I feel a sense of panic when I watch those WWF spots about endangered species. There is something infinitely sad about watching a tawny tiger and knowing that it and its kin have little chance of padding through the wilderness in our children’s lifetime. Or seeing a magnificent rhino lumbering through the grass and knowing that there are only a few hundreds of them alive.
Even though there are creatures I have never actually seen, I feel that we are impoverished when they cease to be. The extinction of a species means one less colour in the rich tapestry of biodiversity of life on the planet.
I sometimes think how wonderful it would be if we could go back to that point in time when it was still possible to halt the decline – a sort of time machine to transport us to the time when we could still change the future. We could go back and save the black rhino though we’d have to go much further back in time than 1997 when there were only 10 final rhinos scattered across 25,000 square kilometres of northern Cameroon with minimal chances of meeting and mating.
Our time machine would also have to take us way back before 1870 to save the passenger pigeon. The passenger pigeon was such an enormous species that nobody ever dreamt it would ever be extinct. Suffice to say that one flock in 1866 in Ontario was described as 1.5 km wide and 500 km long, took 14 hours to pass, and held in excess of 3.5 billion birds. And yet widespread hunting and loss of habitat resulted in the passenger pigeon’s catastrophic decline and its extinction in 1914. A sad demise for a species whose flocks would eclipse the sun for hours.
There is a common thread running through the stories of the species mentioned above. And that’s the fact that serious conservation efforts only gained traction when the species were teethering on the critically endangered – when there were so few potential mates that species numbers were unlikely to be replenished to a viable level. In other words – when it was too late.
Before that crucial stage, people continued to hunt rhinos and fell passenger pigeons refusing to contemplate the fact that their actions could have any consequences on the animal population.
By voting ‘No’ we will each be doing our bit to save bird species and to pass on the richness of biodiversity to our children
Take the case of the passenger pigeon. In 1857, a Bill seeking protection for the passenger pigeon was proposed to the Ohio State Legislature. A Select Committee of the Senate filed a report stating: “The passenger pigeon needs no protection. Wonderfully prolific, having the vast forests of the North as its breeding grounds, travelling hundreds of miles in search of food, it is here today and elsewhere tomorrow, and no ordinary destruction can lessen them, or be missed from the myriads that are yearly produced.”
This last phrase about “ordinary destruction” not being significant in being able to lessen the numbers of birds is precisely the same argument used by the hunters in Malta. They claim that the number of quail and turtledoves they kill has an insignificant effect on bird numbers. Now, the actual number of birds bagged is suspect as under-reporting is likely.
But in any case, why wait until a species is critically endangered to rein ourselves in and pause the slaughter? Why not put on the brakes before population levels decrease so drastically that they won’t be able to recover?
Why pin our hopes on expensive and complicated conservation measures with no guaranteed outcome, when we can take preventive action now, before turtle doves are in terminal decline?
This – in essence – is what the referendum on spring hunting is all about. It is an opportunity to stop the slaughter before it is too late. It is a one-time occasion where we can choose the caring option of allowing birds to fly overhead at the time when they will be going to breed and reproduce.
It is a chance to choose prevention instead of cure. Hunters will argue that it is not only their actions which contribute to turtledove and quail decline. They may try and confuse issues by saying that certain fish species are on the decline too and that nobody protests.
This is incorrect as there are many people and organisations trying to conserve fish. Moreover, the argument is fallacious as two (or more) wrongs don’t make a right. If people aren’t alarmed about declining fish stock, there is no reason why we should not seek to preserve bird species.
As the 1960s saying goes: “If you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.” We should be glad and proud to have the opportunity to be part of the solution. By voting ‘No’ we will each be doing our bit to save bird species and to pass on the richness of biodiversity to our children.
cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt