Thoughts re: the RSPB (1 Viewer)

[Baillon's Crack]

I’ve been a member more than not but I can’t help feel I’m a member because there isn’t anything else to support. As a birder or conservationist you feel obliged to. I want to help protect birds and their habitats. You’re either a member or not, but it obviously doesn't necessarily mean you don’t support the RSPB if you’re not a member. I’m happy if my meager support is either by their much-prized Direct Debit or by my reserve entry as a non-member. I am less happy if my lifetime's subs goes towards providing a playground or coffee shop. I would be very satisfied if it went towards some rat poison for Henderson Island, or saving an albatross from being needlessly killed or a court-case bringing a raptor persecutor to some sort of justice or keeping Forsinard free from wind turbines/pylons or lobbying to prevent an airport being constructed on an important bird site. All the important stuff. Could I request where my subs are generally spent? I would probably give more.

I see around the place and at local reserves that the evolving ‘body’ that is the RSPB seems to have become member obsessed particularly targeting the wealthy. Birds magazine arrives and goes from the doormat to the recycling box often without me opening it. I am not anti-RSPB but why is the publication informing me of the organisation I want to support uninteresting to me? Can I be a member and not receive it so as to save money and trees? For me the magazine has all gone a bit ‘coffee-table’ and generic with adverts evidently targeting the elder part of the population (those are the ones with money aren't they?). Could the RSPB ask its members what they want to see in it or at least not send a copy if it wasn't wanted?

The annual review tells us that 40% of funds go towards conservation research/policy and advisory services whilst 35% go to conservation on reserves and 3% on acquisition. Its not clear where the playgrounds and coffee shops and the like fit in. If the research/policy/advisory side of things cost so much time and money could the RSPB offer consultancy service as revenue generator, even as a sub-organisation? Why not? These are tough times!

I have been to the last few British Birdwatching Fairs and the RSPB stand is one I avoid because it’s draped similarly to the generic shops of squeaky toys and the like, not the hard evidence of what the RSPB is doing for birds and habitat, all the good work. Those at the fair should already be sold on the RSPB and a bit of reciprocating information on what has been achieved through supporting the organisation would be good for those with more than a passing interest.

So having said that I'm expecting a few folk to tell me to put up and shut up, but, is there scope for review? Is there opportunity for, dare I say, 'another' body possibly giving greater weight to procurement and safeguard of good sites for birds? I see around the world small organisations really struggling to protect specific sites but it seems that sometimes more is done with less, or at least done with greater focus.

Sorry if there's another similar thread, I couldn't find it.

 

[moose1991]

Perhaps you should email that to the RSPB , I'm sure they'd welcome the feedback.

We're a family of 5 & we havent been to a reserve for ages also my teenage daughter isnt interested in birds at all anymore.
I still pay up cos I hope my money is doing a litlte bit to help birds & wildlife.

 

[mjh73]

From memory the RSPB mag was like that 30-odd years ago, when I was a young nipper in the YOC and my Dad was in the RSPB. Can't imagine anything much has changed.
I used to do one or two volunteering 'holidays' a year with the RSPB through the 90's, and regularly helped out at one reserve at weekends for a couple of years. Selling memberships was a key task for any visitor centre time (although I preferred being up to my neck in mud clearing ditches or similar!)

The upshot is the RSPB is hugely successful because it is populist and largely non-threatening to the great conservative masses of the UK middle class. The bland mag and the coffee shops and cuddly toys are part of this equation- and have been for as long as I can remember!

Because of this is has a huge membership, political influence and a good war chest to purchase land and undertake other protection activities.

Good luck with your other body that has no coffee shops, playgrounds or coffee table magazines. I suspect it won't be anywhere near as successful in raising money. And money is what enables the RSPB so achieve so much.

 

[davercox]

I have a lot of sympathy with what you say, Baillon's Crack, but I think mjh73 has got it right. I recall my non-birding Mum giving up her membership over 30 years ago because the magazine was full of adverts for non-birdy stuff "I don't want to give my money for that rubbish". But it does appear to work for the majority: and, as Peter Scott taught us over 60 years ago, the only path to success in conservation is to gain the support of the public, by whatever means it takes (I have heard similar criticisms of WWT).
Maybe your county Wildlife Trust might get your more whole-hearted support ?

 

[Stevie babe]

To an extent I agree with you BC but they are big enough and powerful enough to buy (or create) land to develop reserves. (Wallesea Island)
The RSPB is probably the only private organisation that has the power to make people who matter take notice that a Thames Estuary airport is not a viable option. (Wallasea Island must stick in Boris Johnson's throat, I hope)

I find that the RSPB magazine sometimes over political although recently it's been a bit more readable but much of what is written is just a re-write of earlier articles.

