After my guest blog for the RSPB on curlews, I noticed very little engagement. Is it too complex?
Due to tribal posturing over who ‘owns’ the bird’s recovery, any delay on urgent curlew action will let it slip below critical and disappear.
There have been frank responses to my concern voiced above -:
“I understand where you are coming from. I know what ___ are doing nationally and with local partners, I appreciate the role ___have, but I am not sure where ___ fit in – the appeal page seems more targeted at politics than science or action. There is plenty of room for suspicious people to avoid collaboration – we need confident and open attention to this issue from people whose first inclination is to trust people.”
“I once put out informal feelers to a large wildlife charity and a large countryside group about a joint statement to government on natural connection. They both thought I was nuts, but actually I was naïve. Both have too many supporters who would rather resign than be associated with the other. So I ended up writing nothing.”
“The tribal thing runs deep – I recall a policy director of a well-known country organisation saying that publishing a joint report with us caused more resignations than even a subscription rise”
So do we let farmland birds go to the wall partly because of partisan infighting? Allow waders to fade because of failure to act on the ground? I was frowned upon for waving a joint RSPB/GWCT report (see *above) in front of one Defra’s Sec of State but got this reply and later this reply from the current SofS (Michael Gove) to my persistent query.
It’s a tough issue we seldom dare dig too far into but…….come on, even if we have different values, we can be braver to be less tribal, build trust and seek collaboration over common ground to save more wildlife!
(revised June 2018)