The 122nd RSPB AGM was held in London on Saturday morning. I think I have attended about 25 of them.
An AGM sounds dull, and it obviously isn’t a bundle of laughs, but it is more interesting than most AGMs.
Now I don’t have to answer any of them, I like the difficult questions from the audience best – but they come a little later in events.
The AGM starts with two reports – from the Chairman of Council (Prof Steven Ormerod) and the outgoing Treasurer (Alan Martin) – beautiful images on screen and well-presented talks. Much more interesting than most AGMs. Including a well-worded admission of the failure of the Henderson Island rat eradication programme – so close and yet so far. It was, as the Treasurer said, a project worth doing and a brave attempt. The RSPB hopes to go back and finish the job.
Then there were difficult questions: is the pension scheme in trouble? (No); is the RSPB doing anything about gas flares killing migrant birds? (Yes); why were members paid to be in focus groups? (not sure that really got an answer to the specific question – just to the generality); would the RSPB like an airport in the Thames Estuary? (Hell, no!); does predator control help endangered curlews? (Sometimes, yes); is the RSPB against birds of prey being killed? (Yes and we support vicarious liability – cough, cough); how do you get more young people involved? (Lots of ways!).
The most dogged of questioners though, was the returning Mr Bushlogwood, from Barnet (as was another questioner – they are a feisty lot in Barnet it seems). Mr Bushlogwood is still exercised about the plan to put a wind turbine at the RSPB HQ at Sandy. He asked that this should be put before the membership as a referendum or, if not, then debated here at the AGM. Now, I don’t agree with Mr Bushlogwood but I admire his determination on this point. It takes a certain amount of nerve to get to your feet in front of c700 people and take on the RSPB and I admire his determination in doing so.
Mr Bushlogwood came and had a chat with me at the end of the AGM and says he reads this blog – and spotted his mention last year – so he’ll be reading this too, I guess.
I think he’s wrong, or at least I disagree with him, on the particular case of the Lodge wind turbine (but I’d defend (not to the death (not mine anyway)) his right to make his points). He did also say that he thought that the decision-making was undemocratic. Well, in a way it is.
RSPB staff are a bit like the Civil Service – they suggest good ideas to their elected masters. For civil servants the elected masters are government ministers who are selected by the PM from elected MPs – elected by us. For the RSPB the elected masters are Council members elected by we RSPB members. Three new Council members were elected, unopposed, at this AGM.
Mr Bushlogwood could try to elected to RSPB Council so that he can have a bigger say in things – I wouldn’t be voting for him, but I’d defend etc etc etc
Just as we don’t have a referendum on badger culling, whether NE should come clean about Walshaw Moor, whether NE should come clean on the final locations of tagged hen harriers and any number of other of my hobbyhorses, we won’t see the RSPB having a referendum on the Lodge wind turbine – and nor should we. You elect the decision-making body and then they make decisions – you can criticise the decisions but your route to change is through the electoral process.
Having said that, many NGOs could do a bit better in being clear about their policies and how they have arrived at them – I’m sure the RSPB is giving that some thought.
If Mr Bushlogwood would like to attempt a Guest Blog here I’ll have a look at it and decide whether to publish it – even though I don’t agree with him.
Moving on – the new RSPB President, replacing Kate Humble, is Miranda Krestovnikoff. She was present at the AGM and handed out some prizes and came over to say hello to me. I imagine she’ll be very good – good luck to her!
The RSPB gives awards, President’s Awards, to volunteers who have served the Society well over the years and also the prestigious RSPB Medal to a big achiever in nature conservation (see here for an incomplete list and here for last year’s winners). This year the Medal went to Prof Bob Watson.
Prof Watson was in the USA on Saturday but there was an excellent video of him accepting the Medal and saying nice things about the RSPB. I hope the RSPB puts this on their website. Bob Watson is a very worthy winner indeed.
