne Islands, respectively – leading to chance contributions to other outlets including the Harrier and Dragonfly News. The initial feedback from which has gone someway to bolstering my confidence with regards to written word and provides substantial hope for the future.
Blogging efforts also found themselves doubled this year, here, on my own website and elsewhere. With my weekly column on Conservation Jobs going down a treat and opportunities presenting themselves to write for both Blasting News and Environment South Africa, in addition to guest posts for a host of wonderful online content creators. The year also marking my first full 12-month period at the helm of the Wildlife Articles blogging platform, which continues to grow nicely,. What will 2017 hold I wonder? I am hoping for more of the same.
4- Masters Degree
I am not quite sure why, at the start of the year, I decided to undertake a Masters degree. Or, indeed, whether the decision was the right one for me in the long-run. Whatever the reasons behind this choice, however, I am fully enjoying my current course at Newcastle University. Due, in no small part, to the wonderful staff, fantastic course mates and the extremely engaging lectures – really, I have learnt a monumental amount in the first three months alone. Wildlife management is a thrilling topic and, whatever I choose to do in the future – even if I opt for a career elsewhere – I am sure the knowledge gained throughout the program will be a huge asset. And a few extra letters after your name cannot hurt, right?
5 – Living North Awards
2016 also saw me receive my first true award nomination, and found me finishing as a runner-up in the ‘promise and potential‘ category of the annual Living North Awards. A rather esteemed ceremony aiming to highlight and celebrate the phenomenal amount of talent that resides in the North-East – contrary to popular belief. I am incredibly grateful for the shortlisting here, and, of course, my invitation to the ceremony itself – it was divine – having been left feeling incredibly motivated by the whole ordeal. My shortlisting coming off the back of a combination of local conservation work and writing promoting the natural beauty of the region. And, when all is said and done, providing a much-needed pat on the back just as period of self-doubt had begun to set in. It was delightful.
Writing, tweeting and generally posting anything into the public domain is a sure fire way to stress yourself out, though it is thoroughly rewarding. 2016 has been a wonderful year in truth: it has helped refine my career ambitions, seen a number of gains on my part and provided me with a number of fantastic opportunities to better myself. From the chance to contribute to the delightful “seasons” books by Melissa Harrison; to the Living North Awards and my first magazine articles. It has also, however, been incredibly frustrating. Due, in no small part, to my own naivety and, at times, stupidity. I make no excuses, I am still learning, though, I have taken a lesson or two from 2016. Lessons I hope to carry over into 2017, and far beyond that.
Holding an opinion, regardless of the motivations behind it, means that there are always going to be people who disagree, and a great many people who simply do not like you. Often, for simply holding a view that differs substantially from their own. This is fine, providing, of course, you do not rise to counterproductive disputes and remove credibility through rather silly bickering. These people are entitled to their opinion, and sometimes, trying to change that is impossible. You cannot appease everyone, so there is little point in trying such. Being honest is far more important than being liked.
That said, fear of the repercussions associated with holding a view can often lead you to think twice about voicing such, which is folly. You should not be afraid to poke your head above the parapet once in a while, if, of course, you believe wholly in your cause. Even if your views amount to little other than scorn and woefully busy message box. When doing so, and taking a view, it is, however, important to ensure that you broadcast such with clarity. So that your motivations become clear, and you leave little room for speculation (and misinterpretation) on behalf of those who, as mentioned above, do not like you. Or others boasting disguised motives. Do not inadvertently provide others with ammunition and, for the love of god, explain things in detail as opposed to being overly vague. Too many times this year have my words landed me in trouble due to this.
When expressing a view, in text or online, be aware that others will attempt to twist things for their own ends. On occasion, turning a reasonable (if a little naive) article or post into something supportive of their own cause – this is a lesson I must learn, fast, but ultimately comes down to a tendency to take people at face value, as opposed to thinking critically with regards to their motivations. I must also shake the tendency to allow said opinions to be influenced by the sob stories of others, or, indeed, the views of those I perceive to be my betters – whether due to title or experience. Stop being so impressionable, James.
With this in mind, it is important to think objectively at all times, and not to be influenced by mass opinion. Even if taking an alternate path renders you unpopular in the long run. You should not be afraid to take a different opinion, providing you present such in a reasoned manner, and certainly should not be afraid to take the middle-ground once in a while. Especially when you understand both sides of an argument. Though in the eyes of some, this is often worse than picking a side – do not let that phase you. Although, changing your stance, from time to time, is not actually a bad thing. Standing by your guns is all well and good, at times, though pointless when presented with new information. Life is a learning curve and opinions do change.
Last week I posted with regards to aspiring conservationists, offering some advice towards those seeking a career in the environmental sector. Part one proved somewhat popular and can be found HERE for those interested. And, following on from this, this post will cover the remaining points not included within last week. For those who have commented that my last post was rather aggressive, I stress, again, that these are my own views and are not intended to insult nor offend anyone. And any gags are intended firmly tounge in cheek.
Read
This links in rather well to a few points mentioned in part one but deserves a place of its own nonetheless. Flicking through the Powerpoint slides from a recent lecture or halfheartedly scouring a scientific paper to help with a troublesome assignment is not near enough to provision you with the knowledge necessary to advance in conservation.
Reading is a key skill, and whether you favour journals, field guides, conference proceedings or indeed, creative nature writing, it is a great way to broaden your horizons. Through time spent engrossed in the pages of a book you can find motivation, inspiration and even learn a thing or two (who would have thought eh?). You also show an interest outside of what you have been instructed, under duress, to do. Thus making yourself look “passionate” and rather knowledgeable. The lack of aspiring who read, outside of lessons, is scary. And while the internet is fast becoming the go-to resource for all things ecological, you still cannot beat a good book for enlightenment.
Abandon The Monochrome Mindset
From an early age nature lovers are actively encouraged to think in black and white. To view select groups of people, whether they be poachers, gamekeepers, developers or farmers, as the metaphorical bad guys. Those people who, through their own “selfish” actions, work to the detriment of our wildlife. On occasion.
