Rant at the RSPB

Mike Chorley · Status: Offline

RE: Rant at the RSPB

paul brady · Status: Offline

Mike Chorley wrote:

What a shame none of this has ever appeared on their information boards over the last few years

I can assure you that RSPB staff and volunteers do work very hard, have you ever put this question to them before?

There are a lot of positive messages to come out of Lakenheath and I can imagine that some aspects of the work there have a back seat due to massive success stories of the bittern and the cranes not to mention the habitat creation and restoration project and don't forget the other star attractions like 65 hobbies !!!

I have only been to the place once so don't know if they do specific oriole walks, lectures/talks but I'm pretty sure they had a nest watch point that was manned by volunteers - i gather you could get all the info you wanted if you just asked the right people.

Noticeboarsd and information signs aren't the only form of interpretation you know!

Mike Chorley · Status: Offline

What a shame none of this has ever appeared on their information boards over the last few years

paul brady · Status: Offline

For your reading I had a chat with the team at Lakenheath and they summarise the situation as follows:

"Golden orioles at Lakenheath Fen

From the mid to late 1960s the area that is now RSPB Lakenheath Fen used to be part of an 446.6 ha plantation of American hybrid black poplar trees own by Bryant and May for producing matches and pallets. Golden orioles nested in the plantation for the first time in 1967. This was the first time this species had been recorded nesting in the Fens.

The population peaked in 1979 when there were fourteen singing males in the plantation. This was part of a fenland nesting population of around forty singing males across Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk at that time.

In the late 1980s the plantation was sold and Bryant and May began producing matches and pallets abroad. Most of the plantation was felled and reverted back to arable farmland. However, the Golden Oriole Group, Natural England, RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust intervened to ensure that some habitat was left for golden orioles. Therefore, forty ha. of the plantation was not felled.

Since then, there has been an average of two or three nesting pairs on in the remaining areas of poplar woods each year. The two pairs nesting on the reserve in 2009 were the only two nesting pairs of golden orioles in Britain according to the Golden Oriole Group.

The reasons for their decline are not conclusively known, but there are thought to be several contributing factors. Firstly, similar to most sub-Saharan migrants, birds are struggling to cross the desert which is increasing in size every year. Secondly, their whole range is moving eastwards. They are therefore increasing in Eastern Europe and declining in Western Europe. In Denmark for example the breeding population was estimated at 200+ pairs in 1998, this had declined to one or two by 2007 (Mason,P & Alsop, J. 2009). All of the areas where the birds used to nest in the Fens have been deserted and again, the reasons for this are unknown.

The RSPB is working hard at Lakenheath Fen to ensure that golden orioles remain as nesting birds on the reserve. The life span of hybrid black poplars is around 40 years, the oldest parts of the existing plantations were planted in 1965. These degraded poplars are still used by orioles and are becoming more attractive to nightingale, garden warbler and spotted flycatcher as their structure alters. Since the late 1990s forty ha. of new poplars have been established on the reserve. In years to come, these new areas of poplar woods will hopefully support nesting golden orioles and help to sustain the nesting population of this beautiful bird."

So you can see that the RSPB and team at Lakenheath is working in conjunction with other organisations to ensure the survival of the Golden Oriole at this reserve and further afield.

Mike Chorley · Status: Offline

You have to admit, though, that would be a spectacle anywhere, Ian. Even over your house in Astley

Ian McKerchar · Status: Offline

The 57 Hobbies in the air at one time were my highlight there this May, by far and away

Phil Owen · Status: Offline

Neil Calbrade wrote:

The creation of the Lakenheath reserve is a bit of forward thinking from the RSPB, as global warming continues, large reedbeds such as those at Minsmere, Titchwell and Walberswick will soon get swallowed up and if reedbeds aren't established now to allow them to build up the ecosystems, then the Bitterns and the like will have nowhere to go.
I live not far from Lakenheath, and I do share the view of many that Orioles aren't a priority, despite their rarity and think more should be done to preserve them. A visit to the reserve sees lots of interpretation about the reedbed birds but there's hardly any mention of the Orioles, despite it being the reason most people go.

Although it is a fabulous reserve which I had the pleasure of visiting in May, take the Orioles away and I think the visitor numbers would be down significantly.

They are obviously the main attraction there and a bird which I particularly enjoyed seeing. More needs to be done to protect the Orioles in my view, especially as you quite rightly state, there are lots of other reserves with reedbeds in the area.

