Last night I sat down and read the draft manifesto that Chris Packham has published to coincide with Saturday's Walk for Wildlife.
It is a remarkable and provocative read.
Chris has pulled together a team of independent thinkers to outline their proposals for transforming UK's nature and the way our society interacts with the natural world.
The authors have included 200 ideas designed to prod, poke and shove politicians, policy makers and the conservation community.
Some really stand out, such as Robert Macfarlane's proposal to amend the Education Act to make nature central to the school curriculum or Carol Day's ideas about what should be included in the Prime Minister's promised Environment Bill or Dave Goulson's package of measures to reduce the use of pesticides or Mya-Rose Craig's proposals for getting greater diversity in conservation which I am convinced would lead to better decision-making.
I have no doubt that if many of these recommendations were implemented then we would be able to restore what we have lost (or as Chris says destroyed) over the past 50 years.
Many of the ideas were either new or felt fresh perhaps because of the context in which they are presented.
I didn't agree with everything - for example the comment from an anonymous farmer that all Countryside Stewardship schemes have failed - but that's not the point.
We need ideas, we need challenge and our collective job now is to respond. That, of course, includes big institutions/charities like the RSPB which must continue to find new ways to reflect the expectations of our members so that, together, we have greater impact for nature.
So, read the manifesto, personalise it and take action.
But, first, make sure you walk on Saturday.
See you there.
I'm glad the Walk and the manifesto are stirring debate - and disagreement - far better than the apathy (especially from the media) that can result from universal agreement.
If some of the statements and the walk cause disruption to behind the scenes discussions, as Rob suggests, it may be no bad thing.
Every time I see (as I did in the manifesto) the statement 'farming covers 70% of the landscape the implied - and frequently stated - tag on is 'and it owns it and every square inch should continue to be farmed with food production the overriding objective'. This is the biggest single hurdle to the recovery of biodiversity in the UK, even the good guys in farming tend to believe it and they have taken a majority of conservationists along with them. To recover some farmland must be farmed with other objectives leading, and some simply shouldn't be farmed - in total about 500,000 hectares under natural Capital Committee recommendations.
As for shooting, especially Grouse Shooting, there seem to be a surprising number of otherwise well informed people who think you can reach agreement with one side not shifting one inch. Add to that the incredibly aggressive language, uncompromising stance and blatant misuse of science and I would judge shooting's campaign as the almost perfect pitch for abolition - a spectacular exercise in antagonising the vital middle ground in the debate.