Many progress to university and beyond still boasting this mindset. And while we do, from time to time, have to do battle with the aforementioned “bad guys”, it sometimes pays to be compassionate, or at least understanding, as to the plight and requirements of others. In many cases, very little is achieved through antagonising people you view as the enemy, and more often that not, you will have to compromise and work towards a solution that benefits both man and beast. The ability to engage with and talk to those of an opposing view is an essential skill in conservation, particularly when trying to persuade someone to stop a particular action. And reasoned debate has a habit of bearing fruit where counterproductive slanging matches do not. By all means, stand by your guns, but please be willing to engage productively with those of contrasting mindsets. We conservationists are a minority in modern society after all and cannot fight on all fronts.
Anyways, most of us will, at one stage or another, find ourselves working alongside these people from time to time, thus it pays to be civil.
Think Critically
Critical thought is one of those things every self-respecting lecturer, professor and teacher drums into their students from an early age. It is an important skill in most jobs, and about as vital as they come in the environmental field. The ability to not take research, press releases or other forms of information at face value, and to question, internally, every from the findings of scientific reports and survey methodologies to legislative decisions. People are often disingenuous, even in conservation, and even the best of us are prone to telling the odd porky to achieve our individual goals or back up an opinion. It pays to be cautious.
No matter what you are reading, or who you are talking to, approach the issue absent bias – listen to what is said and think about how you could do it better. Question the motivations of said people, ask questions and critique. The only way to improve on existing knowledge is to identify flaws and work to rectify them. Do you know of a better way to gain data on a certain topic? Work on it, accepting the status quo in conservation is a sure fire way to achieve nothing. And sometimes it pays to take a risk, think big and challenge the big wigs in your particular field. But please, bare in mind the fine line between critical interest and being a pain. No one likes a know-it-all.
Conservation Is Not Rosy
If you think a career in conservation consists of little more than frolicking blissfully in the woods or hugging fluffy animals, then the chances are, it is not for you. Many, many people seem to lump conservationists and animal rights activists, but while ethics are, of course, rather important, conservation often involves a great deal of seemingly brutal acts. Acts which, while distasteful, ultimately work to the betterment of the natural world. We shoot species to protect others, trap invasive species, orchestrate exterminations and much more. This may disillusion some, but in our current turbulent times, killing is part of conservation. Whether we like it or not. And whether you are working abroad, trapping rats on a far-flung island or exterminating Cane Toads, or at home, shooting Grey Squirrels or deer, it pays to think objectively at all times. And not to throw a tantrum when asked to do something that goes against your better nature – most of the time at least, it really is for the greater good.
Also (and I have, believe it or not, encountered this) if you are afraid to get wet, dirty or otherwise, the chances are, a job in the field is not for you. There is a reason most successful conservationists spend 99% of their time looking dreadful…
Have Fun
Despite the at times grievous, soul-crushing lows, conservation is one of the most enjoyable, heartwarming, amazing careers around. It is fun, plain and simple. And one of only a select few jobs where you can say, without a doubt, that you have contributed to an important cause. It is a career of soaring highs – as you watch creatures thrive as a result of our dedicated work – and resounding successes. As we stamp out the evils that imperil the creatures we hold dear. It is educational, each and every day providing something new and exciting: uplifting, rewarding and fabulous. You will see amazing things, witness spectacles few others could possibly dream of and reap the rewards of a life in the outdoors. It is well worth the effort, once you get past the frustration, anger and perpetual bouts of hopelessness. I really would advise everyone interested to commit.
There is something notable happening in conservation. For years, conservationists have bemoaned the perceived lack of interest that younger people take in the natural world. They point to nature deficit disorder as a distinct consequence of a generation of children lacking outdoor experiences. The internet is cast as a negative force, with children spending upwards of 20 hours a week online, mostly scrolling through social media sites. 30% of 2-15 year olds are overweight or obese and, according to a 2008 National Trust survey (going back a few years here), only 2/3 of children could identify a magpie and half did not know the difference between a bee and a wasp.
However, there is another side to this story.
Every August at Rutland Water the biggest conservation event in the UK takes place – the BirdFair. In the last few years people have begun to take notice of a growing number of young people who have been attending, not just with their parents or grandparents, but often of their own volition.
They come from all corners of the UK and have a wide range of different backgrounds, interests and training. Their strength comes in their diversity and their inclusivity. Through informal engagement, mostly outside of the ‘conventional’ and traditional nature conservation organisations, they have built their own organisations that fit their particular ways and means of connecting with each other. These include A Focus On Nature, Next Generation Birders and the youngest of the youth-led organisations, Wilder. Together, they form part of a cohesive youth nature movement. They are growing more organised and experienced as time goes on, and many of the traditional nature conservation organisations have taken note of their work.
A Focus On Nature, affectionately referred to as AFON, is the largest and most developed of the youth organisations. It is a network of young people, aged 16-30 (but realistically there are members younger than this) who share a passion for the natural world and want to connect with each other and talk about their interest. Their facebook group has been growing steadily and they organise regular events. Of particular note is AFON’s mentoring scheme, which gives the opportunity for members to connect with professionals working in all sorts of fields, from practical conservation to writing, film making, academia and campaigning. You can follow them on twitter @AFONature. If you fancy joining the network, get in touch with them at afonmembers@hotmail.com . They have members from all sorts of backgrounds, and you don’t need to have an ecology degree to join!
Next Generation Birders, whilst it may smaller than AFON and more specific, in that it is just for birders, has also had a huge impact. By bringing young birders together they can share their enthusiasm and knowledge, build experiences together and boost each other’s confidence. Often, birding or wildlife is not seen as a positive thing to be involved in at school and many young people interested in conservation suffer from bullying. Organisations such as NGB and AFON provide a safe space for them to do what they love and socialise with like-minded people, reducing their isolation.
Finally, there is Wilder, an exciting new organisation being spearheaded by James Common and others. It is a grassroots activism group, which works to support conservation efforts and argue a case for protecting wildlife legislation in the UK. In the long run, they want to run campaigns and form regional groups that bring local people together to combat localised issues.