Neil Calbrade · Status: Offline

The creation of the Lakenheath reserve is a bit of forward thinking from the RSPB, as global warming continues, large reedbeds such as those at Minsmere, Titchwell and Walberswick will soon get swallowed up and if reedbeds aren't established now to allow them to build up the ecosystems, then the Bitterns and the like will have nowhere to go.
I live not far from Lakenheath, and I do share the view of many that Orioles aren't a priority, despite their rarity and think more should be done to preserve them. A visit to the reserve sees lots of interpretation about the reedbed birds but there's hardly any mention of the Orioles, despite it being the reason most people go.

Mike Chorley · Status: Offline

The 'problem' is that Lakenheath is the only Oriole site with both good public access and habitat protection, unlike,say, Fordham, where there were often problems - not least birders blocking the bridge.

The impression I've been left with on annual visits since the RSPB took over is that, until last year, the plantations were very much second fiddle to establishing another reedbed reserve. That's no bad thing in itself, but with an arc of established reserves (many of them RSPB-owned) from Minsmere to Titchwell it seems a shame to give that plan priority in that particular place. I'm sure there was no thought of damaging the plantations, but altering the water table anywhere will have quite far-reaching effects.
That's why all the wet slacks at Formby are lined with plastic. When the new estate was built in the 1960's the building site was drained and the water table on the reserve dropped as well -surprise, surprise!

paul brady · Status: Offline

Mark Rigby wrote:

Ian McKerchar wrote:

Iain is of course correct with regards the trees at Lakenheath and they were originally planted for matchsticks. With that in mind, they were never intended to be permanent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But when a stand of tree's was harvested, they were quickly replanted on a rotation system so there was always a mature plantation for the poor Orioles to take up residence.

Hopefully when all the tree's at Lakenheath have gone and with the onset of global warming, the Oriole's may make thier way northwards to little old GM

Again just to provide a bit more background to the subject.

It was/is possible under the Woodland Grant Scheme to get monety for planting poplar on a rotational basis. The wood is being encouraged also http://www.poplartree.co.uk/mixedbroad.htm
And farmers can make money from the sale of the wood too.

PLus I know of some farmland close by that has poplar plantations too....

paul brady · Status: Offline

Mark Rigby wrote:

Neil McCall wrote:

But Golden Orioles, lovely and rare that they are in the UK, have a very wide distribution and are not considered threatened globally - I've never seen the Lakenheath orioles but I've seen two quite by chance at other locations in Norfolk/Suffolk, and I only visit once a year, so there are clearly others around.

Bitterns and cranes are probably far more in need of protection if you take a wider viewpoint.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My point was the destruction of one habitat to create another. There are more breeding Bittern's, White-tailed Eagle's in Britain than there are Golden Oriole and about the same number of Common Crane's.

Yes, on the whole there are more Golden Orioles worldwide, but with over 250000 Common Cranes worldwide, they are not classed as "threatened globally" either.

The RSPB, on their very own website acknowledge that Golden Oriole is a Red listed bird but the Common Crane is Amber listed and even tell you that the best place to see Golden Oriole's it at their very own reserve at Lakenheath. Not for much longer me thinks!

Also taken from the website," The Great Crane Project (GCP) is a partnership between the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT), the RSPB, Pensthorpe Conservation Trust and Viridor Credits Environmental Company. The project aims to re-establish a sustainable population of Common Cranes in Britain". Why go to all that trouble if it is an Amber listed bird in this country by their own admission?????? Could it be something to do with "Viridor Credits".

Like I said, on the whole, the RSPB get it right, but sometimes they appear blinkered to the bigger picture-why?

Some answers for the GCP - FAQ's

http://www.rspb.org.uk/supporting/campaigns/greatcraneproject/faq.asp

Sometimes conservation is about taking an iconic species and using it as a flagship to demostarte how projects can work to the general public thus raising general awareness and support therefore leading to more money and suppotrt for future projects for less well-known/less glamorous species???

Matt Potter · Status: Offline

Rob Thorpe wrote:

I personally think that the RSPB should have used that "incident" as an opportunity to change their name to the People's Society for the Protection of Birds (PSPB). I might even join then...

Or the Peoples Front of Judea.......

Rob Thorpe · Status: Offline

I personally think that the RSPB should have used that "incident" as an opportunity to change their name to the People's Society for the Protection of Birds (PSPB). I might even join then...

Andy Bissitt · Status: Offline

As the conversation has veered towards hen harriers can I just remind people (if they need it) of the well publicised case where this species was apparently the victim of gunfire on the Sandringham Estate a few years back, when a certain Prince of the Realm may or may not have been involved. The fact that the RSPB went all coy on this matter to protect their Royal charter was another close shave for my continued support of them (the RSPB that is, not the Royal family. I support them whether I like it or not).

Mike Passant · Status: Offline

I note down below the authors of a book quoted as "Pyefinch and Golborn."

Surely "Pyefinch" in this context is a "nom de plume", derived from that little known Wigan endemic which sadly became extinct due to mass conscription of bakers during WW1.

Regards,
Mike P

Rob Thorpe · Status: Offline

Mark Rigby wrote:

Ian Woosey wrote:

"Potts (1998) estimates that England could support 232 nesting females

Not any more I'm afraid. All benefits are being cut under the new government

-- Edited by Mark Rigby on Wednesday 30th of June 2010 10:12:57 PM

If the Hen Harriers moved into the financial sector they'd get ample government support...

Mark Rigby · Status: Offline

Ian Woosey wrote:

"Potts (1998) estimates that England could support 232 nesting females

Not any more I'm afraid. All benefits are being cut under the new government

-- Edited by Mark Rigby on Wednesday 30th of June 2010 10:12:57 PM

Ian Woosey · Status: Offline

"It is likely that the Hen Harrier would greatly increase in numbers and recolonise much of its former English range if illegal persecution ceased.......Potts (1998) estimates that England could support 232 nesting females in the absence of persecution."

"Birds In England" (Brown & Grice 2005).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Breeding was suspected but unproven on Chat Moss (now in Greater Manchester) in 1941-46."

"Atlas Of The Breeding Birds Of Lancashire And North Merseyside" (Pyefinch & Golborn 2001).

-- Edited by Ian Woosey on Wednesday 30th of June 2010 09:51:48 PM

Rob Thorpe · Status: Offline

It could work on a pairs per square km basis maybe...

Mark Rigby · Status: Offline

Well done Mr.Thorpe.

You have come out with the most sensible quote on this site for a long time, in theory.

The only problem is that most of the moorland in Britain is owned by a few landowners. It would have to be managed by individual moor and not landowners, otherwise we could have less pairs than we have currently

What a sad state of affairs when we have to go to such lengths to protect birds, just so the toff's can go shooting

Rob Thorpe · Status: Offline

Here's an idea: How about if all the landowners had to apply for a licence to permit the shooting of grouse on their land, BUT the ONLY way to obtain a licence is if the RSPB can find evidence of Hen Harrier breeding on said land. This could then be reviewed annually (in the breeding season of course) and, if the Hen Harriers do not breed, the licence is revoked. Just think how much effort (and inherited fortune) the landowners would pump in to creating suitable conditions for Hen Harrier!

-- Edited by Rob Thorpe on Wednesday 30th of June 2010 08:48:51 PM

Iain Johnson · Status: Offline

http://www.rspb.org.uk/news/details.asp?id=tcm:9-225533

Recent work by the RSPB to find new ways of managing this problem...Is this thinking outside the box enough for you?

Thanks for bringing, and the Langholm link, this to the attention of the forum and this post in particular.

I'll let others decide whether the techniques discussed are 'thinking outside of the box' or not and present a viable alternative.

paul brady · Status: Offline

Maybe the RSPB should set up a moorland reserve which is used for shooting grouse but also has hen harrier, that way they may be able to demonstrate that grouse and harriers can live side by side and the hunting lobby can have their bird!

-- Edited by Iain Johnson on Tuesday 29th of June 2010 02:11:36 PM

They have haven't they???

http://www.langholmproject.com/

paul brady · Status: Offline

Iain Johnson wrote:

Ian, the comment re RSPB reserves and shooting was a tongue in cheek opinion, as you may have guessed.

Also, I'm only too well aware of the (perceived) threats to Hen Harriers and the RSPB's reserve at Geltsdale. I also support their latest initiative of managing the area around Dovestones despite also my interest in rock climbing (potential bird restrictions are controversial within this community).

