AutumnWatch 2015

chillin117

Starts tonight on BBC2 at 9pm and on all week

Keplar240B

missed it , I am seeing on twitter that George monbiot was on

gzoladz

Available on the iplayer.

Jayzesake

Wildlife TV shows don't help conservation, says Autumnwatch presenter

“We were hoping that by making these terribly popular programmes we might have had some positive effect on conservation. But sadly the peak of wildlife film making – Trials of Life, the most successful blue chip series – has coincided with an appalling crash in the number of wildlife around the world,” he said.


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/30/autumnwatch-style-wildlife-programmes-dont-help-conservation-says-presenter


(I've never seen the show myself: we have no tv in the house.)

Woodville56

Jayzesake wrote: »

Wildlife TV shows don't help conservation, says Autumnwatch presenter

“We were hoping that by making these terribly popular programmes we might have had some positive effect on conservation. But sadly the peak of wildlife film making – Trials of Life, the most successful blue chip series – has coincided with an appalling crash in the number of wildlife around the world,” he said.


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/30/autumnwatch-style-wildlife-programmes-dont-help-conservation-says-presenter


(I've never seen the show myself: we have no tv in the house.)

Thanks for posting Jayzesake! Interesting perspective there from Martin Hughes-Games of Autumnwatch /Springwatch, if perhaps a bit pessimistic imo. He may be speaking from a global perspective or not in the context of a reflection on his specific programme?
The same article quotes the Springwatch/Autumnwatch series as attracting a viewing audience of 3m plus - hard to imagine that it has no conservation or biodiversity awareness value given the audience reach ? They do tend to highlight the creme de la creme of reserves in these programmes but the camerawork is sometimes spectacular. In fairness they do try and encourage their viewers to become active citizen scientists through the various on the spot surveys and sightings reports that they invite. Perhaps that's targeting the already converted but I wouldn't be as pessimistic as regards the minimal impact of of exposure to wildlife and biodiversity on programmes such as Autumnwatch etc, or indeed our own "Living the Wildlife" series. Every little helps. Preservation and defending our wildlife and wild places needs all the help and awareness it can muster so any form of positive media exposure should be welcomed imo,

Bonedigger

That article suggests 50% of the planet's species have been lost since the 1970s! That's pretty shocking if true.:(

Jayzesake

Bonedigger wrote: »

That article suggests 50% of the planet's wildlife has been lost since the 1970s! That's pretty shocking if true.:(

Unfortunately, it is.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lost-50-wildlife-in-40-years-wwf

Alun

Jayzesake wrote: »

Unfortunately, it is.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lost-50-wildlife-in-40-years-wwf

Losing 50% of the planets wildlife and 50% of the planet's species are two different things though, albeit neither of them good.

Jayzesake

Woodville56 wrote: »

Thanks for posting Jayzesake! Interesting perspective there from Martin Hughes-Games of Autumnwatch /Springwatch, if perhaps a bit pessimistic imo. He may be speaking from a global perspective or not in the context of a reflection on his specific programme?
The same article quotes the Springwatch/Autumnwatch series as attracting a viewing audience of 3m plus - hard to imagine that it has no conservation or biodiversity awareness value given the audience reach ? They do tend to highlight the creme de la creme of reserves in these programmes but the camerawork is sometimes spectacular. In fairness they do try and encourage their viewers to become active citizen scientists through the various on the spot surveys and sightings reports that they invite. Perhaps that's targeting the already converted but I wouldn't be as pessimistic as regards the minimal impact of of exposure to wildlife and biodiversity on programmes such as Autumnwatch etc, or indeed our own "Living the Wildlife" series. Every little helps. Preservation and defending our wildlife and wild places needs all the help and awareness it can muster so any form of positive media exposure should be welcomed imo,

Without ever having seen the show, I totally agree with you Bonedigger. I think perhaps the point he was making was that, regardless of the success of such tv programmes, the state of the natural world has continued to deteriorate at a dramatic and accellerating rate everywhere.

But it's also true that this has taken place despite all of the many huge efforts of conservationists throughout the last few decades. It's not that those efforts have been a waste of time; on the contrary, things would have been far worse without them. It's rather than it just hasn't been enough in the face of a global system that sees the natural world as little more than a set of 'natural resources' for our species to exploit in pursuit of endless economic (and population) growth.

