Tag Archives: Fermata

Culture of Conservation – Keep It Simple, Not Simplistic

Conservation, Culture of Conservation, Gulf Gusher, Opinion, , , , , , , ,

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler—Albert Einstein

The third principle of the Culture of Conservation is to keep the message simple. Effective marketing is little more than simple messages and images repeated endlessly. Remember the earlier quote that 93% of American children can recognize McDonalds by the golden arches? I wonder what the percentage is now for the Japanese?

McDonalds sponsoring the Osaka sumo basho

Simple messages and images rise above the cacophony that is modern life. Simplicity and volume (both amplitude and amount) help messages battle through the noise. Doubt this? According to the Associated Press, BP’s been spending more than $5 million a week on advertising since the blowout. Remember BPs original simple message? Beyond Petroleum.

Freeman Tilden inspired what we now know as the interpretation profession. Tilden stressed the need for interpreters (guides, museum staff, National Park Service employees and the like) to know their audiences. My impression is that most conservation groups consider their members to be the audience. No wonder the messages are so obtuse, and geared toward fund raising.

Freeman Tilden
Our professional organization for interpretation is the National Association for Interpretation (NAI). I am a NAI supporter, and I am working to have myself certified by them in every way possible (Freeman didn’t write about interpretation until the age of 62). But in recent years Jon Kohl, Sam Ham, and I have been thinking about conservation interpretation, and the need to train staff that can communicate and interpret conservation, not just nature, history, or culture. We have completed organizing the training program, and once I finish with my current NAI certification projects I want to turn my attention to this component of our work.

Why? Because I believe that conservation as a movement is fundamentally inept when it comes to devising ways in which people can relate to our work (another of Tilden’s principals).

Rather than continue to offer Tilden’s principles in a piecemeal fashion, here are the six principles from Interpreting Our Heritage:

1. Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being displayed or described to something within the personality or experience of the visitor will be sterile.

2. Information, as such, is not interpretation. Interpretation is revelation based upon information. But they are entirely different things. However, all interpretation include information.

3. Interpretation is an art, which combines many arts, whether the materials presented are scientific, historical, or architectural. Any art is to some degree teachable.

4. The chief aim of interpretation is not instruction but provocation.

5. Interpretation should aid to present a whole rather than a part and must address itself to the whole man rather than any phase.

6. Interpretation addressed to children should not be a dilution of the presentation to adults but should follow a fundamentally different approach. To be at its best it will require a separate program.

NAI offers a number of certification programs, and I endorse them all. Interestingly, most conservation groups do not have certified interpretive staff, a mistake in my opinion. But I also believe that there is a need for us in the profession to develop a certification program in conservation interpretation, a program that does not exist currently. For those interested in where we have taken this idea, there is information here on the Fermata blog.

The key to successful simplification, however, is (as Einstein said) to keep things simple but not too simple. In conservation we deal with complex issues like global warming, oil spills, biodiversity, and extinction. These topics do not lend themselves to simplicity. Yet, as Tilden stated, our presentations, programs, and messages must address the desires, experiences, and limitations of our audiences. In this way I agree with Tilden that interpretation is an art, one practiced well by a few. Read Enos Mills, Aldo Leopold, Edward Abbey, and Peter Matthiessen to get a sense of the interpretive art as it relates to conservation.

Enos Mills
This helps us understand the recent debate here about the Ted Williams’ article in Audubon, and Drew Wheelan’s reports for the American Birding Assocation. Williams is a journalist, a master craftsman. His work can be judged by its lucidness and accuracy. Unfortunately, as journalism Williams’ article failed miserably. Drew did not pretend to be a journalist; instead, he functioned as an observer. Drew placed himself in situations in the Gulf that allowed us to experience the blowout and its impacts through his eyes. Yes, Drew is passionate about his work, an attribute that contributes to effective interpretation. Williams debated facts and completely missed the story. Drew didn’t sweat every fact and captured the story in all of its horror, devastation, and pathos.

The National Park Service (NPS) has devised an equation to show the key components that go into the interpretive experience – (Kr + Ka) X AT = IO. Remember, however, that this is metaphor, not math. The equation states that a knowledge of the resource (Kr) plus a knowledge of the audience (Ka), multiplied by well-grounded interpretive techniques (AT), will create an interpretive opportunity (IO). The equation is often displayed as a teeter-totter, where an overemphasis on one factor, such as knowledge of the resource, can outweigh and overwhelm the audience and any interpretive technique. In my experience this is the chief failing of conservation groups. Yes, they can all impress with a knowledge of the resources, but most have no concept of how to communicate that knowledge or a conservation imperative to the audience.

Let’s recap. I have now presented three of the Culture of Conservation principles:

1. Take it to the street
2. Make space for place
3. Keep it simple, not simplistic

Keep tuned for the next principle – Aim straight for the heart.

Ted Eubanks
15 Sep 2010

Bird People

Opinion, Recreation, , , , , , , , , ,
Bird person, Archibold Research Center, Florida

The American Birding Association (ABA) is stumbling through one of its cyclical deconstructions. Leaders are being ousted, budgets are being thrashed, and blame is being heaped. You would think that people who watch (rather than kill or maim) birds would be placid, investing their emotional selves in an adoration of nature. Think again. This recreation is constructed around honor (and its kin, ego), and around trust in one’s word. Hunters and anglers drag their game to the scale. Birders ask to be believed. In birding, most of what you see are for others the ones that got away.

