Do TV Programmes Help Conservation?

Martin Hughes-Games suggested that TV nature programmes show a Utopian view of nature and are far removed from reality. Though I can see where he is coming from as reported in the Guardian, I am not sure it's so simple.

Firstly, I would have to say that I cannot recall a time when I wasn't interested in nature (and science in general for that matter), so I cannot say whether my interest in nature programmes started with some non-specific interest that then grew into where I am now, or whether watching these media outputs was due to the interest I already had - I suspect the latter is closer to reality, which would support Martin's suggestion (with n=1 - clearly not representative!) as it wasn't the influence of the programming that has taken me on the path of supporting conservation - in all probability, it would have happened anyway.

Secondly, as a child, I was interested in nature, not conservation - I am not sure I fully appreciated the meaning of the word in my early years, though I did join the YOC (Young Ornithologists Club - see about half way down this page).  I did understand the concept of rarity and extinction and could recount examples (and, I think, still have some of the books), such as that of the passenger pigeon and great auk, but this was in my teenage years.  It was while at secondary school that I read everything I could on dolphins and even a book by Gerald Durrell (My Family and Other Animals) was involved in the curriculum somewhere, though I can't recall exactly where.  I was told by one teacher that I would grow up to be a very boring person because I only read factual books, never willingly reading fiction - that teacher was probably right!

So, does Martin have a point? - maybe, but I would say that wildlife on TV has to attract audiences, which means it has to be spectacular in some way - if a programme was basically a lecture, few, other than hardened nature enthusiasts, would watch - so there has to be story telling, skilful editing and using the latest tech, but I would argue that, though these programmes may not have produced armies of conservation supporters, they may have helped turn at least some nature lovers into supporters of conservation.  At the very least, many of these programmes, and the stars and crews behind them, will have raised awareness, which is often the first step.

I can see that it is often the mega-stars, such as pandas and lions that get the limelight and recognition, but then other, less 'sexy' (if I can use that word) organisms are often then shown and gain some recognition.  It is wasn't for the medium of TV, I doubt so many would have heard of people like George McGavin, who shows the beauty and importance of invertebrates, not only in special programmes, but also others, such as the One Show.

Zoos - Conservation Centres or Prison Camps?

As a child, I loved visiting zoos - as I live in Essex, not far from London, this included Colchester Zoo and,of course, London Zoo.  At the risk of giving my age away, I remember Chi Chi the giant panda at London Zoo and the unsuccessful breeding attempts made with the Moscow Zoo's An An.  As I grew up and gained more independence, I would visit zoos further afield.  I think it is probably true to say that most children like to see animals and to see them in the flesh makes a good day out.  It is doubtful young children would ponder on the ethics of keeping animals in captivity but are often mesmerised by the incredible variety of the natural world as shown by the various exhibits - after all, who would not be enthralled at seeing and hearing a majestic big cat or acrobatic gibbon at first hand?  And who can resist zoo babies?

Those in favour of zoos often point to conservation as being a key function of zoos - both acting as metaphorical arks where the last of a species can be preserved for the future, and genetic reservoirs that can be used for breeding purposes, with zoos collaborating and stud books being maintained to minimise the effects of inbreeding.

I can see two main questions coming out of this idea - 1. should species be preserved at all costs?  2. does it work - that is, are zoo-bred animals returned to the wild?

Martha was the last of her kind, at least as far as we know, though there were a few sightings after her death in Cincinnati Zoo in 1914.  We can, however, be fairly certain the passenger pigeon is no more and has passed into the history books as a species becoming extinct at the hands of one species - humans.  Not long before her death, the flocks were described as being so great, they would darken the sky.  More on the passenger pigeon.  Clearly being in a zoo didn't help the passenger pigeon, though it could be argued we now live in more enlightened times and zoos were still mainly seen as spectacle in the  lifetime of Martha - of course, she would have needed a mate to be able to produce the offspring needed to save the species!

