This blog follows those of Tuesday and Wednesday in publishing the RSPB Chair’s response to 10 questions I posed. Here are the RSPB’s replies to questions 7-10. My questions are bold, followed by Sir Andrew Cahn’s responses in blue and my comments in green.
- How many foxes were killed on RSPB nature reserves in each of the last 10 years. These figures used to be publicly available but I can’t find them – perhaps they are well hidden but I’d like to know please. I’m not against predator control for nature conservation in the right circumstances – as conservation director I loosened the reins on predator control but on a case by case basis. I’m just wondering how things stand now.
Our 2018 review of the impact of predation on wild birds showed that predator numbers have increased in the UK over the last decades and that the UK has very high densities of Red Fox compared to other European countries. And so, in certain circumstances and when other methods of non-lethal control have failed, we do sometimes shoot foxes on our reserves. But only where this will support delivery of a clear conservation objective for a particular species, for example Curlew or Crane. Over the last 10 years, 4,035 foxes have been shot on our reserves. We publish the figures annually for all vertebrates killed on our reserves. Last year’s figures can be found here and the latest iteration will be published soon.
So, about 400 a year and about one a day. Some will say that is 400 a year too many and others will say it isn’t nearly enough. I will say that I trust the RSPB to be keeping that number down and looking for non-lethal means as much as possible.
I think you have me to ‘thank’ for starting the annual publication of these figures – it’s important for a charity to be open about controversial aspects of its work.
My successor, Martin Harper, drew attention to these annual figures in his blog every year. Now, I’d say that although this information is on the RSPB website it’s not easy to find. I can understand why that might be deliberate but I’m not sure I approve. The link you have kindly provided is this – https://community.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/b/actionfornature/posts/the-conservationist-s-dilemma—an-update-on-the-science-policy-and-practice-of-the-impact-of-predators-on-wild-birds-10 – which feels like the outermost reaches of the RSPB website and the piece is ‘authored’ by a press officer (someone I know from the past who is a good press officer) but it doesn’t have a conservationist’s name on it. Even knowing it is there it is difficult to find – try searching the RSPB website using the search function provided; I tried the following searches; ‘predator control on nature reserves’, ‘killing foxes’ and ‘vertebrate control’ none of them takes me directly to this page (so I gave up). Even trying ‘conservationist’s dilemma’ which is in the title of the piece (!) doesn’t get me there (in fact it brings up ‘Sorry, we couldn’t find any results for “conservationist’s dilemma” ‘). I’m not convinced that the RSPB intends anyone to find this information. Here is a further example of an RSPB ‘public’ statement being impossible to find unless you are given the precise link.
Back to predator control – if I search for ‘conservationist’s dilemma’ with the mighty Google I am taken, top of the list, to this https://community.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/b/martinharper/posts/the-conservationist-39-s-dilemma-an-update-on-the-science-policy-and-practice-of-the-impact-of-predators-on-wild-birds-4?CommentId=5b154b37-faf2-4cff-9791-cefb1fd5df1b which is #4 in a series of posts by the aforementioned Martin Harper from 2017. I can’t find the article to which you provided the link even enlisting Google.
The article to which your response linked doesn’t tell me where to find information from previous years. I had a guess and tried the same link but with ‘9’ rather than ’10’ at the end and got the interesting message that the article ‘no longer exists’ which suggests to me that it once did. Are these annual reports deleted each year? If so, that’s not very open. If not so, they are a real bugger to find, I’ve failed and as you can imagine I was trying quite hard, and that is also not very open.
So, this question on predator control has morphed into, from my point of view, whether the RSPB website is providing information in a way that is open and transparent – I am not convinced it is. I often look for information on the RSPB website, fighting my way past adverts for bird food, and often I can’t find it. I quite often can’t find it even if I know it is there, somewhere! As a newcomer to the RSPB. Sir Andrew, try searching the RSPB website for information on bittern conservation, rat eradication or nuclear power or pick your own favourites and see how much of an overview you get. You will struggle to learn about the RSPB’s conservation approach through the RSPB own webpages.
