top of page
  • C4PMC

People's 'Walk for Wildlife' fails to find the people

The People’s Walk for Wildlife is Chris Packham’s latest self-publicising scheme; a walk through London, ending up at Parliament Square, where there will be two hours of ‘speeches and music and other entertainment’.

What Packham also mentions is that despite attempts to run regional walks, they were ‘not able to find the peoplepower to put on regional walks in the timeframe we had’. Why is it that despite the RSPB announcing themselves to be “angry” about what they believe to be the government’s “attack on nature”, they can’t mobilise people to walk; or indeed people who will volunteer to help with a walk.

Given a lack of interest not only from the general public but also from the likes of the RSPB, it’s somewhat ironic that it has been called “The People’s Walk”, because all the signs are pointing towards the fact that people have, in fact, grown sick and tired of Packham’s campaigns and those of his allies at Wild Justice.

The problem is that Wild Justice and many similarly minded conservation NGOs is that they are operating in an echo-chamber which has bears very little relation to the lives of the general public. They have lost almost all connection to reality.

If they looked – or chose to believe – any of the recent public polls on what people are concerned about right now, they might change tack. They might, perhaps, realise that while people are of course concerned about wildlife and the nation’s biodiversity, most people have other priorities and, given the current cost of living crisis, other things that are more demanding of their well-earned money.

Packham points out in his video-tweet that the last walk for wildlife (in 2018) was ‘quite costly’. He then goes on to state that there is a crowd-funder running to cover their costs. In fact, if you donate over £75, you even receive a ‘free’ T-shirt: how about that?

It is so entirely out of touch that it would be unbelievable – that is, if we hadn’t come across similar antics in the past. Surely given the extent of Packham’s earnings he could cover the cost himself, if he were that dedicated to the cause?


bottom of page