Further to my blog on Monday (here) where I referenced recent debates about how best to inspire action for nature, here are some thoughts from the RSPB's Chief Executive Mike Clarke
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Packham’s piece in the most recent issue of BBC Wildlife Magazine, in which he challenges a number of nature conservation organisations, including the RSPB, to stand up and do more, has been attracting media attention. The RSPB has been asked what we think of Chris’ comments and here, just for the record, is our view.
The short answer is that we have no problem with it whatsoever.
As a strong supporter of our charity’s cause, we are delighted that Chris is one of our Vice Presidents. He is well known as a vocal and passionate advocate for nature. His views are based on broad knowledge of ecology, and reflect a significant strand of public opinion. That does not mean to say that we will always agree on what is the best way to conserve nature, but it would be wrong of us to dismiss such views out of hand. Even where we disagree, Chris’s occasional criticisms usually tell us that we haven’t expressed our view on an issue clearly enough. It is right that we accept his feedback in the spirit that it is meant, because we know that Chris has the interests of nature at heart.
On fox hunting, for example, the RSPB does not take a position, because it is primarily a welfare issue and this is outside of our charitable remit. As a nature conservation charity, we are obliged to be clear in making this distinction, but we recognise that for many individuals “welfare” and “conservation” are part and parcel of their personal values, with respect to how they wish society to live in harmony with nature. It is not unreasonable for one of our charity’s Vice Presidents to reflect concerns that some of our members and the public may also be expressing. The best response is to ensure we are explaining our (often nuanced) positions clearly and regularly enough.
Chris is very clear that he is expressing an opinion, and we will always defend his, or anyone’s, right to express an honestly-held opinion. His views are not opinions masquerading as facts, but are based on his own perceptions as a keen naturalist and the conversations he will be having with others.
We are not afraid to listen to his views – what are the motives of those who do not want him to be heard?
I, and many others, don't agree with the RSPB, or Chris Packham, on everything. But when the Countryside Alliance, talking about Chris Packham, says:"We are lucky live in a liberal democracy where people are able to hold any number of bizarre views. There is no issue with people voicing such opinions, but using the position granted by a public service broadcaster to promote an extreme agenda is a different thing entirely. The BBC knows this, and has been forced to act once, but it has also ignored other complaints and failed to address its employees obvious abuse of his position.", I realise that I and also many others, agree with almost nothing that they say.
Perhaps they are concerned at the possible content of the upcoming Autumnwatch, and wish to influence the BBC before too much of the programme is prepared. I'm sure they will have an opportunity during Autumnwatch to speak, but perhaps they don't want to, and hope that means the other side of some arguments cannot be covered?
I will quite happily listen to Chris's views for as long as he continues to offer them. The motives of those who would silence him don't even bear thinking about.