Before I say anything else, let me be clear that, in my opinion, Helen MacDonald has a great knowledge of nature and an active interest in nature conservation. I have heard her speak and I own a signed copy of her book. However, there were two things in this programme that I was concerned about.
Firstly, in Helen’s spell watching ‘free’ Goshawks, she repeated a couple of times statements that, to a very large extent, Goshawks in the wild today in Britain are a result or a by-product of ‘falconry’. “Buy one, set one free” was one comment she made. Though there may be some truth in this, I think it wrong to infer that falconry is a necessary and sufficient cause for the re-establishment of a bird of prey. Think Red Kite. Think White-tailed Sea Eagle. Her statements appeared as an attempt to defend falconry and to help secure her place her within the realm of ‘nature writers’.
Secondly, it concerns me that the programme made falconry/hawk-rearing seem very rewarding and quite wonderful. Her experiences with her previous Goshawk (Mabel) featured in her book and, to a large extent, the narrative was of a ‘nature cure’. Her second Goshawk (Lupin) featured in this TV programme and this time the narrative was more of wonder, and reward, and joy. If an unintended consequences of these narratives is to convince others (however naively) that acquiring and attempting to raise a Goshawk would be a good idea – either for a ‘nature cure’ or for wonderful enjoyment – then there are problems. If the activity gains popularity, there will, amongst other things, be problems of sourcing. Yes, the activity is licensed, but if there is a demand, illegal sources and trades will emerge, or there will be nest-raiding. Keeping a Goshawk (or any other bird of prey) is unsustainable as a ‘popular’ legal and harmless activity. I think it would be more than helpful if programmes such as this provided more by way of responsible contextualisation.
Stewart