How did they come together?
The answer to this has a lot to do with the very thing that many older conservationists had been vilifying – the internet. The wonders of the world-wide-web are certainly a factor in keeping many young people indoors, but the internet (specifically social media) has also brought together those interested in nature. Through posting online they are able to keep in contact with each other and the distance that is sometimes apparent between the traditional nature conservation organisations and their members completely disappears. After all, messaging is instantaneous. Social media seems to have formed a core part of the identity of the youth nature movement, in a way that it is seemingly more superfluous for the traditional conservation bodies.
Of course, the members of the youth nature movement still get involved with the ‘traditional’ organisations. They are members, volunteers and attend events along with the ‘older generations’. However, they seem most comfortable with these grass roots, more informal organisations, learning about the natural world and inspiring each other to do amazing things.
How did I get involved?
I have always had an interest in the natural world and the ‘great outdoors’ but it wasn’t until I got to university that I really started actively getting involved in nature conservation, volunteering for conservation organisations and thinking deeply about the natural world. This led to me starting my blog, thinkingcountry, in 2013, in which I started to explore a whole host of issues connecting farming (my family background) and conservation.
I can’t really remember how I was introduced to Lucy McRobert, AFON’s founder and former Creative Director, but we shared a common degree history (both environmental historians) and she was keen on getting more people involved. In September 2014 I went along to AFON’s first major conference, held in Cambridge, which aimed to spearhead a ‘Vision for Nature’. Incidentally, we went on to publish the Vision for Nature report in July of this year. The enthusiasm at that conference really spurred me on to want to get involved. Here was a young organisation that had bags of energy and made up of dozens of inspiring young people, all eager to work together for a better world. I was hooked and tried to get involved as much as possible. In January of this year I joined the committee and it is a real privilege to be at the centre of such an exciting movement.
What’s the future for the Youth Nature Movement?
The movement still looks like it is growing and more and more young people are jumping on board and getting involved. As James pointed out in a recent post, conservation has become quite fashionable, and this is certainly helping to drive the youth movement. However, it goes beyond this. I believe that the real success of bringing these people together has been to remove isolation and to exponentially advance the inspiration levels and determination of these people to get stuck in and find a way that they can make a difference, in their own way. It is about giving them confidence.
The movement seems to be growing, with new organisations, such as Wilder, making their own mark. Things could move in several different directions although I think it is most likely that it will become several things:
Firstly, it will continue to bring young people together through a growing network.
Secondly, it will be more political and provide a collective voice for young people who are concerned about the natural world.
Thirdly, it will become more organised and localised, with young people in the same regions regularly meeting and carrying out work together.
It is an exciting time to be a conservationist for many reasons. However, it is also a famously depressing sector to be in, with the general narrative being one of loss and destruction. The youth nature movement adds a determined optimism to conservation and this will continue as it develops. It is outward looking, inclusive and forward thinking. Yes, there are things that could be improved on, for example, a particular effort is happening right now with regards to improving diversity. However, the general momentum is positive and engaging and we all look forward to taking the movement onwards towards a brighter future.
Ben Eagle is an environmental and agricultural writer based in the South West. He sits on the committee of A Focus On Nature, the UK’s largest youth nature network, and edits their seasonal newsletter. To read more of his work visit his website www.thinkingcountry.com or follow him on twitter @benjy_eagle.
With the world and its wildlife in an altogether precarious state at present, never before has there been a greater need for people to protect it. The enduring decline of biodiversity and the prophesied collapse of our natural environment, mercifully, coming at a time when a career in conservation appears rather fashionable. Now, more people than ever are jumping through the hoops of education with the ultimate aim of working in the environmental field. A trend which should be celebrated by all.
That said, for every successful young conservationist, many more find themselves floundering in the dreaded post-university abyss. Frustrated, and unable to progress in the direction they so desire. This itself really is not all that bad – we have, after all, all been there at one stage or another. Though when I hear students (and graduates) complaining about the “competitive” nature of sector and the lack of available job opportunities, I do find myself getting a little frustrated at times. Particularly when some of those complaining do so only after sailing through their respective undergraduate degrees in a giddy haze of booze, inactivity, and poor decisions. Below are a few things I often say to such people – intended with all due respect, of course.
It’s not all about Pandas.
From my experience as an undergraduate, the majority of people enroll on conservation courses because they desire to work overseas: because they wish to give their all in the pursuit of Pandas, Tigers, Elephants and other grandiose species seen regularly on TV. This is all well and good, but you cannot expect such opportunities to fall into your lap. To get there you are going to have to work with bats, birds, fungi, lichen, snails and even moss – you are going to have to get your hands dirty with species seemingly less desirable than those that feature in your ecological wet dreams. Realistically, given the sheer volume of people currently working on the larger, charismatic animals, you are going to have to start small and show your dedication elsewhere. Sulking or, worse still, quitting when things do not immediately go your way is a sure fire way not to achieve your dreams. It pays to be realistic.
Anyways, sometimes it is possible to do the greatest good by thinking “outside of the box”. Many and more species need our help, from bees and worms to no end of embattled red-list plants. These creatures are equally worthy of our attention and by considering them you broaden your horizons and ascertain a niche. Individualism is often a bonus when trying to get noticed amid a crowd.
Stop volunteering “with” animals.
Now this one really annoys me at times. Just because you have volunteered alongside animals does not necessarily stand you in good stead for a job in conservation. Voluntary placements abroad are all well and good, but given the dubious ethics and questionable value of some opportunities – whether you’re working within a sanctuary for Sloth Bears or petting Elephants in Thailand – such things may not actually benefit you in the slightest. Work with animals does not necessarily provide you with the skills you need for a life in the workplace, and many employers see such experience as irrelevant, at best. Particularly if you are applying for a job in Britain, as many of us have to at one point or another.
