one for david bellamy, if he's reading through these questions....?

Question

although i hold qualifications in environmental conservation, i had this argument with one of my instructers.....
why when for arguments sake, we remove trees from an area to return it to heathland, do we call it conservation, when in actuality all we are doing is suspending natural progression, surely conservation is a practice in human aesthetics.
fair enough certain rare species are protected, but it should not be called conservation.

Answer 1

I'm not David Bellamy. But I can still have an opinion.

Conservation is surely a halting of the "evolution" (or as you said a progression) of the environment. It "conserves" the status quo.

Where the changes are being brought about by the interference of man then conservation seeks to eliminate those changes.This does not mean that the local environment must be unchanging. Merely that the changes are "natural", ie not brought about by man's interference.

Your scenario envisages that we return an environment to a former state. Whether this is truly conservation is probably a question of semantics.

I suppose the motive in doing so is paramount. Is it to observe the natural evolution of the environment without man's influence? Or is it to capture a particular moment in time? Both could be useful and offer insights into the workings of nature.

Perhaps the word conservation is not precise enough. Maybe it is time to redefine the word?

Answer 2

I have spent many years working as an ecologist and this is always a tricky one. I think you'll find that the term 'conservation' is used as a catch-all phrase a lot of the time. The example you give, I would term, restoration of a habitat (i.e. the heathland).

Here in Britain, as you will know, the majority of land would naturally end up as woodland if natural succession was allowed to take place. But this would in time lead to a decrease in the diversity of species present.

In conservation terms, people make judgements as to what the range of habitats in a local area should be (usually to maintain a wide diversity of habitat and species) and then work to maintain or restore that diversity. These judgements are all linked to local and national implemenatation of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (www.ukbap.org.uk) which has set out targets for habitat and species management throughout the whole of the UK. Every (well almost every) local area implements the UKBAP theough Local BAPs (if you contact you local council they should have an officer ... or if you look at the UKBAP site you can find out who your local contact is).

Hope this helps.

Answer 3

I'm not David Bellamy either but have an answer for you.

I think the key point in this case is that it is called conservation "management". Yes the heathland, if left would have reached its climax community (woodland). But it is how we choose to "manage" these sites, for example to conserve certain species that thrive in heathland but not in woodland. In terms of habitat management it is how we choose to manage them, do we use active management to preserve certain species or do we simply protect it from human disruption e.g. urbanisation? and leave it to its natural course? So really what we are doing is, by managing the habitat, we are "conserving" the species we have identified as being under threat.

Answer 4

I'm not David Bellamy but I do have fond memories of his TV programmes in the 70s and 80s. Unfortunately I'm now a bit cynical and am wondering how on earth (geddit?) he's managed to retain any sort of public profile after being so spectacularly debunked on the telly recently.

IMO conservation is equivalent to charity in that it doesn't address the root causes of the problem, but puts an acceptable gloss on the consequences of human behaviour so we can all feel better about ourselves.