I have a problem - Your views? (1 Viewer)

I was at a well-known RSPB reserve today and witnessed a shocking display by an RSPB volunteer. This particular reserve has a well-known trail through, a second area with full public access (open access land) thats hard to get onto, a third area with full public access that has some new trails put through and marked with posts that the RSPB are trying to encourage ornithologists and walkers to use, and a fourth area of open access land just down the road a bit.

A couple of weeks ago I did an RSPB guided walk to view a particular, reasonably rare, bird. We started on the second area, and progressed to the fourth area (just down the road a bit) to see what we'd gone for.

Today, one of the volunteers from that evening was in the car park of the reserve answering questions. I overheard one question from an enthusiastic couple, "where can we best see a *******?".

Now the real answer, as the volunteer well knew, was the fourth area, an area which has full public access. The answer given was area 3, the area the RSPB are trying to encourage people to use. I didnt mind that too much until the volunteer said "there's a couple of other areas but they are conservation areas with no public access".

That frankly is wrong. I'm not going to accuse the person of lying but its frankly beyond belief that they were unaware the land is open access. I can see that the RSPB do not want to encourage use of these areas, but at the same time I'm shocked that enthusiastic people who have almost certainly travelled a long way to view this bird (if they were local they'd probably know where to go) were steered away from the most promising area and told they have no right to access that area.

Am I wrong to be shocked? Is this a volunteer out of line with RSPB strategy or in line? What do you think?

Out of interest, what reserve did this happen on?

nigel_b said:

I was at a well-known RSPB reserve today and witnessed a shocking display by an RSPB volunteer. ... I overheard one question from an enthusiastic couple, "where can we best see a *******?".

Now the real answer, as the volunteer well knew, was the fourth area, an area which has full public access. The answer given was area 3, the area the RSPB are trying to encourage people to use. I didnt mind that too much until the volunteer said "there's a couple of other areas but they are conservation areas with no public access".

That frankly is wrong. *[1] I'm not going to accuse the person of lying but its frankly beyond belief that they were unaware the land is open access.*[2]

Click to expand...

Hi.

Ok, on point 1, what did you say at this point ? could you not have suggested an alternative reply to the volunteer, such as, maybe, "oh, i'm sure i was told..."

On #2, if you are entirely sure the volunteer knew that is was open access, but simply chose to forget (or was told to lie ?) then i would have thought a well reasoned letter to the reserve manager would be in order.

Perry Grin said:

Out of interest, what reserve did this happen on?

Click to expand...

To be honest I'd rather not comment further on this.

Karl J said:

Hi.

Ok, on point 1, what did you say at this point ? could you not have suggested an alternative reply to the volunteer, such as, maybe, "oh, i'm sure i was told..."

On #2, if you are entirely sure the volunteer knew that is was open access, but simply chose to forget (or was told to lie ?) then i would have thought a well reasoned letter to the reserve manager would be in order.

Click to expand...

I said nothing. Not really my position to contradict the volunteer.

I can understand that they dont want to encourage people to trample all over the heath and play rounders and ......blah blah.... but its public access land and the public are entitled to do that should they wish.

Its put a whole new spin on the RSPB for me. The people I have bumped into on all four areas of public access have been extremely helpful and informative. Couldnt be more helpful to be honest. Maybe the answer is to ask other ornithologists around you rather than the RSPB volunteers? A sad state of affairs?

Not really, the thing to ask yourself and perhaps think about is whether or not the welfare of the bird is in any way likely to be compromised, particularly if its a scarce breeder.....its probably better to go on a guided walk with a person who is familiar with the terrain and habitat, rather than wander around. I'm sure the volunteer is only being careful or protective, rather than intentionally misguiding enthusiasts.
Please also remember that the RSPB has had for many years, hundreds of acres of land in their management where there is absolutely no public access at all (yes, usually remote island areas) and these still are unaffected by the right to roam.

Its a question of balance I guess and how we as individuals see certain scenarios. See how you feel about it in 24 hours time and then have a word with the reserves manager. All the best.
Forums > Rare Bird Sightings > Rare Bird Information > Spurn Marsh Warblers

I've been to a couple of RSPB reserves where public footpaths are not marked as trails on any information leaflets etc. and subtle efforts are made to discourage their use. Given the litter and dog mess that cover the paths which are used, and that using those paths would disturb the birds, I don't blame the RSPB at all for the policy. I wouldn't complain if they went further and deliberately misled people as the guy you refer to seems to have done.

Graham

I've volunteered for the RSPB before, several times at Minsmere, and was always encouraged to be helpful to all visitors. At the time Dartford Warblers were still few in number at Dunwich and on the sections of RSPB land with no public access. This was the one species we were told to keep quiet about, even on the land belonging to the NT at Dunwich. That is perfectly understandable though, and is surely no different than what a dedicated patchworker would tell a visiting birder if he felt either an area is more sensitive than another area the birds can be seen from, or that its best keep a breeding species quiet full stop for its own protection. Its not malicious and the question of suppression is irrelevant if the RSPB were encouraging people to view the same species from what they consider a better area for whatever reason.

