Natural History Societies - are they in need of conversation

N A T U R A L H I S T O R Y S O C I E T I E S : A R E T H E Y IN N E E D O F C O N S E R V A T I O N , A N D IS T H E C O N S E R V A T I O N

MOVEMENT

IN N E E D O F T H E M ?

J. R . MARTIN

In his Presidential A d d r e s s , delivered at t h e A n n u a l G e n e r a l M e e t i n g of t h e L o n d o n N a t u r a l History Society ( L N H S ) in 1987, Michael Wilsdon (1988) c o n s i d e r e d t h e present state of natural history societies in S o u t h e a s t E n g l a n d . H e t h o u g h t that t h e r e had b e e n a general decline in their m e m b e r ship and activities. H e w o n d e r e d w h e t h e r , in g e n e r a l , t h e natural history societies w e r e falling at t h e wayside, d u e to their own i n a d e q u a c y , or had b e e n p u s h e d t h e r e by ' o u t s i d e forces'. Michael Wilsdon considered t h e r e w e r e several r e a s o n s f o r t h e decline of natural history societies in S o u t h e a s t E n g l a n d , b u t h e highlighted t h e draining of t h e m e m b e r s f r o m these g r o u p s by m o r e 'active' conservation organisations, such as c o u n t y trusts, and o t h e r g r o u p s such as the Royal Society f o r t h e P r o t e c t i o n of Birds ( R S P B ) f o r e x a m p l e . T h e s e bodies w e r e ' s e e n ' to b e 'saving t h e c o u n t r y s i d e ' , a n d he felt this was a lure to m a n y p e o p l e ; a view I fully e n d o r s e . It should be n o t e d that t h e L N H S is o n e of the few natural history societies in Britain which continues to flourish. M a n y o t h e r s h a v e r e a c h e d a critical stage regarding their f u t u r e existance. In Suffolk t h e recent demise of t h e Bury St. E d m u n d s and District Naturalists' Society ( B N H S ) is a sad e x a m p l e of such a decline.

H o w e v e r , it is interesting t o record that at t h e 1990 A G M of t h e Suffolk Naturalists' Society (SNS) it was r e p o r t e d that the n u m b e r of p e o p l e joining t h e Society w a s increasing a n d had r e a c h e d a new high level. Also in 1990 t h e Suffolk Wildlife T r u s t ( S W T ) , in t e r m s of m e m b e r s h i p , b e c o m e t h e largest county wildlife trust. T h e increase in m e m b e r s h i p of both organisations a p p e a r s t o b e c o n t r a r y t o t h e situation e l s e w h e r e . C a n both t h e natural history societies a n d conservation bodies co-exist ' p e a c e f u l l y ' , a n d , if so, should they h a v e t h e s a m e aims? Michael Wilsdon t h o u g h t t h a t natural history societies should h a v e a clear role to play and he t h o u g h t t h e y should have four m a j o r functions, namely: 1) Naturalists in a local a r e a joining t o g e t h e r for t h e m u t u a l e n j o y m e n t of their c o m m o n interests with talks, meetings, outings etc.

2) Naturalists joining t o g e t h e r to record the f a u n a a n d flora of their local area.

3) Naturalists within a local a r e a joining t o g e t h e r f o r t h e conservation of that a r e a , p e r h a p s with a local reserve as a focus.

4) Naturalists of a local a r e a using t h e relevant natural history society's publication(s) as a vehicle for publication of r e c o r d s f r o m their a r e a .

I a m in g e n e r a l a g r e e m e n t with this, b u t I have s o m e points to m a k e on how they relate t o t h e SNS. In S u f f o l k , t h e rise in t h e Society's m e m b e r s h i p has b e e n against a b a c k d r o p of disappointing a t t e n d a n c e s b o t h at i n d o o r and o u t d o o r m e e t i n g s . H a d this society s e e n , as its main role, the provision of such m e e t i n g s t h e r e is little d o u b t it would be in decline. T h e rising cost of

Trans. Suffolk

Nat. Soc: 27

(1991)

2

Suffolk Natural History, Vol. 27

speakers, hiring of halls and other expenses arising from indoor meetings was beginning to outstrip the income from such functions. However, Geoff Heathcote (1989) did not consider these costs the main reason for the winding up of the BNHS, a group primarily devoted to talks, outings and other such metings. I also believe the 'knock-on' effect of trying to promote 'entertainment' may have been traumatic for the SNS. It may have deflected the Society from its primary objectives. Another important factor is that with frequent natural history programmes now appearing on the television, many of which are of excellent quality, there is less need for the old 'lecture and lantern slide' type of meeting. Many people clearly still enjoy these of course, and they can be both informative and entertaining.

The SNS does, of course, recognise the importance of bringing local naturalists together. 'Workshops' have been arranged (although some of these have been poorly attended), many members are involved in wildlife surveys which are organised through the Suffolk Biological Records Centre (SBRC), whilst recently the Society embarked on a programme of annual conferences. Field meetings, where a coach is provided, are now limited to two or three each year, and these enjoy a good attendance. Other field meetings are held throughout the year at which the attendance can be considered 'moderate' to 'good'. I believe indoor meetings, on a limited scale, should remain part of our, and most natural history societies', programme. They should, however, be of a special nature and be integrated with the societies' plans or actions.

Recording the fauna and flora of Suffolk, and the publication of those records, has always been considered the SNS's prime function. It is now generally recognised that consistant, methodical recording, is the very basis of conservation. In a recent poll of the Society's members (Parsons, 1989), more than half of those who took part thought that the Society's main purpose was to support the SBRC. The SBRC exists to collect wildlife and environmental records from around the County, but it is also there to provide professional advice and practical help to anyone wishing to carry out proper wildlife recording. Usually such information is provided free. T h e SNS jointly manages the SBRC with the Ipswich Borough Council.

