Casting stones (at Ruddy Ducks)
By Charlie • December 4, 2009 • 10 commentsYesterday I sent a message to my local Yahoo group about the Wetlands and Wildfowl Trust (WWT) membership give-away competition we’re running at the moment. Most (if not all) the members of the group live within an hour’s drive of Slimbridge, the WWT’s HQ, and I figured that the news would be well-received and hopefully we’d get a few new Conservation Club UK members. Apparently I was wrong…
I know from our web stats that the Competition page was viewed repeatedly throughout the day, but surprisingly the only feedback I had was negative and (I must admit) I thought a little mean-spirited. I won’t name names of course, but one correspondent was particularly adamant that he/she would never step across Slimbridge’s threshold again because WWT supported a highly controversial cull of Ruddy Ducks Oxyura jamaicensis here in the UK.
Our population of around 4000 wintering Ruddy Ducks, which are native to North America of course, apparently arose from escapees from the wildfowl collection at Slimbridge back in the late 1950s/early 1960s - which is an irony pointed out by a second correspondent.
Most birders here have no problem whatsoever with Ruddy Ducks spreading out across the UK’s reservoirs and lakes (I took the photo left at Chew Valley Lake, UK in 2007), but it’s not what Ruddys are doing within our boundaries that triggered the ‘cull’ (and, boy, do I hate that euphemism ‘cull’). Some males have apparently been leaving the cold winters here behind them and flying down to southern Europe for some sunshine and r&r - including fraternising with the very local and Endangered White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala. A very small number of hybrids have been found and researchers worry that Ruddys are threatening the genetic purity of the latter species.
I’ve not read all the published research to know whether this is actually happening or not, but I don’t imagine that WWT took the decision to support (in word only, not deed) removing wildfowl from British waters without a great deal of discussion and soul-searching (I’ll ask them when I get a chance). I doubt whether very many outside the NGO community have seen the research either, but the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) supported the ‘cull’ too, and, responding to a correspondent on the forum VeggieRomance.com, an RSPB Wildlife Advisor said that:
“Our decision to support the Government’s plans to eradicate North American ruddy ducks from the UK, as part of a package of measures to help safeguard the white-headed duck, is one of the most difficult the Society has ever had to make. It has been arrived at following years of careful consideration of the detailed scientific research carried out into this issue. We are faced with a stark choice – either we act to stop ruddy ducks spreading from the UK, or we stand by and watch the ruddy duck push the globally threatened white-headed duck ever closer to extinction…We do understand why this action will cause distress to some – we too would rather not be faced with this situation. The ruddy duck provides a cautionary tale of what can happen when man puts a species into the wrong place, which then has a devastating impact on other wildlife – we must learn from the mistakes of the past.”
I fully respect any birder’s right to support or not support a conservation organisation, but when I said that I thought that this particular correspondent’s comments were ‘a little mean-spirited’ (I don’t know him/her by the way and what follows is meant to be read in general terms and not specifically aimed at one person in any way) it was because it seems to me that singling out a point of disagreement while seemingly not recognising the excellent work an organisation does in other areas is patently unfair.
Looking just at the WWT and the RSPB it’s immediately apparent that both are deeply involved with projects across the globe protecting Critically Endangered and Endangered birds (we’ve posted about some of them recently, eg Sociable Lapwing, Slender-billed Curlew, Madagascar Pochard): they’re doing far more than the vast majority of us to conserve the species we want to see. And when I write ‘they’re’ I’m actually bundling up a huge number of individuals into a handy package of course, individuals who work long hours for little personal financial gain (no conservationist will ever get a banker’s bonus, nor will they plunge the world into financial chaos) and have to make difficult decisions that the rest of us just talk about.
In truth almost every conservation organisation I can think of has its vociferous critics for one reason or another (and I’m not counting dogmatic lobbyists like Japanese whaling groups or commercial parrot breeders - their reasons are self-evident), but I can’t think what standing way out on the sideline pointing an accusing finger at one aspect of their work is actually supposed to achieve? Not ‘taking part’ won’t change their strategy or direction. It won’t allow you to nudge funding towards specific projects you might like supporting. It doesn’t give you lobbying power. It’s particularly pointless if you don’t engage in any dialogue with the organisation: if they don’t know what your complaints are how and why would they respond?
I’m only musing. Perhaps life is just too short to bother taking on so many fights. Perhaps we’ve just become a cynical society in the wake of repeated political scandals and financial disasters, have been let-down by too many sporting or entertainment idols, become so disenfranchised that we honestly don’t believe there’s any point in trying any more?
Some people may well feel that’s the case, but if that is your reaction (and to some extent it’s mine) let’s just be grateful too that there are thousands of individuals working for conservation organisations worldwide who passionately believe that there is a point in fighting so hard - and, as I said, facing up to difficult decisions that the rest of will never have to make.
Have you seen the cool 10,000 Birds t-shirts? Get yours today!
The culling isn’t going to be done by throwing rocks at the ducks, is it? Oh, I get it, metaphorically casting stones.
