As a BTO member I recently got an email full of interesting information about that excellent organisation and including a link on the differences between the BTO and the RSPB.
The impression you might get from this is that the BTO does the science and the RSPB uses the BTO’s science to change the world. There is some truth in that, although it tells only a small part of the story.
Look at the results this year from the RSPB on bittern numbers – a good example of where RSPB science has been used on the ground to make massive changes to the management of sites to the benefit of an endangered species. There are many such RSPB examples of science into action – corncrake, stone curlew, bittern, cirl bunting and black grouse at home and vultures, bald ibis and sociable lapwing abroad (to name but a few).
Both organisations do excellent science and the BTO should have more confidence in the excellence of the work that it has always done, and increasingly does, than to compare itself with the RSPB. Who cares what the RSPB is up to if the BTO is doing its stuff well? Although it did make me wonder, as an ex Head of Research at the RSPB, what such a comparison would show.
If you add up those scientific papers published by both organisations that would be counted on the Web of Science then you get the following table for the last 20 years:
| Year | RSPB papers | BTO papers |
| 1991 | 10 | 11 |
| 1992 | 15 | 19 |
| 1993 | 12 | 12 |
| 1994 | 18 | 14 |
| 1995 | 13 | 20 |
| 1996 | 13 | 12 |
| 1997 | 22 | 23 |
| 1998 | 33 | 26 |
| 1999 | 29 | 28 |
| 2000 | 31 | 33 |
| 2001 | 32 | 27 |
| 2002 | 40 | 18 |
| 2003 | 41 | 17 |
| 2004 | 60 | 39 |
| 2005 | 58 | 41 |
| 2006 | 77 | 53 |
| 2007 | 77 | 50 |
| 2008 | 62 | 28 |
| 2009 | 65 | 43 |
| 2010 | 73 | 52 |
This doesn’t tell you that much, except for the last 10 years the RSPB output of published papers has been higher than that of the BTO. But it really doesn’t tell you much.
Speaking as a committed member of both organisations, I wouldn’t expect either of them to be judging themselves by the number of scientific papers they publish (although it is an interesting and somewhat useful measure managerially). I want the BTO to be harnessing the work of amateurs like myself (and they are, and better than ever) and the RSPB to be saving species (which it is – despite the enormous difficulty involved).
If I were at the BTO I would compare myself not with a conservation organisation like the RSPB (because the BTO really is not a conservation organisation) but with organisations in the USA like the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. I was struck by the similarities of the approaches and difficulties facing both organisations when I visited Cornell in May, and I was glad to hear that staff from the two organisations met and talked around the Bird Fair and intend to continue those discussions.
[registration_form]
It is good to see conservation organisations working together. This is vital and much more cooperative working in the coming years will be needed, both at home and overseas. It is good to see the current example of conservation organisations together against these very bad planning proposals. (See my comment today Mark on your blog yesterday on these proposed planning changes). As regards overseas conservation problems, I think there are also increasing opportunities for the RSPB and the BTO to work together and with such organisations as Fauna and Flora International and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). I hope these opportunities are grasped as it will mean that consevation world wide is more effective as a whole.
Alan – I think many would be slightly surprised at how much joint working there is – probably more than is apparent! But I’d agree totally that working together is often the way forward. Thanks for your comments.
Mark – Like you, we, my wife and I, are keen supporters of the BTO and the RSPB. We helped with twelve tetrads in the Atlas, have contributed to the GBW for many years, enjoy the BTO Conference at Swanwick and even sponsor a cuckoo! I read the article when it was published and had another look this morning and, unusually, I take issue with you about the thrust of the argument. I thought that it was very positive and correctly identified the different roles of the organisations. It does disturb me that I sometimes get the feeling that birders polarise into one camp or the other and I wonder how many members belong to both organisations. I’m sure that a significant proportion of Atlas participants were RSPB members!
Harking back to your Isle of May blog and gannets, I was sorry that the BTO dropped the gannets from it’s logo and replaced them with a rather nondescript dickiebird (dumbing down?).
My only contact with the BTO was when we got a years free membership with scope we bought and when we went to a local BTO we were totally ignored the person not even looking up from his screen and welcoming us.Needless to say we did not join and if you compare that to the way Paul and Rob at RSPB connect with visitors then feel sad that the BTO simply must miss recruiting lots of interested bird enthusiasts.
Eek ! the sound of slightly crushed toes from the ex head of RSPB Research ! But I agree that whilst BTO may need to explain where it differs from RSPB – most notably in its pure science role which enables it, for example, to produce science for Songbird Survival which RSPB could never do – both RSPB and BTO research is excellent & vital – and RSPB’s often more applied approach has produced some real successes for birds like Bitterns.
Its a bit like politics, they might appear to be in different camps but work together in the background (don’t they). I think Richard is right in the public perception of the different conservation organisations, they have joint projects but the later press release always focusses on the individual organisations and I suppose that is called marketing. For me the main point is that they do work together.
Dennis, You have had a bad time with the BTO but keep trying even it is only putting your records on BirdTrack (another of those joint projects that people think is simply a BTO one).
Bob – well said!
I think you simply have to applaud both organisations for their constant efforts and endeavours to both preserve and conserve nature. The main differences are obvious, but are complimentary and beneficial. Reading Dennis’s post, then of course the BTO is much less of a commercially orientated enterprise than the RSPB, catering more for the scientific orientated than the excellent marketing strategy of mass appeal as undertaken by the RSPB. But, as previously mentioned, they compliment each other well and the level of cooperation is certainly much improved from the old days.
Peter – youa re quite right. Good comment!
As a long term member of both organisations I think that they are both excellent and do different things for the good of our bird life. I would hope that most of us are members and contributors to both RSPB and BTO there is little doubt that our bird life needs the knowledge and science of both.
Paul – I’m glad that, like me, you are a long-term member of both the BTo and the RSPB. I think that both are great!