Had a visit from the 'RSPB' last night... (1 Viewer)

[Jos Stratford]

Based on its 2005 Financial Report, therefore, could one of the main reasons for the RSPB's need to raise additional income be required just to service its ever-increasing Staff Costs?

Or could it be that additional income is required as they now have more reserves than ever before, are involved in more conservation projects than ever before and, in short, doing more to protect British birds than ever before? If you believe a conservation body can manage over 180 reserves, totalling 125,000 hectares without incurring significant staff costs, then I am sure they would appreciate your advice. There are also over 170 local groups and 100 youth groups, illustrating the society is more than blocking off land, but also an organisation dedicated to people. It all needs money, if that is a problem for some, so be it. For me, it is money well-spent in the active conservation and promotion of British (and international) birds.

Do remember also that as well as the 1300 odd staff whose costs seem to concern you, there are also more than 13000 volunteers per year.

 

[kmonty1950]

You won't get enthustastic volunteers for canvassing, no matter what the cause!

This summed the thread up for me -some people are conservationists, some are salesmen, the RSPB need both.

Regards

Ken

P.S for the grammer nazis, please excuse any smelling pistakes.

 

[Alan Hobson]

Is it not odd that no-one from the RSPB has yet answered the various points on this thread? There is at least one RSPB employee who is a BF regular and will presumably have seen this discussion.

 

[humminbird]

You won't get enthustastic volunteers for canvassing, no matter what the cause!

I must take exception to this. As one who has personally canvassed in the past for several organizations, I refuse to canvass for an organization that offers reimbursement.

Tell it to the Salvation Army.

 

[Andrew Rowlands]

Is it not odd that no-one from the RSPB has yet answered the various points on this thread?

No.

There is at least one RSPB employee who is a BF regular and will presumably have seen this discussion.

How many of them are involved in fundraising policy?

 

[Collster]

Good point! Perhaps we should be looking at where and how these charities are already spending their existing income.

In the case of the RSPB, figures taken from its 2005 Financial Report are as follows:-

MEMBERSHIP SUBSCRIPTIONS £23,668,000 (up £769,000 on 2004)

LEGACIES £21,099,000 (up £1,473,000 on 2004)

STAFF COSTS £32,051,000 (up £3,594,000 on 2004)

TOTAL NET RESOURCES £63,022,000 (up £2,253,000 on 2004)

NET ASSETS £103,021,000 (up £8,492,000 on 2004)


This indicates that -

1) Total income from Membership Subscriptions alone does not cover Staff Costs.

2) Total income from Legacies alone does not cover Staff Costs.

3) Income from Legacies is growing faster and could soon exceed the income from Membership Subscriptions.

4) Expenditure on Staff Costs accounts for over half of the RSPB's Total Net Resources.

5) Assuming these figures are correct, this seems to show a disproportionate increase in Staff Costs when compared with either Membership Subscriptions or Legacies.

In addition to offices, staff, advertising, telephones and website, which you have already mentioned, other major expenditure such as motor vehicles, insurance, pensions etc. would no doubt be included.

Based on its 2005 Financial Report, therefore, could one of the main reasons for the RSPB's need to raise additional income be required just to service its ever-increasing Staff Costs?

What the hell has this got to do with agencies collecting for RSPB? If you want a rant about staffing levels and salaries start another thread, please :t:

 

[Collster]

Is it not odd that no-one from the RSPB has yet answered the various points on this thread? There is at least one RSPB employee who is a BF regular and will presumably have seen this discussion.

So what if a member works for them, doesnt mean they are obliged to post on ANY thread.

 

[humminbird]

Good point! Perhaps we should be looking at where and how these charities are already spending their existing income.

In the case of the RSPB, figures taken from its 2005 Financial Report are as follows:-

MEMBERSHIP SUBSCRIPTIONS £23,668,000 (up £769,000 on 2004)

LEGACIES £21,099,000 (up £1,473,000 on 2004)

STAFF COSTS £32,051,000 (up £3,594,000 on 2004)

TOTAL NET RESOURCES £63,022,000 (up £2,253,000 on 2004)

NET ASSETS £103,021,000 (up £8,492,000 on 2004)


This indicates that -

1) Total income from Membership Subscriptions alone does not cover Staff Costs.