Jayzesake

Alun wrote: »

Losing 50% of the planets wildlife and 50% of the planet's species are two different things though, albeit neither of them good.

Sure they're different, but we are rapidly heading in the direction of the latter. It could happen in this century, if human behaviour doesn't change radically.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

magicbastarder

it may be the case that there is not much marginal difference made by these programs because a) the audience is the sort of audience which is already interested, so you're not winning new 'hearts and minds', or b) the people in the position to make a difference (who do not do so) are not swayed by these programs.

Jayzesake

gzoladz wrote: »

Available on the iplayer.

I tried that, and got a message that it's only available to viewers in the U.K.

Jayzesake

magicbastarder wrote: »

it may be the case that there is not much marginal difference made by these programs because a) the audience is the sort of audience which is already interested, so you're not winning new 'hearts and minds', or b) the people in the position to make a difference (who do not do so) are not swayed by these programs.

Woodville56 wrote: »

The same article quotes the Springwatch/Autumnwatch series as attracting a viewing audience of 3m plus - hard to imagine that it has no conservation or biodiversity awareness value given the audience reach ?

Or it may be that most of the 3,000,000+ viewers watch the programme as entertainment in the same way many of them might watch the x-factor, i.e. without taking on board that ecology is not just another interesting topic, or hobby - it's life on our planet, which is in a very bad way.

Hence once the programme ends, so does their engagement with the issues?

OpenYourEyes

magicbastarder wrote: »

it may be the case that there is not much marginal difference made by these programs because a) the audience is the sort of audience which is already interested, so you're not winning new 'hearts and minds', or b) the people in the position to make a difference (who do not do so) are not swayed by these programs.

I think that's part of the problem, but if you look at their viewing figures there should be plenty of people in that who are coming 'onboard' the conservation movement, so to speak.

I'm reading a book about environmental attitudes at the moment, and I think part of the problem is that people aren't getting any direct experience themselves. So they're watching Whooper Swans on Autumnwatch, but they aren't getting out and seeing them in their hometown or county. So they're pro-Whooper Swan, but that attitude isn't strongly or deeply held, so if there was a threat to the Whoopers in their area they'd be unlikely to actually do anything to stop it. By contrast, someone who has direct experience - so who regularly goes and looks at the Whoopers in their area, or better still who has seen before the impact of a development on a previous Whooper site, is likely to put much more effort into defending the Whoopers in their area. Because their attitude is strongly held and tied to direct experience, its much more likely to actually translate into a behaviour, whereas most people have positive attitudes towards conservation/wildlife/environment but that rarely translates into tangible behaviour.

If you take the recent ruling against Bord na Mona - most people would say they're pro-environment, but for a large % of people that view isn't deeply or strongly held and essentially amounts to "bord na mona = bad". Those people are easily swayed when the usual rhetoric of jobs/economy are thrown out, whereas people with a better knowledge of the damage done by peat extraction through direct experience (e.g. familiarity with what a raised bog should look like) are not easily swayed by that rhetoric.

The book basically rubbishes the idea that 'education is key' - things like direct experience and linking to a persons identity are much much more important. Thats why I think the eNGO branches that get children and adults involved in activities on a regular basis (Laois/Offaly IWT looks to be particularly good in that regard) are the key to making people care enough to actual do something when needs be. I think Autumnwatch tries to get people involved as much as it can, but its usually still only a tiny % of their huge viewing figures.

magicbastarder

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

I'm reading a book about environmental attitudes at the moment, and I think part of the problem is that people aren't getting any direct experience themselves.

i'd be interested if there was any examination of why britain has far higher engagement with conservation than ireland (just taking membership of ecological groups as a crude measure).
because the interesting thing is that i suspect a flipside to the lack of experience question is familiarity breeding contempt, depending on the attitude of the person in question. ireland is a more rural country than britain, so is that a factor? that conservation is linked to 'the countryside' and agriculture?

OpenYourEyes

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd be interested if there was any examination of why britain has far higher engagement with conservation than ireland (just taking membership of ecological groups as a crude measure).
because the interesting thing is that i suspect a flipside to the lack of experience question is familiarity breeding contempt, depending on the attitude of the person in question. ireland is a more rural country than britain, so is that a factor? that conservation is linked to 'the countryside' and agriculture?

