Some thoughts on the 2018 Bird Fair – how about some real debate?

I say this every year so, for consistency, I’ll say it again now.  The Bird Fair ought to be used as an opportunity to influence the future of wildlife through influencing politicians and not simply through raising money.

I reckon that it would have been possible to get around 15,000 signatures over the three days for an end to whaling in Iceland if the Bird Fair were set up to do that type of thing. And why should it not be?

No government minister (from UK) has ever attended the Bird Fair (that I can recall) in a professional capacity. Why not?  We are quite simply missing a trick – massively, not in a small way.  This is an event jointly sponsored by two of the UK’s largest conservation charities.

The letter of invitation to attend next year should go to Michael Gove now – I’ll draft one and send it to Tim Appleton!  We need to get politicians to the Bird Fair because they would be surprised by the scale of it and the type of people (relatively normal – relatively) who attend. They are almost all of voting age after all.  Mr Gove may not be in post in a year’s time but the invitation would be in the system.

The fact that the local MP has never attended the Bird Fair is quite scandalous! A big event which provides millions of pounds for charitable objectives – if that isn’t Big Society in action then what on earth is?

The date, in the parliamentary recess and school holidays, doesn’t help, of course, but the same was/is almost true of the Game Fair although that is right at the end of July so that everyone can go grouse shooting afterwards.

I spoke to someone on the ‘phone this morning – it happened to be a former Bird Fair attendee who works for NE. He, for it was a he, said to me that it would be good if there were more people with differing views on panels at Bird Fair – and I agree.  But it has occurred to me since that it isn’t as though Teresa Dent or Amanda Anderson or the NFU President are ever seen mooching around the Bird Fair of their own accord, is it? The wildlife NGOs would certainly want a presence at events like Cereals or the Game Fair just to see what is going on. It tells us quite a lot that others ignore this event to a large extent.

And the so-called debates aren’t really debates are they? They are chats by people who have very slightly differing views rather than between really different positions. I’d like to see George Monbiot and the President of the NFU having a barney, or not, over the future of farming. What about a discussion between a climate change sceptic MP and a woman from Greenpeace?

I think that the proof of concept has been proved – people will flock to debates that aren’t really debates so they’ll probably come to debates that are debates too!

Next year we’ll be living on the other side of Brexit – probably.  Nothing to talk about?

I think that the Bird Fair is moving in the right direction on upping its game as far as political engagement is concerned and on gender balance too. But as is so often the case, the fact that things are moving in the right direction is not the same as that things are moving in the right direction at the right pace.  Personally, I think there are some slight signs that the Bird Fair attractiveness is fading slightly and it seems as though there is a large competitor event , oop north, next year.  Time to put thinking caps on, methinks.

[registration_form]

20 Replies to “Some thoughts on the 2018 Bird Fair – how about some real debate?”

  1. Don’t waste space on a climate change denier, you might just as well have Andrew Wakefield talking about autism and the MMR vaccine or Peter Duesberg on HIV and AIDS.

  2. Here is a debate for you – The effect of bird food on RATS and why the general public are paying for their removal.

    Even the RSPB use poison when they should just stop feeding.
    Both cats and dogs now get cancer from eating dead rats and mice.
    Rat Poison has now been found in the human blood stream!
    So it is not just Barn Owls that are suffering!!

    1. So John what is the EVIDENCE that rat poison causes cancer. Not just supposition evidence, normally if cats and dogs eat poisoned rats they die.

  3. I fully agree Mark that the Birdfair could and should be a little more political in campaigning for out wildlife. It wants careful thought though as to how this should be done. I fully agree that it is a very poor show that the local MPs have never visited the Fair. I am afraid our average politician leaves an awful lot to be desired.
    I also agree with Lyn Ebbs that it is a waist of time asking a global warming denier to any Birdfair debate. The issues now are how the world avoids catastrophic warming, this is what should be debated.

    1. It wouldn’t necessarily have to be a flat earther-type denialist. There may be interesting debates to be had about what we should do as a response to climate change. Prof Chris Thomas from University of York might be an interesting example – he certainly doesn’t deny climate change and much of his research team’s work is in fact focused on understanding the effects of climate change on plant and animal populations – but he has interesting and unorthodox ideas about the role of introduced species in maintaining biodiversity in the face of c.c. (his book was reviewed on this site by Ian Carter a while back). I am sure he could stimulate an interesting and informative debate at the Bird Fair if invited.

