Politicking

So much politicking is about manipulating public opinion to suit  a partisan agenda. Take this from Ian Rotherham's The Call of the Wild referred to in this post Calling the Shots describing the Action for Involvement event last year.

Management, visions and policy – who has influence? There is an issue about those stakeholders who turn up to debate landscape wilding and management, and interestingly, of those who do not. Many of the nature conservation, natural history, bird watching, archaeology, heritage and access organisations, and importantly, local authority ranger services, were absent. This is influences the flavour of discussions. Such broad stakeholder absence raises the issue of how to engage and involve these people and their organisations more effectively. There is a danger with many of the ‘re-wilding’ discussions, that local people are ignored or overlooked by ideas and proposals or visions looking into a landscape from the outside.

There’s politicking going on here.  I believe that Rotherham is playing a game similar to that we've seen played by Sheffield Wildlife Trust. If he's not he's displaying a breathtaking ignorance of the way local groups involvement has worked or not worked over recent years. What is meant by “many of the ‘re-wilding’ discussions”? Many? In this area I only know of one meeting at which rewilding was discussed in recent years – the A4I event he is describing. And that very nearly did not happen at all. It only happened because the nature conservation NGOs and the local authority refused to discuss the issue of a wilder landscape despite spending considerable public money on what was supposed to be a  public consultation. Somebody had to organise with much smaller resources a forum to get this major issue discussed at all. I know because I tried to get the SMP to discuss it and was turned down. So what other discussions are being referred to?

As for local people being “ignored or overlooked by ideas and proposals or visions looking into a landscape from the outside” that is exactly what we felt when the conservation industry moved in and decided that Blacka was in unfavourable condition and had to be brought into 'good agricultural condition' like a farm by bringing cattle on, leading to a petition of 700+ in opposition who wanted it left alone. What side was Ian Rotherham on then?* Some of these conservation industry people like to manipulate the public and other groups in their own interests and they usually go for those who ask fewest questions. As for ‘looking into a landscape from the outside’ how does that compare with top-down management of a landscape to suit an agenda previously worked out – one that brings benefits and sometimes profits for certain groups? Our agenda is not to impose a vision on a landscape, it's to allow the land and nature to express itself with minimal intervention. That is the very opposite to proposals imposed 'from the outside'.

I am trying not to be angry about this.

*None of the conservation and landscape teachers in local higher education took part in the public consultations such as Icarus (2006) and RAG meetings.