Is Helping Hindering? A Nature Loving Dilemma

The very idea of conservation is to right the wrongs of those who have come before us. To rebuild habitats that have been destroyed, to bring endangered species back from the brink and to stem the tide of human disturbance that’s sweeping the planet. We may never get to a place where every single person on Earth has concerns over the state of the environment but of that minority of eco-conscious warriors, there is a united mentality to make a positive difference. The goal across the board is to allow our wild places to thrive, in spite of an increasingly urban landscape. There may be individuals who seek greed over ecological wellbeing but for nature nerds, their hearts are in the right place. So, to throw a spanner in the works, what if, sometimes, even naturalists do more harm than good? How do we feel about the idea that our actions to help the environment could be doing the opposite? 

 Let’s be entirely controversial and jump into this.

 An early disclaimer, I am of course not contradicting the entire idea of caring about the environment. This is not the time to sack off recycling and buy a 4x4, I merely want to explore certain behaviours that, on paper, seem to be making progress, whilst actually causing a setback. All of these actions are done with the best intentions, I’m simply highlighting that a rethink may be in order. Lower your pitchfork now. Do it.

 A common example is the supplementary feeding of birds and other wildlife. The sentiment is there, provide our wild neighbours with a meal to replace the void left by human development. Where once was forest may now be a cul-de-sac, putting out a fat ball feeder simply makes up for the lost habitats. If you fill your feeders, you’re literally preventing starvation. If you can tell the mood is about to shift, you’re certainly correct. The true long-term impacts of feeding garden birds aren’t wholly clear but we can be fairly certain on a few side effects. The spreading of diseases as a result of feeders not being cleaned is an unfortunate and unintended consequence, with garden favourites such as greenfinches experiencing huge population declines. There is also strong evidence to suggest that feeding birds are making them lazy and dependent, not the ideal outcome if the seed runs out or the conditions turn south. Scraps designed for birds may also encourage vermin, which is controversial depending on your flavour of conservation. Either way, perhaps peanuts aren’t the way forward? Perhaps the RSPB won’t flag this to you as they have their own merchandise to flog. I’m just saying… don’t shoot the messenger…

 Another example is the modern idea of nest box spamming. If it’s not your local council peppering a tree with boxes, it’s your neighbour covering the side of their shed. Once again, what’s the harm in providing shelter? Replicating a tree cavity just for your woodland friends makes perfect sense. The only problem really is wasted endeavour. Of the UK species that nest in boxes, only house sparrows love living alongside each other. Any ecologist will tell you that near boxes all piled on top of each other will simply result in fighting. Territories still exist and it’s pretty much impossible that all of those new homes will get tenants. It’s about as helpful as that time we thought putting nets around trees was a great plan. What a waste of perfectly good wood.

 To royally ruffle some feathers, maybe No Mow May isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be? What started as a campaign designed to promote gardening laziness ended with a negative knock-on effect for one of our most endangered mammals. It’s believed that a number of injured hedgehogs were victims of post-May strimming, once people had decided they now wanted their gardens to look tidy. Personally, I’d need to see some proper scientific evidence but I’d hypothesise that a month of habitat creation, followed by 11 months of business as usual, will likely have little to no impact on our garden ecosystems. I support the mantra of ‘less is more’ but would it not be easier to spread that across a year? 31 days of respite is surely not long enough (but I’m happy to be proved wrong).

 Attenborough documentaries are a jolly romp until the star of the scene gets devoured by a predator. This dramatisation adds a layer of personification and ultimately makes the viewer pick a side, often in favour of the prey ‘protagonist’. The demonisation of predators isn’t a new phenomenon but when you hear stories of bystanders playing God and rescuing prey, the very nature of a food web is dusted away. The lines between nature lover and animal rights activist are blurry but if you’re ever conflicted, remember what the opening song in The Lion King is. As a rule of thumb, any kind of tampering with regimes of the natural world is deemed immoral. It isn’t necessarily promoting the idea of suffering but every battle needs a victor and a loser. Being a wildlife hero exhibits all the best intentions but perhaps letting nature do its thing is for the best.

 You know what I’d also like to see data on? Whether the benefits of promoting wildlife photography outweigh the potential negative impact on subject species. We all laud over glossy insta snaps and feel much more connected to the great outdoors via social media. It’s one of the many joys of being a 21st-century naturalist, not having to rely on stuffed specimens or dodgy paintings. The reality is, we gush over the top-notch content, not the safe options. Close-up shots of obscure behaviour are really what we long for and to achieve this, lines are crossed. Photographers need to go that one step further. At no point am I accusing wildlife photographers of disrespect, however, there is undisputedly a minority that favours the picture over the species' welfare. The photographer wins, but at what cost?

If I was in a micro-analysing mood, I’d mention that most nature reserves are inaccessible by public transport, thus promoting car usage but… I won’t be that pernickety. I think you catch my drift on this though, enough said.

In summary, to go back to what I said earlier, let’s give up and go home. There’s clearly no point, what we’re doing isn’t working. Is there a solution? I guess doing a double-take on our actions and reevaluating them may help. If you want to feed birds, do it infrequently and always make sure to clean your feeders. If you put out nest boxes, don’t create an apartment block. If you can’t be bothered to mow the lawn, leave one area to go wild all year round. I don’t have all the answers and I am not the spokesperson for how to enjoy nature responsibly, I’m just putting my thoughts out there. 

We’re all trying, which is the most important thing. A* for effort guys!