New Elizabethan naturalists
Poll closed.
You may have noticed that the BBC has compiled a list of new Elizabethans as a celebration of the Diamond Jubilee. 60 men or women who have lived during the Queen’s reign were selected for their contributions to the new Elizabethan age. One of the selected 60 is naturalist and broadcaster David Attenborough.
If you were choosing someone associated with the natural world to enter this list would you choose Sir David, or might someone else nip in instead? Tom Oliver (from the GWCT) and I gave this some thought and offer you these 12 candidates as potential new Elizabethan naturalists. Our list of naturalists covers a wide range of people, from amateurs to professors, but all of them, we consider, have made vital contributions to natural history and conservation of wildlife during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.
Here are our 12 candidates in alphabetical order and with links to their Wikipedia entries:
David Attenborough, Gerald Durrell, James Fisher, Jane Goodall, David Lack, Norman Moore, Max Nicholson, Derek Ratcliffe, Miriam Rothschild, Peter Scott, Tony Soper, Richard Southwood.
Mark. Great idea to celebrate these people. I came to my decision by ranking them. The results followed broadly my ranking but I put Peter Scott up there by a nose (a bill?) before Derek Ratcliffe, Max Nicholson & my personal hero Norman Moore who saw the significance of agriculture 20 years before the mainstream of conservation. If the poll was about engaging the public in nature, rather than your definition, then there would probably be no contest with Sir David.
What will be interesting would be to do A follow up to who are the great thought-leaders and innovators in conservation today. I think it would be a shorter list.
Jim
Jim – many thanks.
Richard St. Barbe Baker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_St._Barbe_Baker
Pip – thank you. Must admit I had never heard of him. Thank you.
Interesting about Barbe Baker as we worked on the farm that he had been on in Dorset in probably the 1950s and 1960s where a Lithuanian displaced person was doing the farm work while B B was doing the Men Of The Trees work.
Ironically B B for all his conservation attributes paid Adam the worker to change the land from conservation land to productive farmland.
Think that just shows how naive we were in those days and the pressures put on everyone for more production and of course not laying any blame on him,just how it was at that time.
Dennis – thank you. Very interesting.
Personally, it’s Peter Scott who I admire most for his contribution.
However, Attenborough easily wins for speaking up for wildlife to the masses and I think we owe him a debt of gratitude for decades of spreading awareness of nature to the wider public.
Still voted for Scott though.
I had to go for David Attenborough, simply because he inspired my own interest in the natural world when I was a teenager, and he is still inspiring my students (and me!) thirty years later.
Though it is a great list – for me, Gerald Durrell and Peter Scott are close seconds, and it’s good to see Tony Soper on the list (or “soapy Tony”, as he was affectionately known to me as a kid! I was probably watching Tony on TV before I’d even heard of Attenborough!)
Though, it has to be said, if you want the chance to make ground-breaking natural history programmes… being controller of BBC2 probably helps!
Anne – thank you!
Well I went for Peter Scott,for me he is miles ahead of everyone else and guess I would get a good kicking but for me David Attenborough just read a script and sometimes chipped in on things he didn’t know much about but because of his name people followed like Lemmings.(sorry to upset his fans but that is how I feel)
If Barbe Baker is part of the vote? I will second him; because unlike all the other fine candidates he was very much international, secular and foresaw a situation where if we do not get the issue of tree conservation correct all other biodiversity and land issues will suffer. I can assure you that, although a still unknown name in the UK as you proof Mark, he is well known in many African and Arabic states and can act as a diffuser when discussing world politics and the role of the once colonising British.
Given the celebrations this weekend a most worthy candidate.
The other’s I feel should have been mentioned were Sue Clifford of Common Ground, Roger Deakin and Richard Mabey who all helped with the reconnection of land and its natural elements with humans. An essential pre cursor to the, albeit wildly abused by Defra, ideals of ecosystem services.
Predictably I went for Attenborough too. Lesley I too would have included Roger Deakin. He’s certainly the greatest English writer on the subject from the last six decades.
Mark – welcome and thank you for your comment.
