It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people jump to criticise. You must surely understand the immense challenges of managing an organisation of this type? As far as I'm aware, there have been no plausible reports of major management failure: it's just a VERY challenging economic environment. Personally, I think a more helpful response is to consider whether we might be able to up our monthly sub 🙂
I hope that is not true. As birders, we should primarily be paying for the conservation effort, not the consumer convenience. In my view.
The RSPB have made it clear they face a marked increase in annual running costs - up 10% (£15m) from memory. If they had a low paid CEO the argument would be put back "well this is what happens when you have amateurs running large organisations"
Absolutely. Clearly however there is a % of the membership who view it simply as a financial transaction to access reserves, cafes and parking.
So these reserves are only for 'birders'?
The reserves are for birds and wildlife, which is what the donations should be spent on, if cafes and shops can't pay for themselves they should be shut.
Hi Paul, having been a member of the RSPB for many years and following my own research, the RSPB was respected for its excellent scientific research, "science saves time" was the fundamental approach of the Charity followed by land purchase or if neccesary advocacy to government to pursade of the crucial environmental protection needed for a piece of land or to pursade members of why a land purchase was neccesary. It was excellent at fund raising. The Society avoided being political out of respect for the likely broad political persuasions of its members which it respected. Great care to answer questions raised about expenditure choices of the society at the AGM or members weekends. The Equalities Act too had been fully implimented too by Catriona Corefield by 2015 and accepted as the case in all four regions. Clear to see the wide appeal and desire already of bringing members in whatever their colour race or creed all of us having a love and joy of nature and conservation. Programmes in social media and televion clearly showing everyone is loved and welcomed by the RSPB!I was forwarded this whilst I was in Oman:-
Rainham Marshes is one of SIXTY nature reserves across the country facing cuts
Rainham Marshes is one of 60 RSPB nature reserves facing proposed cuts, the Recorder can reveal.www.romfordrecorder.co.uk
"However, a document seen by the Recorder reveals the extent of planned cuts across the country, as the charity attempts to make "annual savings of £12m"."
"The scale of change is described as "significant", with more than 380 people directly affected through their "role ceasing or changing significantly" and 86 people indirectly affected."
"A total of 32 RSPB reserves are planned to be "mothballed" or "disposed" of completely - including RSPB Rye Meads, near Harlow, and Church Wood, in Slough....
Part of the proposed changes includes the scrapping of the Schools on Reserves programme at 14 reserves - such as at Rainham Marshes."
As I understand it, there is a pensions blackhole? An area with which I have a degree of experience. Also back in the days of working for a living, as a newly appointed Finance Partner, I had to oversee an exercise with almost a similar amount of annual savings to save the solvency of the Firm.
I saw a connection in the story with various elements of direct mail that I had received as part of my membership for instance on cut price RSPB Lifetime Membership.
This type of situation requires mature and calm leadership. In general, my experience is that the charity wildlife sector lack these skills. My local reserve was Rye Meads. I know how "cheaply" it could be made accessible in the 1980s.
My "prejudice" (I prefer experience) towards this sector can already be found in many places but there is hope in new elements showing an interest in wildlife restoration.
All the best
Paul