And yes, I agree that landowners should be prosecuted if proven that they and their employees are found to be breaking the law. No-one is above the law.

However, and returning to my tongue in cheek comment, maybe the RSPB should re-think how they can manage moors to facilitate both Hen Harriers and Grouse and if it means managing moors to prove that both species can live side by side and that shooters are still able to shoot grouse then fine. Especially, as you suggest Ian, the RSPB are afraid of upsetting (perceived) influential landowners.

If this is the case, then the RSPB need to think outside the box (apologies for the management speak), consider scrapping traditional conservation techniques and management practices in favour of those that are innovative and cutting edge.

The RSPB/ conservation need to demonstrate that these species can co-exist before landowners/ gamekeepers are going to listen or until there are several high profile prosecutions.

I imagine that the majority of people on this forum eat meat including chicken and turkey? So, if grouse were managed commercially to the benefit of wildlife including Hen Harriers and grouse what would be the difference? Many of the pheasant and partridge we see are commercially reared. But yes, it's a controversial idea.

However, the Hen Harrier issue, in my opinion, is one small but important part of a larger jigsaw that the RSPB is involved in.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/news/details.asp?id=tcm:9-225533

Recent work by the RSPB to find new ways of managing this problem...Is this thinking outside the box enough for you?

paul brady · Status: Offline

Neil Calbrade wrote:

Adrian Dancy wrote:

Chris Packham who is Vice President of the RSPB said on Autumnwatch "Our biggest problem is over population by human beings". Of course he is right. I'm not sure how we can deal with that one!

Erm, Chris Packham is Vice President of the BTO, it's his blonde piece partner in crime Kate Humble that's Vice President of the RSPB.

As an employee of the BTO obviously I'm not allowed to make comment other than being a large organisation with many hundreds of staff, they have a better football team than us, although having said that they got knocked out of the Rutland five a side tournament in the semi's like we did!

Chris has been VP of the RSPB along with the latest Pres Kate Humble.

Oh and the RSPB wouldn't have been knocked out at the semi-final stage if I was playing!

Neil Calbrade · Status: Offline

Adrian Dancy wrote:

Chris Packham who is Vice President of the RSPB said on Autumnwatch "Our biggest problem is over population by human beings". Of course he is right. I'm not sure how we can deal with that one!

Erm, Chris Packham is Vice President of the BTO, it's his blonde piece partner in crime Kate Humble that's Vice President of the RSPB.

As an employee of the BTO obviously I'm not allowed to make comment other than being a large organisation with many hundreds of staff, they have a better football team than us, although having said that they got knocked out of the Rutland five a side tournament in the semi's like we did!

Iain Johnson · Status: Offline

Ian, the comment re RSPB reserves and shooting was a tongue in cheek opinion, as you may have guessed.

Also, I'm only too well aware of the (perceived) threats to Hen Harriers and the RSPB's reserve at Geltsdale. I also support their latest initiative of managing the area around Dovestones despite also my interest in rock climbing (potential bird restrictions are controversial within this community).

And yes, I agree that landowners should be prosecuted if proven that they and their employees are found to be breaking the law. No-one is above the law.

However, and returning to my tongue in cheek comment, maybe the RSPB should re-think how they can manage moors to facilitate both Hen Harriers and Grouse and if it means managing moors to prove that both species can live side by side and that shooters are still able to shoot grouse then fine. Especially, as you suggest Ian, the RSPB are afraid of upsetting (perceived) influential landowners.

If this is the case, then the RSPB need to think outside the box (apologies for the management speak), consider scrapping traditional conservation techniques and management practices in favour of those that are innovative and cutting edge.

The RSPB/ conservation need to demonstrate that these species can co-exist before landowners/ gamekeepers are going to listen or until there are several high profile prosecutions.

I imagine that the majority of people on this forum eat meat including chicken and turkey? So, if grouse were managed commercially to the benefit of wildlife including Hen Harriers and grouse what would be the difference? Many of the pheasant and partridge we see are commercially reared. But yes, it's a controversial idea.

However, the Hen Harrier issue, in my opinion, is one small but important part of a larger jigsaw that the RSPB is involved in.

