RSPB changing (3 Viewers)

[Bigshent]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, you can support the RSPB for the price of one less pint a month. it.

Excellent quote Paul :t: even if I don't like the way RSPB is moving forward its peanuts in the big scheme of things.

 

[peter kitchener]

I have been a member of both the BTO and the RSPB for over 50 years; their roles are complimentary. I think there's a strong case for every birder being a member of both organisations, unless he/she genuinely cannot afford it. I seldom read any articles in the RSPB magazine, but I visit Titchwell and Minsmere RSPB reserves regularly.

In the early 1960s I well remember John Clegg (then Education Officer at the RSPB, and author of Freshwater Life of the British Isles) voicing his disappointment that the RSPB was only interested in birds and not interested in the "bigger picture". I think he would be delighted if he could see that the RSPB is now taking a far wider view of the environment and conservation.

 

[JamesA]

As one of a million strong membership i do not remember being asked my opinion about the changes, but perhaps the society is more keen on wealthy townies and yummy mummies rather than people who can actually identify birds!

This argument comes up again and again and every time I get confused as to how people think this. Why should the RSPB be "for birders"? Has it ever been primarily for birders? Does it make a difference somehow that money to the RSPB comes from a birder or a "yummy mummy"? And as one in a million, what makes you think your opinion on these matters is honestly worth much at all?

Of course they're more interested in wealthy townies! They give more money, they spread influence, they educate their kids, who go on to grow up interested in, and with a respect for, nature. Aiming entirely for, or even slightly, for "proper" birders is stupid. It's a small, cliquey world of grumpy, mostly middle-aged-plus, antisocial buggers who understand the importance of the RSPB's work and (should) already contribute to it. It's a waste of time and money, and is effectively preaching to the converted. It would be irresponsible of the RSPB not to aim for and tailor their products to children and families, and as a member I'd be seriously concerned if they weren't doing this. Any "proper birders" who complain and subsequently withdraw their support are a small loss compared to the huge number of new supporters they're replaced by.

 

[Farnboro John]

Aiming entirely for, or even slightly, for "proper" birders is stupid. It's a small, cliquey world of grumpy, mostly middle-aged-plus, antisocial buggers who understand the importance of the RSPB's work and (should) already contribute to it. It's a waste of time and money, and is effectively preaching to the converted. It would be irresponsible of the RSPB not to aim for and tailor their products to children and families, and as a member I'd be seriously concerned if they weren't doing this. Any "proper birders" who complain and subsequently withdraw their support are a small loss compared to the huge number of new supporters they're replaced by.

Who are you calling grumpy???

John

 

[Andy Hurley]

This argument comes up again and again and every time I get confused as to how people think this. Why should the RSPB be "for birders"?

It is and should be about the BIRDS and their environment, the fact that 1 million members aren't all expert birders is irrelevant. They are concerned about nature and birds and their environment. 1 million is a good start. With the new line up and priorities, although I doubt the priorities will be much different, hopefully membership will increase and the RSPB will be an even greater lobby than it currently is.
I've just had a thought, imagine if the 1 million members were all birders and all decided to descend on one of the reserves at the same time! Frightening!

 

[IAN JAMES THOMPSON]

It is and should be about the BIRDS and their environment, the fact that 1 million members aren't all expert birders is irrelevant. They are concerned about nature and birds and their environment. 1 million is a good start. With the new line up and priorities, although I doubt the priorities will be much different, hopefully membership will increase and the RSPB will be an even greater lobby than it currently is.
I've just had a thought, imagine if the 1 million members were all birders and all decided to descend on one of the reserves at the same time! Frightening!

Actually I can remember the time when members of the RSPB and the public had to apply for permits to a number of RSPB reserves in advance in order to visit an RSPB reserve and also a number of RSPB reserves where only open on a certain number of days each week. In fact I can remember when Minsmere was only open on Saturday, Sunday, Wednesday and Thursday each week and only open between 11.00am-5.00pm and there was a charge for members of the RSPB to visit Minsmere as well as members of the public, although members of the RSPB paid a reduced amount. Times have certainly improved for visiting RSPB reserves for the better.
Ian.

 

[Mike Crawley]

I'll support them through thick and thin but I can't remember reading the magazine for years.
Maybe they should offer a digital magazine, to save the paper, ink, plastic bag, fuel.........

 

[pcurpb]

Leaving the magazine aside (does ANYONE rate it?!) , the interesting issue for me is this: should the RSPB (and I agree there's no case for NOT being a member) be more aggressive in its prosecution of the causes it adopts? The advantage of a million members is that it makes the organisation very difficult to ignore. The disadvantage is that the membership is such a broad church that any move to a more radical agenda is likely to alienate too many folk to maintain that level of support. So the RSPB can look timid, mealy-mouthed and too ready to appease vested interests...? I am of course thinking mainly of the big rural landowners (and see the mag on this one!) What do folk think?

 

[auchinbowie]

It is perhaps just myself but I feel RSPB just isn't what it used to be for birders. I have been a member for longer than I care to remember but late evening begging calls and a swing away from the Royal Society for the protection of birds has got me thinking of supporting the BTO. Even the recent mag has changed its name. They do great work and obviously swinging away from birds will up the membership subscriptions

Anyone else feel the same or am I becoming Victor Meldrew before my time:-C

There seem to be two sides to the RSPB.

The field staff seem to be as straight forward and committed as ever. It is unfortunate that, despite the organisation's large income, these people are poorly paid. The number of effectively unpaid "interns", used to avoid having to hire field staff, is a disgrace.

