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)