While at university, about 20 years ago (I started in my 30s), I recall one activity we need that looked at the effectiveness of captive breeding in zoos.  Though I have to admit to not recalling all the details now, we were given breeding data from a zoo and we had to use statistical methods to determine the effectiveness of the breeding programmes for various species.  The bottom line was that the breeding efforts, though probably well-meaning, were not very effective at all, not if being effective is defined as increasing populations and maintaining genetic diversity (we didn't consider whether any would be released into the wild (doubtful any were)).

When I think of successful reintroduction projects, I think of red kites and while-tailed eagles in the UK, which I think mainly involved moving individuals from viable populations elsewhere and then using a management programme that involved keeping contact with humans to a minimum.  I don't think these involved animals bred in zoos.  That isn't to say zoo-bred animals can't, potentially, be used and you may know some examples.  I remember Gerald Durrell relating an event in one of his books where a number of animals had either escaped or been released (have to say, I can't recall the details) and the reptiles and amphibians moved into the jungle to take advantage of their freedom but many of the birds and mammals just hung around the camp.  This illustrates another issue with using captive-bred animals - not all can easily adapt to a life of freedom - the more learning that is involved in survival, the harder it can be to release an animal into the wild, such that it would be able to survive as well as a wild-borne individual.  It is for this reason that the Great Crane Project had people dressed up as cranes (not a good likeness but good enough for the young birds) in order to teach the youngsters how to be cranes, just as their parent would in the wild.

Education is important in most things we do and zoos can be a great source of education about the natural world, the organisms we share the world with and the pressures placed upon them.  Indeed, many zoos (perhaps those we might describe as good zoos) form partnerships with conservation organisations in various parts of the world in order to support environments and species.  I am not sure the captive animals we have in the UK are then needed to do this, though it is the paying public that provide the funds to enable this to happen - so zoos can raise awareness and channel funds and expertise to areas of need - I would argue this is the most important role zoos play in the modern world.  There are, however, some animals that, in my view, should never be kept in captivity - I have referred to cetaceans in a previous post and would add many large mammals, such as polar bears to the list.  I think that the UK has quite strict regulations for zoos, but I suspect some other countries are not so strong in this respect, which may lead to some very poor conditions for the animals they are responsible for.  I have only seen one zoo in another country, so I cannot really comment on this.

It is my view that zoos can play a part in education and I think it is visiting zoos as well as being outside as often as possible when I was young, that helped me develop my love for and interest in the natural world - I wouldn't necessarily want to take that away from future generations, though, of course, there is now so much information available now on TV and the internet that even this role is becoming less important.  It is now possible, for example, to use a mobile device to watch films from Earth Touch and BBC Earth on YouTube, and there are many more!  I would argue that captive breeding in zoos does not generally help conservation directly but that having a place where visitors can see the living animals they see in the media first hand can support the development of interest indirectly in those people.  This should always be done with the interests of the animals in mind and if the needs cannot be met for any given species, that species must not be kept.  As mentioned above, some zoos do support conservation directly by working with individuals and organisations around the world, providing funds and expertise and it is the visitors that enable this to happen.

Extinction is unpleasant, but is also a way of life and the evolutionary tree is full of the bodies of the species that did not make it, so there will be some battles we will not win.  We also have to keep in mind the amount of funding available - who decides where it is spent?  There is only so much that can be done with the resources available, so some will not, unfortunately, get on the boat and will end up in the pages of the species we have lost.  We have to try to make the decisions that that are the best we can but when one species, namely Homo sapiens, is responsible for the destruction of so much habitat and reducing species to the brink of extinction, surely, it is the responsibility of that species to do what it can to preserve what we have, which may include zoos taking an active part in education generations now and in the future.

Some thoughts on the badger cull

I started to write this some time ago, intending to develop it much further.  I have now decided to just publish it now, though I may return to it if time allows.

There is no doubt farming and those working to produce the food we need have to deal with a lot - the vagaries of the British weather and the prices paid by major supermarkets, for example.  To then have to struggle with disease must be hard to deal with, to say the least.  Farmers deserve to be able to make a living.   After all, they are producing the food we need and managing the landscape we in the UK love so much.