How often do we question or try to become involved in the habitat management, planning, funding, bidding and an awful lot of other hard work the RSPB do to procure or maintain their reserves? I really don't feel we have any right to question their judgment when it comes to which species and which areas they encourage visitors to view. They are always helpful within reason and make decisions based on whats best for the habitat and species, not just a whim.

Jan

P.s. If a pair of Moustached Warblers ever pop up in a reedbed at Minmere or somewhere I'd like the RSPB to remember I stuck up for 'em and encourage me to see the birds please

Nigel

Correct me, please do if i am wrong, but you seem to be describing Pulborough RSPB, an area I know well and I'm also taking an educated guess you are talking about Nightjar (sched 1 breeding bird)?

So just a couple of points:

1. This is a very vulnerable time for this ground nesting species and they have been subject to much disturbance in the habitat surrounding Pulborough on public access land through walkers and dogs, increasingly over the past few years. I believe, the RSPB manage habitat here continuously, as work in progress, trying to restore/maintain areas around the Reserve and doing their utmost to protect nesting Woodlark and Nightjar both of which are struggling to maintain a foothold here.

2. Thus, there are areas of Pulborough which can only be accessed with a guide from the Reserve, perhaps one of the areas you had the fortune to visit that evening - this is to protect the work in progress with habitat management and any known nesting sites. So there are, in the quoted works of the RSPB worker, ''conservation areas with no public access'', in fact, not all these areas even need to be on the Reserve, they can be fenced off/boundaried areas in otherwise public land.

3. The wardens at Pulborough are usually aware of nesting nightjar sites (which can change from year to year) and will definately and very rightly discourage disturbance at these sites either by birdwatchers or anyone else even if it's 'public land' - they are not going to hand 'disturbance' on a plate to people! Nightjar are particularly vulnerable at Pulborough, for example they are not breeding this year at a particular site that I've seen them breeding at for the past few years (on public land, near the Reserve), this might very well be due to disturbance earlier in the season as this area gets a high number of casual walkers and loose dogs being exercised.

3. Unless birdwatchers are guided to a particular site by a guide in this particular fairly compact area, it's highly possible sites could be disturbed unintentionally whilst birders are searching for them.

As for your 'angry from Tonbridge Wells' ... not sure what to say about the tone of that, other than you became privy to sensitive information regarding nesting bird sites directly as a result of the help of an RSPB guide - if the guide in question felt it inappropriate to direct other members of the public unaccompanied to those sites, then it was his judgment call and a good one too if, what I suspect to be true, the protection of a Sched 1 species of bird is the overriding concern.

As for encouraging visitors - I too volunteer with the RSPB and believe you me, the last thing the charity wants to do is discourage people, the potential revenue to be gained from new membership is far too valuable for that - and PR is a very important aspect of the work - but the overriding work at the end of the day is conservation of wildlife and habitat not tourism.

nigel_b said:

[1]* I said nothing. Not really my position to contradict the volunteer.

[2]* I can understand that they dont want to encourage people to trample all over the heath and play rounders and ......blah blah.... but its public access land and the public are entitled to do that should they wish.

Click to expand...

Hi again. #1, sorry but contradicting the volunteer seems to be the thrust of this thread.

#2, i'm not sure that's totally true, esp. IF there are sched. 1 breeding sp. in the area.

Requesting a written response from the Reserve Manager / Head Warden would seem to be the way forward, as i see it. Maybe you could let us know if you get one.

Karl J said:

Hi again. #1, sorry but contradicting the volunteer seems to be the thrust of this thread.

Click to expand...

That probably wasnt one of my fullest and best answers: Not my position to contradict the volunteer in front of the visitors or question their judgement then and there. Not the time and not the place. My son was with me, very keen and knows more about birds/trees/wildlife/agriculture at 13 years old than most adults. (Knows about access rights too come to think of it.) My instant decision, right or wrong, was to side with the volunteer.

As I said, I dont want to comment further on the location.

Its a difficult situation isnt it, which is why I posted the thread. I'm still not sure what to make of it and your responses are helpful.

I'd be interested to see what percentage of funds are spent by the RSPB (our money) developing habitats for birds on private land, vs that spent on public access land. I'm assuming privately owned land would be receiving more funding because the RSPB must own much more of that. All right and proper to protect the scarce habitat of rare birds.

I'm just disappointed for the couple involved. I wonder what they saw when they went back at 9pm last night?

The question is, would you like to be treated like that if you visited a distant reserve whilst on holiday?

The volunteer was either well informed or bady informed.

Well informed to not tell someone where to go for the protection of a species. Or badly informed and didn't know the local rules.

Either way wouldn't get too upset by it. Could have simply had a quiet word with him/her and asked why he said what he said - that way you could have helped or at least understood the situation.

If you write now you will just upset people - in my view you have missed the opportunity to deal with the matter tactfully.

nigel_b said:

Am I wrong to be shocked? Is this a volunteer out of line with RSPB strategy or in line? What do you think?

