How to Promote Conservation?

[Imaginos]

Originally Posted by Airehead

I hope the TV producers will now cease to encourage the ridiculous excesses that have become popular - like the the bloke whose name I can't remember, who continually messes about with a snake while telling us how careful he has to be.

In an effort to avoid debate in what is essentially WAB's own tribute page to Steve Irwin I've separated this quote for a new thread as some interesting issues have been raised with his death.

In an age where the public are increasingly encouraged to fear the natural world (Bird Flu, Jaws, Channel 5 documentaries like "When Turtles Attack!!") Steve Irwin's approach, was-to me-a breath of fresh air. The 'ridiculous excesses' he and others (such as Austin Stevens-the bloke referred to above) have been accused of are as nothing compared to the methods employed by proffessional animal 'catchers' and certain wildlife tourist areas.
Methods for catching wild animals for zoos & private collections have little changed since Gerald Durrel described leaving a sloth in the middle of the floor to crawl around in distress, or David Attenborough wrestled an Anteater into a canvas sack, in fact they are probably worse now-especially if you include the battery-farm style transportation in, e.g. parrots.

Anyone appalled at the stress caused by handling must therefore be equally appalled at the stream of visitors driving terns to defensive distraction on the Farne Islands, or chasing wildlife across the African plains in a tourist jeep (or Big Cat Diary camera truck).

Irwin's enthusiastic style has also come in for critiscism in some places (for example Germaine Greer in today's Guardian). Which brings me round to the thread title. Consider this: which is more likely to get a youngster out from in front of the Playstation and interested in the world around them; Steve Irwin jumping into a tree to catch a Green Mamba, or Cwis Packham po-facedly telling you that if you stay really still for a few hours you might get a photo?

As a kid me & a mate went out into the countryside regularly to catch Common Lizards (sadly a real rarity in the same haunts now-only 15-20 years later) by hand, handled spiders, slugs and no-end of other creepy-crawlies. (We didn't have anyone like Steve to look up to, but I'm sure we'd have been shouting Crikey!, or Strewth, what a Beaut, if he had been around then). Imagine, then, my appalled surprise when the directive came down from above that for our National Insect Week bug hunt we were instructed to tell the kids not to touch anything of course we ignored this directive and were repeatedly treated to the sight of, initially reluctant, young boys & girls picking things up in order to get a closer look & fully appreciate the beauty of their fellow inhabitants of the planet.

TV presenters like Steve Irwin and, to an extent, Bill Oddie show an enthusiasm & ebulliance which is now rare on television of any kind and are frequently vilified for it-why is this? Is it considered too gauche for today's media & celebrity-obssessed, mass-produced meat eating, aspirational, i-pod wearing, nature fearing 'civilisation'?

The natural world is in dire straits, in the middle of a humankind-inspired extinction event, climate change has passed the point of no return and our world leaders respond by obfuscating about restraint of trade and economic growth (if they could get away with sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting lalalalalalalala I'm sure they could). With the death of Steve Irwin we have lost one of the foremost-and listened to-voices in the conservation movement (one need only see how John Howard, Aussie PM, reacted to realise this) anyone who loves nature in any form should be mourning.

[carlj]

Very poignant and so relevant. What is needed, is a voice that excites youngsters and makes them want to go out there and make a difference. Steve Irwin did that. Bill Oddie certainly inspired a friends 6 year old to become an enthusiastic wildlife fan. We all have our parts to play too. Amber and I have no children, nor plan to. But on a recent mammal/wildlife walk around a local park, a small boy, Sam, followed me everywhere, as I pointed out grasshoppers, butterflies etc to him. His eyes lit up, and he constantly called his parents along to see!

We all are guardians for the future, and must bring along the next generation too.

[Nicola Main]

Very well put Carlj! The more people get their children involved in going out and watching wildlife the better I reckon, for all of us. Even if it is a half-hour long walk in the local park, anything to get these young kids interested. For parents out there who enjoy wildlife and go to places to watch them take your youngsters with you!

