by Darryl Jones
“You carried out your own research, and throughout the year?” I inquired. “Of course!” Chris stated bluntly. “It was necessary. I had to counter the misguided notion of feeding only in winter. Any observant feeder knows that the seed-eating species are hard pressed for much of spring into summer. They visit when they need to. But I had to convince people.”
“People like the bird organizations?” I offered. Chris sighed. “It was about a 12-year battle—from the start of CJs in ’87 to about 2000. They were adamantly opposed for a long time, both the BTO and the RSPB. But they eventually came around. Mind you, Chris Mead had always been on board; very supportive, despite his position in the BTO.” (I didn’t appreciate it at the time, but Mead had already been engaged in the “peanuts in spring” experiments with Pat Thompson by this stage.) “He would often join our presentations at the bird fairs and trade shows where he ‘held court.’ Great fun! Chris knew everything about birds and everyone loved him. And people listened to him. He provided a lot of good work for us especially in those early years. Look, that catalog you have there; turn back a few pages.”
I did so. A two-page article titled “When to Feed Your Birds” explained that birds need help at different times of the year, not just when it is cold. “New research shows that feeding even in summer can be important.” It was written by Chris Mead from the British Trust for Ornithology in 1994, long before any official change in attitude at the top. The “If Chris Mead said it, then . . .” theory was beginning to sound plausible.
“Mead was no fool,” Whittles explained. “He only spoke up when he was convinced about something. The recovery of the Goldfinch is an important example.” Having been a rare bird in gardens for decades, especially in southern Britain, numbers of this delightful and beloved bird have risen spectacularly since the late 1990s. According to Chris the reason was obvious: “Entirely due to our introduction of the new nyger seed. The goldies loved them! It was one of the real breakthroughs; stick up a nyger feeder and you got Goldfinch almost everywhere. It was a particular clear example of feeding having a strongly positive impact.”
Our time with Chris Whittles concluded with a prolonged lunch at a delightful hotel dining room overlooking the swollen River Severn, a short drive from his home. The rain continued steadily and so did the conversation. Jim Reynolds (who later revealed how much he had learned during these discussions, from someone he had worked with for years) remarked that it seemed that some forceful personalities had a major influence on the evolution of the British bird-feeding industry. “You mean Mead and me?” offered Whittles. “Exactly! But let me add a couple more: Bill Oddie and Peter Berthold.” We soon found out why. “Bill was the birding celebrity who fronted a key media campaign at a crucial time; Peter was the famous German professor who single-handedly caused a people’s revolution!”
In the UK, the case for year-round feeding during the crucial period of the 1980s and 1990s had been framed around the alarming news that the population sizes of many species of the smaller birds were declining dramatically. In a landscape utterly transformed by millennia of human occupation, and where traditional farmland features such as hedgerows and wetlands were being progressively removed by the intensification of agriculture, the unlikely habitats of British towns and cities became critically significant. The area covered by all the private gardens combined far exceeds that of all the national parks and conservation reserves combined.19 These were areas where the decisions and practices of individual householders could have direct and positive impacts on the fortunes of a large number of bird species. Enhancing the habitat qualities by wildlife-friendly gardening—especially the provision of suitable foods—it was argued, was a simple yet effective way residents could make a difference. And this meant feeding beyond the traditional winter-only schedule.
Many believed, as did Chris Whittles and Chris Mead, that it was time to change tactics and start actually promoting feeding year-round. In reality, plenty of keen feeders were already doing so. To suggest such a practice to the general public, however, meant bringing the big bird and conservation groups on board. Understanding the complex and dynamic relationships between the birdseed suppliers and the BTO and the RSPB that followed would require a much more detailed treatment than we have time for here. To tell such a story would also require access to detailed and commercially sensitive information and insights well beyond the con-straints of this modest exploration. What is well known—Whittles was characteristically candid about the arrangements—is that CJ Wildbird Foods was directly engaged with both BTO and RSPB for long periods (two decades in the case of the BTO), supplying a range of feeding products and collecting very substantial donations on behalf of both organizations. The Whittles-Mead relationship was central to this collaboration. Chris Whittles is especially proud of the part he played in establishing the BTO’s Garden BirdWatch20 program in 1995, though CJs had been involved virtually from the beginning of the company. Now an institu-tion in Britain with thousands of paying participants, this project resulted from discussions between Chris Mead, Chris Whittles, and the BTO’s then director Nigel Clark. CJ’s sponsorship of around £20,000 each year ensured that the program had the financial stability necessary for the long haul. “This really got Garden BirdWatch off the ground,” Whittles added.
The 1990s to early 2000s was the heyday for CJs and the British bird organizations, but it was not to last. “The arrangements with both the RSPB and BTO were always fraught because some people there always suspected my motives,” Chris offered bluntly. “It’s always about the money.” During this period a variety of other players appeared on the scene, some specialist birdseed suppliers, others diversifying their product range to include a wide range of feeding-related products. “It’s a crowded marketplace these days,” Chris told me. “Far too many substandard offerings in my view, and price is the principal criteria! Where is the old-fashioned notion of quality?”