Humour me, I’m going to tell you an anecdote about Bob Watson. He used to phone me up quite often – by accident. I kept getting these calls from a number I didn’t recognise with unintelligible talking in the background. I would listen for a while and then dismiss the call – they were clearly accidental. But then one day it happened again and the voices were much clearer, and I recognised Bob Watson’s characteristic tones. Of course I didn’t listen in – not for long anyway, but I did harbour a hope that one day his phone would dial me up when he was in mid-conversation with Gordon Brown or David Cameron – that would have been fun.
There were also two mentions of groins at the AGM – I fear standards may be slipping.
But the big news, the really big news, is that next year, the RSPB AGM (25 October 2014) will be in Birmingham! I just wonder whether all those irate people from Barnet, including Mr Bushlogwood, have seen off the RSPB from the capital? It’s a good idea to move the event around the country – not democratic exactly, but a move in the right direction.
There was a jay, with an acorn, flying over the Conference Centre when I arrived – it must be autumn.
[registration_form]
What, no comment about Nature’s Home? Perhaps I should have come.
Kate – perhaps you should have done. no, not a murmur.
But the pension scheme is in good nick, so that’s OK then?
Best ensure focus is placed entirely on Nature’s Home in future, retain and increase the membership. But then if the US defaults on it’s $18 trillion debt maybe it all becomes academic?
Reeta – the pension scheme isn’t in perfect nick. Like most, it has a large deficit – but nothing that a bout of inflation wouldn’t cure. Money that could be spent on conservation will have to go into the pension scheme because of legislation that says so – blame Robert Maxwell.
I know that Nature’s Home magazine is already arriving on doorsteps and I hear good things about it – mine isn’t here yet.
Nothing like sticking to tried and tested solutions I suppose. Create the illusion of a fix rather than an actual fix and never mind those that fall by the wayside! But for how much longer?
I always think there is something rather unedifying and mean spirited about those people who begrudge charity staff their pensions.
In my experience the staff employed by the RSPB (like those employed by other environmental NGOs) are, with some minor exceptions, a talented, hard-working and committed bunch who deserve every penny of the salaries and pensions that they are paid. They work long hours for low salaries (compared with most other professions) and mostly do so out of a sense of duty to protect and enhance the natural world. Most of them could just as easily jump ship to the private sector and earn at least 25% more, but they don’t.
The best way for the RSPB’s Trustees to ensure the organisation implodes would be to not play fair over the pension schemes that their hard-working staff are entitled to and not least have contributed to. This would no doubt completely undermine staff moral and in the long-term encourage a migration of talent to both the private sector and other NGOs.
If it means that less money has to be spent on conservation in order to rectify any pensions deficit then so be it. If it came to it then I think both the RSPB and UK nature conservation would be better served with a smaller conservation budget administered by bright, talented personnel it than they would be with a much larger budget administered by dross.
Ernest – I tend to agree (but I do need to declare an interest as a future recipient of an RSPB pension). And much of the need to ‘fill’ a pension deficit is to do with short-term measures of pension viability which i won’t bore you, anyone else, or myself with…
Nobody begrudges anybody the means to survive, just that it has to be earned. Suggesting that inflation would cure the rspb pension issue at the expense of millions of existing pensioners who go under seemed a tad mean spirited to me but that’s how the world has always worked and why its now in such a mess – as illustrated by the US shutdown and financial crisis.
It was my first AGM for about 5 years and I enjoyed it but it did seem a bit low key, the attendance seemed well down on what I remember from 2008. There was the usual displays and staff there but maybe not as many as before? I had some very interesting conversations with RSPB staff at this years Birdfair but not at the AGM sadly.
Mr Shrubb was quite badly behaved I thought. He was given the floor, asked his question, then when he didn’t get the answer he wanted proceeded to carry on with his monologue without the microphone. I thought it was quite disruptive.
North London does seem to be a hotbed of dissent, lets see if they travel to Birmingham!
Looking forward to the debate tonight.
Darren – the attendance is certainly a little lower than about 10 years ago but I guess there were 600 people there? That’s quite a lot for an AGM. Given that three of the eight questions were asked by people who regularly ask questions it is getting a little predictable.