2) Total income from Legacies alone does not cover Staff Costs.

3) Income from Legacies is growing faster and could soon exceed the income from Membership Subscriptions.

4) Expenditure on Staff Costs accounts for over half of the RSPB's Total Net Resources.

5) Assuming these figures are correct, this seems to show a disproportionate increase in Staff Costs when compared with either Membership Subscriptions or Legacies.

In addition to offices, staff, advertising, telephones and website, which you have already mentioned, other major expenditure such as motor vehicles, insurance, pensions etc. would no doubt be included.

Based on its 2005 Financial Report, therefore, could one of the main reasons for the RSPB's need to raise additional income be required just to service its ever-increasing Staff Costs?

I don't notice how much they paid for others to raise funds for them. Of course, they will contend that it was not their money until it was in their hands so they do not have to report it.

 

[Osprey_watcher]

What the hell has this got to do with agencies collecting for RSPB? If you want a rant about staffing levels and salaries start another thread, please :t:

Stop biting VB, you to Jos. It's AM trying to hijack again.

 

[dbradnum]

This BBC News article is very topical: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5341696.stm

and suggests that the RSPB are very unlikely to make a net gain in popularity as a result of knocking on doors, whether through an agency or not!

 

[Allen S. Moore]

RSPB publish their accounts, so it should be clear where their money is going. All you have to do is scan through and make up your mind whether you want to support them. I do know several people who will not join the RSPB due to some of their practices. While they are technically a charity they are also a large business these days, and they act like it it has to be said. They are also increasingly politicised. Some find all of that distasteful, and feel that they take their membership for granted.

Personally, i think that RSPB membership is fairly bad value for money for many people.

Yes, although I have been a member of the RSPB for about 35 years, I am inclined to agree with you, including your last 2 points, Poecile. Many times I have wondered why I remain a member, and once it took a Regional Officer (now retired) to persuade me to retain my membership.

Allen

 

[Anthony Morton]

This BBC News article is very topical: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5341696.stm

and suggests that the RSPB are very unlikely to make a net gain in popularity as a result of knocking on doors, whether through an agency or not!

Thanks for an interesting link.

As the BBC report suggests, would it really be too much to expect the UK Government to extend the concept and scope of the Telephone Preference Service and the Mail Preference Service to include 'chuggers' as well?

 

[Osprey_watcher]

Yes, although I have been a member of the RSPB for about 35 years, I am inclined to agree with you, including your last 2 points, Poecile. Many times I have wondered why I remain a member, and once it took a Regional Officer (now retired) to persuade me to retain my membership.

Allen

I don't see how it is bad value for money. For less than three quid a month you get a quarterly bird mag and free entrance to god knows how many nature reserves.

 

[Collster]

I don't see how it is bad value for money. For less than three quid a month you get a quarterly bird mag and free entrance to god knows how many nature reserves.

Lets put it this way i would rather have an organisation like the RSPB fighting the corner for birds( with all their faults , real or percieved) than not have them. So if your not happy dont rejoin, its really as simple as that

 

[lancsbatsman]

I don't see how it is bad value for money. For less than three quid a month you get a quarterly bird mag and free entrance to god knows how many nature reserves.

Surely it's not about value for money. I woud still be a member if I got no mag (I only read the conservation action section anyway) or free ticket which I don't use anyway. The point is that the money's being spent on birds whether directly or indirectly. I hate the corporate thing but I guess that's the way they have to compete. The thing that worries me is how much dosh are getting from birdfood sellers to endorse their products and engourage year-round feeding which as the excellent Touty has said somewhere else is not a good thing.

 

[Bonsaibirder]

Surely it's not about value for money. I woud still be a member if I got no mag (I only read the conservation action section anyway) or free ticket which I don't use anyway.

Yes, I agree - I have often wondered (but never asked) if it is possible to opt out of the magazine - I give my money so they can buy land and protect birds/habitat.

The thing that worries me is how much dosh are getting from birdfood sellers to endorse their products and engourage year-round feeding which as the excellent Touty has said somewhere else is not a good thing.

I realise this is a subject from a different thread - I would be interested in reading it if anyone can direct me to it.

Cheers,

 

[tittletattler]

This is a fantastic thread full of many thought provoking issues and ideas.

