Few happy feet in our forests
DAVE HANSFORD
Relevant offers
Comment
OPINION: Showing in a forest near you: the tragic sequel to Happy Feet. Every year, thousands of creatures, for reasons unknown, leave their rightful habitat and never re-turn. A very few eventually reach another suitable environment, and claim a toehold in a new land. The spur-winged plovers that plague Wellington Airport are just such an example. But the vast majority of these migrants die, and there's no doubt that Happy Feet would have been just another transient corpse, had humans not intervened.
Conservation Department ecologists understand all of this very well, but Happy Feet captured the collective public heart. DOC also rightly understood that if it stepped back and let nature take its inevitable course, it would have been pilloried. Happy Feet has now developed a $10,000 salmon habit, but money pours in.
That the disoriented bird was promptly named after a schmaltzy, fluffy cartoon character tells us a lot about where that compulsion to foster came from. Psychologists - and advertising agents are the world's highest paid psychologists - know that we're pathologically susceptible to fluffy coats and big, round, appealing eyes. In Hollywood's Antarctica, penguins - freed from the drudgery of survival - sing and dance in perpetual sunshine, employing the arts to persuade humans to stop fishing in the Antarctic.
In the real world, an emperor penguin is born into the most hostile environment on Earth - a gelid hell of darkness and shrieking winds. Should parent and chick be separated, the little bird will desperately try to seek warmth and shelter under the brood flap of any adult that will take it. None will. They will stand impassive as the little orphan freezes to death.
When surviving chicks finally reach the coast, they may be seized by a leopard seal, which will toss them about, torn but alive, out of play or to teach its own young how to catch penguins for themselves. This is the real Antarctica, and it follows nature's script, not Disney's. It's an OSH nightmare. There are few happy endings.
Even penguin researchers will tell you that, God help them, penguins just aren't that bright. Happy Feet would seem to be a particularly maladapted individual that is highly unlikely to have cut it in his native world.
It's debatable, that, even if he eventually returns there - and that's a very long shot - we've granted the emperor penguin species an evolutionary favour. Indeed, this species survives that vicious world precisely because the like of Happy Feet don't get to pass on their genes.
Don't get me wrong: I don't want to live in a society without compassion for other living things. It's what separates us from, well . . . penguins for a start.
But we have lost our understanding of the true nature of nature. Very few of us even go there any more: for millions, nature now abides in our TV, where we're shown anthropomorphic drivel crafted to tear, not tug, at our nurturing instincts - and, of course, make a profit: Happy Feet 1 grossed US$384 million (NZ$444m).
We've lost touch with what's real, and what's important.
Each night, as people followed Happy Feet's fortunes on blanket TV coverage, hundreds of our own native birds were slaughtered.
Across the country, introduced stoats, rats, cats, weasels, ferrets, pigs and possums are daily devouring our taonga, our collective heritage. A kiwi chick - every bit as cute, if you ask me, as a penguin - born outside of pest- controlled areas has a 5 per cent chance of survival. New Zealand has already lost half its native bird species, and if present trends continue, we stand to lose many more.
Yet we stand by - impassive as an emperor penguin before a pleading chick - while the Conservation Department starves in the cold. The Government has slashed $54m from DOC's budget, and though the cuts are putatively aimed at faceless head-office staff, they will seriously hobble efforts to save our fauna. Thousands of birds - not just a single penguin - will die, but the silence from the public has been deafening.
Happy Feet's most generous sponsor, Gareth Morgan, said: "When the first penguin turned up in 67, there was hardly any brouhaha . . . this time around everyone is so dedicated to seeing the bird recover - it really shows how much more people understand about this kind of thing."
I suggest the reverse is true. We are now so estranged from nature - and the Darwinian tough-love sustaining it - that we have completely lost any sense of priority.
Imagine the sound of the New Zealand bush if we defended our own wildlife with the compassion we bestowed on Happy Feet.
Dave Hansford is a freelance science and environment writer.
- © Fairfax NZ News
Sponsored links
Its because NZers can't stand hearing birds tweetings and carrying on at dusk and dawn, and esp cannot stand them defecating on car bonnets. So who cares if a thousand of them perish during the week, blimmin filthy noisemakers!! Whereas penguins don't make much noise. They just look cool and do funky dances and eat potato chups.