I have, as I’ve said, some sympathy and admiration for Mr Shrubb (for that is his name). I don’t agree with his views, as I understand them anyway, but I admire his determination to get them heard. Did he behave badly? Bordering on badly, perhaps. But if he had behaved the same way in a Nazi rally or Communist Party meeting I might be saying what a hero he is. He was given a chance to put his views and he certainly took it, and may, just, have overstepped the mark.
Thinking back, the question that wasn’t answered was that about payment to members for participating in a focus group. Mike Clarke answered the generality, but not the specific, and clearly hoped that the relatively new Comms and Fundraising Director would hit the ball to the boundary, but she declined to say anything so the actual question was left hanging..in…the…air…
Dear Mr Bushlogwood,
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/dear-sir-badly-sited-wind-turbines-dont-make-sense-for-fuel-bill-payers/
I used to enjoy the AGM although being on stand duty meant I rarely got into the talks because it was difficult to get back out before everyone else. Mind you, I once ended up talking to a private pilot (he did not fancy the talks) so I talked to him for an hour and a half until his wife returned. I am only a pilot in the virtual world but like a lot of birders, I am interested in aircraft probably because I spend most of my life looking upwards (credit Graham Wilton Jones).
I am interested in the idea of democracy in NGO decision-making and perhaps this is a subject this blog could explore in the future given how often it comes up. It is a difficult question because human nature dictates that there will always be someone with a counter argument and not always based on a predetermined position or bias. For example, I doubt anyone other than the erstwhile mayor of London is in favour of a Thames estuary airport so the RSPB would be fairly guaranteed of good support to oppose the idea. This is not the case for divisive subjects such as wind farms or shale gas extraction and it begs the question of where or whether cut-off points should occur. Even the Thames airport will have its supporters and a majority opposition does not necessarily say an idea is wrong. [I should explain that I was one of the interested team members during the NO Airport At Cliffe campaign (see first paragraph) so I am not in any way supportive of a Thames airport – there are other alternatives but that is another question.] In other words, making every decision democratic to the membership would probably stop most things being done and worse, what happens to the members who were in the minority each time?
Mark, are sure it was not two mentions of groynes? 😉
Ian – thanks. And no, it was definitely groins, and i could tell you whose groins, but I won’t.
Thanks for reporting back, much appreciated.
I have some questions if you would be so kind.
I take it that there was no motion to turn the RSPB into the Royal Society for the Protection of Biodiversity ? That would have been interesting.
Any mention of the RSPB making cuts to its farm advice program ?
Any mention of cats ?
Was the question about Curlews asked by Lazywell ?
I may well attend next years meeting, I’m thinking of bringing along my friend Mr Rohan Brash-Kindling. He has a bee-in-his-bonnet about cats and would relish the opportunity to get a bit stroppy at the AGM. He can be quite entertaining providing he’s kept away from the sherry.
Ernest – no there was no mention of the cuts that are happening across most of the RSPB’s work in order to pay for the membership push and re-branding (unless they were so subtle that I missed them). It might be that, strictly speaking, they will be reported on in retrospect next year, or even the next year! Because it’s an AGM there is quite a lot of looking back and a bit of looking forward.
The question about curlews did indeed come from a regular reader and commenter on this blog.
No mention of a name change for the organisation. Cats were mentioned – the RSPB’s role in the lack of them on Ascension Island is the mention I can remember.
Mark, the point you make about cuts in the RSPBs work to fund the rebranding/membership drive is really interesting, and one to which I as a member didn`t realise (naively perhaps, as the money must come from somewhere…). It means that, for example, something like the Persecution Investigation team will have had to make cuts so that staff in the RSPBs shops & cafes can wear ever-so-slightly rebranded logos on their new polo shirts ! That is great that is !?
Lancastrian – that is an interesting point but as you probably know, rather unfairly made. If we said that RSPB communications to the world had been starved of funding for years just so that somebody could spend an unsuccessful night trying to catch a gamekeeper killing a buzzard that would be an unfair comparison too. Organisations have to decide on where to spend their money and you can’t spend it twice! Having said that, I hope that cuts to conservation work don’t cut too deep or last for too long.