Anyway, we can discuss this further over a jar on the next Manchester birding trip to the east coast to nab all the rarities! Cheers

Judith Smith · Status: Offline

22 young Hen Harriers have fledged on Bowland this year, so I am told. Very few of these will be seen again, as, as soon as they leave UU land, they "disappear".
Six Peregrine nests in Lancashire have been robbed or the young shot (the one on NW Tonight yesterday was actually not at Bowland). The future for Peregrines is on secure buildings, in my opinion!
I do think the RSPB needs to take a stiffer line about all this, even if it does mean offending some members of the "establishment".

-- Edited by Ian McKerchar on Wednesday 30th of June 2010 12:36:52 AM

Mark Rigby · Status: Offline

Ian McKerchar wrote:

Iain is of course correct with regards the trees at Lakenheath and they were originally planted for matchsticks. With that in mind, they were never intended to be permanent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But when a stand of tree's was harvested, they were quickly replanted on a rotation system so there was always a mature plantation for the poor Orioles to take up residence.

Hopefully when all the tree's at Lakenheath have gone and with the onset of global warming, the Oriole's may make thier way northwards to little old GM

Ian Woosey · Status: Offline

Iain Johnson wrote:

Maybe the RSPB should set up a moorland reserve which is used for shooting grouse but also has hen harrier, that way they may be able to demonstrate that grouse and harriers can live side by side and the hunting lobby can have their bird!

Iain. The RSPB have a very good moorland reserve in Cumbria, called Geltsdale. Trouble is, the surrounding moorland is owned by estates that shoot Grouse - whenever Hen Harriers wander over the `wrong` moor they are shot to pieces !!!

Hen Harriers take Grouse chicks, in the same way that Great Black-backed Gulls take Guillemot chicks (amongst many others) - it is nature...
All moorland should/could hold Hen Harriers - it is a simple fact..

Mike (P) is quite right in that LANDOWNERS should be fined very heavily if it is proved that any Raptor was killed on their land. The gamekeepers are the easy fall-guys - yes, it is they who do the killing (that is their job after all) but it is ON BEHALF OF THEIR EMPLOYERS, and it is they (solely), who carry the can when (IF !?) prosecution arises. Then they are just "moved on" and another gamekeeper is employed - and then the whole sorry scenario starts again........THIS is where I think the RSPB lets itself (us as well) down. They know it is the landowners of shooting estates that ultimately are to blame for the relentless persecution of Raptors - but these very same landowners are some of the most `influential` and powerful people in the land, and therefore, the RSPB (and others admittedly) are very loathe to "upset the apple cart" by persuing, (and I mean REALLY PERSUING !) any form of prosecution.............so God help us !!!!

This is a can of worms that I didn`t really want to bring up, coz it gets my blood absolutely boiling, but there you have it !

-- Edited by Ian Woosey on Tuesday 29th of June 2010 05:36:14 PM

-- Edited by Ian Woosey on Tuesday 29th of June 2010 05:41:58 PM

Ian McKerchar · Status: Offline

Iain is of course correct with regards the trees at Lakenheath and they were originally planted for matchsticks. With that in mind, they were never intended to be permanent and they have very small roots which have always been susceptable to those sweeping Norfolk/Suffolk winds. No doubt the wetting underneath hasn't helped though!

Only the very western end of the reserve used to be carrot fields, the rest was one (or two) huge woods. On my first visit in the mid-80's you used to wander around the woods themselves and rarely saw more than half a dozen other birders. How times have changed now

Iain Johnson · Status: Offline

Henry Cook wrote:

Mark Rigby wrote:

My point was the destruction of one habitat to create another. There are more breeding Bittern's, White-tailed Eagle's in Britain than there are Golden Oriole and about the same number of Common Crane's.

As far as I know, the habitat for Bitterns and Cranes at Lakenheath Fen RSPB used to be a Carrot field!

And raw material for Bryant's matches! maybe we should all take up smoking!!

Whilst there are seemingly endless moors, we can only speculate that all gamekeepers are killing off harriers, as easy and convenient it is to do so. Firm and conclusive evidence is required for all incidences Other reasons may include those particular areas not actually being suitable habitat, lack of food and a lack of birds given that the population is quite low in England. The current harrier population may also be an 'aged' population which is currently dying off, thereby reducing the population further. I'm not trying to shift the blame but gamekeepers may not be the only causal factor.

Maybe the RSPB should set up a moorland reserve which is used for shooting grouse but also has hen harrier, that way they may be able to demonstrate that grouse and harriers can live side by side and the hunting lobby can have their bird!