I suspect that voting will be influcenced by the relative celebrity of the candidates. The results will be, nevertheless, interesting. It is hard to choose. My vote for Derek Ratcliffe is influcenced by his contribution to a wide range of issues – including raptors, bryophytes and upland habitats. A modern ‘polymath’! It is amazing how much influence DAR had on our network of protected wildife sites and it is saddening to note how few of the current generation of ‘conservationists’ have heard of him or appreciate his contribution.
How about a list of commonwealth candidates as well – e.g. Farley Mowat for starters?
Mark – welcome and thank you. Derek was indeed a great man.
Jim Corbett was a fantastic storytelling naturalist with great field skills. Skills he depended upon when stalking and being stalked by man eating cats while trying to protect Indian villagers. A character from a previous generation, he became a powerful advocate for conservation and is commemorated by the Corbett National Park. Jim Corbett deserves a mention in relation to this poll because he was with Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip in Aberdare National Park in Kenya as their personal guide on 6 February 1952 at the exact time of the death of her father. The tiny hotel where they were staying had been built into the branches of a giant fig tree. Corbett wrote in the hotel’s visitors’ book:
“For the first time in the history of the world, a young girl climbed into a tree one day a Princess, and after having what she described as her most thrilling experience, she climbed down from the tree the next day a Queen— God bless her.”
http://www.jimcorbettnationalpark.com/corbett_coljim.asp
http://www.explore-india.net/jimcorbett/jim_corbett.htm
Richard Fitter perhaps should also be mentioned, his Collins Pocket Guide to British Birds was first published in 1952 and his many subsequent books have the entry point to nature study for tens of thousands of people.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2005/sep/28/guardianobituaries.environment
Other significant naturalist conservationists – Richard Mabey, Martin Warren, David Bellamy (yes I know, but remember when he got arrested protecting Tasmanian rainforest from the proposed Franklin Dam) and Samantha Fanshawe. It’s still a list light on females, but what about Scottish (Gavin Maxwell, Roy Dennis?), Welsh (Ronald Lockley?) and N.Irish naturalists (?).
Matt
Matt – great comment, thanks.
Northern Ireland naturalists is drawing from an inevitably small pool, Matt! I guess one might just squeeze in Robert Lloyd Praeger, though he died in 1953. For those most active during the “second Elizabethan era” I’ll suggest the late Dinah Browne, and Joe Furphy OBE, Dr John Faulkner, and C Douglas Deane; though I think you’ll only find Praeger and Deane on Wikipedia. In the event that anyone else with a connection to Norther Ireland reads this I expect to be ‘put right’!
I went for James Fisher. I presume it is in our nature to highlight someone who is well publicised so I suspect David Attenborough will win through. However, when growing up in days of yore, James Fisher and Ernest Neal were the two people who really turned me on to nature. Ernest Neal for his well written and understandable book on the badger and James Fisher who’s impact on me was through Nature Parliament in Children’s Hour (a sort of Question Time for nature lovers).
Is this the first time I’ve ever disagreed with Dennis (Ames)?! Maybe.
I say that as mostly I seem to share Dennis’ pretty no-nonsense views and enjoy reading his comments to your blog Mark (more than most others).
I disagree with Dennis in this case as at least David Attenborough is a qualified zoologist (rather than merely a voice for a script – in many cases he actually wrote the scripts).
Anyway…. my vote goes to David Attenborough although Peter Scott would be running him a close second. In my opinion, Attenborough hooked me on natural history – and millions of others I’m sure, in a way that Peter Scott could have only dreamed of I’m sure.
Interesting to note the slight Cambridge bias in your selection Mark (and Tom) (both Cambridge also I think?)
Attenborough, Scott, Lack, Moore and Goodall (PhD if not BSc) all read at Cambridge.
So that’s over 40% of your selections from Cambridge alone.
Doug
Doug – not so much a Cambridge bias as a case of cream floating to the top I would suggest. I really hadn’t known that David Lack took his first degree at Cambridge and he is so closely associated with Oxford and the Edward Grey Institute that it is a bit difficult to cite his inclusion as convincing evidence of a Cambridge bias. Was Tom at Cambridge? I didn’t know that either! Maybe this poll should be reframed as a University Boat race – although would Oxford be able to make up a crew?
Oxford would have no difficulty putting together a crew for this, nor would Imperial College!