It should be recognised that the British countryside has been heavily managed across the millennia.  A significant actor in this regard has been farming and it is farms that have land that is frequented by many species of animals and plants.  Of course, we do have national parks, country parks, nature reserves of various kinds and other land designations that will also support a wide range of species.  Mobile species, such as badgers, don't recognise the boundaries we set, moving across the countryside to forage for food and disperse to new territories.

Coming from the viewpoint that all organisms have a right to life, I believe that it is wrong to cull badgers as part of the management of bTB.  While this may be borne out of emotion and a sense of fairness, I think it could also take the focus from where it really needs to be: biosecurity and effective management of livestock movements.

Though I don't consider myself an expert here, it would appear the culls that have taken place have not been effective and I did read somewhere that the best result following a cull would be about 16% reduction in bTB (unfortunately, I don't have the reference for this) - if this is correct and the best that can be hoped for due to the cull, I would like to know how the other 84% will be dealt with.

More Thoughts on Transport

Started writing this in June!

All this week I have given up the car in favour of public transport - buses and trains mainly.  I would like to say this was through choice as the 'green agenda', whatever that is, is important to me.  However, the reality is that this has been forced on me by my car failing the MOT.

I enjoy travelling by public transport as I don't then have to do battle with the traffic and can catch up on my reading.  However, though I live in a town not far from London, we are not well served by public transport. For example, I can catch a bus to the station not far from home. This runs once an hour and I can't buy a return ticket as the buses finish just before I can get back into town!  The trains generally run very well but are not cheap.  The bus issue is something of a chicken and egg situation. The buses are run by commercial companies and need to have enough customers to make running their buses viable.  People, on the other hand, won't use the buses unless they are more frequent and convenient!  I guess this requires government intervention where it isn't viable to put on the buses.  In defence of the located government here they do support some late evening buses but I doubt they could financially support more at this time.

Now, I still use trains at least once a week but cycle to the station rather than relying in buses!

Celebrity

I thought about writing this around Christmas time when the sport personality of the year was being discussed in the media. I have nothing against sport, though it does not interest me personally. Of course, taking part in sport can lead to better fitness and it is good to encourage young people to get involved.

So, what's this about? Well, I have an issue with the salaries paid to many stars. Of course, they should be paid and the level should be appropriate to the situation and take account of the potentially limited time that can be spent playing professionally.

Coincidentally, I also watched the RI Christmas lectures (as I do most years). The lectures for 2013, called The Life Fantastic and available on the Royal Institution's site, literally brought tears to my eyes when some guest scientists explained the work they had been doing concerning the eye.  More recently, I watched an edition of Bang Goes the Theory on the BBC on ageing.  At one point, one of the presenters, Liz Bonnin, met with scientists researching dementias, such as Alzheimer's disease.  The work they are doing is nothing short of amazing.

Now, I am not saying that sports personalities and entertainers don't have talent - it is clear they do and I enjoy listening to music and even watch the (very) occasional sports contest.  What I am saying is that the real heroes in this life are those that work tirelessly in the laboratory or out in the field, trying to make the world a better place and our path through it more comfortable.

Of course, scientists can receive recognition through prizes such as the Nobel awards, though few get these.  It can also be argued that science has caused many of the problems we now have and that increasing longevity just contributes to the issues connected with the increasing human population.  Though these may have validity, it is also true to say that it is science that will also find the answers and that without science I would not, for example, be able to write this blog.  It is also science that allows us to understand the issues facing this planet and the myriad species hat share it with us - I am also hopeful that science will find the ways through to ensuring these organisms will be here for our descendants to see.  I would also like to think science will find the answers, if answers are to be found (!), for the ills that inflect our ageing human populations.

Have a good day

Sounds of Nature

I have commented about this before but thought I would just give an update.

