• 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)

Bigshent

Bigshent

Biddulph Birder
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 but I feel my money could go else where. If things were not so tight I would join all but that isn't the case. I limit myself to 2 WWT and RSPB

Anyone else feel the same or am I becoming Victor Meldrew before my time:-C
 
No I agree with you.

The RSPB seem, presently, to be losing their way in my opinion and apart from the Simon Barnes article plus the plastic waste one I was not very impressed with the new magazine. For me the BTO mag. is streets ahead.

I am a member of RSPB but have decided to leave, but will support directly their bird crime investigation unit so that my money is at least focussed where I think it should be.

It will be interesting to see how the fate of the RSPB evolves over the next few years and also the direction which they choose to take. They seem to be spending a fair amount on advertising for new members at the moment and good luck with that!

I preferred RSPB when they were upper case, bird names were spelled starting with capital letters and they were a straightforward bird protection and conservation society; I reckon that if the general negative trend in bird population indices could somehow be reversed then biodiversity would also be enhanced.

Tony
 
tperry said:
No I agree with you.

The RSPB seem, presently, to be losing their way in my opinion and apart from the Simon Barnes article plus the plastic waste one I was not very impressed with the new magazine. For me the BTO mag. is streets ahead.

I am a member of RSPB but have decided to leave, but will support directly their bird crime investigation unit so that my money is at least focussed where I think it should be.

It will be interesting to see how the fate of the RSPB evolves over the next few years and also the direction which they choose to take. They seem to be spending a fair amount on advertising for new members at the moment and good luck with that!

I preferred RSPB when they were upper case, bird names were spelled starting with capital letters and they were a straightforward bird protection and conservation society; I reckon that if the general negative trend in bird population indices could somehow be reversed then biodiversity would also be enhanced.

Tony
Click to expand...

That is a good point there, Tony.

With this apparent change in the focus of the RSPB, I wonder if they are angling for the membership of the Local Wildlife Trusts?
 
The PB bit has always been for the protection of birds not the promotion of birdwatching. Bird populations cannot be protected in isolation from the environment that support the birds and their foodstuffs, nesting places etc.

It is of course your money to do with as you please, but the BTO would have far fewer birds to produce learned papers on (with or without capital letters) without the work of the RSPB.
 
I think the reasoning behind the broadening of the RSPB's remit is good - you can't defend and protect birds in isolation from their wider ecological context. But I'm disappointed with the new President (as I was with the last) as both women, accomplished as they may be, are there to be bland celebrity figureheads. Mustn't upset anyone!!! And the mag has been poor for some time. Even Barnes repeats himself. And Linda Barker? PLEASE!!!
 
I dont think RSPB have lost their way at all - they've just changed their look to try to broaden their appeal. Lets face it, there are a lot more non birders out there than there are birders, so why would they have us as their target market? The RSPB still do excellent work for conservation of birds and other wildlife - so I'm prepared to overlook the fact that their magazine isn't aimed at me.

In fact, I'm surprised that anyone is voicing their disappointment with the new magazine. I've always been disappointed with the RSPB magazine as it's aimed at kids and grannies with inheritances to dish out. Note though that this in no way diminishes the breadth and quality of the conservation work the RSPB does.

The fact that their magazine is dumbed down and their appeal is broadened doesn't mean that they will stop protecting birds. As I've mentioned elsewhere, you can support the RSPB for the price of one less pint a month. And you can opt out of receiving the magazine if it winds you up that much. We are privileged in this country to have one of the worlds largest, and most powerful conservation groups representing our wildlife. We should support it.
 
I agree with Paul -blast it, Mark! Got me again.

The BTO is a research organisation, the RSPB are conservation activists. If you want birds protected keep paying the RSPB whether or not you like anything in their magazine, shops or Christmas catalogue.

As for their current president she is a professional with relevant qualifications and experience. I would struggle to hit more than one out of those three.

John
 
Think as well about the strength of that membership - with over 1 million members that's a lot of voices that can be used to lobby government about anti-wildlife policies. The RSPB is very good at that kind of work, and I think the strength of its membership supports this.
 
Chris Fishwick said:
Hi,
That's your opinion! My experience is to the contrary. The RSPB nowadays are an organisation that jumps into bed with anyone that will enrich them financially.

Their abysmal record for fighting environmental & conservation issues is lamentable nowadays. IMHO.