I think social class (historically) played a big part. In the 1800's and 1900's most Irish families would have been too busy ensuring their family was fed to worry about something like birdwatching or conservation, whereas in the UK at the same time there were many well-off people and families who could afford to go birdwatching or studying wildlife in their spare time.

A knock-on effect of that is that many of those old estates would have been handed over or bought up and are now nature reserves, whereas in Ireland the old estates were divided up between landowners, then divided up between sons a generation later etc etc. In the UK the RSPB can do landscape-scale conservation by working with relatively few landowners, whereas in Ireland to do the same thing you'd have to work with hundreds of landowners, which makes it much harder.

...and then the more nature reserves and well-conserved landscapes you have, the easier it is for public engagement. Whereas in Ireland we have a tiny number of eNGO nature reserves and no money to have them manned by engagement or education officers.


I'm sure its a very complex issue overall, just some thoughts on it!

Jayzesake

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

I'm reading a book about environmental attitudes at the moment, and I think part of the problem is that people aren't getting any direct experience themselves.

The book basically rubbishes the idea that 'education is key' - things like direct experience and linking to a persons identity are much much more important.

What's the book out of curiosity, OYE?

OpenYourEyes

Jayzesake wrote: »

What's the book out of curiosity, OYE?

'Navigating Environmental Attitudes' by Thomas Heberlein. I'd highly recommend it.

Jayzesake

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

'Navigating Environmental Attitudes' by Thomas Heberlein. I'd highly recommend it.

I read some of the reviews on amazon.com, and it does indeed look interesting. Might have to pick up a copy myself.

Jayzesake

Jayzesake wrote: »

Might have to pick up a copy myself.

Done.

OpenYourEyes

I read in a paper before that most conservation problems are not ecological, but are essentially 'people problems'. We know what large carnivores eat and how much of it they need, we know the conditions that ground-nesting birds need to breed in, the invertebrates that are needed to pollinate wildflowers and plants etc. While continued research is always good and frequently enlightening and beneficial, essentially we know what conditions various wildlife species and communities would thrive in. The problem is either convincing people to do it, or convincing people to stimulate enough change at governmental level to implement it as policy etc - not always conflict necessarily, but still essentially 'people problems'.

With that in mind, I think the above book is very enlightening. We have to consider the people/social element when it comes to conservation!

Jayzesake

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

I read in a paper before that most conservation problems are not ecological, but are essentially 'people problems'. We know what large carnivores eat and how much of it they need, we know the conditions that ground-nesting birds need to breed in, the invertebrates that are needed to pollinate wildflowers and plants etc. While continued research is always good and frequently enlightening and beneficial, essentially we know what conditions various wildlife species and communities would thrive in. The problem is either convincing people to do it, or convincing people to stimulate enough change at governmental level to implement it as policy etc - not always conflict necessarily, but still essentially 'people problems'.

With that in mind, I think the above book is very enlightening. We have to consider the people/social element when it comes to conservation!

I largely agree, in the sense that it is humans that are certainly causing all of the problems occurring in the natural world.

However I do think that the relatively recent understandings of how ecological systems function are essential too, in terms of knowing exactly what is required to have a chance of making them healthy again, when engaging in restoration of ecosystems, for example. And in knowing what we should be pushing for within society. The relatively new field of conservation biology was born out those understandings, and seeks to use them. Rewilding (Cores, Corridors and Carnivores) is also a natural follow-on of all of that.

Capercaillie

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Thats why I think the eNGO branches that get children and adults involved in activities on a regular basis (Laois/Offaly IWT looks to be particularly good in that regard) are the key to making people care enough to actual do something when needs be.

IWT Laois/Offaly together with Abbeyleix bog project doing good work. I've gone down a couple of times hacking out rhododendron from the bog forest with them. The whole community involved. They even got Bord na Móna helping them, after stopping them from destroying the bog in the first place! They got the local carpentry group ( I think!) to put down a boardwalk for them! I think the key is good leadership organising the group.

BWI have a good young fellow organising work days on the ECNR. He's good at annoying people and getting them out on the work days! You need a persistent person like that. He's enthusiasm is infectious and it gets people returning for repeat days.

People like these are in short supply though!

