Paul Chapman
Well-known member
You are doing well to find 50% of it of interest. I think I would be more like 10% for me.
The issue that came yesterday seems to have even more advertising than usual (yes, I do know that it makes the magazine free to produce), and less actual content of any real interest to birders. But I suppose it is no longer aimed at birders, if it ever was.
The 'editorial' mentions that the next edition will be in a different vein - but it will it be better or worse? I use 'editorial' loosely as the last editor I can remember, Mark Ward, was actually a birder whereas now it is written by three 'Supporter Communications' people. I was surprised to see that there is a Head of Supporter Communications, an Acting Head of Supporter Communications, and a Supporter Communications Manager.
One of the main articles, covering rewilding, prolongs the almost certain myth that White Storks used to be part of the UK avifauna so I was not particularly enthused to read it very carefully.
I love modern job titles. They reflect the inability in the modern world to express ideas in a short clear and plain way. The titles themselves are proof that the person in charge of the Head of Supporter Communications presumably the Hat of the Head of Supporter Communications is not as good at their job as they should be....
The attachment is the case for White Stork being a native species as summed up by Ben Macdonald in Rebirding. I am yet to tackle the book properly but am more and more convinced that it has to be the way forward whilst at the same time we need to stop the continuing destruction of the minimal habitat left. If sticking a white stork on my chimney would help that, I'm in regardless of my personal feelings about both introductions and reintroductions...
All the best
Paul