One must be very careful when choosing where to devote their time abroad, especially as some such placements comprise little other than money-making ventures for the parties involved, and while you may be left feeling rather giddy after bottle feeding an elephant or two, the developmental benefits of such are sparse. If you want to gain applicable experience, get your hands dirty on your local nature reserve or shadow an ecologist while surveying for Newts. These things may not seem as glamorous, but they are undoubtedly more beneficial to your career prospects. This subject has, however, been covered in much more detail by the wonderful James Borrell hereand, as such, I will curtail my waffling on the subject.
Lectures are not enough.
For the love of god, please do not think that simply attending lectures and the odd seminar – however diligently – is enough to make your dreams come true. It’s not. By large, most of the unemployed or struggling conservationists I know are those who relied solely on such things as their go-to source of education, when in reality, they merely provide the inspiration for further exploration. Students, at least at undergraduate level, often have a lot of free time, and it really is worth filling it with relevant activities where possible. Volunteer – whether for one day a week or the entire summer holidays – join societies, give talks, lead trips, tag along on field trips or simply go outside and observe nature. Every little thing you do at this stage builds skills, showcases passion and sets you apart from the thousands of others in exactly the same position.
Show an interest.
Okay, this one links in with the last point but, in my opinion, deserves a spot of its own. And the number of aspiring conservationists I have encountered who harbour dreams of working with Rhinos yet cannot identify a Roe Deer or Vole, is wholly frustrating. Though I find it hard to comprehend, there are would-be conservationists who have never once visited a nature reserve absent forceful persuasion, nor attempted to engross themselves in local wildlife. It baffles me.
One of the most common words showcased on environmental job applications is “passionate”, though how are employers to know you are passionate about the natural world when you do little to show it? Using terms like this can come across as vacuous when you have little experience to back it up, and despite the many ways in which one can highlight their dedication, some choose not to. Thus leaving others, whether they be potential employers or supervisors, guessing as to their commitment.
Whether you choose to fundraise, commit to voluntary work, maintain a blog, contribute to your institution’s newspaper, give time to citizen science or merely maintain a relevant social media account, please be sure to do something. Those who eat, sleep and breath the natural world in their spare time tend to do much better. Just look at the great young conservationists in A Focus On Nature for inspiration.
Network like your life depends on it.
Like most career paths, in conservation, knowing the right people, or at least having them know you, can be incredibly beneficial. And while maintaining a public profile may not be to everyone’s taste, the benefits of such can be enormous. From invitations to conferences and excursions where you may, by chance, be presented with the chance to engage with and impress experts in your chosen field, to national or regional meetings of clubs and societies. All have their benefits, as do groups specially designed for young people. Social media can be as powerful a tool as any when it comes to making an impression, and whether you use Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIN, all can come in handy when it comes to getting noticed. Get yourself out there, loud and proud.
On a similar note, do not be afraid to send direct messages on social media, email or, god forbid, write to those you admire, or people whose work you found to be of particular interest. Ask questions, request further information, praise studies, even criticise – providing you do so in a polite manner. All of this shows passion and, as I stated above, passion is often the deciding factor when it comes to progression.
Tales of localised and even global extinctions are, unfortunately, rather common in the amphibian world. Particularly in current times as humans continue to ignorantly erode biodiversity on a global scale. From the endearing Rabbs’ Tree Frog, recently declared extinct after the last known individual died in captivity, to the similarly alluring Golden Toad. Amphibians are in trouble the world over: due to habitat loss, development, invasive species and the spread of deadly Chytrid fungus. You would be forgiven for thinking, that given the somewhat exotic nature of species lost already, that this was, in fact, a tropical problem, though you would be wrong. And Britain’s amphibians too find themselves in hot water.
Perhaps the most topical example of our ailing amphibian populations is the Common Toad, a beloved fixture of the British countryside which has now declined by 70% nationwide. In the last 30 years alone. The cause of this thought to stem predominately from habitat loss – the breeding ponds on which the toads depend drained to make way for the advance of agriculture and human habitation, with their foraging habitat similarly besieged. Traffic too has played a part, with many and more toads squashed on roads as they make their annual pilgrimage to and from the few remaining ponds, and pesticides and agricultural run-off poisoning many of those who do make it. It is all very bleak, with such things, sadly, not limited to Common Toads alone. The similar yet much scarcer Natterjack Toad, a resident of sand dunes and other coastal ecosystems, likewise threatened by the loss of said ecosystems. The species now clinging on in only handful of sites around the British coastline – subject to rigorous conservation measures to stop it sliding further towards the brink.
Even our most abundant amphibian species, the Common Frog is in trouble. Declining by up to 80% in some locations due to the spread of ranavirus, and thought to be declining, albeit to a lesser extent than our toads, nationwide. The loss traditional ponds, both in gardens – where they are often replaced by decking and overly manicured lawns – and further afield. A woeful trend also apparent in our newts with the iconic Great Crested Newt, despite being rigorously protected, still subject to substantial threats. From the destruction of habitats for development, from the introduction of exotic fish species for angling purposes, from the natural succession of ponds to grassland and, of course, habitat fragmentation. The select few sites lucky enough to still hold functional newt populations often separated from one another by miles and a great deal of often impassable roads. Indeed, with the smaller Palmate Newt also suffering declines across its range, only two native species appear to be somewhat stable at present – the Smooth Newt and the Pool Frog. The latter given a helping hand through deliberate reintroductions.
Like them or loathe them – bonkers but some do – our amphibians play an important role in many ecosystems, comprising a vital link in many food chains and acting as an indicator of ecosystem health. Their decline, and in some cases, predicted loss, does not bode well for our countryside. Though, mercifully, said populations have not declined to such an extent to fall beyond hope, and there are a number of things everyday people can do to help combat the trend. The obvious option being to build a garden pond – for frogs, toads and smooth newts – the size and extent of which is of little consequence, with all such water bodies providing a valuable oasis for our embattled amphibians. Allowing your garden (or at least a portion of it) to grow wild also helps, providing habitat for the various species on which amphibians depend for food, while a humble log-pile can also provide a valuable resource. Indeed, a quick check of my recently refurbished mound resulted in the discovery of all three common garden species – it really does work. Withholding the use of damaging pesticides, particularly in the vicinity of known amphibian populations, is also vital.