- Why did the RSPB not maintain an objection to the planning proposal in Caithness for the Hollandmey wind farm nor for an Adventure Hub in the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park. These are just two examples where it seems that the RSPB is less than a dogged defender of threatened wildlife.
There are an enormous number of proposals that are potentially bad for our wildlife and the reality is that we must prioritise which ones we object to. Our efforts are focused on those cases which affect internationally important sites for birds, those that could affect species at a population level or those that run the risk of setting a dangerous precedent. In recent times, these have most often been some of the massive ill-sited offshore wind proposals that could have population level impacts on our declining seabird populations, such as Hornsea 3 and Neart na Gaoithe. Our investment in fighting these lasts for years and requires a huge amount of technical expertise.
But we do recognise that there is a huge appetite for others to stand up for nature in the places where we can’t. To help others we are going to be launching a Planning for Nature Toolkit in the New Year. This will provide people with all the information, practical advice and tips that they might need to fight a development threat or campaign for it to become more nature-friendly, wherever they live in the UK, primarily through engaging effectively with the planning systems across all four countries of the UK.
Perfectly fair comments, but there is potentially a lot of time to be saved by not even getting involved in objections that aren’t seen through. Starting and withdrawing is sometimes the worst of both worlds. In the two cases I mention local RSPB supporters are less supportive of the RSPB because they perceive the RSPB not to have fought hard enough on their local (but nonetheless significant) issues and that, inevitably leads to suspicions of the RSPB being too cosy with the developers, the statutory agencies, or the planning authority and not wanting to be seen to rock the boat. Such suspicions may be unfair, but they persist. And they may be unfair, but they are cropping up all over the country.
I recognise this, as with many other issues, as a ‘Can’t please everyone’ issue and the Society should always be guided by the conservation outcome its involvement can achieve.
I very much like the sound of empowering people to have a go themselves (although this is something that has been talked about for years ) and look forward to seeing it in the New Year.
- How many new RSPB members were recruited in the 2023/24 financial year? I’m interested in the gross figure, not the net figure.
The gross number of members recruited in 23/24 was 157,397.
That’s a fairly familiar figure to me but will come as a surprise to many, I guess. It is a veritable army of people that needs to be recruited each year – actually much larger than the British army which numbers only a little over 100,000 personnel. It represents a need to recruit 430 folk every day of the year, I wonder how they will be recruited today.
The RSPB membership goes up and down but is around 1,200,000. If, every year the RSPB needed to recruit 157k new supporters to remain at 1.2m that would be 83% retention. Since something like 4-5% of members are lost to death (but with attached legacy income to put it at its most heartless) the RSPB is running hard to stand still.
The RSPB needs to be very sure that it is not ‘buying’ members to keep the membership numbers up uneconomically. It might be more cost-effective to have 1.1m members than 1.2m members. It would certainly be more cost-effective to have 1.2m cause-led members than 1.2m transactional members – we conservation zealots are very cheap to maintain – we just want to see the RSPB do great conservation. I’ll leave those thoughts hanging but as someone who has had some involvement with population dynamics of species I see the population dynamics of the RSPB membership as broadly analogous and just as fascinating.
- Is there anything, anything at all, you’d like to tell me before I start to decide on how to address charitable donations in my will?
The RSPB is nothing short of remarkable and there is really nothing quite like it. Our blend of science and policy expertise, practical delivery on the ground, people engagement and a long track record of saving species is unparallelled in my view and it’s why I was both excited and honoured to take on the role of Chair of Council. I can’t tell you how to spend your money but if someone wants to effect real change for wildlife not only in the UK but on our Overseas Territories and indeed around the world then I would challenge you to show me a more worthy recipient. Just look at the recent closure of industrial sandeel fisheries in the English North Sea and all Scottish waters; decades of advocacy work and science, a remarkable tenacity to get to the desired result, and a result that will have tangible impacts for our breeding seabirds. And now a Europe wide campaign to help counter the EU Commission’s attempts to overturn the closure. The Bittern graph above is a direct result of understanding a problem, testing solutions and then making sure these are put into practice at scale. This is what the RSPB does. Time and again.
