Lists: Red Amber Etc......... (1 Viewer)

Who is responsible for compiling these list's? I have been observing these statistic's for years And I am very scepticle of anything I read nowadays. Two thing's spring to mind.
1. There is Im afraid very little you and I can do about anything published.
2. The RSPB automatically jumps on the band wagon with the begging bowl shoved under your nose.
I do not intend to RSPB bash, but I think the amount of money that goes on" Admin" and other sundries including full page ads is a farce. How much actually trickles down to the welfare of birds? IMOHO I think It is high time the organisation had a root and branch overhaul.
I get the feeling that the protection of birds is just smoke and mirrors, for running a business that looks after the fat cats in admin and makes diobolicle decitions in an undemocratic way.
Anyone who joins any organisation does it because they believe in a cause or feel they are doing some good for whatever they patronise. I know so many good people who have NO voice and end up disillusioned and suspicious of any decision taken.
How many times have the RSPB sat on the fence? Whilst the rest of us read about "Swans and Leadshot" "Gamekeepers and Shotguns" Farmers and Pesticides" "Councils and Hedgecutting"
It is always a FEW Individuals who finally spur them into action.
With the possible exception of the "Ruddy Duck cull" and the "Anti Airport campaign", all you see is How to get your free bird feeder!!
A little less advertising expenses and a few more full time Wardens may restore a little more comfort in the SILENT MAJORITY

DISCUSS

Ouch !

I agree the RSPB isn't perfect and I certainly disagree with some of their policies - in particular to do with Ruddy Ducks - but I am still a member. Whilst I agree with a lot of what you are saying as regards the way the RSPB has grown into what appears to be more a commercial enterprise rather than a conservation group in the true sense - I think that they still do a lot of good in respect of the number of reserves that have sprung up or been improved. Though from my experience, many seem to be staffed by voluntary staff or student/research workers. Until such time as there is a realistic alternative organisation looking after the welfare of avian species then I'm afraid that the RSPB is all we've got - for better or for worse. We need a large organisation in order to carry some political clout, nationally and internationally.
As regards the results fo these bird surveys and what appear on red or amber lists, I can only assume that the BTO have undertaken in depth research as to the 'state of the nations birds' as one publication puts it. Certainly in the area where I live there is no obvious decline in the number of House Sparrows and it does leave me wondering as to whether a reduction in numbers in such places as London has led to a wider interpretation being put on overall population figures. I suppose I am sceptical too about the published figures !
On the whole I think they do a reasonable job, but as you say also squandor an awful lot of money on uneccessary advertising and mail shots. They should realise that people are either interested or not and leave it at that. The money could be better spent elsewhere on improving reserves/ buying land and increasing funding for what are often very dedicated staff.

I have to agree with Ian on this point. I wrote in an earlier posting, I can't remember which thread, that we need the political muscle of the RSPB. Take that away and what are you left with, basically nothing more than your local clubs. Local clubs are excellent bodies but they do represent local problems. The RSPB is global and therein lies the difference.

There will never be an organisation that grows to the size of the RSPB that doesn't have its flaws. That, I'm afraid, is the human frailty rearing its ugly head. We have a choice. Do we support the RSPB, complete with its problems or not. If not what is the alternative. We could try to change it from within but who will start that change and if that start is made what will happen to the policies in the mean time as, make no mistake, a change in the way the RSPB is run will not be an overnight thing.

If you were to look at the way all clubs are run, be it big or small, you will find problems with all of them it is just that with the RSPB they are magnified by the sheer size of the organisation.

So far as I understand it the research etc that leads to the compilation of the lists is done by the BTO:

"The British Trust for Ornithology has existed since 1933 as an independent, scientific research trust, investigating the populations, movements and ecology of wild birds in the British Isles. Our speciality is the design and implementation of volunteer wild bird surveys. Our partnership between a large number of volunteers and a small scientific staff has proved to be a powerful, productive and cost-effective way of monitoring wild birds. Volunteers of all ages and from all walks of life put their bird-watching skills to good use. They record wild birds systematically using survey methods developed by our scientists, who then compile the records and analyse them for publication. This work makes a direct and vital contribution to bird conservation, by enabling both campaigners and decision-makers to set priorities and target resources. It also provides a unique insight into the state of our environment and how it may be changing."

