• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

RSPB changing (1 Viewer)

I think the new mag is a big improvement, it had become nothing more than fund raising propaganda with little interest to me. At least now there is some info about wildlife, though I'm still bored by that woman and her kids.
As for the new president? I don't have a problem with her as she is a genuine naturalist and not an ex model turned TV presenter.
 
The new magazine is a slight improvement over the old one but it is still too superficial for me. Fortunately, the RSPB produce other documents like the annual Reserves Report and the Conservation Science Report which are available as downloads here: http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/library/reports.aspx These reports contain much more interesting (to me) information about the work that the RSPB does and their contents are the reason that they have my full support.
 
Anybody else spot the irony of their informative article on the devastating effect of plastic pollution of the oceans and a few pages earlier they are selling plastic tat penguins in Christmas crackers? I hope one of those doesn't appear in the stomach of an albatross...
Cheers
Jono
 
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.

Gerard,

Not only do I fully appreciate the excellent work, which is carried out by field staff on the network of reseves, I am a regular volunteer at one of those reserves conducting regular surveys etc. I also conduct BTO surveys.

My reservations about the RSPB are NOT about their staff in the field. It is about the attitude and priorities of senior administrators and the policies they determine. A few examples:

. Seeking injunctions against local birders protecting vulnerable nest sites, then failing to provide adequate protection themselves.

. Refusing to address the question of the impact of the country's cat population on wildlife. This is to avoid the loss of membership and income from cat owners.

. Spending large sums on the re-introduction of Red Kite and Great Bustard but doing nothing to protect the Eagle Owl, for which they do not have outside funding.

. Using unemployed young people as free labour, with the carrot of a tiny fraction of them later being gaining positions with the organisation. With the large cash flow, surely minimum wage could be paid?

I could bore you with many more examples but believe the above suffice. I have written several letters to them on the above and other subjects. I have yet to receive an adequate respone to any of them... just appeals for more money.

QED
 
Last edited:
Gerard,

Not only do I fully appreciate the excellent work, which is carried out by field staff on the network of reseves, I am a regular volunteer at one of those reserves conducting regular surveys etc. I also conduct BTO surveys.

My reservations about the RSPB are NOT about their staff in the field. It is about the attitude and priorities of senior administrators and the policies they determine. A few examples:

. Seeking injunctions against local birders protecting vulnerable nest sites, then failing to provide adequate protection themselves.

. Refusing to address the question of the impact of the country's cat population on wildlife. This is to avoid the loss of membership and income from cat owners.

. Spending large sums on the re-introduction of Red Kite and Great Bustard but doing nothing to protect the Eagle Owl, for which they do not have outside funding.

. Using unemployed young people as free labour, with the carrot of a tiny fraction of them later being gaining positions with the organisation. With the large cash flow, surely minimum wage could be paid?

I could bore you with many more examples but believe the above suffice. I have written several letters to them on the above and other subjects. I have yet to receive an adequate respone to any of them... just appeals for more money.

QED

I don't believe the above suffices at all. To me it looks like a list of pet hates and minor quibbles.

Using young people as free labour? Why not? Surely no-one is forcing these young people to do anything? I'm sure a lot of young people realise that a bit of voluntary work on your CV looks great - and might open more doors than just with RSPB.

Protecting the eagle owl? You mean the probably escaped eagle owls that might have detrimental effects on populations of hen harrier, goshawk, and black grouse among others?

The cat issue? Why is it specifically up to RSPB to address that? Why would a body that relies on the publics money alienate a fair whack of it's potential support? If cats do have a big impact on the UKs wildlife (and I don't doubt that they do) why isn't that an issue for the UK government?

I have no idea about any injunctions taken out to find out about the locations of rare breeding birds, but I can't imagine that the RSPB offer any less adequate protection than a single observer could.

Look at the bigger picture. Look at the network of reserves, the success stories (avocet, bittern, marsh harrier, corncrake etc), the lobbying of the government on all sorts of issues, the sometimes cutting edge research and perhaps most importantly, the promotion of conservation and wildlife to the British public. If we are to become a nation where green issues are really deemed to be important, it will be in part due to very visible conservation bodies like the RSPB.