If weighted by the huge number of professional ecologists they mentored and influence on the science of ecology globally, then Dick Southwood had a huge influence on most of the people teaching and researching ecology in the UK today. His long-term influence on policy and the environment is beyond calibration.
Andy – Hi! and Welcome! And thank you for your comment.
Doug – and another thing! Max Nicholson and James Fisher were both at that place near Cowley for their first degrees. Lack, as mentioned before, spent most of his life at Oxford, and Dick Southwood was the Prof of Zoology at Oxford. Thanks for your stimulating comment!
Although a broadcaster rather than a “man of science” (but he must have picked up some on the way), David Attenborough has been the “Front Man” for the natural world for me all my life. From Zoo Quest to Guiana to Frozen Planet he has enthusiastically wispered amazing facts and findings from one end to the other of planet Earth. For the millions of people he must have reached he gets my vote.
Andy – and not just yours!
I was wondering when somebody would make a comment like Dennis’s (Attenborough “just read the script”) – the truth is that without him, these programmes would never have been made at all. He has been the mover-and-shaker behind them for decades and his influence will be profoundly missed when he is gone.
He may not be everyone’s idea of a “real” naturalist, despite his degree in the subject, but I’m willing to bet that he has inspired more people to become real naturalists than all the rest of the list put together.
Doug —kind words and of course people have different views which pleases me and respect those views also that when anyone disagrees seriously with Mark he will still publish that view which I find just one of his nice attributes.
Anne—–I tried to say what I felt and realised that David had a large following but hoped to say what I thought in this instance without upsetting anyone and of course respect your views are different.
Hi Dennis, I am not upset at all, just wanted to put the opposing view across.
I completely understand and appreciate that David Attenborough is first and foremost a tv broadcaster rather than a professional naturalist. But his genius for communication, his enthusiasm for natural history, and his clout in the world of tv have given us all a remarkable legacy that would simply not exist otherwise. He doesn’t just narrate these landmark series, he gets them made, and I think that’s an important distinction to point out.
Thanks Mark but not sure what you mean by “cream floating to the top”?
Disregard universities (whether Oxbridge or Imperial) and you may also note that over 40% of your selections originally went to (very expensive) fee-paying “Independent” schools (including Eton (twice) and Sedbergh).
But then again, you and Tom started out at fee-paying schools also I think. (Please correct me if I’m wrong).
Of course that means almost 60% did not pay for (at least some of ) their formative education, but there you go.
Not that I have anything against “public schoolboys” (my father went to Sedbergh for example) but I find it interesting to note that half your selections were first educated at fee-paying schools and (nearly the same) half went to Oxbridge….
Not that any of this really matters of course – I just find patterns interesting.
Doug – you aren’t right about me actually. You’ll have to buy my book to learn more… But I went to Bristol Grammar School, which is, indeed, now, an independent school but I am old enough that when I attended it was a direct grant school. And I got in ‘cos I passed an exam to get in. Since quite a few of those we listed are dead or old then their educational histories will reflect the old days more than the current situation. It is interesting though, a bit. For there to be a comprehensive school child in the list they would have to be my age exactly or younger as I took the 11 plus in its last year. Got any candidates for the list who fit? I’m sure there must be some. And certainly will be in a decade, I trust.
Doug,
Just for the record, I did go to a public school from 11 to 18 and to Cambridge. I was able to go to my school through a combination of an entrance exam, being the son of a vicar and grand parental contributions. And then, of course, at university, an automatic grant and no fees… Things are rather different nowadays.
Thanks for your correction Mark. I had you down as Cleve House before The Grammar which I guess wasnt a fee-paying school either. Not that that matters either.
I shall buy your book (when I find out what that book is (sorry)) and indeed learn more!
All worthy contenders, but my vote would be for “The Unknown Volunteer” – an unnamed representative of all the individuals who spend their spare time maintaining and wardening reserves, patiently answering the public’s questions, brewing tea, writing letters, making badges, erecting nestboxes, and even cleaning visitor centre toilets. Essential tasks, that often go unnoticed, and unthanked.
Andy – welcome, and a good candidate indeed.
Andy,
I am very glad to read your comment and it’s an important point. Increasingly, as conservation has grown and its ambitions have expanded, volunteers have become essential. They will be even more vital in the future, I expect. And aye aye to what you say about cleaning loos. Dead right.