OK Mark, fair point – there are two sides to every coin…I would like to know this then; the recent appeal for “Give Nature a Home” (or similar wording, I forget) – was our money used to fund actual work on nature reserves, or to pay for the TV campaign and to buy newly rebranded apparel ? I sincerely hope it was the former !
Lancastrian – that’s a question you should address to the RSPB. I don’t know the answer and it wouldn’t be my place to answer it even if I did!
I bet you know that fundraising is a funny business. Everybody wants ‘their’ money to fund the saving of a species whereas some of it has to be spent on cleaning the toilets. if the wildlife trusts or Oxfam (or RSPB) put out an appeal for ‘cleaning the toilets’ then it probably wouldn’t raise much money – but that work still has to be done. I imagine, that truly costed, the RSPB AGM probably costs money – but it still has to happen!
Talking about democracy, the whole issue of windfarms is highly significant. In my view both Mr Bushwoodlog and RSPB are right. RSPB, putting its money where its mouth is, didn’t simply oppose windfarms – because it believes in renewable energy – I supported the ‘right windfarm in the right place’. A position the onshore windfarm industry proceeded to do its best to trash – I assume the rather coy divorce between RSPB and SSE (no doubt there were all sorts of gagging clauses) was due to SSE going for windfarms in places RSPB couldn’t support – and the industry have tried to do the same in terms of landscape, proximity to peoples houses etc etc. They have not worked with bodies like RSPB or local communities but rather assumed that Government support and a lot of money thrown at the planning system will blast their proposals through it hasn’t worked and onshore wind is virtually dead. RSPB did the right thing – others didn’t, thus Mr Bushwoodlogs opposition – and if RSPB experts are convinced the turbine won’t hurt the birds at Sandy then they should go ahead and put it up – it is consistent with RSPB’s approach.
More widely, whilst Mark’s view of democracy is the dream of anyone running a large organisation (get elected then be allowed to get on with it) it isn’t actually how it works – ask David Cameron & Mohamed Morsi. You really do have to maintain some support for what you are doing and we are seeing a number of battles fought out in the countryside at the moment – will HS2 actually run, having built up a similar bowwave of opposition to onshore wind ? Exactly where will the badgers end ? farmers and government may feel they are winning at the moment – despite the badger moving the goalposts – but when even the wildlife is turning against you what are the prospects for the long term ? How long can NFU and MAFF/Defra stay balanced on their increasingly unsteady unicycle ? Having been there when upland forestry fell off the cliff, personally I’d advise very strongly a soft, negotiated change to land use and the way we fund the countryside – but I fear the heat is rising and there is less and less light around these issue.
Roderick – the bigger difference between an NGO and government is that an NGO’s supporters can leave today, they don’t have to put up with you for five years.
I’m really surprised there was no mention of Nature’s Home. It’s probably the biggest, most subtle, change to the organisation. The re-branding has all the hallmarks of the RSPB becoming another WWF. One wonders when more non-avian species will be championed than avian. It is not what I joined the RSPB/rspb for and, appreciating that all things change, I’m now wondering whether my hard-earned cash could be directed to other, possibly more narrow, organisations who deliver on an (simpler) agenda that I can understand.
Bob- welcome! Well, i was listening and I didn’t hear it mentioned. Of course, there were mentions of wider biodiversity and broadening the appeal but nothing so direct as ‘nature’s home’.
Bob, I have alluded to this on the blog comments before but Nature’s Home is not really such a new initiative and is more an open reflection of what the society has been doing for years. I understand the idea of wanting a more direct conservation strategy but I am also unsure of what the future holds for specific NGOs like Buglife, the WWT, Butterfly Conservation etc. If you look at the popularity of the Springwatch brand, it is clear what the majority of people really want. The BBC are currently working on focus groups (I went to one for over 50s in Manchester) to decide how best to channel future programmes. Inevitably, there will be differences of opinion between age groups and regions, which is one of the problems with the democratic processes mentioned above. The BBC can only touch on conservation issues and talk about them in a neutral (and arguably, unsatisfactory) way, giving equal airtime to people who support something (say, badger culling) rather than presenting a full case against. This is where the RSPB (and sadly given their regional approach, to a lesser extent, the Wildlife Trusts) come in because they have been positioned correctly for years having been required to manage reserves for a range of creatures and plants to keep certain populations of bird species healthy. Even if the society were to turn away from Nature’s Home, this work would not change but as a Zoology graduate, I feel it would be an opportunity lost.