[matt_xyz]

it's a fine line though. We want to encourage enthusiasm amongst the next generation and need charismatic and enthusiastic presenters to do that. But at the same time we don't want to give the message to children that animals are there solely for their amusement and can be pulled from nests, burrows, mauled about and generally 'hassled'. The welfare of the animals should be our foremost concern. For all Steve Irwin's strengths I feel he did go a bit too far at times presumably for his, and our, amusement.

Matt

[Mr Mag00]

mmmmmmmmm (is there a thinky emoticon)

Imaginos has written a great piece and so are the replies and finally matt raises a valid point. I started a position a couple of years ago to learn about env education, lowly paid but i loved it! One day sticks in my mind and the little boy didnt want to be there 'no where to play football' aghhhhhh!! when he got on the bus he tugged my coat and said 'Mr i cant wait to go to my grannies (inner city school, no garden ) and build habitats for slugs, worms and woodlice' JOB DONE!! that set me on the road to where i am now, working for myself as a tutor in schools and education centres.

I try to capture a style between the 'god' and 'showman' ( David atttenborough and steve irwin) I try to get the children excited but not manic, inquisative (sp?) but not peoplehandling(PC ) specimens. I explain we have fantastic colourful creatures with interesting lives in this country, but sadly there is a huge misunderstanding and distance between people and their surroundings. Ask a child what they will find in apond or river 'crocs, turtles, alligators, pirahna etc etc' most have no idea. You can see the children who have parents who take an interest in their children they are the ones with the right answers. Too many expect school to supply all schooling and outside school they parent doesnt have to do anything, ooh don't get me started on education and its current state, or parenting!!!!!!!!

The tick issue on the forums is one issue I have had children being refused to go into the countryside by parents as we forewarn about ticks, the same with river studies and weils disease the poor girl stood and watched a friends get wellyfulls in the sun. There are plenty of studies which show a childs ability to recollect is approx 30% increased by linking to events whilst they are learning eg Jonny falling in or losing a boot in the mud.

'get them out of the classrooms and into the world' A good trip out will introduce numeracy, literacy, history, science and citizenship, well it does with ME!!

In answer to the posting 'how to promote conservation?' Talk, i bored people stupid in the beginning now i keep it short, sweet and informative!
Go for obscure info about moths, mammals, natural history, lifecycles (im giving away all my trade secrets ) im sure you all knew those!

[Imaginos]

The thing is, animals have been used for our amusement for centuries. Compared to Fox hunting, fishing & Badger baiting I don't think that some over exuberant handling can really be seen in too bad a light.

Since when has handling things become taboo? Mr Mag00 may have hit half a nail when he talks about parental concern restricting activities that came naturally to earlier generations of kids, but there is also a sense in some circles that animals are now inviolate-"look but don't touch". This is a dangerous notion, although animal welfare should be a concern it does lead to the distancing from nature described by Mr Mag00. Not for nothing is "hands-on" experience the most prized, intimacy must be fostered surely?
I'm not saying Steve Irwin didn't go too far on occasions, but think about what sort of human interaction most snakes in the world get and two words come to mind - whacked and stick, Steve showed the world that there is not as much to fear as we think from snakes, crocs etc. it is therefore ironic that he was killed by a creature who's dangers were well known, but rarely caused fatalities.

Carlj, Nicola, Matt & Maggie are all right in the need to win hearts and minds at a young age, but in our television-orientated culture we need to back up these individual efforts with real champions such as Irwin, Attenborough, Bellamy, Oddie, Durrel, Nutkins and the like to fly the flag on our goggleboxes in as many ways as possible, from considered, beautiful, artistic documentaries al la Sir David, to boisterously revelling in the joy of nature as Irwin did.

[Alan]

Interest! That is what is generated by Steve’s approach, whether you love it or hate it.