If we were allowed to go beyond “Elizabethan” domestic borders then I would also add in Tinbergen and Lorenz, 2 others well read by me as a youngster. Adding Tinbergen would also balance the Oxford / Cambridge debate.
That turned out really interesting and think you did a fine job with the list,of course some others came up with alternatives but whatever school you went to think you worked really hard and made the best use of any education at that time.
One thing I admire in anyone is that they make the most of their talents and no one can do more than that.
Have always thought ever since finding your early blogs that you fit that bill as good as anyone and as a bonus you do not mock anyone less fortunate.
I think it must be David Attenborough as he has made more of us aware of the natural world. There is a caveat though. His later programmes ie Frozen Planet have bought to to our attention the problems of the environment which is all to the good, earlier series were rather more bland in this direction.
Indian Ocean with Simon Reeve has really painted a scary more realistic picture of the state of our world and our seas The picture of lemurs being confined to a tiny enclave on Madagascar or was it Mauritius whereas the Attenborough programme suggested that they were endemic in all the forested areas of the island was particularly telling.
There are many good people speaking up for nature, Peter Marren, writes in British Wildlife (Twitcher in the swamp) slightly ascerbic is a favourite of mine so I believe that your list Mark does not do justice to the many unsung heroes who have been instrumental in helping the environmental cause. Oh, and another person springs to mind Rachael Carson with Silent Spring. She definitely deserves a place!
Ben – thanks. I have enjoyed Simon Reeve’s Indian Ocean very much too. RacheL Carson was American and therefore would not meet the criteria that the BBC used and we followed.
I am the eldest son of Max Nicholson, who, I thin, has a strong claim, in that he set up much of the legal and governmental infrastructure, including the National Parks Act, the SSSIs and the Nature Conservancy (now English Nature). And he was a distibguished ornithologist, being the editor of the Birds of the Western Paleoarctic. On top of this, he had a magic gift of setting up organisations which have proved their worth over the years (see the Wikipedia article or the maxnicholson.com) website. Most of these were in the field of ornithology but there were others such as the World Wildlife Fund.
I think I am probably precluded in voting for him (though I would encourage you to do so) so my vote will go to James Fisher
Piers – welcome and thank you very much for your comment. I think you should have voted for your father though!
Piers, We are greatly honoured by your interest in our poll. Thank you.
Mark,
Excellent list. Interesting to note that in terms of flying the conservation banner (rather than just celebrating the natural world) Attenborough, by his own admission, came rather late to the show. None the less, he should be there at the top.
Along with at least one other person making a comment, for me Norman Moore is THE man. His BOU Gold Medal citation said that he had probably done more than any other to alert the world to the dangers of persistent pesticide use. Along with Ratcliffe, he published the first paper to suggest that pesticides were having an impact on egg-shell thickness. This paper, based upon one egg result in a tremendous amount of stick from the “scientific community” but as we know, Moore and Ratcliffe were right.
Norman Moore was also a key author of the Nature Conservation Review and drafted the SSSI guidelines which were later completed by Derek Ratcliffe after Moore had retired. A founder member of FWAG, ye he is best known for his work on dragonflies with well over 200 papers to his name and still publishing! Yet it may have been very different – he was sitting in a glider waiting to go into Arnhem as part of the second wave when the operation was cancelled.
Why cannot nature conservation produce people of this calibre today? We seem to be living in a world of mediocre yes men. The 2010 SSSI target was fudged and no doubt so will be the 2020 Biodiversity targets. At least we can take heart from the people in your list!
Alistair – fantastic comment, thank you.
Mark,
It has since occured to me that your list could possibly be split into two with one group representing those who made a difference by physically getting involved in protecting species and habitats: Nicholson, Durrell, Ratcliffe, Scott and Moore for example whilst the other group made a contribution by presenting information that got people interested in the environment: Attenborough, Lack, Fisher and Soper.
There is of course no right or wrong, better or worse. As I am sure you will agree, the world needs both types of people and as there are so few men and women of this standing we should treasure them all.
Alistair – did actually think of that, but decided that it was better to let all of you make the difficult decisions!
