Ian Botham talks rubbish a lot of the time, it seems to me (see here, here and here) and clearly I am not alone as Birdwatch readers voted in droves for YFTB, for whom Ian Botham has spoken in public, in last year’s ‘Guano awards’ (see here, and see here for this year’s contenders). One of the recent examples was his claim about BTO survey results (denied by the BTO themselves).
He’s having a go at the RSPB again in a national newspaper – yes, the Telegraph (so no surprises there then) via Shooting Gazette.
The Telegraph say that Ian Botham is a supporter of grouse shooting, which he certainly seems to be. I’m not, and if you aren’t either, then please sign Gavin Gamble’s successful e-petition which is clearly making the shooting industry sit up and take notice.
It’s quite funny that Botham calls for ‘young blood’ at the RSPB (he’s quite keen on blood, I see) and the RSPB fields one of its freshest-faced, not-that-old staff members to reply. We called Jeff Knott the baby-faced assassin when I was at The Lodge and the last time I saw him he didn’t appear to have aged too badly in the interim. Jazzy Jeff Knott sweeps Botham’s long hops to the boundary in a manner reminiscent of a former England cricketer Alan Knott who was a great cricketer and rather a nice man (and a contemporary of Botham’s in the England side).
But the RSPB also has got something wrong as reported by the Telegraph. The Telegraph says, ‘Jeff Knott, the charity’s head of nature policy, added: ‘Ian Botham is entitled to his opinions [true] but the comments he has made contain inaccuracies [true]. He’s playing to a particular gallery [true], which isn’t doing the shooting community any favours [true]. We need constructive dialogue leading to meaningful change [Errr! Jeff, you’ve tried to take this particular horse to water many times before and it refuses to drink] .‘ ‘
Jeff, the RSPB has been looking for constructive dialogue from the shooting community since before you were born and the track record isn’t very good is it? Eventually you have to accept that when an industry funds a nasty PR campaign against you (for YFTB has said that it is funded by the grouse moor industry) then they aren’t in the mood for constructive dialogue. And when the same industry professes its adoration of the Hen Harrier and yet no pairs of Hen Harrier have nested on grouse moors in England for several years then they are making it completely clear how much they are up for meaningful change. And when an industry says that raptor persecution is done by a few bad apples and yet Peregrine nesting success is strikingly lower on grouse moors across the north of England compared with nearby non-grouse moors then you know they are just playing you for a fool.
The time for sitting around the table with the likes of the Moorland Association are long gone – unless they have something to offer. Do they have anything to offer apart from an ongoing catalogue of wildlife crime on grouse moors? We’ve seen nothing. And whatever the Moorland Association say, either in public or private, they have no control over the actions of grouse moor managers on the ground. And so grouse moor owners and managers will fund continuing attacks on the RSPB into the future. that’s not very cosntructive and it’s certainly not dialogue. Get real, RSPB!
The RSPB, if it is serious about the need for grouse moor licensing, should take a leaf out of Gavin Gamble’s book, and start a petition, calling for the RSPB’s preferred option of a licensing scheme for shooting estates. If the RSPB is serious about licensing then let’s see them campaign for it and ask their 1.2 million members to sign it too. I’ll sign their e-petition if they start one. But until they do, then the way to influence the likes of Ian Botham is to sign Gavin Gamble’s e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting and the best way to get a licensing scheme, and to get the RSPB moving on it, is to sign Gavin Gamble’s e-petition that takes a hard line of wildlife crime and a hard line on the causes of wildlife crime.
[registration_form]
Botham’s ill-informed drivel reminds us, once again, of the extremism of shooting activists (and it’s high time this pejorative tag to describe them rather than those who want the law upheld and tightened). The RSPB has taken a conciliatory line for decades and has been rewarded not only by negative propaganda worthy of the Stasi and an unprecedented hate campaign but also the mass liquidation of protected species on grouse moors. Rather than standing under fire politely knocking on a door that is firmly locked, bolted and barricaded from the inside, it’s time to roll out the trebuchets, ballistas and battering rams. At the very least, they need to summon the levies to sign up to Gavin Gamble’s e-petition
The “Million of voices for Nature” should be asked what they wish for regarding this matter. In these uncertain days where many things are being challenged, it is important that such a membership is on its toes to the many challenges ahead. Politics to one side, it isn’t right that the RSPB members opinions are not considered in such important strategy.
Now now 😉 [Andy Paton] can’t be letting democracy interfere with political agendas can we?
Look what happened with NT hunting vote? Membership wanted ban, Board used proxy to overrule, that’s democracy (even when members didn’t reportedly
receive voting papers)?
Of course the National Trust membership received voting papers! They were in the magazine, but many members simply do not bother to read it! Proxy votes were submitted by BOTH sides, by the way. For example, I gave my proxy to the League Against Cruel Sports’ member. Don’t believe your own silly propagada: the vote was narrowly lost, but we fight on.