For the leadeship of the RSPB, development of the organisation seems to have become their main objective. The protection of birds and their habitats is secondary. This phenomenon is common to many large organisations, including charities. The enhancement of the lifestyle, public and political profile of senior personnel becomes the "raison d'etre.

I keep renewing my annual subsciption but may not do so much longer.

Dave

 

[squidge]

Having visited a few RSPB reserves all I can say is that I'm envious. You really should appreciate the good the RSPB do with its network of reserves and excellent facilities not to mention the habitat that it protects. Spoilt.

Regards Gerard.

 

[IAN JAMES THOMPSON]

I've always supported the RSPB since the 1970,s and I always will through thick and thin and if RSPB members feel so strongly about anything then they should attend the Annual General Meeting which is held once a year and they could try and have a subject they feel so strongly about debated and voted upon at the Annual Meeting. Although what the rules about how to have a subject discussed at the Annual General Meeting are, I'm not sure. Also I don't know how many signatures you need from members to have a subject discussed I wouldn't know.
Two years ago after been an annual member since the 1970,s, I decided to support them by paying over £1000.00 and becoming a Life Fellow and for the first time i joined my Local Members Group which have regular indoor meetings, also regular monthly field trips for bird watching not RSPB reserves nessescerally all the time and they also have frequent local guided walks led by volunteers of the Local Group and I really enjoy it. I would never stop supporting the RSPB.
Ian.

 

[Boro Birder]

I am a member of both the RSPB and the BTO and also volunteer for both, has a estate worker and nest recorder and i think both organisations do excellent work but on a different level, conservation and scientific. They will both have my membership and time till the day i die.

 

[Brian Stone]

I'll support them through thick and thin but I can't remember reading the magazine for years.
Maybe they should offer a digital magazine, to save the paper, ink, plastic bag, fuel.........

If it's not there already the ability to opt out of the mag and its associated bumph would be great.

I've no intention of stopping membership any time soon either.

 

[Mark Lew1s]

The option is there - but my advice would be to take the magazine and leave it in coffee rooms, waiting rooms, etc. Spread the word!

 

[Stevie babe]

The option is there - but my advice would be to take the magazine and leave it in coffee rooms, waiting rooms, etc. Spread the word!

My thoughts exactly and this is what I do.

For those thinking the RSPB is not for them, well, perhaps you don't mind Boris Island airport being built. Well I effing do and I think this is part of the reason for the recent changes in the RSPB. They are having to gear up to one massive arguement to stop it. The heathrow area will not be changed to the way the Thames estuary used to be if the airport is 'moved'. It will be one mighty housing estate with a few shops, few parks, few of anything needed in the natural environment.

With the proposed airport stuck in the middle of the Thames Estuary we will lose one of the biggest feeding stations for bird migrants and winter visitors this country has and I for one will support the RSPB in every way in their efforts to challenge this 'folly'.

 

[field of sheep]

I have been a member and volunteer with the RSPB for a number of years and actually quite enjoy the magazine. I think they are moving with the times and trying their damnest to attract new and young members. I do however agree with an earlier post regarding begging phone calls in the evening, i donate to the WWT, RSPB and a couple of non bird organisations as well and would rather not receive these calls but hey it's not that frequent i guess. I for one will continue to support the RSPB but equally respect the decision of others who choose not to do so, i just do not think that the RSPB has lost it's way.

 

[JTweedie]

I'm seeing their advert everywhere, they must be getting some reach with it. Just saw it after the Chelsea-Man City game on Sky Sports - big audience to tap into!

 

[Stewart J.]

Next year will be my 50th year of membership, joined in my early teens when it was the JBRC which became the YOC. Although I'm not keen on the new magazine title, I do usually find a few interesting articles.

Since retiring last year we have made a few cut backs on memberships but as others have said the RSPB will have my support till "I pop me clogs!"

The work they do and the power they have to change policies thanks to their membership do it for me.

 

[RayE]

I'm not easy about this. Good to read peoples views though. At the moment just seeing whats happening. But the more members the RSPB can get, whatever means I suppose will mean the stronger the voice. Thought the new magazine was quite good. Ray

 

[citrinella]

Shock horror, I will admit to not being a member.

There are lots of reasons, including finding the endless begging communications some donors have reported as completely unnacceptable. I don't like the split in the organization either. The grass roots staff have my un-ending respect, particularly as pay is pretty poor. The top management are a different matter. While it is inevitable that they have to focus on funding stream - otherwise there would be no grass roots staff and/or they pay would be worse - they don't strike a chord with me. In particular they singularly fail to get a critical mass of landowners and farmers on side, even whilst recognizing that we (I am a farmer) are critical in saving important parts of our ecology. I have been trying to persuade RSPB (Scotland) for years to let me try and help break the barriers, to little avail. So I find the grass roots truly supportive, the information and advice flow excellent (much based on BTO research supported by the RSPB as well as their own work) but the top people consistently fail to say the words I think will get farmers and landowners waking up and nodding their heads, let alone gaining genuine enthusiasm.

Maybe the RSPB are viewed with such suspicion by farmers and landowners that they (RSPB) are not the one to carry the message ... oh dear, is there anybody else ?

I welcome the changes to RSPB's focus, long overdue. Birds cannot survive without excellent, extensive, habitat in which to thrive. Moving formally towards a habitat based approach gives a much better lead to all landowners, especially through government (agri-environment) policy than the old "do this for this bird species; do that for that bird species". The danger with simple targets (I worked in medical audit for many years, and the same effects are evident) is that the targets are met (one hopes without cheating) at the expense of all other important areas which are outside the target. In environmental work that is likely to mean that general biodiversity suffers which will almost certainly make hitting the targets more and more difficult in the long run.

RSPB ? excellent but like any organization "could do better".

Mike.