Certainly the approach of other more ‘ordinary’ presenters, although very enjoyable to already interested enthusiasts, will do little to attract the younger generation, unless their own parents are already enthusiastic about nature too.

In an ever-increasing media driven world, these are the sorts of personalities that are needed to put the message across. I wonder how many people have for the first time become interested in wildlife after watching Springwatch. Despite many people’s views of the presenters, the viewing figures prove that programme interest can be generated if it’s done in an enthusiastic way. Of course that doesn’t mean jumping on the back of, or grabbing every animal so we can get a better view, but it does mean if it’s done with a little passion, then there’s more chance of people taking notice.

Not all people are just interested in the pure facts of nature, they want entertainment value as well (especially kids), and the only way to meet these criteria is by having people like Steve to push it forward.

[Paul mabbott]

Nil nisi bonum and all that but I was one of those not too enamoured of the man. I have to admit that I didn't watch much of his stuff because I found him so irritating. But his heart was in the right place even if his brain didn't seem to be.
You have a good point about enthusing youngsters but, as your paragraph notes, they can become enthusiastic about smaller things *and* they can sit still for ages watching something interesting.
My real objectionS: his programmes seemed to have more of him than of the animals (I'm all for the Attenborough mode of just appearing when essential although even he seems to have been forced into a more prominent role by the TV execs); he concentrated on large vertebrates rather than the more numerous and important invertebrates; he treated animals badly - much better to sneak up and watch a snake than swing it around in the air .....

[quote=Imaginos]Irwin's enthusiastic style has also come in for criticism in some places (for example Germaine Greer in today's Guardian). Which brings me round to the thread title. Consider this: which is more likely to get a youngster out from in front of the Playstation and interested in the world around them; Steve Irwin jumping into a tree to catch a Green Mamba, or Cwis Packham po-facedly telling you that if you stay really still for a few hours you might get a photo?

As a kid me & a mate went out into the countryside regularly to catch Common Lizards (sadly a real rarity in the same haunts now-only 15-20 years later) by hand, handled spiders, slugs and no-end of other creepy-crawlies. (We didn't have anyone like Steve to look up to, but I'm sure we'd have been shouting Crikey!, or Strewth, what a Beaut, if he had been around then). Imagine, then, my appalled surprise when the directive came down from above that for our National Insect Week bug hunt we were instructed to tell the kids not to touch anything of course we ignored this directive and were repeatedly treated to the sight of, initially reluctant, young boys & girls picking things up in order to get a closer look & fully appreciate the beauty of their fellow inhabitants of the planet.

QUOTE]

[Airehead]

Imaginos, I am not sure how much of what you have written was a result of the quote of mine that you start with, but let me slightly, and only slightly, expand my point of view:

I am entirely in favour of the hands-on approach and I certainly like to see enthusiasm. But enthusiasm without bounds in the outdoors is dangerous. It leads to death, and has done so in my near-direct experience too many times, sometimes caused by people with more enthusiasm than experience. On the other hand I have also seen at close hand the fatal and near-fatal results of well-experienced people becoming victim of a false sense of invulnerability ironically due to their wealth of experience. I have been involved, many years ago, with the production of a television documentary on the subject of pot-holing. On this occasion the standard safety measures were systematically observed and in my view it should always be so where a potentially dangerous activity is portrayed for public consumption. But it is a simple matter of observation that television likes sensationalism and encourages those people who are willing to provide at risk to themselves.

Re stress and the Farne Islands - I visited about 50 years ago in my teens and was disgusted by the number of dead chicks which had been walked on by tourists. I have never returned.

[carlj]

I think the problem at heart is that the children of the 21st century are not the same as we were at that age. I don't consider myself old, but my childhood was spent without computers, tv's in our rooms, consoles, mp3 players. My teen years were spent at Trentham Gardens/Park, or in a book, or with friends out on bikes. Our attention spans are different too. Today's youth, it seems, require a different approach to engage them. But how do we find that happy medium?