The Oddie Effect Rather than the proverbial golf-course deals, bird-food business negotiations were often developed at remote ringing sites around England, largely away from the public eye. The next event in this story was, however, very public indeed. In 2004, Bill Oddie, the extremely popular comedian and bird-watcher, hosted a three-part natural-history television series called Britain Goes Wild. The show was a spectacular success, becoming the BBC’s most-watched natural-history program to that point. Having reviewed the parlous state of the British countryside for wildlife, Oddie passionately urged viewers to transform their own gardens into wildlife habitat. They could do this themselves simply by install-ing nest boxes and birdbaths, but especially by feeding birds. And not just in winter but, yes, indeed, throughout the year. It was all about providing a new bird-friendly habitat to replace what was now lost or degraded, and an alternative—and reliable—food supply. The television series was designed as a component of the broader BBC Make Space for Nature project, and an astonishing 83,000 people signed up in response to Oddie’s appeal, with over 40,000 pledging to purchase a feeder! As a direct result, the RSPB and other outlets rapidly sold out of nest boxes and feeders. So significant was this single media event that a birdseed industry magazine article titled “How Summer Feeding Is Boosting Wild Food Sales” attributed the spectacular growth in demand directly to the “Oddie Effect.”21
For UK feeders, therefore, the big change to all-year feeding seemed to have been successfully promoted by the bird and conservation organizations and bird-food companies by linking the conservation of small birds, especially the familiar species that came readily to garden feeders. The scientific data clearly demonstrated serious declines in populations of even familiar birds such as the iconic Blue Tits and even the (only recently disparaged) House Sparrow. The obvious response was to feed them. The assumption was that this would help. The evidence for that would hopefully come later, but now was the time to act.
Germany
The transition to year-round feeding was dramatically different in Germany. In North Ame
rica, the bird-feeding industry has long been actively marketing a wealth of products to a public eager to simply attract birds anytime. In the UK, long-held traditional attitudes concerning when to feed have gradually given way to a widespread desire to assist birds throughout the year, a transformation that took place over several decades. In Germany, it’s been a remarkably rapid Völksbewegung, a national people’s movement.
Until relatively recently, the stance of the main German bird and conservation organizations, and that of the scientific consensus, was unequivocally one of winter feeding only.22 This position was perhaps even more assertive in Germany than in other European countries. Indeed, after perhaps a century of organized and systematic bird feeding (already well under way prior to Baron von Berlepsch’s appearance), by the middle of the twentieth century, the popularity of the practice appeared to have been waning significantly. Furthermore, outright opposition to all forms of bird feeding—but especially outside winter—was becoming more common among scientific and conservation commentators.23 The general theme of these opponents appeared to be that there was little evidence that feeding wild birds had demonstrable benefits, that the risks—spreading disease, chicks being fed the wrong food—were serious issues, and that the only real answer to the alarming decline in European birds was to restore habitats. Furthermore, it was asserted, bird feeding really only assisted the rich bird food companies.
These were all familiar concerns and opinions, and they were being voiced by the most authoritative organizations in the country. The public who were aware of these discussions, especially the large number still actively engaged in bird feeding, were likely to be either confused or worried. Whether or not these attitudes actually influenced the behaviors of feeders, the debate was unlikely to encourage more people to feed. To find, therefore, that there had been a massive increase in the popularity of the practice, and with much of this being year-round feeding, all in less than a decade, is both astonishing and unexpected. This phenomenon seems even more unlikely when it appears to be attributable to a single factor: a white-bearded, retired biology professor in his 70s.
Professor Peter Berthold is a major figure in the international ornithological field, best known for his career-long research on bird migration.24 His pioneering work on the changing movement patterns of Blackcaps, in particular, is justifiably famous (and of direct relevance to this discussion as outlined a little later). Although he officially retired from the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology in Radolfzell, southern Germany, in 2006, he maintains an active research role there in an emeritus position. He has been actively involved for many years in both German and international scientific bird arenas with positions on Deutsche Ornithologen- Gesellschaft and the International Ornithological Congress committees. In other words, Berthold has substantial scientific and academic stature. It would be equally fair to say, however, that he was not particularly familiar to the general public. Like most recently retired researchers, Peter Berthold probably dreamed of finally having time to complete that pile of unfinished manuscripts and working on the next edition of his classic tome Bird Migration. A quieter life, perhaps, with less pressure and more privacy.
But that was before Vögel füttern, aber richtig. 25
In producing—and actively promoting—this book and its provocative stance, Professor Berthold has been propelled into the strange realm of scientist celebrity. Instead of fading into desired or inevitable obscurity, Berthold has become the “professor of feeding,” astutely media savvy and unsubtly proclaiming his message. When a passionate and articulate elder scientific spokesman appears regularly in the media arguing in favor of continuous feeding, people are likely to take notice. When it’s argued as fervently as it is in Vögel füttern, aber richtig, it is virtually impossible to ignore.