In 1968 Jim Tucker relocated to Texas from Florida. Recognizing a gap between the science of birds and their conservation, he conceived of an organization focused entirely on birding for fun. Floating a circular among birding friends, he soon attracted the critical mass necessary to get the ABA off the ground.

Although a Texas birder during this time, I did not cross paths with ABA until 1976. The concept of listing did not appeal to me, and I never invested much time in seeing if the group had more to offer. In 1976 ABA held its third convention in Beaumont, and while birding High Island I suddenly faced bus loads of bird people unlike those I had seen before. In the late 1960s and 1970s High Island did not attract many birders from out of state (in fact, few from Texas other than those from along the immediate Gulf coast). Yet here were hoards of self-consumed, self-involved bird people washing over our woods with the sensitivity of a storm surge. At that moment I decided that ABA and I would never pair.

With years I changed. In 1981 I served on the board of Houston Audubon. My family owned three lots in High Island, next to Scout’s Woods. I received a call from our neighbor (Louis Smith), the owner of Scout’s Woods, asking if we would be interested in purchasing the property. I told him that I would present the opportunity to the local birding groups and get back with him. With friends (Paul Nimmons and Fred Collins) we first went before the Ornithology Group of the Outdoor Nature Club (the first nature group established in Houston), and received the cold shoulder. We then approached Houston Audubon, and they jumped at the chance. Suddenly Houston Audubon owned one of the nation’s renowned birding spots, and the ABA came aboard to help raise the funds for its acquisition and protection. I decided to take a second look at the organization.

The result is that for the past 30 years I have been a member. I have known many of the staff and the board, have spoken at conventions, and have written for their publications. I like ABA and its quirkiness. The problem with inconsistency (one version of quirky) is that eventually you lose people’s trust. ABA is beginning to lose mine.

Bird people, Yatsu Higata, Tokyo, Japan

My company, Fermata, has been in the birding business for over two decades. We started the birding trail phenomenon in Texas, and have now worked on trails in over 20 states. We have published on birds and birders, researched birds and birders, and develop products and programs for birds and birders. We recently finished the first birding national scenic byway (the Wetlands and Wildlife Scenic Byway in Kansas), and we are now moving to urban areas such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to continue inviting people to nature through birds. We do know more than a little about the recreation.

What has stumped me for all of these years is that while we continue to grind away at bringing birding to the public, the bird organizations themselves have done little to advocate for the recreation. Hunters have no problem with being advocates, and their organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, Boone and Crockett, RMEF, and the Safari Club are unapologetic about proselytizing for hunting. Trout Unlimited and the American Sportfishing Association are among those that do so for fishing, and a few (like the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Assocation) advocate for both. There are organizations whose advocacy is decidedly political (the NRA), and some that specialize (Walleyes Unlimited and Pheasants Forever). Mountain bikers have advocacy groups (such as the IMBA), kayakers and canoers have advocacy groups (such as the American Canoe Association), and even ATVs have their advocates (such as the ATVA). Trust me; if there is a public meeting that even remotely touches on their recreation, these groups show up.

Birders do not. If motivated enough, a representative of a local birding club might speak on the needs of the birding community. But the national organizations, in my experience, are absent. National Audubon is not an advocate for birding, their decades of work in bird conservation notwithstanding . The American Bird Conservancy is not an advocate for birding, their excellent efforts on bird conservation policy notwithstanding. ABA has simply been absent, content to fiddle.

I have poured over the surveys of ABA memberships, and there appears to be an obvious path forward. Let me offer this caveat, however. These surveys are only of members. Given the ABA’s minuscule membership (floating or sinking between 12 and 15 thousand), these surveys can offer no insight into the bird people population at large.

According to the surveys (and common sense), members are interested in learning about the birds of their region. Although most consider themselves to be accomplished birders, they are keenly interested in all aspect of birds and birding. Most are concerned about the plight of birds, and support bird conservation efforts. In fact, I would argue that in these desires ABA members are similar to hunters and anglers.

Wildlife (elk) watching, Winslow Hill, PA

Given the success that hunting and fishing organizations enjoy (with fish and game agencies tap dancing to their tunes), I suggest that the new ABA begin by being true to the name. ABA should become the voice for birding in this country. Leave Colorado (the entire state has 5 million people, for God’s sake), and relocate to a population center in or near Washington D.C. (try Philadelphia, for example). Woody Allen said that 80% of success showing up. ABA is still waiting in the wings.

The hunting and fishing groups are able to meet the needs of their most expert members, as well as beginners. Why not ABA? “Who is a birder” is a cyclical argument that can never be resolved. All I suggest is that out of the millions who find their way to nature through birds, the bird people, there are far more than 12 thousand who call themselves birders. Begin by reaching out to them for support, and to the tens of millions of bird people by speaking on their behalf.

Change is easy when faced with death. ABA has been on life support for years, and the latest upheaval only exposes the patient’s condition to the world. Hiring a new president to lead this crippled organization is not an answer unto itself. For the new leadership to succeed, the organization must be transformed. If the board (ultimately responsible to the members) is not willing to change, to be the agent for transformation, then the board should step back and invite those who are up to the challenge to take the reins. There is a road forward, but not with the same drivers or the same vehicle.

With all of this said, I offer a final word of encouragement. For ABA, the path forward is clear, and only awaits the right people to move ahead. Organizations are not your children. They can be disowned, disemboweled, and reconstructed to fit the needs of the moment. Let’s tear this baby apart, and get her ready for the 21st Century.