I can be an emperor penguin to DOC. I am tired of the endlessly perpetuated fallacy of 'NZ the way it was' that DOC have pushed for however long.
We can't have NZ the way it was. Maori arrived in 1250; 50 to 100 years later, there were no moa, no adzebills, no giant raptors or fat waddling flightless geese. Humans arrived in NZ and wiped out the keystone species. We can't put things back. It's not even politically correct to mention it - you won't find any explanation of megafaunal extinction of moa, adzebills, giant eagles etc in Te Papa. You'll find HEAPS about the evil European and their ferrets, though!
So if some people want to support Happy Feet, let them. Teach them what/ how else they can help. But scorn them for caring and you will lose them too, because they'll see another DOC myth and no longer trust DOC to be anything except a politically correct lapdog.
I think it's worse than Dave suggests - being forced by public opinion to look after this one vagrant penguin is not just inefficient - it's also hugely counter-productive. The same thing happens every time the media shows a dedicated volunteer feeding a native bird with an eye dropper, or mending a kiwis broken leg. The public starts with a vague feeling that we humans should be looking after our wildlife better. They see evidence that (some) humans are going to (frankly ridiculous) lengths to do so. Conscience cleared, they carry on without seeing any need to change their own lifestyle or actions - why would they when clearly our wildlife is receiving five-star treatment? Those psychologists will tell you that we see what we want to see. These are human self-interest stories. It's what we do best.
I had this discussion with my mother, who had heard a popular radio personality declare that this emperor penguin was too stupid to live, and was sure that I would support her in my outrage. She was quite surprised when I said that although I did not believe he was stupid (eating sand, thinking it was snow) that I felt it would have been far better if the $10,000 raised to "help" him had instead been used to help one of our own native bird species - perhaps a habitat instead of a lone individual. Of course, it would have been a PR nightmare, standing by and letting a bird eat itself to death, but what use does the life of one penguin - so far from home that he is unlikely to ever return to breed, do to benefit the species?
Given that Gareth Morgan has recently come close to directly causing the loss of many native endangered wildlife at one of New Zealand's foremost conservation projects, I'd suggest he's not so much concerned with the wellbeing of our wildlife as he is with seeing his own name in the paper.
Fantastic article.
Thanks Dave for raising the public awareness of the slow demise of the Department of Conservation which is struggling to look after our natural heritage in the face of public apathy, ignorance, concerted government attack and the lack of effective leadership.
I thoroughly support your points Dave. No doubt the bleeding hearts will have the knives out, but you put forward a very valid point as sensitively as you could and brought to light the real tragedy of conservation in New Zealand which many of us know about but it sure doesn't make headlines. Nice work - and thank you.
Brilliant article, thank you Dave Hansford for telling it as it is
That's what Happy Feet's beautiful legacy is, when I sent down my staff member to deliver a bouquet to Happy Feet, I made sure that he also dropped off blankets to the SPCA, which is just before the zoo. When I joyfully think of Happy Feet, I think of other animals too.
Human safety priority over heritage
Council seeks massive cost cuts
Carterton balloon was not airworthy
Morgue water arts show axed after iwi opposition
Bret's McKenzie's biggest fans
Car crashes into parking meter
Transmission Gully could make traffic worse
Warning for gales in Wellington
Kapiti tenpin bowler scores perfect game
Carterton tragedy: Safety chief would refuse balloon ride
Major courts overhaul proposed
Foreign Affairs Ministry confirms 305 jobs to go
Mob cancels star's performance
Kiwis not up with online security
Helena Bonham Carter 'honoured'
New hope for kiwifruit growers
Gender non-conformity linked to abuse
Nelsen cleared to lead NZ against Jamaica
Robinson starts for Chiefs against old team
Man's childhood comic collection fetches $4.2m
What do you think of the planned price increase for rubbish bags?
Newest First
Oldest First
Couldn't agree more, Kate. You got it bang on. Yes, it was a brilliant article. We have to have governments WITH conservation policies before we can vote for them. National wants to pillage every inch of our country and there doesn't seem to be much resistance. If the media stopped focusing on the 3-ring circus that is NZ politics, they might be able to report on important issues like conservation. Or maybe not bury these issues on page 3 of the business/sport section. The increased fishing quota, slashed DOC funding etc should be frontpage news! Then maybe, the public would be better informed.