I agree Keith. Too many people complain about not receiving information when they just haven’t looked. It’s the same with the RSPB info. in Nature’s Home. There will be complaints that they weren’t told of the need to sign up to the contact requirements on the RSPB “YES” campaign.
I had no trouble appointing a proxy for the NT vote, I will reman a member and fight it from within.
The way the RSPB are treating their membership might be likened to the recent National Trust ‘saga’ of the continuation of issuing hunting licences on NT land?
That is to say, how many of the 1.2 members know about the devastation wrought upon upland wildlife, particularly raptors and the RSPB attitude to addressing it?
Compare this with claims by some NT members of not knowing about the vote through not receiving relevant papers, let alone the issue of hunting licences on NT land?
One might wonder, would the RSPB Trustees use proxy votes to go against the membership vote?
This is fake propaganda about the National Trust. No wonder you hide behind an alias. You KNOW full well that proxy votes were submitted by BOTH sides!
Fake, what have I said that is untrue sir? Call me a pedant but I ask questions, I have not made any assertions or allegations. Do you refute that as well?
I will for your benefit repeat statistics I recall have appeared previously.
For 30,686 Against 30,985 (299 votes difference)
Specified
For 28,629 Against 27,525
Discretionary
For 2,057 Against 3,460
Abstentions 1,925
Interesting to consider if discretionary had been reversed if the Board would have used them?
Likewise are the members writing in about not having received voting papers also spreading fake news? See https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/28/national-trust-legal-challenge-irregularities-trail-hunting-poll
Sir Ranulph Fiennes et. al. are they too accused of fake news too?
Let’s not worry too much, the Board don’t actually have to act on such resolutions as they are for ‘guidance’ only. They can always say that the turn out was less than 1% so not worth acting on?
The RSPB ceased to be the voice for the “protection of birds” a long time ago. They are now a big business interested only in “bums on seats”. The truth needs to go out via the main media, but the BBC, ITV, SKY etc are all pissing in the same pot as are the newspapers.
This is utter rubbish! The RSPB do an absolutely magnificent job. Even though I am highly critical of their stance on shooting in general (and maintaining their Royal Patronage), it is wicked to criticise their work on protecting birds and other wildlife. Without the RSPB we would be in a dire situation.
I agree. The RSPB may not be perfect and its strategy regarding the issue of raptor persecution on grouse moors may be too deferential but it is demonstrably false to suggest that it is interested only in “bums on seats”. I am certainly happy to keep paying my subs.
I am not always happy with the RSPB either – it needed a poke to do reduce, reuse, recycle properly at their birdfairs, their stance on the eagle owl is rather silly (hardly likely to be a problem here when it isn’t on the other side of the English Channel) and for all their posturing on climate change I can’t recall them ever asking their membership if they would think about driving smaller cars (but what ‘green’ NGOs have?) – but that’s personal opinion and far, far outweighed by the good stuff. It’s only by accident I came across a policy document that said the RSPB try to give local contractors preferential treatment, they are already brilliant at sourcing the nosh for their cafes from local farms. Combine this with the money they help bring in for local communities especially at places like Loch Garten and they really do a great job for rural economies. What thanks do they get for it? Absolutely none especially from the likes of the CA and Botham. Their field staff are fantastic, I’ll name two Rory Crawford and Toby Wilson who gave massive support to a couple of projects I’ve been involved in. When we asked the RSPB to help us deliver natural history lessons in a lower income area they went to great and generous lengths to help us – they hang back until they are asked, but when you do they are exemplary in the help they give. At the end of the day they have considerably fewer faults as an organisation than I have as an individual, and I suspect that is true for some of the other 1,200,000 plus people who have also chosen to be a member.
Well done Gavin Gamble!
I’m not sure that the RSPB are wrong, the key word is MEANINGFUL discussions. Mark is right the MA seem unable or unwilling to deliver on any promise or agreement that might be reached, their members being free to choose, the NGO do what their employers tell them, GWCT and BASC do not entirely represent grouse shooting and again their decisions may only be recommendations and not binding. The CA is a pressure group as is the awful YFTB so no point in discussions there either. So who does that leave to have these meaningful discussions with? I suspect that the only ones are gov’t through DEFRA and currently they seem not to be listening and reliant on their unworkable and undeliverable harrier plan.
Factually I suppose Botham is nearly right even if he is a complete fuckwit, Although nobody should believe that the eagle has been seen alive it could have been any eagle. Satellite tags have an over 95% reliability rate so yes a very very few malfunction.What we should be asking is why so many apparently reliable tags on persecuted Golden Eagles and Hen Harriers suffer catastrophic failures when the same tags are almost totally reliable on unpersecuted species including Woodcock. When YFTB answer that one honestly perhaps and only perhaps they may have a point.