  4. People commented almost evenly on the Friday night Question Time to me. Many enjoyed hearing the same views from different people while others bemoaned the lack of a real debate. It seems politicians and supporters of hunting and shooting feel unable to cope with criticism and a hostile environment while campaigners and some NGOs have much tougher skins.

    I agree with the issue on gender balance but think Birdfair is getting there. AFON and others are producing a new generation of committed female conservationists, remember the Plastics Debate? I wouldn’t be surprised in 10 years’ time to hear people complaining about the lack of male scientists and researchers!

  5. Some thoughts from me and some feedback I heard whilst talking to others.

    Definitely a feeling of less busy this year – especially on the Sunday. Also a feeling of imbalance across the site with those marquees nearest to the lecture tents very busy whilst those further away less so. Maybe a case for sprinkling the lecture marquees throughout the site more to even the crowds and give different things to look at whilst waiting for the next talk…

    It seems that the desire for talks is still high and the sponsors are always going to dominate the slots. It makes money for the cause and money for the companies so who’s to argue. But I’d rather have a few more issue led talks and I know some organisations with good things to say who could not get the slots they asked for. Lizzie Bruce’s piece on Titchwell shows just how much appetite there is for this type of talk. Is there a case for an extra lecture tent with the extra slots weighted towards issues or conservation based talks?

    I note that you met Mike Clarke over the course of the weekend which is great. Whilst we see the celebs come year on year and stir up the crowds, I don’t think we see enough of the big names in the NGOs. Mike Clarke, Steph Hillbourne, Martin Harper etc should have this weekend in the diary at the start of the year and it would be great to see a key note address from one or more of them, not just a panel slot or two. They should be on show and meeting the supporters for the whole weekend.

    Which links to my last point. It seems to me that RSPB and to a lesser extent the Wildlife Trusts, are somewhat disconnected from their own Birdfair. RSPB have made strides recently in changing their stand to more issues led themes, manned by conservation staff. But in reality, Bird Fair seems to be another large show in the calendar where the events team book the stand and volunteers, set up, talk to passers by and go home again. There should be far more involvement in the planning and execution of the event from both RSPB and TWTs and some of their fabulous stories and work could be woven more into the DNA of the event.

    1. MJC – bit tricky if you have a family and kids and have to go to a Hen Harrier Day event the weekend before. I’m pretty sure Martin is on holiday, Mike was at Bird Fair on Friday and Saturday, I didn’t see Steph but she deserves a break too. When I was at RSPB I went to the Game Fair (usually for all three days in late July), the Bird Fair (usually for all three days at this time of year) the three ‘main political parties’ conferences (usually for a couple of days each at least in September-October) and the RSPB AGM in October. That represented quite a lot of weekends out of my life in a relatively short period (and then I had to lick road clean wi’ tongue (see here for young people https://genius.com/Monty-python-four-yorkshiremen-live-lyrics )).

  6. True, but with all due respect to yours and others efforts, I’d choose Birdfair over Hen Harrier Day, especially if it led to Birdfair having more genuine impact (and talking about hen harriers too!)

  7. This was the 23rd consecutive Birdfair I’ve attended and while I love the social aspect, the lectures and the fact that so much hard cash has been raised for worthy causes, I feel that it has always been a huge opportunity missed when it comes to us rallying together and tackling the thorny environmental issues of the day head on.

    Like a large percentage of the ‘Great’ British public, unfortunately there is a huge degree of apathy among birders. Birdfair, in its current format, is a cradle in which that type of attitude rocks gently back and forth in sweet slumber. If you wander around and listen, you are more likely to hear some middle-aged guy boasting to his mate about the third foreign birding trip of the year he’s about to embark on or the latest giant lens he’s purchased for his camera rather than someone discussing cetacean slaughter in the Faroes or the absence of Cuckoos on their local patch.