Does the RSPB get everything right? Of course not, but in my short time in the role I have been bowled over by the passion, knowledge and sheer determination of our staff and volunteers and the scale at which they operate. It’s why I wanted this role and what I’ve seen so far has only cemented my view that I made the right choice.
Thank you – all understood and I broadly agree with it all.
In conclusion:
Thank you Sir Andrew for your response. I appreciate you bothering to reply. I have tried to give you some food for thought in my responses. There are some things you might want to check with RSPB staff straight away and others that you might keep in mind over the next few months and years. I wish you well and (probably) won’t bother you again although I’d be very happy to meet you in person some time in late winter, buy you lunch or dinner, and have a friendly off-the-record discussion. I think we’d get on well. And this online conversation hasn’t really touched on advocacy and campaigning – the RSPB is good at the former and poor at the latter and I wonder whether enough people know the difference between the two. I hope you’ll be a great success as RSPB Chair and that the RSPB will be ever more successful at conserving wildlife.
You have shifted me from ‘I might not put the RSPB into my will but I’ll see how things pan out over the next few months’ to ‘I really might put the RSPB into my will but I’ll see how things pan out over the next few months.’.
PS I cannot resist, and don’t see why I should, telling you that I got another email asking me to buy raffle tickets yesterday (see yesterday’s blog and your response to Q5). I was asked ‘Are you feeling lucky?‘ and that I could win £10k and ‘Play today for just £1 per ticket. Even if you miss out on the jackpot, there are lots of other great prizes to be won.‘. The RSPB is treating me as a transactional member not a cause-led member and not sending me the communications I want, you are sending me the communications I do not want.
PPS But also the day before yesterday the RSPB’s Twitter account @natures_voice was kind enough to mention Wild Justice’s petition to ban driven grouse shooting and suggested that people might sign it in order to get a debate. That was nice – except it had no impact on the rate of signing whatsoever, and I would put that down to the RSPB membership and supporters not being so interested or knowledgeable about the cause because they have been attracted through transactions. Here is the link to the petition – https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700036 – I assume you’ll sign it, please, Sir Andrew. But I will be contacting the RSPB to suggest that we meet and work together to get a debate on the subject.
[registration_form]
The number of fledged young is a key indicator of conservation success or failure. You can have lots of breeding birds but if a site doesn’t fledge enough young it is a sink for the wider population. Predator exclusion fences (on which the RSPB has spent a lot of money) have been very successful in many cases but they do not exclude crows, for example, which take wader eggs and chicks, and it would appear that fences don’t work for curlews. So, the RSPB are right to take a robust, evidence-led approach to predator management and have no need to be apologetic about it. I would like them to do a bit more. There seems little point in excluding foxes and badgers at great expense, only to watch the crows clean up.
Bob – thanks.
Fledging success has to be a key thing but so is survival. Fledging success is what people notice, survival has to be studied to be known.
The importance varies between species so you can’t take an absolutist position.
Hats off to both Mark for asking the questions and to Sir Andrew for replying to them. As an experienced businessman, the chairman will be aware of the spectre of a (somewhat) disenchanted ex-employee who remembers ‘the better times’. But it has only taken a few ‘helpful and charming’ pleasantries to transform the growling wildcat into an affectionate tabby which just loves to have its belly tickled. Regarding any forthcoming lunch/dinner date for the duo, I do hope the RSPB’s chief executive will also be invited lest she feel she is being undermined. In fact, perhaps we could all come along. We could call it an annual general meeting.
James – ha ha!
As someone who donates for membership to RSPB, WWF, and others, as well as buying loads of bird food (I clean the feeders regularly at least!), I have found this really enlightening. I believe you have challenged most fairly. I completely agree that we should hear far more from the RSPB on what they are actually doing, as opposed to what they are selling. I may now need to look into what WWF gets up to! Thank you