Lest anyone forgets, we are currently living in a country where badgers, buzzards and gulls are being culled under government issued licences with no scientific backing, and where politicians will allow golf courses to be built on SSSIs. We live in a world that climate change looms ominously over. Nobody else does as much active conservation work in the UK as the RSPB. Surely thats worth supporting - even if you do have some issues with some of their policies.
 
Gerard,


. Using unemployed young people as free labour, with the carrot of a tiny fraction of them later being gaining positions with the organisation. With the large cash flow, surely minimum wage could be paid?


QED

This is ludicrous point, I volunteered for the RSPB many times to get the experience needed and I can tell you that it was that experience that got me a job more than my degree. Its a vital role for both the RSPB and volunteers alike!
 
Using young people as free labour?

A good thing as it is purely voluntary, they get something to put on their cv and valuable experience along with knowledge about conservation and nature they probably didn't get at school. In a system that relies far too much on charity to get anything done,(medical research, environmental protction, veteran care, etc) the RSPB use what they can get, but they also give a great deal to these volunteers.(experience, teamwork, cameraderie, a sense of belonging to something bigger than themselves, a knowledge of conservation and its implications, an interest in nature including birds, etc)
 
A good thing as it is purely voluntary, they get something to put on their cv and valuable experience along with knowledge about conservation and nature they probably didn't get at school. In a system that relies far too much on charity to get anything done,(medical research, environmental protction, veteran care, etc) the RSPB use what they can get, but they also give a great deal to these volunteers.(experience, teamwork, cameraderie, a sense of belonging to something bigger than themselves, a knowledge of conservation and its implications, an interest in nature including birds, etc)

It also teaches them that conservation is not about being nice to individual animals and that its very hard work, both of which are lessons worth learning early rather than coming out of uni all starry-eyed to save the universe and meeting reality head on with a mighty crash.

John
 
I don't believe the above suffices at all. To me it looks like a list of pet hates and minor quibbles.

Using young people as free labour? Why not? Surely no-one is forcing these young people to do anything? I'm sure a lot of young people realise that a bit of voluntary work on your CV looks great - and might open more doors than just with RSPB.

Protecting the eagle owl? You mean the probably escaped eagle owls that might have detrimental effects on populations of hen harrier, goshawk, and black grouse among others?

The cat issue? Why is it specifically up to RSPB to address that? Why would a body that relies on the publics money alienate a fair whack of it's potential support? If cats do have a big impact on the UKs wildlife (and I don't doubt that they do) why isn't that an issue for the UK government?

I have no idea about any injunctions taken out to find out about the locations of rare breeding birds, but I can't imagine that the RSPB offer any less adequate protection than a single observer could.

Look at the bigger picture. Look at the network of reserves, the success stories (avocet, bittern, marsh harrier, corncrake etc), the lobbying of the government on all sorts of issues, the sometimes cutting edge research and perhaps most importantly, the promotion of conservation and wildlife to the British public. If we are to become a nation where green issues are really deemed to be important, it will be in part due to very visible conservation bodies like the RSPB.

Lest anyone forgets, we are currently living in a country where badgers, buzzards and gulls are being culled under government issued licences with no scientific backing, and where politicians will allow golf courses to be built on SSSIs. We live in a world that climate change looms ominously over. Nobody else does as much active conservation work in the UK as the RSPB. Surely thats worth supporting - even if you do have some issues with some of their policies.

Excellent responses all, which I think rather highlights the problem we face in the 'RSPB has lots its way' brigade of the birding fraternity. They are a bunch of contrarians who'll search out and cling to any criticism they can level at the charity, however petty, unfair or utterly wrong they are about it.
It's baffling, it really is, but there's a condition some people have which means they just don't have any patience for do-gooders who actually do good, a perverse sort of confirmation bias that blinds them to all the wonderful achievements and ongoing campaigns they surely must support (Malta anyone?).

Looking at their accounts the good news is RSPB membership seems to be stable despite the magazine and an economic climate which has seen some other nationwide charities suffer a dip, indeed it was even able to increase spending slightly last year - and I certainly know I wasn't!
 
I hope it is just the magazine which is washed-up, not the conservation priorities.