Alistair, I think the way you write about these people is exactly right and very refreshing. Thank you.
Piers —-very honourable of you not voting for your father as you obviously thought you shouldn’t but like Mark think it would have been nice if you had and hope people would have understood.
A fascinating poll Mark, many thanks. For me there is very little to separate Peter Scott, Norman Moore, Max Nicholson and Derek Ratcliffe but the latter has to take my vote. His contribution to a such a diverse range of species and habitat related issues was truly remarkable.
I also think the inestimable Oliver Rackham is also worthy of a mention. His seminal work ‘The History of the Countryside’, must be one of the most informative, amusing and utterly brilliant books written on British natural history during the new Elizabethan age.
He even had something to say about pheasants and gamekeepers …”Gamekeeping is not responsible for the survival of pheasants, which kept themselves in England centuries before the modern keeper”. Though no doubt the CA would dismiss this as the ramblings of an ill-informed townie!
This has got me hooked and I am fascinated by the responses. Should it be a do’er or someone who influences a do’er? My biggest concern is the celebrity voice – we seem far too occupied in assuming that there needs to be a single champion; but sadly we are yet to see the significant change of perception that is needed to brink about real change. And in seeking a celebrity the media give us celebrity and thus we see a situation where Julia Bradbury (TV personality) beats the likes of Richard Maybe (author of Flora Britanica) for the recent NT Octavia Hill award (mmm!?) and yet the public secretly want the likes of ‘Swampy’. They want and need a revolutionary character (as in the movies).
There is of course one not on the list but who has, and was able to, introduce some hard facts about environmentalism into the wider political arena and accept ridicule as a result: The Prince of Wales. Probably for this poll a far too ironic canditate but one I feel we are yet to realise just how much he has contributed and how much further he still has far to go (and I for one wish he was attending Rio+20 on the UK’s behalf rather than the lobby bait we are sending instead).
For all this and considering the second Elizabethan period appears far from over, we are at a precipice, a tipping point in so many ways and we are yet to see the real victor in the limelight. I am certain that they are there at this moment in time but are not being listened to because we are so fixated on what media may bring us rather than the reality that the system installed under the noses of, and sometimes at the bequest of, those we are championing who unfornately haven’t succeeded.
Lesley – great comment, thank you. And I am glad you are hooked!
Nothing to do with the poll but I have just been on an 8 mile cycle ride along bridle-paths and quiet country roads, through meadows with cattle, open agricultural areas and home through the village.
Saw many many wood pigeons (too many) heard NO larks saw only two house martins in the outskirts of the village, NO swallows and a couple of swifts on arrival at my home.
We certainly need a new Elizabethan to tell governments how it really is and to wake us all up before we lose the lot.
Ben – I did my second visit to my second BBS square this morning. Birds not bad, but very obvious that there were more birds in the village than in the farmed countryside! Still, can’t complain; single yellowhammer, single lesser whitethroat and a smattering of other warblers and a few skylarks. Hang on – maybe I can complain. What was it like 10? 20? years ago?
Scott was not only one of the first broadcasters to bring natural history to the small screen0 but set in motion plans for the survival of species and habitats – ie Ne-ne. ( He also went from being an avid shooter of wildlife to a dedicated conservationist)
PS Didn’t know you went to Cleve House!
Peter – welcome! You are right about Scott.
“Scott ……… set in motion plans for the survival of species and habitats – ie Ne-ne.”
Whilst I do agree, there is a Ne Ne flying around Wiltshire at the moment; I do wish he had tied them down a bit better.
I think the premise of the question is wrong!
Quite obviously they should all be part of the list of new Elizabethans! I think we should be thinking about kicking off quite a few of the fairly vacuous, dilettante or jobsworth people on the BBC list to make way for these heroes!
For example Barbara Windsor, Jack Jones, Lord Denning, Roy Jenkins, Jayaben Desai, Charles Saatchi, John Hume, David Trimble, Lady Diana, Alex Salmond, Simon Cowell and Fred Goodwin could all be booted off for starters.
Peter Scott was top of my list because he not only started/help start WWT and WWF but was the first to recognise the power of television for the conservation cause – in addition to being a top artist, Olympic Glider champion and helped (with the late great Jeffery Harrison – one of my persoanl heroes) to form a bridge between conservationists and wildfowlers.
