Shouldn't the RSPB mainly be to conserve birds and not other wildlife? (1 Viewer)

[IAN JAMES THOMPSON]

Shouldn't the RSPB main object be to conserve birds and not other wildlife?

Shouldn't the RSPB main conservation object be to conserve mainly birds and only secondary to conserve other wildlife. As they are called the RSPB, shouldn't the RSPB's main priority be in protecting birds and the management of an RSPB reserve should only manage a reserve for other wildlife if it in anyway helps bird life. I see the RSPB's royal charter now protects equally all wildlife now. Even the RSPB magazine is not as interesting as it once was, as it includes equally other wildlife now as well. The original Birds magazine was far more interesting in years gone by as it once was exclusively about birds, which is my main interest. I'm very disappointed with the RSPB's magazine now. What do other Bird Forum members think about this subject?
Ian.

 

[John Cantelo]

Birds do not exist in a vacuum so protecting and conserving habitats with all the wildlife that thrives there makes sense. So I've no problem with the change in emphasis particularly since protecting specific rare birds and fighting persecution remains an important role.

 

[Adam W]

I think this was discussed on here not so long ago. It's a bit of a tricky one, As John says conservation is all about the bigger picture so they can't and shouldn't focus only on the birds and I would also think that most if not all members have a wider interest in wildlife in general anyway.
That said I do think that the number one focus should still be birds and I would expect things like the pictures on the membership cards (I think that's what started the discussion last time), front cover of the magazine and most of the content to be about birds.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Shouldn't the RSPB main conservation object be to conserve mainly birds and only secondary to conserve other wildlife. As they are called the RSPB, shouldn't the RSPB's main priority be in protecting birds and the management of an RSPB reserve should only manage a reserve for other wildlife if it in anyway helps bird life. I see the RSPB's royal charter now protects equally all wildlife now. Even the RSPB magazine is not as interesting as it once was, as it includes equally other wildlife now as well. The original Birds magazine was far more interesting in years gone by as it once was exclusively about birds, which is my main interest. I'm very disappointed with the RSPB's magazine now. What do other Bird Forum members think about this subject?
Ian.

Undoubtedly not.

All the best

 

[MJB]

Birds do not exist in a vacuum so protecting and conserving habitats with all the wildlife that thrives there makes sense. So I've no problem with the change in emphasis particularly since protecting specific rare birds and fighting persecution remains an important role.

Agreed, John. That the RSPB magazine now treats conservation issues relating to birds in an integrated and holistic way makes it far more interesting than it used to be when it tended to present birds in a 'cuddly' way.

To summarise my argument:

"The world is as delicate and as complicated as a spider's web, and like a spider's web, if you touch one thread, you send shudders running through all the other threads that make up the web. But we're not just touching the web, we're tearing great holes in it; we're waging a sort of biological war on the world around us" - Gerald Durrell.

If anyone who has developed an interest in, and love of, birds seriously thinks that protection and conservation of birds can be addressed in isolation, or even worse that these activities preferably should be presented by conservation organisations as if they were occurring in isolation, then the self-centredness, complacency, lack of empathy and sheer selfishness is mind-blowing.

Yes, I admire wonderful photos and images of birds - I have many on the walls of my home - but all of these are likely to be but memories in advance of what once was. Please, please Ian, think harder of the context that envelops your remarks. You have but to scan through the endless lists of habitats under threat worldwide (such as presented in the journals and magazines of Neotropical Bird Club, African Bird Club, Oriental Bird Club and the Ornithological Society of the Middle East) to see that a lack of coherent conservation strategies involving local peoples has allowed untrammelled destruction, and that the only way to consider and present this issue is to recognise the interconnectedness of insect, plant, bird and mammal communities.

Indeed, there is an argument, but not one I support wholeheartedly, that no conservation body should ever publish an article or paper that does not emphasise the interconnectedness aspect above any other. I, too, like literate articles that inform through the sheer fascination of the charm of birds.
MJB

 

[Amarillo]

I think the change makes complete sense and the magazine is an improvement. As stated above you can't protect birds in isolation and if you did attempt to it would be ridiculous.

Also from a marketing point of view it makes sense to do this to attract a wider range of people rather than just "birders"

 

[Mark Lew1s]

I completely agree with all of those responding. I'm also sure that the vast majority of the RSPBs work remains bird focused. Promoting a holistic view of conservation is not the same as suddenly dividing up resources equally between birds, insects, mammals, plants etc. Have RSPB suddenly hired a bunch of botanists, entomologists, mycologists etc?

