The location withheld from the report

Text: an original contemporary conservation-volunteer-account-style practice extract.

On the final morning of our meadow survey, I counted twenty-three flowering stems of an uncommon plant beside an abandoned quarry. The recording form asked for the number, the date and an exact location. I completed every box and copied the details into the version of the report intended for the public. Accuracy seemed simple: if we knew something, we should write it down.

The survey coordinator paused over the location. The previous year, visitors had worn a bare circle around another small colony after directions to it were published. Most people had meant no harm; they had merely wanted a closer photograph. Yet the result was the same. Our precise reference could help future surveyors find the plants, but it could also lead a crowd to the few metres of ground we hoped to protect.

I removed the exact location from the public report and stored it in the conservation group’s restricted survey file. A colleague objected that vague claims are difficult for readers to check. She was right, so we kept the count, the date and a description of the habitat, and added a statement explaining why the location had been withheld and how researchers could request it. The published report no longer revealed everything we knew, but it did reveal the choice we had made. A responsible record does not always give every reader the same access; it preserves the evidence while considering what its release might do.

In this extract, the writer tries to show that recording evidence responsibly can involve limiting access to some information.

Evaluate how successfully this is achieved. Support your views with detailed reference to the extract.