I saw it multiple times with other organizations. Any charity, as it grows, 'cleverly' tries to maximize its sources of funding. It starts picking projects with good funding but not really high importance. It starts bowing to pressures not to offend the money givers by controversial projects. After just a few years and one high-profile case, it ends as irrelevant token organization, which nobody who looks a little past poster slogans will take seriously. Then somebody must found a new charity to get the job done. And of course, sponsors are no longer interested in a non-serious organization.

I hope RSPB will not take this path. But the pressure will always be great, and I saw several very respectable charities and very idealistic people (in conservation, health etc) take this path.
 
The cat issue? Why is it specifically up to RSPB to address that? Why would a body that relies on the publics money alienate a fair whack of it's potential support? If cats do have a big impact on the UKs wildlife (and I don't doubt that they do) why isn't that an issue for the UK government?


I wouldnt say that it shouldnt be an issue for anyone other than the RSPB aswell but surely the PB bit is a pretty good reason why this an issue specifically for the RSPB more than anyone else.

Isnt whats right and best for the protection of birds more important than many of its potential supporters personal opinions? They can't afford to be affraid to make unpopular decisions if its what needs to be done.
 
There are quite a few comments from some saying that they respect the work of those in the field and on the front line, but they don't trust those higher up in the organisation.

Is there any evidence that these people at the top are acting in a way that is distrustful, or are in it for themselves with nary a thought for the RSPB's core work, or are these just opinions and beliefs without anything of substance to back them up?
 
There are quite a few comments from some saying that they respect the work of those in the field and on the front line, but they don't trust those higher up in the organisation.

Is there any evidence that these people at the top are acting in a way that is distrustful, or are in it for themselves with nary a thought for the RSPB's core work, or are these just opinions and beliefs without anything of substance to back them up?

If the management weren't cutting the mustard then the front line couldn't function. British politicians have conditioned the public to distrust senior managers of anything, which is pretty rich considering their own performances.

John
 
If the management weren't cutting the mustard then the front line couldn't function. British politicians have conditioned the public to distrust senior managers of anything, which is pretty rich considering their own performances.

John

The distrust comes through the polititian's own failure to answer any question directly, to massage the truth quite liberally and to fail to come up with the goods time after time. Most highhiedyins, especially those in the public eye, tend to do their own fair share of playing the politician's game. I personally, give everybody a fair chance till they let me down. Respect and trust must be earned, generally, but I have nothing against they new direction of the RSPB.
 
John, it's good to see some common sense and accurate comments. regards Merlin

Merlin,
John quite often expresses common sense with accuracy! But not necessarily always or in the right order, to paraphrase the late great Eric Morecambe:t:. That's why we like reading his comments...;)
MJB
 
"I have no idea about any injunctions taken out to find out about the locations of rare breeding birds, but I can't imagine that the RSPB offer any less adequate protection than a single observer could."

You misread the message. On both occasions injunctions were taken out against established Birdwatching Clubs, who had successfully proteced the nest sites of Peregrines for at least four years. Each time the RSPB took over, the nests were robbed within weeks. On one occasion the explanation was. "The robbers came after working hours, when nobody could be expected to be on duty." Still you do make a good point. Those, against whom the injunctions were taken out, were led by a professor and the curator of a local museum and included a number of similar yobs. I do not believe that there was a respectable investment banker or stockbroker yet alone a significant Tory politician among us.

I also note that you do not feel that staff (as distinct from volunteers) should be paid. I suspect that you curse the legacy of William Wilberforce as I do that of MT. We obviously hold different views on ethics. Let us agree to differ. This is not an appropriate forum to pursue the subject.

Clearly many members are happy that the RSPB is concentrating its efforts on being a political lobbying organisaion. If that is what the members want, so be it.
 
As someone who grew up in Durham through the miners strikes I very, very forcibly suggest that you take your pathetic quote re Wilberforce and Thatcher back. We clearly do have a different view on ethics. I believe that I can politely express an opinion and not expect to be called pro slavery and have my ethics questioned. You clearly don't. You clearly think that because someone has a differing opinion to you that allows you to make very insulting judgements about them.

You really think you can make judgements about someone's personality and politics because they think well of the RSPB? Just take a second to think about what you've accused me of there.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top