Of course, if you are unable to commit to any of the above, or indeed have already done so and wish to do more, you can help fund the great work of conservationists working to protect our amphibian friends. Froglife are a good place to start. There vital work to protect our frogs, newts and toads entirely dependent on the generosity of the public. So please, whether you choose to actively fund conservation measures or install your own, be sure to do something. Many of the species listed above are suffering, largely due to our own actions, and need all the help they can get. That is if they are to survive to croak and delight for another day.
Another “perceptions of wildlife” guest blog this week, following the same setup as the last post by urban humanist Tayla May. This week’s post comes from young conservationist and budding scientist David Hunter, who was asked the same questions regarding his perceptions of wildlife and often controversial species. As you will see, his answers demonstrate perfectly that not all conservationists boast a positive perception of all species – and many actively agree with measures enacted to control them.
As someone who works on the science side of conservation, I rarely get to showcase my humanistic side when appreciating the natural world. I need to be detached, to be outside of the ‘feelings’ side of the argument if any headway is to be made with warring parties associated with a conservation issue. That being said, we are all emotional beings and events such as the shooting of the crane in south-west England a few days ago make me very angry, because of how senseless the violence is. The humanist approach to the natural world is one that most people who work in conservation biology and related fields have intrinsically – if we didn’t we wouldn’t have worked here (at least not for the pay…), and it is only through years of training and practice that we can learn to objectively view a situation (or as objectively as physically possible) and provide solutions to real problems in the world today. That’s especially difficult when people who you might share few to no opinions with are very emotive in their pursuit of goals.
I think the conservational approach is one that goes without saying given the career I’m representing here! The natural world provides a frankly ridiculous number of services and resources for us humans to make use of, regardless of how technologically advanced we believe ourselves to be. It would be madness to throw away such efficient and productive systems for mechanical alternatives; just because it increases profits in the short term. It is crucial that not just for an ethical standpoint but from a survival one that we maintain a healthy ecosystem with as much diversity as possible. You will notice I am not saying a ‘balanced’ ecosystem because there is no such thing. With climatic, geological and biological processes being in the constant state of flux that we are, there is no such thing as a ‘balanced’ ecosystem. We could have a healthy, productive one, or we could have an unhealthy useless one. But with either option, it is a constant changing along a spectrum on which diversity and productivity lie. – Apologies for the rant!
One of my pet peeves is people telling me that they are annoyed with conservationists because they are stopping people from growing food, from harvesting trees, from doing blah blah blah and the list goes on! With a bulging population of 7.5 billion, we as a species are having to adapt to find new ways of farming on the same amount of land. Farmland already makes up over 37% of the world’s total landmass (192,780,000km2 give or take a few tens of millions), but without natural pollinators, predator defences, even down to the bacteria that aid in producing cloud mass to water the crops, biodiversity and the natural world are at the core of that production. A good conservationist will be able to work with people (whether it is a pharmaceutical company or local farming cooperative) to achieve goals that enable and enhance their existing plans to either accommodate for the natural world or work around it in a non (or less) damaging manner. A bad conservationist will come to these meetings shouting and wagging their fingers at the naughty farmer/company/government telling them how awful it is what they are doing, and how they need to stop. the crucial thing is that these people are going to use the natural world (just like we do!) whether you like it or not, and people are much more likely to listen to a friend than they are to an enemy!
The only truly dominionist attitude I have is when it comes to my garden, which I try and maximise the diversity found in it – bending it to my will! I get where people are coming from when they make this argument, but these are usually the same people that tell me that humans are a ‘special’ species and very different from all others. You can’t have it two ways – either man is special and therefore outside of the realm of ‘bending nature to our will’ or it is part of that system, and you need to admit we are just another mammalian ape.
As for aesthetic values – nature is beautiful, in its complexity and harsh reality. I love it all!
Deer
I feel a very mixed response thinking about deer. Red deer and Roe Deer, our only two native species, are overpopulated as we have no natural apex predators to deal with them. The other semi-natural species, fallow, are similarly at bulging levels. The only real solution, in my opinion, to all these species and the unfortunate list of invasives is either culling (in the case of the natives) or eradication. This is to ensure that the plethora of other species that are damaged, threatened or lost from deer overpopulation are protected.
Brown Rat
Non-native pest species. Should be eradicated where possible, but will be nearly impossible over large landmass other than the likes of New Zealand. The damage to the countryside, natural world and even cities of this country are not worth the continuation of tolerance to this species in any area of the country. Unfortunately resistance to rodenticides is likely to make this very difficult.
Hen Harrier (I will struggle to write this in 100 words..)
There is space (and available resources/land) in England for 300 pairs of hen harrier in England, but there are only 4 birds. The status of hen harrier in England unveils the reality of the state of our countryside, and the challenges of protecting the natural world. Basically, no one has been prosecuted for the shooting of these missing pairs, despite their national protection status. Hen harriers have been estimated to take a very low number of grouse relative to other species predation (including man!!) and if gamekeepers argue that under 2% of grouse are killed by hen harriers are causing their moorlands to be unviable, then there is a serious issue with their business model.
Badger
This is a difficult one for me, and I imagine not many of my fellow conservationists are going to like me afterwards! I love badgers very much, but the evidence that came out of a very long, and thorough historical experiment known as the Krebbs trial has shown that between 5 and 35% of all BTB accounts are caused by badgers. In some areas that could constitute over 100,00 cattle. That could constitute entire herds, and thus whole farms incomes. The current badger cull is, to be frank, a ******* disaster. There are very few controls, it has no proper taskforce, and is a disgrace to ecology. If a real cull, in a small enough scale to be measured, with sufficient funding and protection was carried out, I would be surprised if there wasn’t a reduction in BTB. That isn’t going to happen, and the Krebbs trial has its own problems, but I don’t have time to talk about that here!