Bonedigger

Bonedigger wrote: »

That article suggests 50% of the planet's species have been lost since the 1970s! That's pretty shocking if true.:(

Alun wrote: »

Losing 50% of the planets wildlife and 50% of the planet's species are two different things though, albeit neither of them good.

The first article, with the Martin Hughes-Games interview, suggests 50% of the planet's species have been lost since the seventies, but the link to the WWF report in the same article tells us 50% of the planet's wildlife has been lost. Whoever wrote the first article got their words muddled up. However, as Alun points out, it's still shocking either way!

Jayzesake

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

'Navigating Environmental Attitudes' by Thomas Heberlein. I'd highly recommend it.

After a delayed start due to work pressures, I'm reading this now. I have to say the first few chapters have been something of a revelation in many respects, and I'm looking forward to learning more from it.

Woodville56

Interesting article on how feeding garden birds connects people to nature and whether species richness or volume of birds in the garden is the preferred outcome. I must say personally that I find watching everything that comes to the feeders enjoyable, and wouldn't be too bothered about species variety over quantity availing of the food. For some I suppose it adds an extra bit of interest if you're in the habit of keeping patch lists etc ?


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141505

Jayzesake

Woodville56 wrote: »

Interesting article on how feeding garden birds connects people to nature and whether species richness or volume of birds in the garden is the preferred outcome. I must say personally that I find watching everything that comes to the feeders enjoyable, and wouldn't be too bothered about species variety over quantity availing of the food. For some I suppose it adds an extra bit of interest if you're in the habit of keeping patch lists etc ?

This will probably be seen as odd by some :rolleyes:, but I held off putting up bird feeders for years out of concern that, as an unnatural intervention, it would further unbalance local ecosystems. TBH, I haven't lost that niggling doubt, but reckon that on balance it's worth risking any such possible minor negative effects, particularly as the kids can now id at a glance all of the species that use it, and are generally more interested in wild birds as a result. When the feeder is empty, I wait for a few days before refilling it so the birds don't become completely dependant.

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

This will probably be seen as odd by some :rolleyes:, but I held off putting up bird feeders for years out of concern that, as an unnatural intervention, it would further unbalance local ecosystems. TBH, I haven't lost that niggling doubt, but reckon that on balance it's worth risking any such possible minor negative effects, particularly as the kids can now id at a glance all of the species that use it, and are generally more interested in wild birds as a result. When the feeder is empty, I wait for a few days before refilling it so the birds don't become completely dependant.

Once the first frost comes in I put out the feeders. Keep them filled till the goldfinces/redpoll start to leave in the Spring. Never have the feeders empty I would get guilty otherwise.

Jayzesake

Capercaillie wrote: »

Never have the feeders empty I would get guilty otherwise.

Why guilty? Birds survived well enough for millions of years without bird feeders. I would imagine the problem arises when they become completely dependant and then that source of calories is withdrawn (?).

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

Why guilty? Birds survived well enough for millions of years without bird feeders. I would imagine the problem arises when they become completely dependant and then that source of calories is withdrawn (?).

It is illogical. I consider the garden birds as nearly "pets".

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Jayzesake wrote: »

Why guilty? Birds survived well enough for millions of years without bird feeders. I would imagine the problem arises when they become completely dependant and then that source of calories is withdrawn (?).

If I withdrew feeding, the birds that once survived naturally in this area would be gone. No longer can they feed on an abundance of seed in the wild. Pasture land here is now devoid of much of the foods birds enjoyed for millennia. My garden woodland is a now scarce source of food and shelter. My birdtable is not an easy option; it is one of very few options remaining. They are not totally dependent on my feeding, as weekly counts at times of bumper availability of natural foods locally shows, but their long term survival is certainly enhanced by it.

Jayzesake

Caylee Little Timepiece wrote: »

If I withdrew feeding, the birds that once survived naturally in this area would be gone. No longer can they feed on an abundance of seed in the wild. Pasture land here is now devoid of much of the foods birds enjoyed for millennia. My garden woodland is a now scarce source of food and shelter. My birdtable is not an easy option; it is one of very few options remaining. They are not totally dependent on my feeding, as weekly counts at times of bumper availability of natural foods locally shows, but their long term survival is certainly enhanced by it.

All fair points, which I suppose would apply to most garden, and many rural, situations. I live on the edge of a tract of wild native woodland, so it's a bit different for me.