We all deplore the injuries caused to others, adult or child, by fireworks at this time (or any other come to that), but we do need to recognise that it's in the nature of life that it involves risk. The regulations regarding fireworks in the UK have been gradually tightened over the years and rightly so, but how far, and to what extent, can, or should, the state control our exposure to risk? There's no easy answer to this since it depends on the balance people put on individual liberties versus injury (real or potential) to the common good.
However, this was not the issue raised. This was the damage done to wildlife by the traditional Nov 5th celebrations. Contra the claims by some, I believe this is negligible to the point of non-existence. Engage brains and think about it. Yes, animals in close proximity to the fireworks can be alarmed. Yes, the birds might well fly up, squawk a lot and other animals run. However, in 40 odd years of watching wildlife I have never come across any long term (or even medium term) harm to wildlife as a whole (as distinct from the odd individual) as a result of 'Bonfire Night'. Birds may shift their roost patterns for a few days or whatever, but as for long term damage - not a shred of evidence as far as I'm aware. OK I'm not omniscient, but I rather think it's up to the "antis" to substantiate their extravagant claims. I'm sure that there's been odd incidents of 'brush fires' and the like, but long term damage? I doubt it. A lot of casual human behaviour, which is far less dramatic, causes far more harm (and with a good deal less adverse commentary).
Such celebrations happen nationwide and on a big scale on, what, one or two nights per annum. Even the most ardent pyrotechnophobe cannot surely claim that isolated displays or the odd bang of a firework (such as I heard as I wrote this) or whiz of a rocket can cause significant damage to wildlife. Let's be pessimistic (if you don't like fireworks) or optimistic (if you do like 'em) and say such concentrated, nationwide displays take place on 3 nights per year. That's less than 1% of all possible nights. Hold on, though, that's not all night and the intensity will be greatest for only a fraction of that time. Again, let's err on the side of exaggeration and say 6 hours per night. I make that 18 hours activity out of an annual total of 8760 hours or 0.2% of possible hours per annum. Then consider that these activities are largely concentrated in urban areas (cos that's where the people are!). At a guess let's say that 80% of the country (I seem to recall that the SE England has just under 20% urbanised land) is relatively undisturbed by fireworks. So what we're talking about is something that happens on 1% of all nights (or 0.2% of the year in toto), over 20% of the country and for which there is no evidence of any long term environmental harm. No wonder the hard pressed RSPB and RSPCA is reluctant to take issue with such popular celebrations. Umm, that'd be really good press coverage. Antagonising a substantial proportion of the population would be such a clever move! Frankly, to do so on the basis of supposed harm to wildlife would be such a scandalous waste of money that the charity commissioners might want to take an interest.
Naturally, folks have a perfect right to complain about whatever they wish, but I'd suggest that to waste too much energy over this issue when there's so much real, substantive damage being inflicted on wildlife is to be obtuse to the point foolishness,
John