Grey Squirrel
Wow, I’m talking about a lot of death in this one! Grey Squirrels are lovely fluffy animals that play an important part in the ecosystem… in North America. Forest damage, egg poaching and yet more ecological damage are all the symptoms of grey squirrels in our country. It would be eminently sensible to plan a national eradication programme to remove grey squirrels from the UK. They have already been eradicated from pockets of the country, and the rise of the pine martin in the north of the country has pushed them back. I feel there is no issue in planning to remove grey squirrels, and push for our lovely reds to come back (apart from radical animal rights people and funding!)
Pheasant
I would never shoot pheasant for sport (it’s barbaric), but many people do. I will be honest; I have had very little experience with what the impacts of pheasant farming and shooting in the UK is. I don’t doubt it results in illegal raptor persecution, which is abhorrent, but personally, I have had very little to do with pheasants and pheasant shooting – and its something I should know more about. As a scientist and a conservationist, I can’t give an opinion on something I don’t know enough about, as it would reduce my own integrity, and that of all those in my profession. I’m going to go and do some reading now, so I can be more informed for when the topic inevitably arrives again.
It should come as little surprise that the majority of issues initially billed as human/wildlife conflicts actually centre more on conflict between stakeholder groups. Between humans and other humans, as opposed to man and beast.
Wildlife, as a rule, is not overly confrontational, whereas people are. Thus many of the “big issues” in the realms of ecology, conservation and animal welfare – whether that be driven grouse shooting, pest control, fox hunting or canned hunting – actually boil down to our own conflicting views over how we should engage with the natural world. And, ultimately, how we as individuals perceive wildlife. Something which has proven a major focal point during the first few weeks of my Masters degree, and has caused me to contemplate, in depth, just how I, personally, view the creatures with whom we share our countryside. If only to decide, in the future, my stance on topical issues.
One thing has become quite clear during my background reading (and ample discussion) on the subject, is that there is no clear answer. And no right or wrong way of viewing the natural world. Sure, I find some outlooks distasteful, but taking a minute to assess my own views has resulted in the conclusion that our perceptions vary incredibly. Even among those sympathetic to nature. And that hypocrisy is often part of the norm, based on a whole suit of factors: from charismatic appeal of certain species to our own financial and emotional investment. While disagreement is inevitable, and polarised views common, I have come to believe that understanding alternate viewpoints is key. Especially when so many conflict situations can, at best, only result in compromise, and rarely produce an outcome deemed satisfactory to all involved.
Though I have also realised that it is almost impossible to place yourself entirely in one category, however hard you try.
But what are the broad outlooks that must be considered and understood?
Humanistic – Those who view animals as sentient beings, believe fully in animal rights and believe man and beast to be unequivocally equal. Oppose the exploitation, control or killing of wildlife on moral grounds. Emotionally invested in wildlife.
Conservational – Those who view wildlife as part of the wider ecosystem to be protected and safeguarded for future generations. Motivated by biodiversity and a belief that we are obliged to protect the natural world.
Utilitarian – Those who view wildlife as a resource, to be exploited for personal or monetary gain. Viewing certain species as a threat to be removed and others as a direct source of income or sustenance. Interested in the practical value of the land.
Dominionistic – Similar to the above but believing that, as the dominant species on earth, humans have a right to alter the land as we see fit. Exploiting the natural world as a resource, to be developed, consumed or likewise. Interested predominately in controlling nature.
Aesthetic – Predominantly interested in the aesthetic beauty and appeal of wildlife and the countryside, for recreation and personal enjoyment.
Negativistic – Those who possess a fear or aversion to wildlife and/or view species as an inconvenience to daily life.
An interesting graph from a university slide giving a broad outlook on how different groups invested in the countryside view nature. Though for many, myself included, the lines become blurred from time to time…
How do I personally perceive wildlife?
As a conservationist, I, of course, possess a predominantly protectionist outlook, and desire to maintain the countryside in a “natural” state – though I use this term loosely as, for the large part, all hope of this has been lost. This mindset, of course, often puts me at odds with a number of other groups: namely those who exploit wildlife too harshly, or take an over dominionist approach to species, to such an extent that it seems detrimental to their conservation status. It does, however (funnily enough) also set me on a collision course with those boasting a humanistic outlook – though animal rights and conservation are often unfairly lumped together from time to time. Conservation often involves the abandonment of sentiment – whether you’re killing foxes to prevent the predation of rare birds or enacting lethal control measures to stem the time of invasive species. It is not nice, but it is often necessary.
I am, however, not prone to bouts of sentiment, and thus find myself adopting a humanistic approach from time to time. Something which, at times, leaves me looking rather hypocritical – my stance varying depending on the appeal of the species in question (many will not admit to this, but I suspect the same goes for others). Prime examples being my all out hatred for whaling and the killing of protected hen harriers but my willingness to control grey squirrels, and at times, my openness to removing pest species from the home. Whether they be rats or ants. The latter leading me to believe that dominionist tendencies do exist somewhere in there. And also posing questions with regards to whether or not I take a negative approach to certain species, which I almost certainly do. I am not above using the term pest with regards to rats gnawing through my household cables and am unashamed to admit I am actively scared of wasps. Is a rat costing me money through household damage any different to a fox costing a farmer money through the killing lambs? Not really when you think about it.
Examining things, I have also come to the conclusion that at least part of me is also a wildlife utilitarian. I eat meat – the prime example of supporting practices seek to exploit the land, and also consume game. Something which leaves me unable to broadly label all those involved in its production as “the enemy”. I also engage in wildlife tourism which, despite its obvious links to conservation, could also be seen as utilitarian. The money from which may go to good causes but more often than not, I suspect, also ends up lining the pockets of one individual or group.
I am also invested in the ascetic beauty of the land – who isn’t? Though my perception of beauty ofter varies with that of others. My ideal vision for a “wild” Lake District, for example, vastly different to those who view its current visage fondly. Which, again, links in with the conservational approach to things and leaves me at odds with those who utilise the land for their own financial gain.
Conclusion?