Until then MR effing Botham you are spouting a lot of hot air as usual.
Paul – thanks. I took Jeff’s quote to mean dialogue with grouse moor interests, as I think did you, not with government. And if it is with government then what strength does RSPB have? It would have more if it could slap 150,000 signatures for licensing on the table. RSPB needs to massively up its game.
Agreed!
I was up my valley on Friday and witnessed 11 Buzzrds and 6 Kestrels feeding on voles What the hell as that got to do with the story I hear you say. Well I also witnessed mass Red Grouse moving from a shooting estate to the RSPB land. All these Red Grouse are surplus as the Red Grouse are already paired up and these birds had no where to go. One covet had at least 180+ birds in it which for the time of the year should not be ‘Packed’! Go to any high commercial moor and you will see the same. So what is wrong with these raptors enjoying the voles. Well its disturbance!!
Any keeper worth his salt would like to see all those birds removed even if they were eating voles because come the shooting day they want a clean shoot and no disturbance with lots of ‘tax free’ cash in hand for the keepers That’s what Ian Bootham is on about. ‘Clean shoot’ not raptors killing Red Grouse.
As for the RSPB I would like to see 2 million members but they are going about it the wrong way as they employ the wrong people now a days and spend a fortune just standing still. Just imagine 2 million for a while. Would that not scare the government and all who sail with it!
Well, two million RSPB supporters would be great on paper but wouldn’t necessarily make more political impact. As someone said in a RSPB focus group a few years ago: “I never knew a million voices could be so quiet.” They haven’t got any louder.
It is not the 2 million that speak but the leader of the RSPB. Waving a big increase would show they were finally doing something right and the society would have to be listened to. Historically the figure of membership is classed as 98% garden watchers and 2 % birders.
The leader of the RSPB only has clout if politicians believe the membership can give their party a bloody nose on occasion. If they think those members are mostly passive, poorly informed, or indifferent when it comes to issues affecting wildlife and the environment, the size of the membership becomes incidental. It’s always been a game of smoke and mirrors – your power is proportional to how well you play it.
Paul – agreed
Really John! I cannot think of a birder I know who is not a member. I know many who are not in the BTO ( I am and for much longer than I have been in the RSPB) and here in Yorkshire the county trust ( YWT) is hardly a popular organisation with most of us. It would be very odd if what you say is true.
John was saying that 2% of RSPB members are birders, not that only 2% of birders are RSPB members.
I know what John said and took it the same way you did but I still think its nonsense.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
I particularly like the bit about ‘since before you were born Jeff’ !
Hmmmm, think Jeff is right personally. More dialogue is needed. Campaigning and protests have got the issue into a small part of the public domain but what else has it brought : Botham speaking shit, those worried about fishing and pheasant shooting being misinformed that their activities are next on the debate (which it isn’t, is it?) giving grouse shooting some allies, though yes they’d probably be allies anyway, ill feeling and at times confrontations between those who take part in field sports and and those wishing to enjoy the wildlife and countryside and I believe an increase in persecution of other birds of prey.
Overall campaigning has done more good then bad but what will the end result be without sensible dialogue
Douglas – dialogue with whom?
I really don’t see why Pheasant shooting should not be ‘next on the debate’. Millions of imported birds, displacing and threatening endemic species, spreading disease and lead shot across the country. For what? The ‘thrill’ of inflicting a painful death? Eating poisoned meat? Causing road collisions and driving up insurance costs for everyone? The food dispersed for “game birds’ helps boost corvids but leads to catastrophic loss for small farmland species when it is suddenly stopped…
“The food dispersed for “game birds” helps boost corvids…” Not to mention rats – nearly as much of the food provided is eaten by rats (32.6%) as by gamebirds (38.7%), and overall non-target species consume most of the grain (67%)(Sanchez-Garcia et al., 2015).
Boosting the rat population in this way is likely to have a serious impact on songbird nesting success.
The RSPB wants the current law, one which the majority of the population supports, to be enforced and strengthened to deal with clear evidence of criminality. The pro-shooting lobby seeks to undermine the RSPB, make the law more difficult to enforce (and even to subvert it by legalising culling) and consistently deny there’s any problem with illegal persecution. In this context, I struggle to see how it’s possible to have any sort of dialogue.
Nearly every war or dispute eventually ends with dialogue and some form of peace process. However, the tone of the dialogue and the outcome of the peace process usually depends on the relative strength of the participants. For decades, the shooters have known that they held nearly all the trump cards, and under such circumstances they were very happy to keep talking – ongoing dialogue simply resulted in a continuation of the status quo and more killing of important wildlife.