Humphrey – Welcome, long time no see! Great comment thank you.
We are at least blessed with lots of good conservationists today,perhaps some who concentrate on one species such as Roy Dennis whose work with Ospreys must be classed as special and as allowed lots of us to see birds that without his dedication would not have been a success.In a similar vein perhaps not as well known is Dave Sexton with the Sea Eagles and there are other successes that we have lots of people to thank for their work.People like yourself continually badgering for wildlife to get a better deal may well in future be seen to have used today’s technology to the advantage of wildlife and get credit like the Elizabethans.
Mark in reply to yours 05 June 1220.
I remember 50 to 60 years ago. I am 69 (help!) in my childhood village of Yoxford In Suffolk us kids went birds nesting, some of us youngsters had air rifles and we used to ocasionaly pot swallows on the telegraph lines, and another favourite were sparrows, there were that many birds of all types about. We were ignorant and conservation was possibly not even in the dictionary with regards to wildlife. There were DEFINITELY more of almost every type of birds about in those days, even a red squirrel and its drey in a smallish woodland in very close proximity to the village. Can you imagine how crazy countryfile would go about that today?
I and many, especially older people mourn for those days and the decline of so much of nature and the blame has to be laid at the hand of modern farming methods, I do not necessarily blame farmers, we are all a product of the age we live in – unfortunately. The insidious aspect is that each age gets used to the age that they live in so that when Spring Watch goes on about one or two plovers, we think oh! that is great there are plovers about, may be rare but they still exist. Again, my memory does serve me correctly there were many many plovers around in the fields, hardly ever took much notice of them they were so commonplace.
Ben – I agree. This is the shifting baselines problem – my children think this pathetic number of farmland birds is ‘normal’ because it is what they grew up with. Sad isn’t it. I wrote about this in my blog on the RSPB werbsite over the weekend http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/ourwork/b/martinharper/archive/2012/06/04/shifting-baselines-are-important-too.aspx I am blogging daily as a Guest Blogger for Marton Harper in the run-up to the Rio summit on 20 June.
Bizarre that Julian Huxley was not on the list. There are of course many other noteables who had a huge impact on natural history, so it is always invidious to select names and leave out others — but surely Julian Huxley is up there with Scott, Fisher and Nicholson. Alas, history is written by the survivors, and Huxley has been dead a few years longer than Scott, Fisher, and Nicholson etc. Even more depressing is the fact that a large proprtion of students doing ‘environment’ or ‘conservation’ haven’t even heard of many of these greats!
John – welcome and thank you!
None of the Leakey’s? Even Louis the patriarch was an Elizabethan.
Thony C – welcome and thank you for your comment.
I loved Derek Ratcliffe’s writing. He had the knack of being able to get the science across in the most easy to understand manner that i have come across. The Poyser title ‘The Peregrine Falcon’ is an absolute gem of a monograph. I suspect that most people however have never heard of him.
As for presenting the natural world in an innovative and highly watchable style there really is nobody to compare to David Attenborough.
I voted for Derek Ratcliffe, mainly due to the influence that his work has had on me personally (Roy Dennis is another, but sadly not on the list).
It would have been easy to vote for Attenborough (and, retrospectively, maybe I should have done) due to his ability to reach and inspire so many millions of people. I am, however, going to hijack this post slightly to give thanks to the multitude of conservation staff who have dedicated their lives to ‘the cause’. Often they work long hours for very little pay, on short-term contracts and frequently need to move around the country as job funding expires and new opportunities arise.
I believe that these people (and no, I’m not one of them!) deserve our recognition just as much as the famous names on the list.
Pete – thank you, good comment.
Pete, I think you make a very telling point. And it can be taken even further. At a high policy level, the hostility towards key naturalists giving evidence or contributing to the policy making process from those whose interests were threatened was often considerable. It often required some strength of character to sustain the arguments, even bravery of a sort, according to those I have spoken to who were involved.
Pete-hope we would all agree with you on that score.