[Wild-Woman]

I'm going to think about this question today and come back hopefully with some answers and questions of my own. Having worked with children for many years now, I think the question needs to be put to them.
Get back to you later. Julie

[Airehead]

Originally Posted by carlj

but my childhood was spent without computers, tv's in our rooms, consoles, mp3 players. Today's youth, it seems, require a different approach to engage them. But how do we find that happy medium?

Of one thing I am sure - Education via TV is superficial*. Watching telly encourages nothing so much as watching more telly no matter what the subject. All TV screen personnel are interested primarily in being seen and they will do anything to achieve it. This applies equally to wild life presenters as to homosexual extraverts. And when a TV program advises turning off the telly andgetting active, this is a right royal form of hypocrisy.

*Just consider how much more quickly you can learn about British wild life on this forum than on the telly.

[wildone]

I was privelleged last Sunday to watch a birdringer at work. There were only 5 of us there watching, 2 children, their parents and me. The interest shown by the children was great. They asked sensible questions to which they received answers that took into account their ages (10 and 7), but they were not spoken down to. During the 15 or so minutes while the ringer processed the birds the children stood quietly and attentively, listening to what was said about individual birds. The parents obviously were not that knowledgeable but were also interested and I feel that those children are probably hooked for life. As we wandered back along the path afterwards, insects, such as Dragonflies and Butterflies were looked at and talked about. Two young naturalists in the making? As I say a privelege to have been present.

[Imaginos]

Originally Posted by Airehead

Imaginos, I am not sure how much of what you have written was a result of the quote of mine that you start with, but let me slightly, and only slightly, expand my point of view:

Not very much really, your comment just sparked a chain of thought that I thought was better off in a new thread. I understand your view that enthusiasm is dangerous, but I have to disagree that it is out of place in this aspect; I'll rephrase my arguement-more and more, people are being encouraged to reject the natural world out of fear and ignorance, people like Steve Irwin allow people to see that if someone could handle the deadliest snakes then maybe they could pick up that spider rather than hide in the bathroom from it. I may be wrong, but from personal experience (ie talking to friends and colleagues) this seems to have some truth to it.

Originally Posted by Airehead

Of one thing I am sure - Education via TV is superficial*. Watching telly encourages nothing so much as watching more telly no matter what the subject. All TV screen personnel are interested primarily in being seen and they will do anything to achieve it. This applies equally to wild life presenters as to homosexual extraverts. And when a TV program advises turning off the telly andgetting active, this is a right royal form of hypocrisy.

*Just consider how much more quickly you can learn about British wild life on this forum than on the telly.

I have to disagree on two points: Firstly, education; Personally I have learnt a hell of a lot from television-not just Natural History television but also other documentary forms are incredibly educational. One tends to forget that often the person on screen (when there is one, and frequently in NH films there is just a voiceover) has had little or nothing to do with the production, which has been written by knowledgable people with good information. Secondly, enthusiasm; I grew up on David Attenborough documentaries, the Really Wild Show and Gerald Durrel & Willard Price books and I'm sure that made me the person I am today. I was also fortunate enough to have some countryside virtually on the doorstep-a situation closed to most children who live in cities whose only contact with the natural world at a young age (unless they have proactive parents or teachers) will be through television.

Originally Posted by Carlj

I think the problem at heart is that the children of the 21st century are not the same as we were at that age. I don't consider myself old, but my childhood was spent without computers, tv's in our rooms, consoles, mp3 players. My teen years were spent at Trentham Gardens/Park, or in a book, or with friends out on bikes. Our attention spans are different too. Today's youth, it seems, require a different approach to engage them. But how do we find that happy medium?.