Anyway, I haven't always agreed with some of the decisions and practises adopted by the RSPB, but the bottom line is that they have purchased land and developed many superb nature reserves over the years and without our support they would not be able to continue this good work. Remember, every time they make a 'capital' purchase, they will then need revenue to support it every year thereafter (ie, to fund staff etc).

'Chuggers' are a fad that will pass. In the meantime tell them to 'get lost' if they turn up on your doorstep. If they are rude or aggressive, then do what I once did and let all the air out of the tyres whilst they're down the other end of the street (I had seen him drive up).

I visit many RSPB reserves and one thing that surprises me is that I have only once been asked to show a warden/volunteer my membership card whilst sat in a hide (ie, not including visitor centres) and that was in 1985! Even at places like Twitchwell & Minsmere, where many members of the public also use the paths/hides, I am often surprised to see that there isn't a smiley canvasser standing on the path asking people if they are members or not.

I also always donate at least a fiver to the RSPB if I twitch a rarity on one of their reserves. However, it is often difficult to find someone to give the money to! Whilst I was standing at Elmley watching the Pallid Harrier I had a crisp, shiny tenner in my hand but noone came by with a bucket for donations.

Cheers,

Andy.

 

[Bonsaibirder]

I visit many RSPB reserves and one thing that surprises me is that I have only once been asked to show a warden/volunteer my membership card whilst sat in a hide (ie, not including visitor centres) and that was in 1985! Even at places like Twitchwell & Minsmere, where many members of the public also use the paths/hides, I am often surprised to see that there isn't a smiley canvasser standing on the path asking people if they are members or not.

This is a good point. I have rarely if ever been asked for my card, which is a good job because i usually forget it. To check more thoroughly would be good PR I think, at least in terms of making clear who is managing/owning the land and they might get some new members. They might also discover some hypocrites birding the reserves without contributing any money!

 

[symphony]

If they are rude or aggressive, then do what I once did and let all the air out of the tyres whilst they're down the other end of the street (I had seen him drive up).

LOL there Andy. That's how to deal with doorstep chuggers.


:clap:

 

[deborah4]

BirdLife International Partner

It amazes me just how much slagging off the RSPB get sometimes on BF!

Considering most people here are at least armchair conservationists, if not actively involved in working to protect endemic species of their own country and the habit so vital for the sustaining of those species. BF is an international forum and perhaps it might be an idea to take a less localised look, from a funding perspective. The RSPB as a BirdLife International Partner, supports, with funding, a lot of work for this agency, thus contributing to work being carried out for the protection of birds, not endemic to the UK, or those who are only rare migrant visitors.

see here eg. http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/index.html

Raising awareness of species at risk, also costs money, as do campaigns such as that being conducted on behalf of the Albatross. I wonder whether perhaps, UK and European residents, have a little more disposable income in their pockets, compared to other places where Partnership work is carried out?

I can't agree with calling people 'hypocrites' simply because they dont bung a fiver in a bucket when they visit a Reserve! The fact that they are visiting these places rather than spending the day at amusement arcades or 'theme parks', should be applauded not critised - converts are made by personal experience!

I also can't agree with the comment made earlier, implying a funding official for the RSPB should be somehow justifying or defending their fundraising practices on a thread such as this! - this is a public forum of individuals, only all too recently members were slating the RSPB as a result of one individual being quoted out of context on a BBC programme, then calling for the RSPB to have only 'corporate spokespersons'!

'Chuggers' are not popular, regardless of the organisation - so: Don't open the door or, if you already support the RSPB, then say so. Or, if it's a nerd who knows nothing about the RSPB, then educate him! I'd rather deal with chuggers collecting money on behalf of the RSPB than have to pay more money out of my Council tax to fund someone to co-ordinate and monitor 'chugger free zones' that would be even less money from me for the RSPB!

Yes, it's a massive Corporate business, and as such, plays the corporate business game. However, I think it would be really regretable for people to withdraw support from the RSPB, simply because they don't like all the methods they use to do work that very few other organisations have the clout, or willing, to do, both in this country and abroad. I think it would be even more regretable, if those withdrawing support consisted of dedicated birdwatchers and conservationists, of which I'm sure most of us are.

(apologies for the excessively long post)