The obvious question inherent in your post is to take the opposite stance and ask – are there too many conservation NGOs in the UK? Regrettably, I think there are and I honestly see a time in the not too distant future where we have affiliations and possibly, complete mergers. I am not sure this would be such a bad thing given the alternative would be the extinction of some of the NGOs through relative lack of support and inability to respond to wider issues. The Wildlife Trusts are arguably the second conservation NGO behind the RSPB but they are constantly held back by lack of membership (and thus, financial) support in any given regional office.
Like everyone else, I have regrets that the old days are passing away but I can see that Nature’s Home was an inevitable direction to take and believe it or not, it was all of us who showed the RSPB the way. If you have read my comments here from time to time you may have noticed that entire idea is growing on me and I hope it does for everyone else too.
Ian,
Certainly, uncertain times. I have sympathy with your comment – too many conservation NGOs. It might be a case of how many do we wish to support, and at what cost, both financial, in the pocket, and resultant effectiveness of action. I think we’ll always have little, possibly eccentric, groups in support of (obscure) taxa and I’m all for that but what we may lose out on as a consequence is the effectiveness to cause change. We had 25 organisations working together on the State of the Nation report – could they also too, work together, to give us a single voice.
Regards
Nature’s Home arrived this weekend. So did 20 bramblings. I know which looked better! Have only had time for a quick look at the magazine, but my first thoughts were that the design of the cover is cluttered and looks a mess – makes it look like many magazines on the shelves – unlike the old design which was clean and simple and let the photo make the impact. Inside, I still thought it looked a bit of a mess – lots of mixed typefaces – looks cheaper than the old one – perhaps it is. Sorry!
That said, the content still seems really good – had time to read the brilliant article by Simon Barnes on raptor persecution and driven grouse shooting – if only this were the start of an RSPB campaign!! Perhaps it is? Also very useful ID guide short-eared owl vs long-eared owl stood out. I’m looking forward to reading the rest!
Jane, anti-raptor persecution has been going on with the RSPB for many years to the point that the society sometimes receives criticism that it is raptor-centric when a particular campaign is going on. I can reassure you that this will continue with or without publicity whilst the persecution and outmoded attitudes persist. The Investigations team works hard on these matters but it is never easy against a background of indifference and downright evasion. I had the privilege of being at the contact end of a report on a serious incident a few years ago but the outcome was not so satisfactory yet being involved meant that I gained a deeper understanding of the problems that I am eternally grateful for.
Whilst concerned at marketing taking over the world – and especially warping & softening conservation campaigning – its worth remembering that RSPB’s success is very much built on marketing – after a torrid time of internal strife between the wars RSPB membership in the immediate postwar period was at times no more than the Norfolk Wildlife Trust’s ! It was during Peter Condors Director Generalship than RSPB broke away from the pack to become Europe’s biggest voluntary conservation organisation and that was achieved through populist marketing & communication.
Roderick – quite right!
Great to see all them awards at the end, most deserved probably? But hang on did you miss out or did the rspb miss out on….THE YOUNG CONSERVATIONIST OF THE YEAR? Would that not be a good’ish way of encouraging youngsters…Mark you’ll probably now tell me there was such an award, won’t you?
Douglas – not at the AGM. there have been awards like that but I can’t now think of whether they still exist. Maybe someone else is better informed than I am.
The Youth Team would know but I have a feeling that you are right and the youth awards are not presented at the AGM but at specific youth events. The AGM and to a lesser extent, Member’s Weekend are very much more adult orientated events.