Although it’s possible to regard this compact volume as just another popular “how to feed birds” book, Vögel füttern, aber richtig can be immediately distinguished from similar books by its scientific orientation and the audacity of its tone. There is a concerted attempt to provide a level of scientific evidence to support the arguments made, with numerous studies being cited and explained. That is expected, of course, in popular science writing, which this certainly is. What is less usual is the combative and, at times, aggressive, way this is done.
The context for Berthold and Mohr’s proposal is the extent of environmental damage all too evident in Germany. According to these authors, it is undeniable that human activities have destroyed and degraded, polluted and poisoned the habitats required by birds, resulting in the familiar and tragic declines in so many species. Why? “The main reason is a decline in food availability!” In rhetoric and language reminiscent of that used by Baron von Berlepsch over a century before, Berthold and Mohr draw attention to the catastrophic impact of humanity on bird populations and advocate the strategic intervention of wholesale food provisioning. Of course we should also invest in restoring bird habitat, but they point out that “this is often harder to achieve than supplementary feeding.”26 Unlike von Berlepsch, however, who was stringently a winter-only feeder (“Birds only need feeding during and after certain changes in the weather, especially during blizzards and intense frost”),27 Berthold and Mohr are evangelical year-round feeding advocates and would probably dismiss his concerns with the same disdain they reserve for other doubters. You are either with them or you are not.
The book is also unusually opinionated and intolerant, and indeed a bit triumphant. Reviewing the apparent change in public opinion brought about by the first edition of their book (“According to our daily mail, thousands of people have already shifted from winter feeding to all year feeding”), Berthold and Mohr observe that “since the start of the debate, opinion has shifted from misleading, emotional and idiotic opinions to soothing objectivity—to the great benefit of the birds!” Moreover, they attribute the residual opposition mainly to a benighted few who persist for “ideological reasons” and conclude (in translation):
Vögel füttern, aber richtig not only provoked a shockwave towards feeding birds all year round, but also a wave that still gains momentum. To maintain the dynamic of the movement it would be beneficial to find out where in the country are the true bird friends and where are the hypothetical bird friends.28
It is probably too easy to focus on the writing style of Vögel füttern, aber richtig, and perhaps German readers do not register the tone as being rather abrasive and dismissive (at least in translation). More important, however, Berthold and Mohr make it their mission to promote feeding explicitly for conservation. The birds of Germany—and Europe generally— are in serious decline and strong action is required as soon as possible. Feeding, they declare, is a simple and effective way for ordinary people to address this crisis and an activity available to almost everyone. Hence the book and its forthright message: feed now and continuously.
It had become unavoidably clear that Peter Berthold was indeed one of the major personalities engaged in this part of our story, just as Chris Whittles had envisioned. If so, perhaps I needed to contact Professor Berthold, as I had contacted most of the other major players. After all, I had only been able to assess his attitudes indirectly, through the opaque window of translation. Maybe I had misinterpreted the tone and style. If I was to make these observations of such a central exhibit, I really did need to verify my opinions with the professor himself. I have to say, this prospect was somewhat daunting, given the professor’s status and influence in the field. As a result, when I phoned late one night, I was happily surprised by the enthusiastic and positive response: Peter Berthold was only too willing to talk about bird feeding and especially his book.
I started the conversation with my most pertinent and possibly sensitive questions: Why did you write the book, and why was the tone so, well, aggressive?
Professor Berthold did not hesitate. “Oh, I was very angry! It may come through in the writing perhaps, but I had to address these old ideas about feeding. I had to be strong ab
out this, so that ordinary people would listen.” Berthold had been a conspicuous leader in the major German bird societies for years but felt he could no longer remain silent when these same organizations were so negative about feeding. “They simply did not understand that if enough people were to feed—in the right way— we could reverse some of the declines. Germany, and much of western Europe generally, has lost so much of the traditional food supplies—grain, weeds, fruits, berries, and also insects—yet we now can provide alternative sources of these foods. It is something we must do!”
I congratulated the professor on the remarkable sales of Vögel füttern, aber richtig. “Yes, astonishing figures! Currently over 150,000 copies have been sold; not so bad for a mere bird feeding book.” This was staggering news; these were numbers usually associated with airport crime thrillers. “I was completely unprepared for this level of success,” he went on. “And for the publicity that came. People—complete strangers—recognize me in the street, at the train station. I am often asked to speak about the importance of feeding on television shows and the like. And I always hold up the book and say: ‘Read this please.’ People say I am just interested in selling books. But it is always about the birds.”
Initially, Peter’s self-confessed anger had been directed to writing a simple journal article where he could outline his case for year-round feeding. “As I started to gather the evidence of the benefits of feeding, I began to realize we had more material than a small piece and it just grew into a book.” Much of this material came from Peter’s extensive contacts in Britain, including Chris Whittles. “Oh, I have been bird ringing with Whittles many times. I was very interested in using some of his products to attract birds to the nets. He even came to Germany in the early days to assist us in the Blackcap work. These birds loved his peanut-fat cakes, and our captures were much more successful. This was the 1990s and the first time I had really considered feeding in spring. It was an important time.”