I think that the situation you describe is neatly summed up as “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.”
Good post!
If someone disagrees with the removal of the Ruddies, let them read a story on the Kakapo’s demise, or in fact any other tale on the wreckage caused by invasive species on the local ecosystems.
It’s not pretty, and maybe in some cases it could be done more sensibly (I read an account by Lee Evans - who opposes the cull by the way - which seemed to convey that the cull he witnessed wasn’t done in the most disciplined and least intrusive way).
But the fact that a UK without invasive Ruddies (never mind a vagrant or two once in a while) is an ecologically better place just can’t be denied if you think beyond the checklist.
And to not support an organisation like the WWT just because it agrees with the removal of an invasive species is ridiculous, if not outrageous when coming form a birder / nature enthusiast.
It just goes to show how many wildlife and animal ‘fans’ are unaware of the true complexities out there in the natural world.
Especially when that natural world has been put off balance by the introduction of something that just should not be there.
Posters such as the one you mentioned - if they wanted to prevent wild bird destruction would do more good by putting their efforts into aiding the many initiatives to prevent the slaughter of [for instance] migrating birds in Mediterranean territories such as Malta, rather than slagging good organisations that have had to make very difficult decisions, that they personally don’t like?
Charlie—-Excellent post,it made me late for picking up my grand daughter at preschool. The world is made up of interesting folks.
Man that is frustrating. People need to realize it is all about populations and species, not individuals. If the Ruddys are a threat, kill them all now while there are only 4000 and you’ve still got a chance at an effective solution. Never let those pansy animal rights people get in the way of real conservation.
That said, I know little about this system. Has it actually been documented that the hybrids are breeding back into the White-headed population?
“…pansy animal rights people get in the way of real conservation.”
As one of those “pansy” animal rights people who doesn’t eat meat, wear leather or wool, or indulge in anything that includes the death or harming or use of an animal, let me see if I can speak to that.
I walk through life via a “do no harm” mentality. If it can be helped, I prefer not to cause any creature to suffer or die at my expense. I know meat production for human consumption causes a significant amount of greenhouse gasses, destroys way too much native habitat, and causes the extinction of far too many species. It also means killing, something I don’t believe in except when extraordinarily necessary. So I don’t do it. But those willing to kill the ruddy ducks probably go right on eating their hamburgers and sausages in favor of the loss of natural habitat and native species.
And don’t get me started on petroleum, plastic, paper… Well, you get the point.
I know the difference between “introduced” and “invasive” species, a difference many are blind to or ignore intentionally. An introduced species can’t be blamed for its predicament, therefore killing it in the name of preservation is treating a symptom, not a cause. While there’s focus on protecting native life at the expense of introduced life, should we not also spend an equal amount of time and energy addressing the cause of the introductions? I think so, but few of those “causes” (i.e., humans) will agree.
I’m not looking to start a fight. I’m simply pointing out that one should be exceptionally careful of how one throws about the word “conservation” while one spends money and time causing extinction through consumption. Killing is a serious matter. Be sure it’s advocated only after heartfelt consideration–and without “pansy” mentalities. If you’re willing to sacrifice life, be sure you’re willing to sacrifice in your own life first.
(And in the scheme of things, a small population of ruddy ducks could well be killed for the protection of white-headed ducks if it means saving a species. I just think it’s important for perspective to prevail.)
In general, I support eliminating introduced and/or invasive species where there’s any evidence that they may be doing harm to native species. After all, if I can get behind shooting a cat, I can get behind damn near anything. In this particular case my gut instinct would be that the cull/killing was the correct choice, not desirable per se, but the best of a lot of bad options.
That said, as my post on the San Clemente goats pointed out, there is sometimes nuance in these situations and they should all be taken on a case-by-case basis. For that matter, a conservation measure doesn’t need to involve killing to be controversial. I remember that there was argument about capturing the last few wild California Condors for captive breeding, and although history is so far on the side of the pro-captivity folks, if the birds had all got sick and died or refused to breed they would have looked pretty bad. A very similar situation nearly closed the book on the Black-footed Ferret, but for the fact that the “last” wild ferrets captured weren’t actually the last wild ferrets.
The fact is, in fighting extinction all conservation workers are running ahead of a wave of unknowns and desperately trying whatever seems like it might work (usually with a tiny budget and powerful opposition.) Mistakes are totally understandable, almost inevitable, but at the same time, because the stakes are so high, very nearly unforgivable. Under the circumstances it’s no wonder tempers fray.
Also, epic fail at the use of the word “pansy” as an insult.
I have a problem with killing ruddy ducks too but I don’t have a problem with being a WWT or RSPB member. I’m sure your correspondent would immediately storm the moral high ground and accuse me of hypocrisy.
I don’t care. That’s what he (or she but I bet it’s a he) is looking for. That’s what he’ll find. Everywhere. I hope he has a nicer life next time round.
There’s currently a Ruddy Duck in far eastern Austria, do I need to say any more?
The birders seem happy though…