I, like so many others, am a big fat hypocrite with regards to wildlife and find myself falling into all of the above categories. Albeit to varying degrees. Motivated, on occasion, by each, yet still confrontational to each from time to time. Not that this is a bad thing, and the decisions of each group must be questioned on occasion, though absent sweeping generalisations. Everyone is entitled to view the natural world in the way they see fit, and often the labels we attach prove unfair. A farmer or gamekeeper actively invested in the land may still appreciate it for its beauty, and find themselves motivated, on occasion, by the principals of conservation. Whereas an ecologist, dedicated to the preservation of nature, may also exploit wildlife to a varying degree for food or enjoyment. It is all rather complicated, isn’t it?
Conflict when it comes to wildlife is inevitable, and in some cases healthy, though unless you are the staunchest member of each group – which few are – we must avoid the tendency to stereotype. It is possible to reach common ground with almost any stakeholder when one looks hard enough, and no individual is exempt from hypocrisy.
While we most challenge others perceptions, it is almost always necessary to understand what motivates others before doing so. There are very few clear-cut “bad guys” when it comes to wildlife, and even fewer wholly good ones.
Just a few thoughts – I apologise for the rather rambling post.
This week, Chris Packham, no doubt feeling rather chipper following his exoneration by the BBC Trust over claims of bias put forth by the Countryside Alliance, launched a new petition. One calling for a moratorium on the shooting of critically declining species of wading birds, such Snipe, Golden Plover and Woodcock, in the UK. Stopping short of calling for an all-out ban, favouring instead a halt to the killing, during which proper research into the species declines can be undertaken. I hope, by a non-bias, independent body – not one that stands to benefit directly from the shooting industry. Naming no names of course.
Writing on the government petitions site, Chris highlights the woeful trends at the heart of the campaign: with Woodcock declining by 76% over the past 25 years and Snipe by 89% during a similar time frame. Going on to draw attention to the similar crash in Britain’s population of Golden Plover – which between 1993 and 2013 declined by 17% and 25% in England and Scotland respectively.
This petition has been widely welcomed on social media by conservationists, myself included, and has already gained over 2900 signatures during its first 24 hours. Though not all have welcomed it, with the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) suggesting that a moratorium would result in the direct loss of suitable breeding habitat for Woodcock, with species-specific woodland management likely stalling with shooters unable to pursue their chosen quarry.
Personally, and this is just my opinion, nothing more – I agree in full with logic behind the aforementioned petition. I have signed it, and will encourage anyone else I come across to do the same. This issue has long been horribly underreported – doubtless overlooked amid the clamour regarding driven grouse shooting and hen harriers. Though, to me, it is of paramount importance and ultimately comes down to the need to reassess what counts as “fair game” for shooters in Great Britain. And why, in our day and age, we are still shooting wading birds in the first place.
Chris has already pointed out the downward population trends associated with the three quarry species listed above. They are all suffering, due, no doubt to a range of factors, with habitat management likely at the heart of the issue. Shooting, however, can no be ruled out as a factor. And even the GWCT who are, as their name suggests, altogether pro-shooting, have published findings suggesting that 17% of the Woodcock shot during the open season are indeed British breeding birds. As opposed to migrants, thus at odds with the commonly peddled line put forth by shooters. Who are we then to say that this is not having a detrimental impact on the overall breeding population of Woodcock? If anything, the lack of knowledge on the subject justifies the need for further, impartial research – which is exactly what the petition calls for. We cannot afford to keep killing without knowledge of the consequences, with this situation baring an all too familiar resemblance to the tale of the Grey Partridge. A species which, despite a prolonged and worrying decline, was still shot on mass until fairly recently.
The research undertaken during the proposed moratorium could go two ways, it could suggest that shooting is indeed a factor in the decline of said species, and thus highlight the need for a ban. Something I would support. We did, after all, stop shooting Capercaillie when we realised they were in serious trouble, with the same currently happening with Black Grouse. Why then are we ignoring the woeful decline of our wading birds?
Of course, it would also go the other way, and suggest that shooting is not, in fact, detrimental to wader populations. It would not hurt to know either way, and personally, I find the GWCT’s opposition to the idea completely ludicrous. Especially seeing as such a study could work in their favour and prove their prior assumptions correct. A doubtful prospect, but a possibility…
And then we come to the argument in favour of shooting wading birds, if in fact there is one – I am yet to see a convincing argument put forth to justify the killing. With tradition the only possible explanation for the continued actions of the shooting fraternity. Though tradition itself is, in my opinion, not sufficient to justify slaughter absent thought of the wider implications. And if the hunting act has taught us anything, it is that traditions, however firmly rooted in British culture, can be broken. But anyways…
I cannot help but believe that the economic argument put forward in defence of Grouse shooting is somewhat void in the the case of waders. Shooting itself is a rather niche hobby, and among shooters it is only a minority which actively hunt wading birds. Making the killing of Woodcock and so forth a niche hobby within a niche hobby. Few, I suspect, pay huge sums to take part in the act, and as these are entirely wild birds, unlike Pheasants which require yearlong care, few people are employed to facilitate the hobby. It is economically insignificant. And does not, in any way, shape or form, bring in “huge” sums of money to rural communities.
These species are also, unlike other game birds, not particularly famed for their culinary uses. Sure, a few hunters doubtless consume their catch out of principal, but you rarely see Snipe for sale in Supermarkets, or indeed your local butchers. The shooting for food argument is similarly obsolete in this case.
Can shooters then argue, as the GWCT does, that shooting such species benefits there conservation status? Well, not in my opinion. As despite the best efforts of hunters to maintain enough suitable habitat to benefit their crop, the birds continue to decline. And if a future ban ever came to fruition, some species-specific legislation could make management for these species compulsory. Thus rendering the “conserve to kill” argument obsolete.
There is, of course, also the argument that centres on the moral side of things. And many doubtless would rather see their Golden Plover or Snipe alive, as opposed to dead. I, however, will leave this argument for someone else to tackle.
I firmly believe it is time to reassess what hunters can, and cannot kill in the British Isles. But in the absence of a complete ban, would settle for a moratorium that would allow the effects of shooting on our declining waders to be properly assessed. As such, could I ask anyone who happens across this blog to please consider signing the petition below:
Cats have featured heavily in the media this week, though not for the usual reasons. Indeed, following the publication of Cat Wars, a new book by American author Peter P. Marra, our feline friends have found themselves at the epicentre of a heated debate regarding their supposed ecological impact. With British conservationists downplaying the authors comments that “all free-ranging cats should be removed from the landscape by any means necessary” due to their impact on native fauna.