Technology will always drive a wedge between humanity and nature, however all is not bad, television programs, websites like these and much of our knowledge of the world around us would be impossible without it. However we don't yet know what is going to happen to the 'playstation generation' once they reach adulthood. It seems that every generation fears for those that follow and always see the wrongs. At 30 years old I am part of 'Generation X' and took a full part in the grunge 'everything sucks' culture at the time. Today, looking around at others from the same scene I see many well-rounded individuals whose only real hangover from their youth is a healthy cynicism of political process and authority. Who knows-maybe the kids of today-inspired by a drive to complete things fostered by computer games and a love for conservation fostered by Steve Irwin and his ilk, and imbued with an almost symbiotic relationship with technology-will save the world? Or not, as the case may be.

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Steve Irwin jumping into a tree to catch a Green Mamba, or Cwis Packham po-facedly telling you that if you stay really still for a few hours you might get a photo?.

QUOTE]

I many ways I feel that Chris Packham is teaching kids the most important lesson ... ie ... that patience does bring rich rewards. If only people would sometimes take the trouble to watch and wait as inobtrusively as reasonably possible because it is in that situation that you can see nature as it really is. The trouble is that the likes of Steve Irwin did and do seem to fit in with the modern notion of now! now! now! Rather than teaching patience.

The truth is that unless the persons that your are trying to interest in the natural world are prepared to accept that having patience is a vital part of enjoying the study of wildlife and that often you may see little and that you have to make the best of what you do see and accept this then they are unlikely to be able to sustain a long term interest.

[ogwen]

Originally Posted by carlj

I think the problem at heart is that the children of the 21st century are not the same as we were at that age. I don't consider myself old, but my childhood was spent without computers, tv's in our rooms, consoles, mp3 players. My teen years were spent at Trentham Gardens/Park, or in a book, or with friends out on bikes. Our attention spans are different too. Today's youth, it seems, require a different approach to engage them. But how do we find that happy medium?

I've just finished sixth form and am of this generation and yes many of my friends played almost continually on Play Station in the common room at school (when they didn't have a lesson). Out of school they were never interested in walking around outside but prefered to hang around each others houses watching films. Or sitting in their rooms emailing each other .

I was different because I always got fed up of sitting and just talking and prefered the "great outdoors".

I agree with Imaginos that TV to a certain degree can teach (I used to watch the Really Wild Show which encourage my love of nature along with my parents love of the countryside) and it can capture young peoples interest. Most of us young people want to feel as though we are involved in something and one way of engaging the younger generation might be to adopt the hands on approach? I wouldn't know because everyone is different and have differing motivations etc.....

[chunkychambers]

I think it's like most things, it's down to individual personalities rather than a generation gap.

I have three nephews and a grandson, their ages range from 18 to 15 and we all live very close to each other.
Now, when they were growing up, and still to this day, we all went camping, fishing, swimming in the river and took every opportunity to get out and about in winter or summer.

None are house birds but Andrew has gone wild-life mad, they all still love the out-door life but Andy has taken it further, my point being that different personalities make different choices.

[speckled wood]

>>or with friends out on bikes.<<
This may be another critical factor, these days you hardly see youngsters out on their bikes, certainly you don't see them out in the countryside. I lot of it is down to the fear of "abduction factor", truthfully something that has always been there but something that we are now paranoid about, so paranoid that we do things to avoid it that place our children at far greater risk of harm.

[Mr Mag00]

With regards to your point SpeckledWood and abduction, i am very worried about letting my 9 year old ride his bike more due to the traffic than abduction, I live in a village with no amenities and he does ride a mile to his friends. But the size of the traffic!!!! he is very very sensible and I have taught him well but the tractors, combines and haulage lorries are immense compared to anything we would have faced.

[Earth Hart]

One thing that comes to mind when working with children, is that if you get the the interest going then sometimes you get the children to teach their parents a thing or two. When in Brighton working in local schools, I had parents phoning me & asking for more info on what the kids & I were doing. As I say, teach the children and get them to teach their mums & dads.
Earth Hart