On charisma and pūteketeke and conservation urgency
Hands up who, a month ago, had never heard the word “pūtekteke”. Well, me neither! I knew about grebes, mostly because of where I work (Otago) an what I do (conservation plans). Of course now we all know about the pūteketeke and I suspect that folks will use that name more than Australasian crested grebe. There is also chat over whether the pūteketeke’s win was legit due to the “alarmingly aggressive” campaign from John Oliver and his Last Week Tonight team. And, just like you are welcome to pick whatever birds you love for BoTC, equally you are totally welcome to your opinion on the whole voting process.
What I’m interested in, and have been interested in for years, is how the media presents critters (and yes, I include plants in “critters”) and whether this shows up in the conservation attention that these creatures get. So, I went in, and have done a close reading of the Last Week Tonight segment and the Tonight Show with Jimmy Kimmel segment. Also, I had to google who the heck Pauly D is to write this, and I only mention that because I’m not sure quite how I would have encountered Paul DelVecchio Jr as I have never seen Jersey Shore and probably never will.
What John Oliver does in both of these segments is an absolute masterclass in constructing charisma for the pūteketeke. Charisma in non-humans can be divided into a number of different elements, but you can separate these elements into two main groups: the elements that make you take notice of a critter, and the elements that you learn about a critter.
John Oliver had the visual elements of charisma in the costumes and props. The costume he wore on the Tonight Show was gorgeous, and him talking about anything other than birds while wearing it was a gorgeous visual gag. The giant animatronic pūteketeke that closed the Last Week Tonight show was a stunner! Look at the size of it, the way that it interacted with John and charmed the crowd. It’s a lovely bird indeed.
But it’s the things that John Oliver told us about the bird that really ramp up its charisma. In his chat with Jimmy Kimmel he repeated the story about how the birds court. “They have a mating dance” John tells us “where they both grab a clump of wet grass and chest bump each other before standing around unsure of what to do next.” That audience laughs as, of course, we have all been there. Animal’s behaviour is almost always shown in ways that makes us identify our behaviours in what we see. Of course the pūteketeke doesn’t feel awkward. But if we can see us in them, we identify more with them, and care more for them.
But John also highlights the pūteketeke’s weird behaviours like eating its feathers and puking them up. This is an element of charisma that’s called “feral” charisma in which a critter does things that violate the human norms. This is also visible in the ways that sharks are shown in the media. And he also hit the “cute” element, describing how pūteketeke carry their chicks on their backs.
Of course this is a spectacle and a fun one at that. It’s news, and chat and everyone gets to have an opinion in the staff room at morning tea. But does the popularity and charisma of a critter affect conservation decisions, effort and funding? There is no straightforward answer to that but there is some evidence to show that it does. Most of the sponsorship agreements between companies and DOC are for birds that you will know (kākāpō and takahe for example), thirteen of the nineteen threatened species recovery groups are dedicated to birds and, in 2020/21 financial year kākāpō received $1,052,083 whereas “moss” (yes, all the moss in New Zealand) received $1340. In total.
Please don’t interpret me as saying that the charismatic critters shouldn’t get funding and attention, as they absolutely should. This is a “yes, and” situation, where both the birds and the rest of our precious organisms need the funding. And here I’m sure that John Oliver and the overseas folks who voted for the pūteketeke helped out by donating to Forest and Bird while they voted. Forest and Bird do amazing work, with some brilliant species and ecosystems and they use the Bird of the Year/Century as an awareness and fundraising campaign and do it beautifully. Have I said yet that we need more money for conservation? Because we absolutely do.
What you could also do, for pūteketeke specifically, however, is insulate your house. Here’s the connection: pūteketeke live, amongst other places, on Lake Hāwea. Lake Hāwea is dammed to provide electricity for us to do all the things that we need to do with electricity including keeping the South Island cold at bay in our drafty Dunedin homes. As the lake levels go up and down due to electricity demand, the lake-shore plants that provide habitat for the nesting pūteketeke (and are probably the wet grass that John Oliver mentions when describing their mating dance) can’t get established. The nesting platforms that conservationists in the lakes have started deploying are wonderful and making such a difference to pūteketeke nesting and chick rearing, but it’s not the same as a thriving lakeshore grass habitat.
Living a good life with creatures is never simple. Settler colonial societies have spent so long pushing creatures to the margins only spotlighting them when they do something that interests us. So when I quietly say to trusted friends that I have mixed feelings about Bird of the Year/Century despite the money and attention, it’s because I worry that it’s conservation-lite. And what we urgently need to be doing right now is the opposite.