Personally I think they and their staff and the volunteers do a fantastic job. I also think that comparisons can't really be made between the RSPB and the BTO each organisation having a different purpose. If the BTO say House Sparrows are in decline I would tend to believe it, if in doubt I'm sure the BTO would be only too able and willing to evidence their claim. I have been/am involved in some of the surveys and what I really like about it is that you get feedback, it's not a question of putting in your data and then hearing nothing - it's all there on the website and what's more you can track your own personal records which is brilliant. I feel more involved with the BTO than I do the RSPB, anyway that's my experience.

El Annie

I have to agree with John J and El Annie in that I have nothing but praise for the work of the RSPB and the BTO, but they cannot always speak out about controversial issues.
This thread makes me think of another discussion on which one of my favourite broadcastes lost his job, Chris Packham. Cats.

Anyway, if we have anything to say to the RSPB et al, I am sure we could come to a consensus and speak to them as a group. Now that we have almost 1000 members,we could carry serious weight on any particular issue.

Steve has started this thread, and we can run with it....

______________

Egrets, I've had a few.

Rob.

Rob,

Don't mention cats to me.

RSPB - yes, up to a point they do a good job, certainly if it were not for them the number of reserves would be far fewer. Say what you like about their membership, the mere fact that there are some 'upper class' members gives them a lot of political clout - look at the way the government, any government, treats the unions, who are viewed as 'working class'. I do sometimes get the feeling that they blame the fact they don't move quickly on their democratic committee-led structure, whereas it seems to me to be a case of 'if we ignore the problem it might go away' - having done 25 years in Local Government, I am familiar with the tactic.
Unfortunately, even when they do get moving, internal bickering removes much of their impetus, and the main result of their action / inaction seems to be an ability to say 'We told you so' when the problem finally becomes apparent to Joe Public, at which point it is usually far too late to take any action.

Tony

Do not mention cats to me either!

Paula,
I can assure you the very idea had not even begun to speculate about the possibility of crossing my mind.

Tony

CLOUT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Clout to influence policy and accountability to its members.

These are the two things the RSPB needs to protect birds, influence Government and look after its members. I agree with much of what has been said. Any organisation as big as the RSPB will be riddled with waste and inefficiency. But that doesn't mean we have to put up with it. What any institution needs is the occasional kick up the derriere, and Bird Forum is the perfect young upstart to do it.

Bird Forum will have more than 700 members by tonight. The UK members are dotted all over the country. They have a variety of jobs or none at all. They have a wealth of experience in all sorts of fields, and contacts at the highest level. They cut across age, class and socio economic groups. Why don't we become a pressure group?

I can tell you from years of watching politicians: what moves them is individual letters from voters. And we are all voters. They expect the RSPB to lobby them. Mass circulated letters are meaningless. If BF chose a theme, or a campaign, and every UK member wrote or emailed their MP as well as Government ministers, and wrote to local and national newspapers it would have an effect, believe me.

I have often heard MPs discuss between themselves what is in their postbags. If a subject crops up in postbags all over the country, in an apparently unrelated way, it usually means trouble. The Government is often then forced to do something about it.

What we have to do is get organised and stop whingeing. And that's where Governments always have the upper hand. They can either dismiss organisations like the RSPB as predictable monoliths ("we know where they're coming from") or they can dismiss smaller, individual groups as nutters and fanatics. We have to speak softly and carry a big stick. Niggle away in such a way they can't ignore us.

But the key to all this is organisation. At the moment we are a friendly forum with something in common. If we want to be more than that, we'll have to get organised. It will require discipline and focus, and not everyone will be happy. It will change the nature of BF in many ways. So we have to ask ourselves: why are we here? Is it to have an amiable exchange of views, photographs and so on, or do we actually want to influence things?

What do people want?

Peter

Peter

That has put the cat amongst the pigeons so to speak. My views - well I will have to give that some serious thought.

Peter I wish I lived nearby as I believe I do like the suggestion you put out to be read.
Change is not always a bad thing and if you have a deliberated and organised agenda to falicitate positive change ;this could be a very good thing.
Good luck with this and may you quietly clout those that need it most in an effective manner.
I shall watch and read with great interest.