I just finished a tiny painting of a common bird, the Savannah sparrow, named for the city of Savannah, Georgia, where it first became known to science. It nests from the high arctic to south into the U.S., with a winter range extending into Mexico. In my teens, I helped a zoology professor conduct surveys of wildlife in habitats northeast of Toronto. In fields, we found Savannah sparrows were the most abundant bird species.
Forty years later, I can drive past such habitat all day and not see one! But, it is still considered a common species.[teaserbreak]
Minutes after the last brush stroke, I was reading a technical paper with the title, “Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines,” by Gerardo Ceballos, Paul R. Ehrlich, and Rodolfo Dirzo (a summary of the paper can be found here). Examining current hugely accelerated rates of extinction, it concluded that the situation is worse than has been indicated by those studies—grim as their findings are—that focus on counting extinctions. Looking at 27,600 vertebrate species, they found that some 32 percent have ranges and population sizes that are decreasing, although many may still be common in some areas. Of 177 mammals where they had solid data, “all have lost 30 percent their geographic ranges and more than 40 percent had experienced severe population declines, between 1900 and 2015.”
At Born Free USA, we’ve struggled to make this point with regard the lion, a species whose range once incorporated most of Africa and much of the Middle East and southern Asia, but is now greatly fragmented into isolated sections, with gene flow between these various populations broken.
Pushback is enormous, though, from those who benefit financially from killing lions, from using lions, or those with far more income than integrity, who want to keep killing big animals.
The text uses the phrase “biological annihilation” to evoke interest in a phlegmatic, poorly informed public. It is within human capability to literally deny what is in obvious and incontrovertible (and yes, I’m thinking of climate change), and to resist bad news relating to things poorly understood.
When the authors state: “Our data indicate that beyond global species extinctions Earth is experiencing a huge episode of population declines and extirpations, which will have negative cascading consequences on ecosystem functioning and services vital to sustaining civilization,” they do so knowing that it is easier not to care—and not to act—until it is too late.
In our zoological surveys of 40 plus years ago, we documented flora and fauna, and can say with confidence that the habitat still remains, so why no Savannah sparrows? They aren’t hunted. Other field birds, like bobolinks, vesper sparrows, and meadowlarks, are also in decline. Earlier harvesting, a decline in insect populations due to pesticide use, and the accumulative effect of introducing toxic substances into the environment have all been blamed, but what of the “cascading consequences” of all that we are doing?
I can still find Savannah sparrows; hunters can still find lions. But, only a fool finds complacency…
Keep Wildlife in the Wild,
Barry