Click to expand...

Absolutely impossible to say with certainty without knowing any details about the reserve, the species in question or any knowledge of the area and its public rights of way.

I'm an RSPB volunteer who has done a couple guided walks, and the fact is there's no way volunteers can be trained to answer every single question that a member of the public may throw at them. With the caveats in my last paragraph, my instict would be the volunteer was simply at fault for trying to bluff an answer he/she didn't know the answer to rather than any big old conspiracy. You say "as the volunteer well knew". How do you know what the volunteer "well knew"?!

Personally when doing that kind of thing I always explain I'm a volunteer and not an expert at the outset, and will try and answer any questions but point them in the direction of other knowledgable people on the way out if I don't know the answer.

Rather than leaving the reserve quietly fuming about this I'd have possibly gently corrected the volunteer (personally when I'm volunteering I'd rather this happen than people go away with any bad information I'd given them), although there is a chance he was right. Or you could have a quick word with staff on the way out. The volunteer wouldn't get in trouble for it, but they may take it as a tip as something they haven't thought to mention to volunteers in training. Or, if the volunteer was doing as he was told, you may have got a sensible answer why that you may even have agreed with on consideration!

Otherwise access land can be closed at some times - from the government countryside website - "There will sometimes be local restrictions on the new access rights for reasons such as land management, public safety, nature and heritage conservation." Are you sure this wasn't the case at this time? The public don't have absolute right to go on access land at all times, especially if, as others have said, a Schedule 1 species is breeding.

I'll reiterate, unless other reserves are run very different to what I'm used to, there's no big evil machiavellian conspiracies behind anything.

[double Post, Sorry]

a fourth area of open access land just down the road a bit.

Click to expand...

Just a thought too - is this piece of access land (your fourth area) actually RSPB property/under RSPB stewardship? If not, then it is perhaps regrettable he didn't pass it on as a bit of local knowledge to birdwatchers, but it's not the volunteer's job as such to give birdwatching tips for the wider area, or indeed to be trained in what's around in the wider area. If he was merely answering with what can be found within the RSPB site (or at least interpreted the question that way) then it could be he was spot on.

No name person, new to the forum, complaining about actions which may or may not have happened on a no name reserve, only thing mentioned is the RSPB. Given that none of us know the details, as you don't mention any, I would say the easiest way to resolve your dilemma is to call the reserve manager for a chat, better still to have asked at the time.

Maybe the RSPB was trying to prevent disturbance to a scarce breeding bird (good on them), maybe the volunteer was just that, a volunteer, not necessarily an expert on every last detail of where things are and where you can and can't go.

Jos Stratford said:

No name person, new to the forum, complaining about actions which may or may not have happened on a no name reserve, only thing mentioned is the RSPB. Given that none of us know the details, as you don't mention any, I would say the easiest way to resolve your dilemma is to call the reserve manager for a chat, better still to have asked at the time.

Maybe the RSPB was trying to prevent disturbance to a scarce breeding bird (good on them), maybe the volunteer was just that, a volunteer, not necessarily an expert on every last detail of where things are and where you can and can't go.

Click to expand...

I think you have answered my question with that post.

There have been some very helpful replies, thank you.

nigel_b said:

Its put a whole new spin on the RSPB for me. The people I have bumped into on all four areas of public access have been extremely helpful and informative. Couldnt be more helpful to be honest. Maybe the answer is to ask other ornithologists around you rather than the RSPB volunteers? A sad state of affairs?

Click to expand...

Hi Nigel,

I have been a regular volunteer with the RSPB so I am not entirely clear on what point you are trying to make here. However, to furnish you with a few details that may help to answer your question indirectly...

The RSPB has around 11,000 volunteers per year and with all other conservation organisations, could not exist without this help. Well, a lot of the reserve work would certainly not be possible becuase paid reserve staff would be tied up permanently with visitor-related issues. The downside to this level of help is that it is impossible to give definitive training to volunteers some of whom may only stay onboard for a few weeks or months. There shoudl at least have been some kind of induction but this may have been inadequate to help this individual with all the knowledge they needed to answer the query you mentioned at the top. The upshot of volunteering (I have seen this in any numnber of organisations) is that some individuals have 'too much knowledge' others simply do not have enough knowledge. It is easy to see how this can lead to human errors in interpreting how information can and cannot be given out. In conclusion, I do not see that the volunteer did anything wrong as such other than to interpret how to give an answer without having other sources to refer to in order to confirm the accuracy of what they were saying.

Had this been a reserve warden the response would not have been guarded and information would only have been hidden if it had been sensitive in the first place. This individual may not have been aware of the rights to go on the piece of land in question irrespective of its public access status. I happen to know there is Biggleswade Common close to but outside The Lodge that is public access/common land. The RSPB have no jurisdiction over common land or adopted rights of way but equally they would not necessarily be able to advice how that land could be accessed either because they would be wrongly assuming a respoinsibility that they did not possess. I imagine you know a little more about acces onto the land in question hence your doubt about how the volunteer gave the response.