In general, many societies, particularly the smaller societies, do very little recording. This is a great pity, for many could make a vital contribution to wildlife conservation in their locality. Methodical recording by a local natural history society may alert the conservation movement to areas of importance.

Steps might then be taken to ensure their protection. Local naturalists could greatly assist the conservation bodies by carrying out recording on local nature reserves. The Suffolk Wildlife Trust welcomes and encourages recording by visitors to their reserves (Harding, 1989). It was the lack of involvement by members of the BNHS in recording wildlife which Geoff Heathcote (1989) considered was a critical factor in that Society's downfall.

Turning to publications, a high standard has been maintained by this Society in recent years and Suffolk Natural History and Suffolk Birds are now amongst the finest in their category in Britain. The SNS is one of the few county natural history societies which publishes its county bird report, based on sound recording. This must, I believe, be why it has such a high Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 27 (1991)

NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETIES

3

reputation. It seems that many small societies do not have the resources to publish their work, and this is a great pity. I believe, therefore, that it should be possible for some larger societies to publish work from smaller societies.

An annual local report, within the transactions of a larger society, could make a significant contribution to wildlife conservation. This would be particularly useful if the contribution came from an under-recorded locality, thus giving a purpose for the existance of the smaller society. Until 1961 the Proceedings of the Newmarket Field Club (NFC) were published within the Transactions of the SNS; in those days the N F C was affiliated to the SNS. Another factor which I believe to be important in the decline of the natural history societies, and which Michael Wilsdon did not mention, is the small number of young people now belonging to them. Geoff Heathcote thought that was another major reason for the decline of the BNHS. For various reasons, many natural history societies do not involve themselves sufficiently with young naturalists. Consequently they are hived off to where the 'action is'; usually to W A T C H groups, operated through the county wildlife trusts.

The W A T C H organisation should be applauded for its work with youngsters. However I do not believe the W A T C H organisation can offer the specialised facilities which young naturalists require. By this I mean putting individual youngsters in touch with naturalists who specialise in the study of particular groups of animals and plants. This will ultimately bring youngsters into the realms of recording, a most constructive and interesting aspect of natural history and the very basis of conservation.

This Society was aware of the need to encourage young naturalists. It used to include a schools supplement in its Transactions and a prize was presented for the best Morley Essay, a competition initiated in honour of its founder, Claude Morley. Sadly, after 1964 the Schools Supplement disappeared from the Transactions and it has not re-appeared. However, the SNS has taken over the running of the Cyril Grange Award, a competition which was, until recently, operated by the B N H S for schools in west Suffolk. The SNS is now extending the competition into east Suffolk. If the SNS makes greater efforts to attract younger members, and particularly those still in full-time education, I see no reason why there should be any confict with the interests of other organisations.

I suggest that it is not the draining of the young to W A T C H and similar groups which is bringing about the decline of the natural history society, but the natural history societies' failure to meet the needs of young naturalists by giving specialised instruction, using simple and enjoyable methods. This is a void which needs to be filled, and which in my view can only be filled by natural history societies.

I think the main role of the natural history society should be to provide specialist knowledge which can be used to conserve our fauna and flora, but also to bring naturalists of all levels together for the mutual enjoyment of the natural world, to foster a greater awareness of natural history amongst the general public and to encourage aspiring young naturalists. The fact that the SNS fulfils these roles must, I believe, be the reason for its continued growth. That this has happened during a time of continued expansion by the SWT, the RSPB and some other groups in Suffolk, is even more astounding

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc: 27 (1991)

Suffolk Natural History, Vol. 27

4

and must surely give some hope to those societies who feel impotent and may even be contemplating terminating their activities.

This Society has maintained a consistant policy, throughout the 1980s, of electing young, modern-minded, Chairmen. Recently Francis Simpson (1989), wrote 'I find that in the Society generally there are now more young and active members than when I first jointed. That "Victorian" image has gone, and the future for the Society looks good, especially with the publication of attractive monographs by its members and the work of the Suffolk Biological Records Centre\ It is comforting to know that Francis Simpson, a naturalist who was 'brought up' in that 'Victorian era', recognises the importance of the SBRC, a relatively recent, and modern day, creation. Such is the mood within the SNS. To return to the question; Is the natural history society in need of conservation? I believe it is. Is the conservation movement in need of them? I believe it is also. Now more than ever there is a need for detailed information regarding the status of our wildlife and the habitats within which they live.

Natural history societies can provide this. It could be argued that the conservation movement could provide these records, but I believe this would put an unfair burden upon its members, few of whom have the necessary specialist knowledge. More importantly, it might deflect or prevent the conservation movement from fulfilling its role of land aquisition and management.

Sadly for many natural history societies it seems, it is the scarcity of young members, lack of purpose, and, for the smaller societies particularly, absence of a vehicle within which to express themselves, which may bring about their downfall. Whether those societies realise that now, more than ever, they are needed, and whether they have the determination to survive remains to be seen. In the meantime this Society prepares to meet the challenges of the 21st century with great optimism.

References Harding, M. (1989). Recording on Suffolk Wildlife Trust Reserves. White Admiral, 14, 12.

Heathcote, G . D. (1989). Bury Nats Wound Up. Newsletter, 13, 12.

Parsons, E . (1989). Questionnaire - The Results. Newsletter, 12, 6.

Wilsdon, M. (1988). Did They Fall or Were They Pushed? A Consideration of the Current State of Natural History Societies. The London Naturalist, 68,7.

Jeff R. Martin, 17 Moss Way, West Bergholt, Colchester, CQ6 3LJ

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 27 (1991)