In his book, Marra highlights the negative impact of free-ranging cats the world over, from New Zealand and Australia – where they are responsible for the near extinction of a number of endemic species – to his native America, and has since gone on to criticise the inactivity of British conservation bodies when it comes facing the problem in our own back yard. Echoing the earlier views of popular naturalist Chris Packham in calling for cats to be kept indoors, neutered or, in some cases, euthanised.
These views appear directly at odds with the popular line that despite being fairly numerous (7.4 million), and killing upwards of 55 million birds a year, that cats are a relatively harmless figment of the British landscape. With both the RSPB and John Bradshaw, director of the anthrozoology institute at the University of Bristol, claiming that cats are not a problem. Instead championing habitat loss as the main cause of bird decline in the UK.
As a cat owner, a cat-lover and also a naturalist, this is a debate which greatly interests me. And has done for a long time. Despite my cats being relatively housebound, and kitted out with enough bells to rival Santa’s sleigh, I have been unlucky enough to witness the effect of cats first hand on many occasions. Not often from my own, mercifully, yet only last week I pulled a moribund juvenile Greenfinch (a declining species in the UK) from my neighbours cat, and this summer witnessed a cat toying with the corpse of a Tree Sparrow – a ‘red list’ species of conservation concern. Such things have caused me to give considerable thought to the issue at hand.
In terms of the very public bickering going on between both sides, I actually find myself agreeing with both. I agree that cats are a terribly destructive force around the globe and, despite my fondness for them, find myself agreeing with control measures implemented by countries such as Australia, aiming to protect native wildlife from what is, above all else, an alien predator. I also agree with the RSPB that habitat loss is the number one cause of bird declines in the UK, that cannot be disputed. I am, however, a little dubious of their decision to dismiss the issue outright. Fifty-five million birds is, after all, a somewhat staggering number.
The RSPB are quick to point out that cats tend to prey on sick or injured birds. This may well be true, on occasion, but what about their tendency to raid the nests? Juvenile birds are neither sick nor injured, merely defenceless. Remember the nest of Wood Warblers on Springwatch a few years ago? Such behaviour is likely hugely under-recorded but who is to say it is not a problem? While most predators show a preference for easier targets, one must remember that cats, despite their appeal, are a superbly adapted killer, and like any other predator, have the potential to prey on healthy animals when the need be. Particularly in gardens where food is placed out absent consideration, as is often the case.
The other commonly voiced opinion with regards to cat predation is that they tend to predate, majoritively, common and widespread species. A statement recently echoed by Dr Mark Avery, who later went on to state that “cat control is far from a top level priority” insisting that we should work to combat issues such as climate change and raptor persecution first. Well, I agree with Mark on the second point, but as for the first, I remain sceptical, to say the least at least. The Springwatch Wood Warblers very publically showed that cats do indeed predate rare birds. Something brought home by my own encounter with the Tree Sparrow. Of course, it makes sense to believe that cats would consume common species – these are, after all, those most likely to be encountered within the ecosystem, though it is clear that this is not always the case. An important thing to remember given the depleted, often fragmented state of some rare bird populations. Could cats tip them over the edge? I suspect so.
The RSPB state on their website that the species suffering most from cat predation are likely (and in order): House Sparrows, Blue Tits, Blackbirds and Starlings. These species are indeed some of our most plentiful birds, but three of them are currently suffering declines in the UK. And in the case of the House Sparrow (red listed) and Starling (red listed) declining catastrophically. With House Sparrows, in particular, shown to be particularly prone to cat predation (Churcher & Lawton, 1987).
Of all of our birds, it is our embattled sparrows I fear for the most in regards to cats, with and a number of studies hinting at the potential role of cats in their decline. Indeed, Baker et al (2005) suggest the need for future research due to their own observations, and Crick et al (2002) highlight the fact “that cats (both domestic and feral) accounted for 26 million dead House Sparrows in Britain during 1997, of a total population of 49 million”. Does it not then stand to reason that cats could, at least in part, be blamed for the decline of this once common bird? I suspect it does, especially given the often shared habitat of both. Obviously many other factors pose a threat to House Sparrows – food supply, harsh winters, window strike, take your pick – but the deaths of 26 million that may otherwise have lived to “chirp” another day surely gives cause for concern? There is, however, a distinct lack of scientific evidence for those wishing to answer this question definitively.
I, personally, would like to see this issue given much greater consideration, particularly from the scientific community. It may only be an opinion, but with fifty-five million birds a year falling victim to cats (not counting for those undiscovered), it does raise alarm bells. As Mark Avery says, many factors have contributed to the declines of British birds and these are often of more pressing concern. It does, however, seem rather preposterous not to consider the impact of cats, especially given the woeful declines of some of their favoured prey species. And, of course, the trends observed elsewhere in the world. Yes, House Sparrows and their like are not endemic, nor on the verge of extinction, yet. But surely alleviating one source of pressure would be a good thing? It would not be easy, but it could be done.
As for the reluctance of conservation bodies to even broach the issue of cat predation, in my opinion, this relates directly to one thing. Membership. Many paying members of conservation bodies such as the RSPB likely own cats, a great many no doubt. These people directly fund the amazing work done by such organisations and would be peeved, let’s say, should said bodies demand their beloved tiddles be confined to the house. Many would likely pull their support for that organisation as a result of this, removing a substantial amount of income in the process. Just a thought, but if this is true, which to an extent I suspect it is, it is both understandable, yet entirely shameful at the same time.
I, personally, find myself agreeing most with Chris Packham on the matter. Cats should be kept indoors, much as my own are, and owners should be liable for the damage done by their marauding moggies when they are not. I would need to see a lot more evidence before I condoned lethal control of cats, but would like to see efforts to educate owners ramped up by those who claim custodianship of our environment.