Ah, segregation that’s the way forward!! Shouldn’t it been done together, to show adults what the “youth” are doing, perhaps if youth was more mixed with the adults (huh!) perhaps everytime someone under the age 18 who enterd a hide/reserve wouldn’t be looked at with suspicion/fear. It would also save money too, wouldn’t it? To be included in the “adult” events such as the agm would/might bring fresh thinking/ideas to the organisation but also send a valuable message to younger membere that they’re equally appreciated.
I was asked by one 15 year old why every event organised by wildlife trust/rspb seemed to be pond dipping, yet when he asked for a dawn chorus walk around a reserve was told he would have to accompanied by an adult!
I can see a theme forming here Douglas – to echo what I said above, there will always be alternative views and opinions. 😉
Seriously though, it is difficult to get the balance right at these events in the way that the Bird Fair manages. Indeed, it is not such a bad example because because the Wildlife Explorers has been separated from the main RSPB stand for as long as I am aware. I think if you were talking about Phoenix members then there is no reason why they could not attend either the AGM or Member’s Weekend but having volunteered at both, there is little scope for extending the entertainment and activity to cover what is quite a wide range of age groups and thus, needs. I agree that Pond Dipping is not for everyone and is not really practical at the QEII either but that begs the question on how to keep young people amused over quite along period of time. Having worked in several schools, I can assure you that the lectures would not appeal and activity is limited in the centre of London. Member’s Weekend has a little more potential but not enough to make the exercise worthwhile, IMO although children do attend with their families on a day visit. However, I recall a conversation at Uppingham Girl’s School between Phoenix Forum members, Mark Boyd, Nick Baker and myself where the youngsters liked the idea of running their own events (including for younger age groups). Therefore, it is not so much about systematic segregation but about working more effectively with one’s peers and that makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Incidentally, one final thought on this subject, I doubt members would appreciate young people at the two events mentioned so it is a case of mature adults wanting to be with their peer groups too.
“I doubt members would appreciate young people at the two events mentioned so it is a case of mature adults wanting to be with their peer groups too.”
and there is the nub of the problem Ian. The lad I refered to in my comment is a capable birder, if there is such a thing, his parents have little interest and don’t like the linger in hides, which the lad does want to, if he wanted to attend a dawn chorus walk (dropped off by his parents) why can’t he attend without his parents, his birding skills are to be honest better then mine, the assumption youngsters need to be entertained, rather the stimulated by the nature around them is odd to me. After all if there interested in nature and issues relating to nature who are they supposed to talk to, an uninterested parent?, a teacher who might not have any knowledge nor interest in nature? Or a grumpy old birder who probably wishes they weren’t there?
So okay maybe not many youngsters would like to attend the AGM, I wouldn’t/didn’t, however even the Tory party conference had a “youth” member guest speak as do the other political parties, word of warning if you don’t include the youngsters the rspb etc will loose a generation….
Douglas, I do not mean to sound rude but I can reassure you that all these things have been considered and are reviewed on a regular basis too. I suppose one thing that is not outwardly obvious that is relevant to this blog is that it is us as the general public (I no longer work for the RSPB) that give the hints about directions. I keep mentioning Springwatch because we are the ones who glue ourselves to BBC2 when it is on…in our millions. It amazes me (although slightly in hindsight) that it has taken both the BBC and the RSPB so long to get to grips with the inadvertent branding that has taken place, but I digress…
You make a good point about losing a generation but the RSPB has certainly tried harder than any other organisation to keep the enthusiasm of youth going. Unfortunately, surging hormones (as any secondary school teacher will know) play big role in deflecting youngsters away from what are essentially lifetime interests. Then comes work, college and/or starting a family so people often do not return to wildlife until their 30s or when they have children of their own…and it then, never goes away. This is a trend that has gone through many decades and may possibly always be the case.Peer-pressure is the most important thing in teenager’s lives – it can cause all sorts of things that are bad and a lot of things that are benign but ultimately, not particularly useful in later life. I was lucky because I was insular and shy so I never yielded too much to peer-pressure, which meant I became a dedicated birder by the time I was 20. I have retrograded to Playstations and PC games in later life but only because I am single and never had children of my own. In other words, to pass time until it is light (or dry) enough to go out birding again. Am I lucky? It depends on how you look at things really because there have to be sacrifices but the RSPB does genuinely provide facilities for the youngsters that do not follow the flock and I only wish I had known about it when I was younger.