-- Edited by Iain Johnson on Tuesday 29th of June 2010 02:11:36 PM

Henry Cook · Status: Offline

Mark Rigby wrote:

My point was the destruction of one habitat to create another. There are more breeding Bittern's, White-tailed Eagle's in Britain than there are Golden Oriole and about the same number of Common Crane's.

As far as I know, the habitat for Bitterns and Cranes at Lakenheath Fen RSPB used to be a Carrot field!

jason fisher · Status: Offline

on the subject of bowland, it appears from the raptor politics website that a whole peregrine nest has been wiped out , the close to fledging chicks having been shot on the nest.

Mike Passant · Status: Offline

Hi Ian,

It's pleasing to see someone letting off steam about Hen Harriers as well, I absolutely share your sentiments.
This is a subject that many of us up here in Co. Durham get really enraged about; we have miles and miles of endless suitable moorland habitat and how many breeding pairs of Hen Harrier? You guessed it; = none!

It's obvious to anyone but a simpleton that keepers are persecuting them and they have a deliberate policy of denial and silence on the subject; (like "omerta" with the mafia; the "conspiracy of silence.")

The problem is getting conclusive prove to mount successful prosecutions and the will to carry cases through. What should happen is that once such a prosecution might be successful, guilty parties should be jailed and fined; keepers should lose their shotgun licences (for life), and landowners should be fined so heavily that any income from Grouse shooting pales into insignificance relative to the size of punitive fines.

there Ian, - that's my rant!

Cheers,
Mike P.

Tim Wilcox · Status: Offline

Viridor is a waste management, recycling and landfill management company. Viridor Credits is a 'separate' company set up to administer Landfill Tax Credits under the Landfill Communities Fund. It would appear there are various Viridor Credit subsidiaries too 'buying up' environmental groups for this purpose. Not necessarily sinister but I'd bet its a worthwhile tax dodge! Viridor's website documents recycling plant schemes and landfill site schemes to extract gas some of which have been tunred down for planning permission. Make of that what you will...

Mark Rigby · Status: Offline

Neil McCall wrote:

But Golden Orioles, lovely and rare that they are in the UK, have a very wide distribution and are not considered threatened globally - I've never seen the Lakenheath orioles but I've seen two quite by chance at other locations in Norfolk/Suffolk, and I only visit once a year, so there are clearly others around.

Bitterns and cranes are probably far more in need of protection if you take a wider viewpoint.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My point was the destruction of one habitat to create another. There are more breeding Bittern's, White-tailed Eagle's in Britain than there are Golden Oriole and about the same number of Common Crane's.

Yes, on the whole there are more Golden Orioles worldwide, but with over 250000 Common Cranes worldwide, they are not classed as "threatened globally" either.

The RSPB, on their very own website acknowledge that Golden Oriole is a Red listed bird but the Common Crane is Amber listed and even tell you that the best place to see Golden Oriole's it at their very own reserve at Lakenheath. Not for much longer me thinks!

Also taken from the website," The Great Crane Project (GCP) is a partnership between the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT), the RSPB, Pensthorpe Conservation Trust and Viridor Credits Environmental Company. The project aims to re-establish a sustainable population of Common Cranes in Britain". Why go to all that trouble if it is an Amber listed bird in this country by their own admission?????? Could it be something to do with "Viridor Credits".

Like I said, on the whole, the RSPB get it right, but sometimes they appear blinkered to the bigger picture-why?

Adrian Dancy · Status: Offline

Chris Packham who is Vice President of the RSPB said on Autumnwatch "Our biggest problem is over population by human beings". Of course he is right. I'm not sure how we can deal with that one!

It is simply untrue to make a generalised statement that money always comes first though of course it often does. The City Tower rejuvination scheme, a multimillion pound project, halted work for our peregrines back in 2005. A smaller buildings sandblasting company stopped work at the drop of a hat for our black redstarts and I negotiated with the management of a nearby high rise building to the CIS to halt an operation that would put our juvenile peregrines in imminent peril and the building management cooperated, at cost to them.

Whatever grudges some may have with the RSPB (and I have had some) they still require our continued support. A large organisation will make mistakes, it is to be expected, but the overall good they do is unquantifiably huge. Spending money abroad is absolutley essential and they are a flagship organisation for conservation bodies worldwide who take a lead from the RSPB to see 'how it's done'. Huge organisations by their very nature need to be sensitive to all their members and the people and politicians (both home and abroad) they seek to influence. If people like us are seen to be withdrawing membership of the RSPB then what message does that send to politicians?

