• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

RSPB proposes cuts? (1 Viewer)

These bits on the RSPB website:



and this…



… sound like a mealy-mouthed euphemism for getting rid of reserves. If true, that would be truly spectacular and colossal mismanagement. The RSPB getting rid of reserves is a bit like a zoo deciding to shoot its animals. It sends completely the wrong message. How much would it cost to have a minimal caretaking service? A few visits from a warden now and then? Not much.

Reducing provision for schoolchildren is completely insane as well. What is the average age of visitors to the average RSPB reserve? 60? The only way the RSPB is going to have any members after 2050 is if there is proactive outreach to young people. Good luck making a difference for wildlife if every reserve turns into an open air retirement home.
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 🙂
 
My reading of some of the RSPB forums / FB groups is that the reaction is the other way - "if the organisation is closing facilities I will cease my memberahip" which of course would send it into a tailspin of vicious circles.
I hope that is not true. As birders, we should primarily be paying for the conservation effort, not the consumer convenience. In my view.
 
Wondering whether they've perhaps been living beyond their means. 1.2m members & i'm assuming a very well paid CEO makes you wonder whether the funds have been put to the best possible use
 
Honestly, I give up. Much of this thread profoundly irritates me: not something that happens often on BirdForum.

The RSPB is an immensely valuable institution which has made remarkable contributions to bird conservation in our densely populated country. It now faces financial difficulties (like most other UK individuals, companies and institutions). Rather than snidely questioning and critiquing them, we should be working out how we can help.

I'm going to turn off my mobile, have a cup of coffee, calm my nerves. Have a good day y'all.
 
Wondering whether they've perhaps been living beyond their means. 1.2m members & i'm assuming a very well paid CEO makes you wonder whether the funds have been put to the best possible use
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"
 
Whatever they do, there will be people who will argue it is the wrong choice. For example, 25 or so years ago I was Chairman of a local members group; we wanted to make a significant donation to the nearest reserve; the project that most needed funds was a new car park!
 
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 🙂

The RSPB being a big and important charity doesn’t give them a free pass from receiving constructive criticism. If anything their size and importance makes it even more important to keep them pointing in the right direction.
 
Absolutely. Clearly however there is a % of the membership who view it simply as a financial transaction to access reserves, cafes and parking.

Is that a bad thing? The RSPB gets money, and people get (even a passing) exposure to nature. I would be happy with that. How many families with kids, for example, would come if there was just a hide and an information board? Not many.
 
What information is there out there detailing the 10% increase in the running costs and where the increases manifest themselves. In general terms, like many, I am in a position where perhaps I could contribute more towards the RSPB.

My personal red lines in doing so - as with any conservation organisation - would be that they do not part with land and they do not part with conservation based employees particularly young ones.

The information currently made available to me falls short of what would convince me to donate more.


All the best

Paul
 
Last edited:
The picture from Dungeness only seems to show RSPB branded optics.
The RSPB website and physical shops have the same pricing structure.
The only advantage of buying at the shop is that you don’t have to wait for the product or worry that it might get damaged in transit.
If I remember correctly the same product bought from Viking (RSPB stuff is pretty much re-badged Viking stuff) is priced slightly differently.
 
I think that most are familiar with the increase in shops and similar on Reserves. It seems to have been a senior management focus over the last several years.

The retail trade and indeed the cafe trade is difficult and it requires expert decision-making to make any money. Superficially attractive but fraught with challenges and bear traps.

I doubt anyone would see the closure of a loss-making shop as an issue and I expect that most birders would probably have voted for Dungeness RSPB Reserve to keep its hides and never had a shop at that location in any event.

Whilst I wouldn't want to upset anyone who feels that we shouldn't ask any questions nor criticise any decisions despite the fanfare over financial challenges, I suggest that others read the Mark Avery blog posts and the comments around the last 2019 review, the changes in headcount and salary since, the pensions issues, etc rather than suggest there is an absence of any credible reports of senior management failure without doing so.