    Birdfair needs to take a good, hard look at itself, step away from the commercial aspect a little and evolve into a power for change both here and abroad. It also needs to look seriously at its social responsibilities and due diligence around the ethics of some of its supporters and exhibitors. Is it right that some of the big optics firms still support and sponsor big game hunting interests? Is it acceptable to promote ‘bird races’ in countries with appalling human rights records? Is it even right to hold a debate about plastic pollution in one marquee when a few yards away, overpriced food and drink is being sold in single use plastic containers?

    Over 30 years, Birdfair has reportedly unlocked around £35 million for superb conservation projects around the world which is amazing. Maybe a proportion of the future sums raised should be used to fund legal cases against the perpetrators of wildlife crime in the UK or to perhaps lobby the government for more environmentally friendly farming practices.

    While we do have some excellent conservation charities like the RSPB who are willing to take up these type of battles on our behalf, they always seems to be fighting with one hand tied behind their back with limited resources. Birdfair could be used as a powerful, independent voice for environmental change. Please. Let’s make that entrance fee we pay every year have more of an impact.

  8. I headed up on the Friday and always say that I won’t go back – but I always do. I guess it is like when you drive past a car crash on a motorway, and always decide to have a gander when you really shouldn’t. The core conservation value is great, and always will be but it is exceptionally cliquey and full of false friendships and media whore honing these days. Pseudo-birders who seem more intent in getting selfies with each other, self-promotion and doing ‘business’ as opposed to discussing anything more than surface level about birds. Even the good guys have had to sell out to eek their living, having to talk absolute nonsense with punters from previous tours or whatever… certainly the more generic nature lover rules over the specialist birder these days. And that’s fair enough if that’s your bag.

    It is a place where the white, middle class pound speaks volumes and it gets greyer and greyer every year. Always dressed in camouflage nonetheless. If I was to think commercially about what the Birdfair lacks, it’d be a mobility scooter stall. Think someone’s missing a trick there, and I wouldn’t be surprised that among the copious amount of travel stalls hosted by one ‘expert’ and then a pretty lady to do the schmoozing, that in the future there’ll be stairlift stalls, mobility scooter stalls etc all available within Marquee 7 or 8. I noticed there were some rather random stalls this year, including one dedicated to mosquito repellent…

  9. One quick correction in para 3. Tis the academic in me.

    Birdfair is jointly ‘organised’ (not sponsored) by ONE of the biggest conservation charities in the land (the RSPB) and a WEE local county wildlife trust (LRWT) on whose nature reserve it just happens to take place. The historical nature of the Wildlife Trusts federal system means that all power and independence lies with the 47 local Trusts, their CEOs and trustees. TWT/RSWT in Newark have no influence or involvement with planning Birdfair at all. In fact, TWT/RSWT exist to serve the 47 local Trusts needs. There is no Events Team at all based at RSWT Newark central office, just events staff in some local Trusts.

    1. Rob – yes, that is true. But if Newark can’t influence onr of its own trusts then what hope of influencing anything like the future of CAP? But I take your point.

  10. To have real debate, Amanda Anderson , Theresa Dent, Bert Burnett (SGA) Ian Coghill, Some top NFU people, Michael Gove, Theresa Coffey, supporters of HS2, supporters of the “Space port” on a Scottish SPA, Charles Nodder (NGO), Jeremy Corbyn, Keith Cowieson, Philip Merricks, John Swift. Depends what is being debated but they are a good start.

  11. I also do not like the idea of inviting a climate change denier along to the debate. It actually would turn me hostile to Birdfair for doing so. Years of failure to progress just makes me ask why haven’t we moved on yet and why keep dragging the conversation back. Katharine Hayhoe a much respected climate scientist refuses to appear on TV alongside climate change deniers and I think she is very wise to do so.

    In the same way I am not interested in hearing the old voices of the shooting lobby. Refer to their lies, outdated views and existence but can’t we move the conversation on. I would much rather hear the different perspectives of a panel of well respected, honest and well informed personalities of the calibre invited this year to the Birdfair.

    Maybe the Birdfair’s mistake is thinking they should sell the event as a debate rather than a conversation. A debate might sound more sensational but is it really most people want. We already get so much confrontational debates that never go anywhere on TV and in Parliament.

    1. I would agree that there is no value in inviting along climate change denier but given the fact of climate change there are different perspectives on what we can and should do about it and a debate on that could be interesting and informative.

Comments are closed.