You can also be sure that bird protection is still of paramount importance on the reserves - look at the springwatch coverage at minsmere this year. If the RSPB were equally concerned with bird and badger conservation on their reserves they wouldn't be excluding badgers from rich feeding areas with custom designed electric fences.

The issue of the magazine is not relevant to me - I've always found it a bit rubbish really - and when I joined I did try and negotiate a means (or at least tick a box) of not receiving it, but still it arrives briefly at my place before making it's way on to various waiting rooms etc. I do see it as an excellent way of engaging with the public, or those who are developing their interest, but I think ideally it might not be printed on paper...

 

[MSA]

On a local level, our group, "CHOG" (Christchurch Harbour Ornithological Group) has always been about far more than just birds, with articles in our annual Reports about mammals, invertebrates, plants etc. Getting people interested and caring about wildlife and their environment is the key to preserving it, as more eloquently stated above.

 

[chris butterworth]

No habitat = no homes / no food = no birds! It's not difficult. In order to fully protect the habitat you have to protect as many of the suite of species that utilise it. Not giving equal status to other wildlife renders the conservation of birds impossible, unless you're advocating the RSPB turns their reserves into zoos. The argument that the RSPB is becoming less concerned about birds, and more interested in Red Squirrels etc. is the same unscientific, lumpen and deliberately contentious one put forward by groups such as "Songbird Survival" et al.

 

[stuartvine]

As everyone so far has stated, no habitat equals no birds. The shift in emphasis by the RSPB to very large scale landscape conservation makes absolute sense. Their partnerships and work in countries our migratory birds come from/go to/fly over is also vital. I quite like the magazine, it's a bit of a light read/look at the pics, but it does have to appeal to a very diverse membership.

 

[Farnboro John]

I entirely agree with the majority view. Conserving habitats underpins conserving ecosystems and birds can only exist in the context of ecosystems.

I also agree that the magazine is if anything better than it used to be. The magazine is the RSPB's main tool taking it into the houses of "ordinary" members - people who are not instilled with a wide and deep knowledge of wildlife and ecology - and it needs to explain some quite deep concepts in ways that engage Joe Public. Its not a quarterly equivalent of those over-fluffy over-saturated photo-calendars of bright-coloured garden birds only.

It also needs to prevent awful doggerel written by nincompoops from reaching any audience at all....

John

 

[Phil Andrews]

I always liken supporting the RSPB to supporting a political party - you may not agree with all their individual policies (Ruddy Duck cull etc) but looking at the overall package they still represent the best game in town for conserving and promoting wildlife (including birds)

 

[Mary]

Carrying on with their theme of Homes for Wildlife.... RSPB&B - Birds & Biodiversity!

 

[string boozel]

I cancelled the magazine by e-mail but would never think of cancelling my membership. I'm completely in favour of the RSPB doing more broad based conservation work and preserving as many species as possible.

James.

 

[Nutcracker]

It also needs to prevent awful doggerel written by nincompoops from reaching any audience at all....

Agree with everyone else, though equally I'd prefer more dotterel than doggerel :king:

 

[MJB]

Agree with everyone else, though equally I'd prefer more dotterel than doggerel :king:

Well, 't' and 'g' are adjacent on the keyboard....
MJB

 

[trw]

If you are not happy with the RSPB how about joining your local Wildlife Trust or the National Trust.Both are doing tremendous work for birds locally.
There are also other organisations such as the Woodland Trust or WWT

 

[Mark Lew1s]

If you are not happy with the RSPB how about joining your local Wildlife Trust or the National Trust.Both are doing tremendous work for birds locally.
There are also other organisations such as the Woodland Trust or WWT

If you're not happy with the RSPB you don't fully understand what it does. By all means support local wildlife trusts, the national trust, and anyone else you like - but don't forget that you can support the RSPB for about the same price as one pint per month. Look at all of the reserves, research, international work, outreach, lobbying of government etc that RSPB does and tell me that you'd rather have that extra pint...

 

[Nutcracker]

If you are not happy with the RSPB how about joining your local Wildlife Trust or the National Trust.Both are doing tremendous work for birds locally.
There are also other organisations such as the Woodland Trust or WWT

The RSPB may not be perfect, but compared to the local Wildlife Trust, they're a shining example of professional expertise and competence :t:

Just wish there was a visitable RSPB reserve in this area, all there is, is Coquet Island, which has no access (for fairly obvious reasons), or a long trek down into foreign parts (Saltholme).

 

[Adam W]

Just wish there was a visitable RSPB reserve in this area,

It is pretty crap for us in the north east, No visitable RSPB reserve between Saltholme and Vane farm that's 185 mile gap there must other parts of the country that have dozens of reserves in that space.