I do not think enough funds go to 'protection' but the same can be said of all the major charitable organisations. However the development of shops with a cafeteria as part of it also raises money. For instance, the last time I went to Pulborough the cafe was full, mostly of people that were not going to walk around the reserve. Those that did and were not members had to pay to enter. Other reserves have no shop, no gate checks and thererfore no additional income.

Swings and roundabouts in the end.

IMO it is better to be an RSPB member than not.

 

[Bob Philpott]

BC, You are right in raising issues like this and it would be a pity if any organisation, RSPB or other, ignored such comments. On balance I agree with the other comments that the organisation through its membership numbers is big enough to get things done. That does mean that everything it does will not be agreeable to every member but I dont see a way to join and say "I will only sign up to X,Y or Z". It is quite often the more commercial activities that are able to support your X, Y or Z.

The RSPB stand at the Bird Fair is large and at one end has a shop selling fluffy toys, cards etc and that is how they make their money. More importantly it has staff members standing there ready to discuss issues such as those raised in this thread.

Membership is important to the RSPB, they may be a land wealthy organisation but are not cash wealthy. The finances will show you they only retain about 9 or 10 weeks finances to run the Society. This is in accord with the Charity Commission guidelines but it does mean membership recruitment is a high priority and they need to recruit about a 10th of the membership each year to stay static.

It is very easy to criticise the RSPB on individual issues but I do think you need to look at the overall organisation and what it manages to achieve. It would be a shame to leave it on the grounds that they have built a coffee shop when that investment allows them to attract numbers of people and the useable cash that comes with it. I would accept that most members and visitors are not 'birders' in the sense that this forum might understand the term.

I do need to declare an interest here as I spent 5 years on the Council of the RSPB but even I can find areas where I would be critical of the organisation. We all have our own individual likes and dislikes.

 

[Nightranger]

I have a lot of sympathy with what you say, Baillon's Crack, but I think mjh73 has got it right. I recall my non-birding Mum giving up her membership over 30 years ago because the magazine was full of adverts for non-birdy stuff "I don't want to give my money for that rubbish". But it does appear to work for the majority: and, as Peter Scott taught us over 60 years ago, the only path to success in conservation is to gain the support of the public, by whatever means it takes (I have heard similar criticisms of WWT).
Maybe your county Wildlife Trust might get your more whole-hearted support ?

This is and always been a difficult one for the RSPB to address because the magazine goes to publishers before it is issued. The RSPB can determine the layout of the magazine but the adverts (and inserts ) partially pay the costs of publication. I doubt subscriptions would come anywhere near being able to pay for the magazine so it is an oiffset compromise.

However, I have just raised this subject with Mark Avery (like myself, now ex-RSPB) in that the NGOs seem to be rapidly falling out of touch with the general public. No need to go into details here (it should have been a good subject for the local Wildlife Trust, BTW) but I contacted all the organisations about what is a considerable conservation concern in the UK that could get significantly worse if the Coalition introduces certain measures. Not only did I receive no detailed replies, I only received two acknowledgements (one from Wildlife Enquiries at the RSPB and one from a local BTO rep'). At the moment, I am working just P/T as an offset to claiming JSA so I have a limited income. Once I am working again, I would like to join one or more of the organisations but the lack of responses hardly fills me with love and joy.

 

[winkle]

I have been having similar thoughts for a while now.

After finding out that RSPB are pulling out of Elmly after 30 years, and being told that it will allow them to concentrate on Rainhaim Marshes as a replacement, I went and had a look at Rainham. There is no way, on any level, that Rainham can replace Elmly.

Birders of a certain age will remember Dungeness when there were 1000's of pairs of terns nesting there along with Med and BH Gulls. Today there are none on Burrow's Pit. Yes, populations have declined; yes there was the badger 'problem', but it does not excuse the fact that the islands were allowed to scrub over. During that time the resourses were found to build a shiny new visitor centre, but not to rid the islands of scrub. I can't speak for anyone else, but I prefered it when Dungeness had the terns and a portacabin as a visitor centre.

This is not the only RSPB reserve that has seen the funds being found for a shop and cafe, yet simple habitat management appears to have been put to oneside.

OK I guess I'm a dinosaur; I started birding when a reserve with a loo was innovative. I accept that things have moved on and there is a need to attract 'the unconverted' to reserves and they will expect the facilites and the RSPB the welcome revenue that they generate, but the management of the sites for their wildlife interest should come first and for a few years now this does not appear to be the case.

 

[JTweedie]

I wrote to the RSPB and asked them to give members a choice about whether to receive a paper or electronic version of Birds (I would prefer the latter), but they replied and said they had no plans to do so.

With over a million members, a lot of paper is used in their production, plus the plastic used to wrap them in, plus the cost of posting them out to all those members.

An electronic version would have the same costs in terms of production, but minus the costs of buying the paper, getting it printed and despatching it out.

The reason they don't intend to do an electronic version I think is because they then won't be able to send out all the junk that comes with it.