If you really want to maintain that position, best not to read in particular Rob Lucking's comment to Mark's blog post and the analysis based on the publicly available figures or talk to anyone with real experience about tough decision-making on final salary schemes, cost of redundancy exercises, etc.

Regardless of Charity, volunteers, etc, a failure to engage in constructive analysis and debate is exactly how you ensure ongoing sub-optimal outcomes. The worry are the comments that the new leadership may lack credible experience of grass roots conservation.

It seems that there is some back pedalling over losing Reserves. Thankfully...

The RSPB's stance on parting with some Reserves had matched my recent experience of our local Wildlife Trust. Of course, that can look superficially sensible - larger areas having most impact, more effective use of money, etc - but in reality that is hollow nonsense and simply shows that you have lost your soul and your direction in my view. Find another way and ensure that you have some red lines based on principle.

All the best

Paul
 
Last edited:
There is a great deal I could say about the state of the RSPB but choose not to in order to limit damage to a struggling conservation body.

I used to hold the organisation in high esteem but long personal experience with them has left me shaking my head in disbelief at the absolute state of the charity; colossal amounts of wasted money, missed opportunities, the awful treatment of volunteers and some deeply hypocritical, unsustainable practises while the calibre of certain personnel - who might as well be packing biscuits in a factory as working in the wildlife sector - leaves a lot to be desired. If I visit a garage I expect the staff to have a passion for vehicles and a working knowledge of mechanical engineering at the very least. And if I visit a reserve I would like to think the staff are knowledgeable and keen on nature conservation. Sadly this isn’t always the case.

Trying to discuss matters with people to express my worrying experiences fell on deaf ears and had me treated like a scapegoat with zero due diligence involved and a total disregard for myself and my concerns.

The only reason I’m still a member (and I first joined the YOC as a youth!) is because some staff are passionate, competent ornithologists and conservationists who do a fantastic job at certain reserves. The opposite also applies.

I reckon that certain individuals who have left huge legacies to RSPB to purchase and maintain reserves must be quite literally turning in their graves. The very idea of selling off reserves during a massive biodiversity crisis is literally insane.

It’s a sad state of affairs and I truly hope things improve. It will take passionate, skilled and committed individuals listening to the members who pay their wages and working together to steer the organisation back on track.

Good Birding

Andrew.
 
The Cornwall Birds email newsletter contains the news that the RSPB is giving up Marazion Marsh - but hopefully it can be taken over by another body.
 
I always assumed that the shops and cafes were intended to generate extra income that could be used for conservation. If they are actually losing money, then by all means close them down asap!
 
I was forwarded this whilst I was in Oman:-


"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
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!

Following the recruitment of Beccy Speight and the then Director of Human Resources, Anne Kiceluk put into action a "10 year Transformation Programme"of the RSPB. New jobs in"wellbeing"were advertised with vague job descriptions in Equality Diversity and Inclusion, unconscious bias training introduced for staff all costing millions in salaries over the planned 10 year period. The RSPB moved at this point from a science based organisation to an emphasis on social and political activism. A hypersensitivity to political correctness followed we saw how the RSPB supported Gay Pride. Politics was carefully avoided by the RSPB as it did not want to alienate members by showing any political bias. We have clearly seen the example too of the appalling treatment by the RSPB of Dr Paul Morrison in 2022 as a result of this social activism within the Society.

The leadership is weak having fallen for this persuasive but highly political woke ideology which has infiltrated the society. A new CEO is needed who prioritises and believes in science and whom the most senior member of staff is "Director of Conservation." Clarity with job descriptions and responsibility are needed instead of this vague management speak vacuous nothingness. I cancelled my considerable legacy to the RSPB in dispair at the utter unpleasant destructive costly nonsense that is woke ideology.
Best wishes Wendy Pye-Smith







.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top