BTW

I was a member for over 35 years until I realised where they were going:C As for a million voices don't you believe it! (not taken into consideration at all) Members don't get a say.

ATB

Chris
Click to expand...

The RSPB (among other organisations) has held up the Severn barrage until its folly could become plain. The RSPB has influenced the Kent high speed rail links to avoid devastation to the North Kent marshes. The RSPB is fighting both Boris Island (the repeat of the Foulness airport madness) and the Lydd expansion. The RSPB owns and operates Titchwell, Minsmere, Dungeness, Rainham, Handa, Strathbeg..... The RSPB's species protection people can't be everywhere, but their list of successful investigations and prosecutions is immense.

How dare you say members don't get a say as if that matters. This is about stuff that joe public has no idea how to do or influence or fight for. The RSPB is an organisation of dedicated, expert, passionate people who use their skills and experience. Members don't need a say, they need to back the organisation 1000% and keep its blade at the throat of those who will stomp wildlife into the ground the moment it loses its grip on the issues.

Most of us have the odd issue with the RSPB, but if you think there is anything better - or that they are not truly Nature's Voice in the UK - you are in a dreamworld. You do what you like, but they've got my annual subscription till I die.

John
 
How ironic to see your message as i as just about to post something very similar!!! I have been a member for 40 years ( since i was 11) and have long felt that the society was dumbing down. Birds magazine was already a shadow of its former self and the latest incarnation is little more than soundbites with negligible journalism and photo features of the type we once relished. it now looks much like the National Trust magazine whereas it once resembled the high quality product offered monthly by the RHS

i raised this with an RSPB local leader the other day who politely suggested that perhaps the RSPB was not for proper birders like me and that maybe i should join the BTO!!!!

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!
 
Great sides to both stories. Me joining the BTO instead of RSPB isn't going to effect the organisation because every birder they lose they will gain 10 other members. But BTO won't get the general public as interested. I don't doubt that RSPB do fantastic work and money buys power so I see them becoming stronger with there changes. At least I'm not the only Victor Meldrew then:t:
 
Crikey - it seems there really are people out there who join the RSPB for, and judge it by, the magazine it sends out!
 
Fat Paul Scholes said:
Crikey - it seems there really are people out there who join the RSPB for, and judge it by, the magazine it sends out!
Click to expand...

It is rather depressing!! Been a member over 20 years and can't remember the last time I read the magazine. Having worked for the RSPB for a few years you soon realise how much work goes on behind the scenes and how important membership money is to them, I can't believe 'birders' would chose not to be a member!
 
I have been a member for well over 40 years and hopefully they will get another similar time out of me. You do have to look at what they do overall and it is so much that it easy to criticise one individual aspect or other. I have been in the odd argument with people where one person was arguing the RSPB wasn't supporting one viewpoint whilst another person was complaining that the RSPB was supporting it too much.

I am sure the BTO would say it exists as a scientific based organisation and not a protection organisation per se and it is damn good at what it does.

We need them both.
 
Last edited:
What we really need is government dept. for Environmental Protection, that actually protects what is should. We should not have to rely on charity to do the job that the government should be doing. In other countries around the world the governments run such departments.
 
Well, there are plenty of what are called 'arms length' bodies that certainly advise the government on environmental issues. Whether a government pays them any attention though depends upon whatever shower of shite is currently in power. And while the UK government is not without issue (far from it, of course) I should imagine that there are a lot of other countries have worse environmental records than we do

One of the great things about the RSPB though is that they have the clout to challenge the decisions that the government makes, especially in terms of European law, which defines a fair bit of current conservation legislation.

We need the RSPB. We absolutely need the RSPB!
 
Well RSPB is all about birds and their habitat and other wildlife around them. If you want to look after Birds then you have to help protect their habitat that's what The RSPB focuses on now.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 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.

Similar threads

condor1992
Winter 2022-23 and my hopes for this winter
Replies
0
Views
526
condor1992
condor1992
K
Fledgling Torresian crow death
Replies
3
Views
632
01101001
01101001
P
Need help with baby mistle thrush
Replies
8
Views
903
Penejon
P
A
Does anyone know the rules regarding large scale removal of mature trees/ hedgerows in relation to planning/ building?
Replies
13
Views
800
Andy Lakin
A
SueO
Devoted Kingbird Parents
Replies
2
Views
567
SueO
SueO

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top