An Environmental History of Wildlife in England 1650-1950
Rating: 
It is probably fair to say that I was brought up to consider the English countryside as natural; as something that had always been there. Wildlife were the plants and animals that lived outside of towns and farms. All very simple really. And almost certainly completely wrong!
I didn’t get it immediately. It took me some years to finally get to teach a wildlife conservation course and then to confront an idea that had troubled me: England was as “natural”as a motorway, or at least, if it was natural, then I’d better re-define my terms! If I fast-forward to today I see I’m not the only one and that England is not the only place; Australians are currently being disturbed by the notion of a less-than-pristine nation. Perhaps they can be forgiven that, considering the place is over 7m sq km but we don’t have the luxury. Of course, to say the place is constructed is as false as rejecting such a claim: reality, as always, is far more subtle. It’s that subtlety that’s the focus of this book.
From the very beginning it is clear that what we refer to as “the landscape” is a mixture of plants, animals and concepts. The book opens with the last retreat of the ice and the slow colonisation of the land by vegetation and, later, animals. What is less often stated, but obvious when considered, is that the re-colonisation took place only about 15,000 years ago – at a time when humans were also spreading out so even our “natural” post-glacial vegetation must have been mediated by human action. By two thousand years ago, a land use pattern was being set up and the ecology of the area was being shaped by human action. Ideas of “wildscape” and farmed areas predominate were being set up with the best land suitable for agriculture and the poorest seen as wilderness, of no particular value. Of course, these views are still with us, showing the power of the ideas of natural and non-natural.
At this stage we have an idea of the basic landscape of England: still heavily forested but with increasing farmed land and an abundance of wildlife (because the creation of ecotones – mixtures of ecosystems – would have created suitably diverse habitats). The scene is set for the beginning of our timespan. It starts with a division both ecological and written – woodlands and associated landforms and farmland. Even the distinction here is particularly telling. Woodland, probably much the same percentage as now was the late Medieval industrial sector. Woodlands provided fuel, timber, and abundant wildlife and although it was managed, it was not on the scale or frequency of annual farmland and so it can be seen as “managed wilderness”. This now unites us with other similar areas – heaths/moors, pastures and wetlands. Whereas the former would be seen as highly productive, the latter would be seen as wasteland- nothing much grew on heaths or around wetlands that was worth cultivating. Whilst this is a question of biogeography, it is also a conceptual/cultural one – think about the distribution of “wasteland” and “nature reserves” where the idea of waste i.e. no value, means it could be useful for conservation (another activity that struggles to get recognition for the economic value it produces). Compare this productive but wild land with farmland. Here, the latter is used far more for specific crops (invasive species if you like) although pasture and meadow were extremely important. We still see copious trees but these are hedgerow trees and often coppiced for their fuel. Set in these landscapes we have the societal reactions to wildlife. One of the more striking, and “English” of the landscapes was the park. Linked to a grand manor, the park organised nature – a sign that people held dominion over wildlife. Whilst that is a spatial sign, there are other cultural signs ranging from widespread destruction of nature (to protect food supplies) to hunting. Despite this assault on wildlife, it still flourished for this was the era of small towns and cities with a limited human population and so loss would be seen as less significant.
Around 1750, the economy of the area started to change. New fuel supplies had been found and with the growth of population came the demand for resources. The Industrial Revolution changed the landscape significantly although not as much as may be surmised. Yes, land was cleared for mine and factory but other areas were created – derelict sites and waste disposal – which were soon to be colonised by wildlife. Pollution removed wildlife but the new canals (and, later, railways and roads) provided a balance by creating more diverse habitats. This degree of economic activity needed to be paid for, in this case, largely by farming and labourers increasing agricultural production. Again, as with the industrial revolution, people were innovating and a great deal of this went to creating areas for status and relaxation. Parks and gardens became increasingly popular amongst the nobility where re-planting was seen as a viable way forward. Hunting and shooting became popular in this time which had the paradoxical effect of requiring more wilderness areas for bird rearing whilst at the same time, reducing species (at least of game birds). This should be seen as a pivotal moment – the time between nature-as-economy to nature-as-psychological-good – a time when nature was given a far higher profile and the excesses of the past give way to the more recent idea of conservation and protection of species because it is in this periods that institutions such as RSPB and the National Trust came into being.
The next chapter looks at the controversial idea of urban development and pollution. This was an era (1860-1930) of rapid urban growth, often characterised by a loss of wildlife but the reality is far different. True, land was lost but new habitats were being opened every day as species colonised the new habitats like canals and the city centre. There was more to do. Gardens became popular (and possible given the interest) for all . The countryside still flourished even if some species were lost, others adapted (e.g. urban foxes) and some changed habitats. A concluding chapter looks at the key themes, not least the future of wildlife areas and the way in which the city might develop. It also spends a little time (probably too little considering the complexity of it) discussing the research elements of this project. As if to reinforce this, there follows a substantial section (about 1/4 of the text!) of notes and references.
This book brings together a massive and diverse set of resources and references to chart the rise, fall and changes for English wildlife in the 300 years prior to the start of modern environmental concern. It paints a complex picture of gain and loss and of the social rhetoric surrounding the distribution and abundance of wildlife. Whilst there are few revelations, there are very few books that can claim to be this thorough in bringing all key information into one place. That it is well written is a bonus. It is important that such material be widely known. One of the informal tenets of conservation is that to conserve an area you need to know how it forms: this book shows us the reality of that. It also provides a rich texture of ideas, powers, sensibilities and words and shows how the social conversation, as much as any ecology, defines the biodiversity of an area. This book deserves the widest readership.