We spend hundreds if not thousands of pounds on bins, telescopes, cameras , petrol and birding holidays etc so think about the value of withdrawing membership at around 3 quid a month. To me it's a no brainer.

Rant over....join the BTO as well!

Andy Bissitt · Status: Offline

My point is that the RSPB is trying so hard to be 'right on' and to not ruffle any feathers lest they offend any section of the community and thus find their membership dropping below the magic million. I don't know if you read the magazine, but a couple of issues ago the female columnist wrote a sob-sob story about how her garden birds had gone hungry because she could not afford to feed them as well as her three children. Of course the irony of the situation (which I pointed out to the RSPB themselves by the way) was totally missed by them. When it comes to the crunch people will put themselves first and wildlife a distant second, and the more people there are, the more this will become the case. No offence was meant to anyone. I just hate double standards that's all.

Iain Johnson wrote:

"Their magazine is a PC 'thought- policemans' dream (a female columnist (with 2.6 children), a coloured person, and maybe a gay, I don't know)."

Not sure what the issue is with the RSPB employing a female columnist, a coloured person and maybe a gay is?

Dennis atherton · Status: Offline

i thought this was quite relevent, today i spent the whole day up the trough of bowland, the site where the hen harrier is the logo of the society, all day, walked till my feet had had enough, along as many paths and hills as i could find and i did not see a single hen harrier !!! Help is needed here, i agree

Ian Woosey wrote:

Right, lets condense this down a bit to the main point of my post:-

Birds of prey are being illegally persecuted in BRITAIN. They are being slaughtered in their hundreds anually. The `Royal Society for the PROTECTION of Birds` should be pumping a lot of money into this problem, and pulling out all the stops to end it. They come up with schemes to reintroduce/expand the range of certain species of birds of prey, but in my opinion they don`t do enough to solve very serious crimes against the already locally resident and struggling species - THE HEN HARRIER IN PARTICULAR !!!!

Please look at the link again in my original post, and read the archive sections.

I would much rather see (for example) a flourishing Peregrine population on the moors of Chorley/Darwen/Bolton than a species thousands of miles away, which local conservation THERE should be taking care of. Also, I would have joined Birdlife International had I been that interested in overseas matters........

Sort out shooting in Malta ???!!!! IT IS GOING ON within a dozen miles of us

-- Edited by Ian Woosey on Sunday 27th of June 2010 11:30:10 AM

-- Edited by Ian Woosey on Sunday 27th of June 2010 11:38:38 AM

Neil McCall · Status: Offline

But Golden Orioles, lovely and rare that they are in the UK, have a very wide distribution and are not considered threatened globally - I've never seen the Lakenheath orioles but I've seen two quite by chance at other locations in Norfolk/Suffolk, and I only visit once a year, so there are clearly others around.

Bitterns and cranes are probably far more in need of protection if you take a wider viewpoint.

Rob Thorpe · Status: Offline

Unfortunately, wildlife will always come second to profit in our greedy money-driven capitalist society...

Mark Rigby · Status: Offline

Ian Woosey wrote:

but in my opinion they don`t do enough to solve very serious crimes against the already locally resident and struggling species - THE HEN HARRIER IN PARTICULAR !!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know where you are coming from Mr .Woosey, but I already pay quite a lot of money, money that I have no choice in paying I might add, to fund a police force.

Surely, in an ideal world, the police should be dealing with the crimes and the RSPB can then be left to sort out the habitat issues.

I have had dealings with the police in recent years when I witnessed some bxxxxxds trying to steal Long-eared Owl chicks and the police could not have been less interested. We in Oldham don't even have a dedicated wildlife officer (for what they are worth anyway!) but I can guarantee if I had taken the law into my own hands and give these "low life's" a good hiding, then the police would soon be knocking on my door!

Ian Woosey · Status: Offline

Right, lets condense this down a bit to the main point of my post:-

Birds of prey are being illegally persecuted in BRITAIN. They are being slaughtered in their hundreds anually. The `Royal Society for the PROTECTION of Birds` should be pumping a lot of money into this problem, and pulling out all the stops to end it. They come up with schemes to reintroduce/expand the range of certain species of birds of prey, but in my opinion they don`t do enough to solve very serious crimes against the already locally resident and struggling species - THE HEN HARRIER IN PARTICULAR !!!!