Went out this morning to attempt more recordings - I thought that going really early early would leave me with the sounds of nature and only the occasional human-made sound to disturb the 'tranquility' - I was wrong, of course, the main issue being the planes flying overhead - I guess this is the price one pays when living so close to London - flight paths appear to criss-cross the skies overhead with hardly a break.

In spite of the unwanted sounds, I persevered.  I have recently decided to try something different - to put the microphone away from me by using a long cable.  This has, I think, helped to reduce the noises from me and also allows the microphone to be a bit closer to the birds if I position it and then wait for them to move into position.

This photograph was taken this morning and (almost) illustrates the method used - the microphone is actually the other side of the fence, attached to a branch of the bush.

The recorder is an Olympus LS-14 and the microphone a secondhand Sennheiser - I know this is not quite up to the standard of equipment someone like Chris Watson would use but it's all mu budget could withsand - the recorder is capable of better than CD quality, though that is unlikely to appreciated from my recordings because of the unwanted noises.

While out this morning, I didn't get much that was really usable, with the possible exception of this wren, which was recorded using the setup in the picture.

I have put most of my recordings on Soundcloud but have decided to try just giving links to shared files on Google Drive, which is where the wren recording is kept.

When it comes to editing, I do have access (legally!) to some very expensive software but find I keep coming back to Audacity, which is, in my opinion, the best sound editor available - it's easy to use and open source and free!

I can't finish this post without mentioning Tweet of the Day from the BBC.  I have listened to them all - if you can't listen at just before six, do what I do and subscribe to the podcast - have a good day full of the sounds you love!

Fishing

Fish are an important source of protein for many people around the globe.  Indeed, fish can be an important source of protein for those of us living in the UK and other developed nations.

Though some fish are farmed, I suspect most are not and are caught from the wild.  This is hunting, though hunting on an industrial level.  When I was at university, we looked at the models used by scientists to help determine the level of fishing populations can withstand.  Though I say fishing here, similar models can be used in other areas, such as forestry.

The models we used were called maximum sustainable yield or MSY.  See this Wikipedia article for a brief discussion with references of MSY models applied to fisheries.  If you think about it, the maximum yield possible would be every individual of a given species, though that would hardly be sustainable - what is going to be available to fishermen the following year?  Whatever you may think of fishing regulations and quotas, you can't eat an extinct fish!

Factors to consider when working out how much fish can be caught include the population size, the rate of recruitment, that is the rate at which new individuals are added to the population (breeding), the rate at which individuals are lost from the population, the age mix of the population, the carrying capacity of the environment and, in this context, the amount of effort that goes into the fishing process.  Fishing effort could include the efficiency with which fish are located, how many can be caught at one time, how long boats can stay at sea fishing and processing the catch and so on.

Many animals (I am including humans here) eat animal protein and all animals must live with the resources at their disposal.  A surge in prey may lead to a surge in predators, though with a slight lag.  The increase in predator numbers then leads to a reduction in prey - ultimately, predator and prey, having evolved over large expanses of time, come to be in some kind of balance - their population numbers hover around the carrying capacity of the area.  This balance can be upset if non-native species are introduced, though that is another story I will return to another time.

Humans use their technology to cheat the crashes, at least they do in the developed world - we still hear of famines seriously affecting what we might call the developing world.  We farm crops and animals, we hunt and we move the products around the globe in order to keep the supermarkets' shelves full.  However, when it comes to fishing, we may think we are beyond the ecology, though we really are not - we still can't eat that extinct fish!  After saying this, it is largely accepted that eating fish is not all bad, which is why organisations such as the Marine Conservation Society (MCS) make recommendations about the use of sustainable fisheries and that we should eat a variety of species and not just cod.

In summary, I am not advocating all to stop eating fish, but wanted to put some perspective into why scientists may sometimes suggest a reduction in quotas is necessary, or why other suggest the level of discards (unwanted catch) can only make matters worse.  The practice of discarding unwanted fish has now been banned, though this will not in itself protect our fisheries and make them sustainable. If you think that scare mongering is involved, read this article presented at a meeting in November 1995.