My opinion now is that they will only engage in meaningful dialogue if and when they believe that their practices are under realistic threat. And I think they should be worried. I have no doubt that the great majority of the population are instinctively opposed to blood sports, although their level of awareness is generally low. In this age of social media, public awareness can be raised in the blink of an eye (relatively speaking).
I am deeply disappointed that the RSPB has not done more to make it’s membership aware of what goes on in the countryside. I example I always quote is the video of the alleged shooting of an HH that the RSPB itself took, which has now had 18,827 hits on YouTube – representing about 1.6% of the membership. Is the RSPB ashamed (or scared) of the work of its own investigations team?
So we should put Pheasant and Partridge shooting onto the negotiating table too.
On the one side, on social media there are people who are activists, who try to take the message out there to the masses. On the other side are corporate information machines with hundreds of thousands of pounds to spend on campaigning. Wining and dining journalists and MPs, free hospitality, and fewer activists.
I personally don’t really see the vast majority of people becoming activated over bird populations. We live in a diverse society in many ways. Why should people spread their attention along a line, defined for them by someone else, that they feel no prior predisposition towards.
In my opinion, the easiest way to get what you want on this is politically. Now imagine what is akin to an Arab Spring “revolution” here in the UK, where corporate interests and some political parties are genuinely worried about this. So much so that they are willing to pay huge sums of money to try to influence social media. If you develop a set of arguments and a network of people to distribute these and tie them together, so they are part of the overall argument of the revolution, then I think you have a chance of success.
After the Arab spring, negotiations can start.
I think gun licencing really needs adding to the list. In fact the list of things you can attack shooters on is virtually endless, but the more on your exhaustive list and the political clout you have won will be what gets you what you want in the end.
The last thing the rich and overprivileged want is the GREAT EYE turning on every aspect of their personal lives. The wind of change is blowing and NOW is the time to act. Even if we do only get 50 pairs of English Hen harriers.
In my opinion British Gov. are in breach of EU Birds Directive. As members of the general public we look to the RSPB for leadership on this issue, and they should be taking UK Govt to the EU Court.
Gerard – the RSPB did complain to Europe on 15 October 2012! That complaint is still ‘live’ but we don’t hear much about it from the RSPB do we?
Didn’t know that. In my experience the only way to get what you want is to be fairly strict. Otherwise there are far too many diversions. I get what I want with my kids by browbeating them into compliance. No dad could ever wish for more sweet children, who love owls. I don’t get this from being passive though.
I wonder why not? If nature WAS meant for the faint-hearted it wouldn’t involve things killing each other.
The RSPB have done so, but the Commission controls what happens and how fast it progresses, so do not for one second believe that the so-called European Court is truly independent. I took the UK Government (and Network Rail) to the EU Court over what I claimed was a breach of the Habitats Directive (the proposed destruction of a rare colony of bats in Oxford, for the sake of an extra 46 seconds on the rail journey time between Oxford and London Marylebone). I was initially supported by Natural England, but the Coalition Government – remember them? – forced NE to reverse its position and oppose me. After TWO years, the Commission RULED that my case would not be allowed to be put before the Court! There was no right of appeal.
Sadly Keith D you allude to an organisation suffering osteoporosis of the backbone I fear, you only have to read the preamble on their DAS web-pages to realise developers can purchase their ‘assistance’.
Does the institutionalised bullying still exist or are they all now compliant with corporate agenda? Could it be that staff are pensioned off if they find a backbone and are new recruits chosen for compliance with ‘corporate’ political agendas?
Is the organisation fit for purpose or should we purge the expensive offices and recycle the funds to more useful purposes?
Conversely should we feel sorry for them Whatever your stance on the stalwarts protecting the #stateofnature there are serious questions to be asked I fear?
In anticipation of all those blog readers championing NE and their robust stance (with holding public funded data etc.) …. hit the dislike button in defense of the very few left worth defending, I’m sure there are some.
I think it’s right that the RSPB still offers talks to all parties concerned (the carrot) but needs to get a bit more active with mobilising it’s membetship (the stick)! However, it’s likely that most of its members are fairly passive when it comes to taking action, let’s not forget though that their financial generosity allows the RSPB to do a lot for nature/birds. That being said, what is the best way of lobbying the RSPB to take a more directive approach?
Loving this stuff. Dgs and its entourage of bullshit
no longer some fringe orn thing. Good work, Mr. Avery.
I agree with many of the comments on RSPB apathy, but as a weary RSPB member myself I don’t see anyone commenting much on the organization’s publication ‘Nature’s Home.’ If some of the members are poorly informed, take a look at any edition of this magazine, and see how much space is given to wildlife crime. Yes, mostly it’s a small column within a packed page of info about reserves, etc etc. Members’ photos of bee-eaters et al, and blue tits doing funny things, get pages.
Isn’t this something that could be easily addressed by the editorial team?