Fascinating poll and discussion: I would have happily voted for any or all on the list. I went for Derek Ratcliffe on the basis of his style of writing (a line from ‘Bird Life of Mountain and Upland’ – “until we as a nation learn to treat our wildlife more kindly” – particularly sticks in the memory). Permission to make honorable mentions of three others not on the list – Richard Mabey, Oliver Rackham and Eric Simms – (See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/23/eric-simms-obituary).
Martin – many thanks!
As a landscape architect by profession, I warmly agree with your mention of Rackham, who influences me a great deal. In fact, one of the candidates in our poll gave me my copy of his marvellous History more than 20 years ago.
I agree broadly with those of the above who, though they might have had their own favorites among academic naturalists and influential specialists, gave credit to Sir David Attenborough for the spectacular way he has transmitted his passion for ecosystems and the natural environment to the general public. So I voted for him.
Kevin – welcome and thank you. Obviously, you are not alone!
Great to see such strong support for Derek Ratcliffe who set-up the scientific foundation for nature conservation.
Catherine – welcome and thank you!
The more names you see on here, the more you realise what skills and influence there has been over the last 60 years. It takes something like this to bring them all back into the memory (Well it does for us old codgers)
Bob,
Yours are wise words. I think that your view of the post war community of naturalists, often with very different perspectives, but working generously and constructively together, within statutory bodies, charities, universities and research institutions as well as with practitioners (farmers; gardeners; gamekeepers; foresters) is a strong and inspiring one. We need that unity and harmony of purpose now more than ever.
I would like to nominate Richard Mabey. Interested many folk who were not interested before with ‘food for free’ in the 60′s (maybe 70′s?) and countless publications since then. Could he be put on your list at the last minute, I’d be interested to see how many votes he might get?
Jackie – welcome, and yes maybe we should have included Richard.
Richard Mabey is a central figure in the culture of the countryside and its wildlife and its importance to people. He’s also been a practitioner, of course, managing his own wood in the Chilterns, amongst many other things. For the purposes of this poll, however, we sought scientists (David Attenborough does have a degree in zoology). Perhaps, like some other people mentioned, such as Sue Clifford of Common Ground and Marion Shoard (The theft of the countryside;This land is our land) ,we could consider a list of people who have been philosophers of the countryside and its wildlife (and indeed urban wildlife as well, Chris Baines comes to mind). And then we could turn to authors who have voiced strongly and clearly, the significance of conservation in different ways (Richard Adams, for example, whose Sandleford Warren is, in real life, on the brink of the destruction he foresaw right now, partly because of the revised planning policy on housing now in operation.
I hope that by running the poll we have at least shown how rich a vein of commitment, wisdom and achievement we have in this country dedicated to this aspect of life. We could conclude that nature conservation in its broadest sense is an exceptional achievement of this country in reign of the second Queen Elizabeth.
I’m glad to have seen Barbe Baker celebrated here. Semley, on the Dorset / Wilts border and close to where I live, was one of the places where the Men of the Trees was born. Jim Corbet has been mentioned too and he is truly a great Elizabethan for many reasons, most given above.
I voted for the wonderful Miriam, purely on the grounds that anyone who works tirelessly for mental health, but insists on wearing mauve moon boots, gets my vote every time!
David – Welcome and thank you. I admitted earlier that Barbe Baker was a name I didn’t know and I’m glad to have found out more about him through this process.
I voted for one who was a great influence on me and I have read most of his books, Gerald Durrell. However, I could have taken the same stance for others in the list, including the current leader. From a communication perspective, I could also have added Eric Hosking for his pioneering photography 0f birds or Steven Dalton, for his equally pioneering photographs of insects in flight – both heroes to me, and I don’t think you can forget the other David (Bellamy), with his infectious enthusiasm for the natural world.
Well what a very tricky poll – I voted for Peter Scott in the end rather than Gerald Durrell as both influenced me as a young person.
I think its their work that survives them as well as what they did as pioneers.
Good to see a Rothchild here although I am not too excited by fleas!
James Fisher and David Lack influenced my reading.
Obviously the others all have a place in a list – I expect David Attenborough to win as he is the most well known and whilst I think his contribution to bringing nature to the masses is great – he has not had as much influence on conservation as some of the others.
I learned something from this list as well.
Corinna – Welcome and many thanks. Your views match my own to a large extent.