Ian, not rude at all, it’s just seems odd that the rspb seem quite happy to use youth in their tv adverts to boost membership/raise funds but not so keen on promoting youth within the organisation itself?
After all Springwatch this year had segments showing what some youngsters can do, one was the insect hotel and the other pond dipping…oh 🙁
Mark even had a youngster do a guest blog, has the rspb ever had a youngster do a guest blog recently? Even the BBC has programmes aimed at the younger end of the market, some cynical oldies (doesn’t include you Ian nor you Mark) might think what can someone younger then me say that has any relevance? Well have anyone who reads this checked out Findlay’s badger cull video yet at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf5PqQT0901 and then compare it to Brian May’s effort an older, wiser, mature man. If the link doesn’t work you can always go direct to his blog.
I heard the newly appointed president interviewed on Woman’s Hour this morning whilst driving to Stoke on Trent. She sounded keen and full of commitment and stressed the widening emphasis on protection of all wildlife rather than just birds. I was a little disappointed that she (perhaps unintentionally) seemed to imply that the problems facing our declining bird species are all outside our shores (shooting around the Mediterranean, problems at sea for sea-birds outside the breeding season etc). These may be important factors in the decline of some species but it would have been good to see some appreciation of serious problems present in this country such as raptor persecution and wildlife unfriendly farming policies. There is a limit to what you can get into a short interview and I am sure she did not intend to downplay these issues but it was a shame, I thought. At any rate I wish her well in the new role and I have no doubt that she is genuinely committed to the well-being of wildlife.
A question on wind farms being in the right place. What would have happened if the wind mill at Sandy was now working as 33,000 Redwing flew through as they did this weekend!
John Miles – I did wonder that too.
I recently re-joined the RSPB but given how close I can see they are to bird killing wind farm companies I am not going to be renewing next year. I do not want to be a member of any organisation giving support to these awful things. Taking money from a company like Ecotricity blurs the lines.
The RSPB used to be the organisation you could count on as a birder. That is no longer the case. I wonder how many of the people running it ever go bird watching, they all seem to be out of the Guardian/Green party trendy crowd now.
Chris – thanks for your comment and welcome!
Ha Ha Ha Ha! The RSPB trendy – what a laugh!
I know every member of the RSPB Board of Directors – of the eight, I would class three as lifelong birders (and good ones too – including the Chief Executive). Every member of that board has a real interest in birds, wildlife and the environment. So they may not be doing what you want, but your analysis of where they come from is completely wrong.
As I understand it, and I may be wrong (it does happen), it is only if someone signs up to Ecotricity that the RSPB will get money so it is only if the RSPB membership support renewable energy that they get any money. The RSPB does get quite a bt of money (£60 if I remember correctly) from every person who signs up to gas and electricity from Ecotricity. I switched to Ecotricity this summer and I am glad that I did – but you don’t have to.
Hi Mark, thanks for the welcome.
I take your point but I still feel there is a shift towards a style of management which subtly moves the organisation away from what made it distinctive and appealing towards a more FOE/Green Party type style.
Wind farms are a big turn off to huge numbers of people, especially those in large sections of the population the RSPB needs to keep on board. I found it astonishing that there should even be any kind of relationship with a wind farm company.
I am just as concerned about climate change as any staff member at the RSPB. However, I feel the wind farm sector is a licence to print money that some people have jumped on. I sense a takeover by people who have become far too close to a sector they should be protecting our birds from.
I know of many other birdwatcher friends who feel the same. We will not be giving our money to the society whilst it continues to supporting these bird killing devices which blight our landscape.
Chris – I think you are wrong. But that’s one of the things that makes life interesting.