Please look at the link again in my original post, and read the archive sections.

I would much rather see (for example) a flourishing Peregrine population on the moors of Chorley/Darwen/Bolton than a species thousands of miles away, which local conservation THERE should be taking care of. Also, I would have joined Birdlife International had I been that interested in overseas matters........

Sort out shooting in Malta ???!!!! IT IS GOING ON within a dozen miles of us

-- Edited by Ian Woosey on Sunday 27th of June 2010 11:30:10 AM

-- Edited by Ian Woosey on Sunday 27th of June 2010 11:38:38 AM

Mike Crawley · Status: Offline

If I remember correctly the origins of the RSPB lie in Didsbury, nice to see that Manchester naturalists still have concerns about preservation of the birds of the world even after 121 years....

Iain Johnson · Status: Offline

"Their magazine is a PC 'thought- policemans' dream (a female columnist (with 2.6 children), a coloured person, and maybe a gay, I don't know)."

Not sure what the issue is with the RSPB employing a female columnist, a coloured person and maybe a gay is?

Mark Rigby · Status: Offline

On the whole, I think the RSPB is getting it right. If they didn't support foreign ventures and raise awareness, then who else would.

One big gripe though, is the destruction of one habitat to make another.

For those of you who have visited Lakenheath since the RSPB have taken ownership will have noticed the reduction of the poplar plantations and the general poor health of a lot of the remaining trees.

The plan of flooding the fens to create habitat for Bittern and Common Crane have certainly worked, but possibly at the cost of another rare breeding bird, the Golden Oriole.

Because of the flooding,the poplars have either given up, or had their roots undermined by the damp conditions and simply blown over during strong winds.

There seems to have been a disregard for the Orioles. Mr.Chorley and myself certainly got this impression when visiting the new visitors centre a couple of years ago. Comments were passed about the possible demise of the Orioles , to which the reply was, "yes, but we will have Bitterns and Cranes". A suitable comment was made in the visitors book!

There are several other RSPB reserves that are catering for Bittern's. Just how long will it be until the RSPB letter drops on your doormat asking for donations to help save the Golden Oriole!

Judith Smith · Status: Offline

You can be in both organisations, Andy! It is allowed.

Andy Bissitt · Status: Offline

The RSPB. Where do I begin? At home they have become a frothy, family friendly, money making machine (a bit like the National Trust). Their magazine is a PC 'thought- policemans' dream (a female columnist (with 2.6 children), a coloured person, and maybe a gay, I don't know). It isn't just spending money overseas that gets to me, the amount pumped into new reserves around London and the south east means most of the reserves are out of my reach (although it is nice to know they are there I suppose).

However the big elephant in the room is their failure to acknowledge the overpopulation question. Instead they chose to drive the dubious climate change bandwagon. They cannot be an impartial player in the game that calls on conservation agencies to help save the planet whilst most of their income comes from families.

I received a free copy of the excellent BTO magazine this week with the option to join them. I am seriously thinking of making the change as the BTO seem more in step with my lifestyle.

Mike Passant · Status: Offline

Hi Guys,
I guess I'm in Anthony's camp on this one, as I do take a world view and seeing year after year the inexorable and increasing pressures on wilderness in general and on rainforest habitats in particular, I take some reluctant comfort in the fact that at least I'll be elsewhere before places such as the Amazon forest is completely gone.

As an active fundraiser for and supporter of Birdlife International, I do feel pride that amongst the worldwide 112 national conservation organisations, the RSPB is arguably up there as the leading role model and a shining example to all the rest in terms of its financial clout and huge experience, due in very large measure to its membership.

While Indonesia (of which of course Sumatra is a major part) is represented as one of these conservation bodies (Burung Indonesia), there are huge population pressures and ethnisity problems to contend with there, (not to mention frighteningly regular natural disasters), and it is all to easy for conservation priorities to get shoved onto the back burner without international support by way of funding and expertise.

Sumatra still has Tigers and Rhinos, both under desperate threat, as well as two endemic Pittas (Sneiders and Graceful) among of course other endemics which we just cannot afford to lose.
In short, I truly welcome RSPB taking this stance.
Regards,
Mike P