What brought the Condors

back from the brink?

Around 2005, a wildlife biologist attended our course out of desperation to save a dinosaur-like bird from extinction: the California condor. 

To his – and our – astonishment, he and his team successfully used Consent-Building to prevent the condor from being wiped out. 

**Quick sidenote** Never seen a condor? Here’s a thumbnail sketch – with wingspans up to 9.5 feet, these scavengers can soar over 200 miles a day scanning for food. They’re not what you might think of as “beautiful”, but I’m willing to bet if you see one up close, it’ll take your breath away! Explorers from 1602 up through Lewis & Clark couldn’t help but remark on these majestic birds in their diaries.

Back to our story of what saved the condors– so far…

For decades, biologists with the US Fish & Wildlife Service tried every method they knew of to appeal to hunters (and policymakers) to prevent lead shot from killing these majestic birds. 

They’d tried:

• Public involvement sessions
• Education initiatives
• Regulatory efforts
• Incentive programs
• Face-to-face dialogues
• Etc.

Nothing worked. 

By 1982, only 22 California condors remained in the wild. 

While condors aren’t the only species that die from lead poisoning, their reproductive cycle is so much slower than for other birds (such as ducks), they can’t reproduce fast enough to survive. When a condor eats a dead animal shot with lead ammunition, it only take a tiny amount (“a few grains of sand,” according to experts) to kill the condor. 

The survival of the California condor looked hopeless — until our new student convinced his boss to try Consent-Building. 

Considering they had nothing to lose, the professionals applied some of the most rudimentary aspects of the approach. To the team’s astonishment, the opponents to their proposed method of saving the condor (a ban on lead shot) grudgingly agreed to accept the experts’ recommendation. 

The whole situation went from decision-making gridlock to swift agreement.

Even though it is an astounding success, in that it didn’t take much to turn things around, both politically and for the condor – continues to inspire us and our students as a case study, that the method used was a law is itself a sign of how late in the process this success came. 

While the ban on lead shot ammunition has been adhered to by hunters (so much so that there are 117 condors along California’s Central Coast), it hasn’t been enough to maintain the legitimacy and trust of interests negatively impacted by the ban. 

(Another time, I’ll update you on a new wrinkle to the California condor’s plight – a problem the ban alone can’t address.) 

Laws and regulations aren’t typical indicators of Consent-Building, but sometimes they’re necessary – as with the condor. 

What’s critical is that whenever an individual or organization develops the Informed Consent of an opponent, it maintains it. 

For some, that means months or years until the problem can’t reemerge. But with the protection of a species, like the condor, that means developing the trust and cooperation of interests will be needed for generations…

Unlike key benefit campaigns and public relations efforts, there’s no “set it and forget it” with Consent-Building. Consent-Building takes courage, deep listening, and knowing what needs to be communicated (and what doesn’t), to help people make difficult, but necessary tradeoffs. 

Getting people to knowingly, willingly, albeit grudgingly –  go along with something they’re still opposed or resistant to – doesn’t happen by accident. 

Just as the handful of wildlife biologists who brought the condor back from extinction discovered, persuading opponents to cooperate requires the experts to communicate in a new (and more honest) way.  

The condors soar near where we (Hans, Annemarie and I) live. If you’re out this way (near Monterey), make time to see one – while you can.

Other Projects

When a few interests stop a well-supported plan

The extension of a coastal bike trail has been on hold for more than a generation in my hometown and is likely to stay that way for another generation. 

What’s unique about this widely supported project ending in defeat? Absolutely nothing.

The Round-the-Bay Trail would extend a world-class recreational trail along the California coast from Monterey to Santa Cruz and has had tremendous support from locals, elected officials, environmental groups, and outdoor enthusiasts. 

Why is a resoundingly popular project stuck on the shelf?

It’s NOT a lack of funding, effort, or political will as noted in one local paper’s Letter to the Editor:

 “All that stands in the way is red tape and those few who put narrow personal interests over the benefits for all.”

Although the author of the letter wasn’t wrong, we see a different problem than the selfishness of a few.

99% of the time, when popular public initiatives are defeated, it’s almost always by a handful of opponents (and a few of their friends). 

We don’t see objections like these as “selfish”, even if they come down to stopping what’s best for the greater good because of impacts on property value, concerns about aesthetics, or even personal agendas.

The real problem is not seeing beyond these objections for a way forward…

We mentor our students to develop a new way of seeing objections to their projects and proposals. Once they realize this phenomenon isn’t an anomaly, they’re more likely to see ways to prevent it, rather than be frustrated by it.

Seeing these objections in a new light makes resolving them less “impossible”, and gives our students the insight into how to get well-supported proposals unstuck.

Until we get beyond seeing opponents with “selfish interests”, we’re unlikely to ever see this trail get built.

Other Projects