Peter Scott, by a nose over David Attenborough. He kickstarted the public nature reserve/education centre/overseas conservation idea. Which converts people; not so sure about the TV programmes, though thats important too
also “the unknown volunteer”, thats me!
Roger – welcome and thank you!
It had to be Sir David for me. At 36 years old I don’t a life without him. They are all worthy contenders a few of which I must admit to not having heard of. I thank Mark on having brought them and their work to my attention. Which makes me realise that there may be a name missing – Mr Avery?
Colin – welcome and thank you!
It’s very interesting to read all the comments, but the end result is that it convinces me that all these sorts of lists are invidious. Not so long ago I was on a panel that chose 20 most influential living conservationists for BBC Wildlife Magazine. And there were one or two quite bizarre ones that ended up on the list. I think one issue is the category is ill defined — too broad. The most influential entomologist, taxonomist, international conservationist , Parliamentarian etc might be easier to define. Otherwise one is often comparing apples with bananas. Finally there is a temproal element. At the begining of the Elizabethan era, Attenborough had virtually no influence, but currently he is way above all those listed. In 100 years time — who knows?
Must be Max Nicholson for the reasons already given, although he was active a long time before Elizabeth came to the throne. In addition, and unlike most others in the field at the time, he embraced the wildlife of our towns and cities and understood its importance. His influence in this field was enormous, not least through the Trust For Urban Ecology and the work of Land Use Consultants. If when he had lived and worked the media had been as it now is he would have been much more well know to the public.
Has to be David for life in the freezer and planet earth
John – thank you and welcome!
Lovely idea Mark – and the fact that only 2 out of your twelve candidates are women has given me considerable pause for thought. As I look around our ‘industry’ today I see a huge contribution being made by women at all levels – just as in other countries including for example the USA. However, unlike the USA I am not aware of an equivalent to eg the Audubon Society’s Rachel Carson award http://www.womeninconservation.org/carson.html – is it just that we prefer not to make awards based on gender, or are we missing an opportunity to celebrate some of the outstanding British contributions that have been made to the cause of environmental conservation by, eg Beatrix Potter/Healis; Jane Smart; Caroline Lucas, Sara Oldfield – to name but four?!
Victoria – welcome and thank you. Or Victoria Chester – chief exec of Plantlife? Steph Hilborne – chief exec of the Wildlife trusts? Fiona Reynolds – chief exec of the National Trust (and formerly CPRE)? Barbara Young – ex chair of English Nature , ex chief exec of the RSPB and the Environment Agency and President or vice-President of so many wildlife organisations? Or Lucy Cooper – chief exec of the Grasslands Trust? Or Sue Holden – chief exec Woodland Trust?Or Sam Fanshawe – chief exec of MCS? And I’ll be embarrassed when I think of some more I may have omitted from this list.
You’ll notice that, how can i put this, most of the list we offered are getting on a bit – many of them have gone on for good. there weren’t so many women who would have qualified for that list, I think? I think we tended to pick those whose careers could already be evaluated rather than those who were still adding to their reputations.
And having said all that, given that there are only two, very deserving, women on the list they have hardly gathered a high proportion of votes have they? I wonder why that is? can’t be that the only readers of this blog are misogynistic men I hope?
Thank you for your comment – when we next meet will you whisper who you voted for?
Some really interesting stuff here – thanks stimulating the debate. I wonder, however, whether we are still seduced by the ‘Great (Wo)Man Theory’ of history, and have difficulty in characterising the successes of nature conservation (through the actions of many thousands of individuals since the 1950s) other than through the lenses of individuals.
But I’m victim to this too – although I’d rather be going for those that helped raise the game in our towns and cities from the early ’70s, and linked the concerns of countryside with those of a society increasingly disengaged from nature; George Barker, Chris Baines, Richard Mabey, Alison Milward, Sue Clifford, and Nan Fairbrother, to name a few. I still cherish Richard Fitter’s input too; his ‘London’s Natural History’ (pre-Elizabethan, I admit) guides me still.
However, of the candidates listed it’ll have to be Max Nicholson, for all the reasons Peter Shirley and others have given – and his influence on urban nature conservation policy, including his monitoring of the house sparrows in Kensington Gardens from 1925.