RSPB advert

[Scully]

Anyone know how much it costs the charity each time it's ad' is shown?

[FalconFN]

Same as any other ad I think, so it depends on what channel, time of day, length etc. Prime time ads are not cheap.

[Axor]

A major TV advertising campaign beginning on 5 July will also be launched, at a cost of somewhere between £2-3 million, and involving TV homes expert, Linda Barker as a front person, at a reduced 'charity rate'. The organisation believes that the cost is an investment, according to spokesperson Andre Farrar, that will reap greater benefits by drawing in new members and expressing their message with clarity to a great swathe of the British public, estimated at a reach of some 40 million people. Market research apparently bears out the charity's belief that many non-members are sympathetic to the conservation cause but think that the RSPB is not for them. The RSPB's membership has remained static at around the one million mark since 1997.

 

Full article here

 

http://www.birdwatch.co.uk/channel/newsitem.asp?c=11&cate=__14537

[Scully]

Thanks for that. The ad is their new one featuring a Barn Owl and Blue Hare. It was on earlier tonight at 1715 and at a guess about 20 seconds long.

I sometimes wonder if the general public are aware that the charity has no qualms whatsoever about destroying species which pose a threat to their particular choice of species. I find it all rather hypocritical.

[kent]

Thanks for that. The ad is their new one featuring a Barn Owl and Blue Hare. It was on earlier tonight at 1715 and at a guess about 20 seconds long.

I sometimes wonder if the general public are aware that the charity has no qualms whatsoever about destroying species which pose a threat to their particular choice of species. I find it all rather hypocritical.

 

People in glass houses springs to mind. So the fact that they actively encourage the killing of Crows over the wader nesting sight were I live, that's wrong is it? Ok I shall have a word with all the local keepers and suggest nobody kills crows and foxes etc. any longer Conservation is all about management there is no hypocrisy in favouring species

Sorry if this comes across as snotty but if we don't start working together 1. we will both achieve a fraction of that which we could together 2. They can beat us shooters up real bad in a big fight (keep your friends close and all that)

As an aside stop reading Shooting times they are doing more harm than good with RSPB bashing. The RSPB lease shooter land for wildfowling etc. They had a bad boss but then again shooting orgs have had their fair share of numpties and unelected mouth pieces

[Paul taylor]

Kent. Pretty much my first thought too, I choose to shoot magpie and some other corvids as they harm songbird numbers, we all shoot some species and leave others thats just countryside management.

Dont know about ad costs but would imagine the RSPB see it as cost effective if it boosts membership and awareness.

It would be great if the RSPB BASC etc could all work together but I feel there are too many narrow minds and agendas for that to work.

[FalconFN]

 

People in glass houses springs to mind. So the fact that they actively encourage the killing of Crows over the wader nesting sight were I live, that's wrong is it? Ok I shall have a word with all the local keepers and suggest nobody kills crows and foxes etc. any longer Conservation is all about management there is no hypocrisy in favouring species

Sorry if this comes across as snotty but if we don't start working together 1. we will both achieve a fraction of that which we could together 2. They can beat us shooters up real bad in a big fight (keep your friends close and all that)

As an aside stop reading Shooting times they are doing more harm than good with RSPB bashing. The RSPB lease shooter land for wildfowling etc. They had a bad boss but then again shooting orgs have had their fair share of numpties and unelected mouth pieces

+1

 

BASC, the C part is just as important as the S part.

[LondonLuke]

Thought this thread might be about me, it might be if you had seen me shoot.

[Scully]

 

People in glass houses springs to mind. So the fact that they actively encourage the killing of Crows over the wader nesting sight were I live, that's wrong is it? Ok I shall have a word with all the local keepers and suggest nobody kills crows and foxes etc. any longer Conservation is all about management there is no hypocrisy in favouring species

Sorry if this comes across as snotty but if we don't start working together 1. we will both achieve a fraction of that which we could together 2. They can beat us shooters up real bad in a big fight (keep your friends close and all that)

As an aside stop reading Shooting times they are doing more harm than good with RSPB bashing. The RSPB lease shooter land for wildfowling etc. They had a bad boss but then again shooting orgs have had their fair share of numpties and unelected mouth pieces

Where did I claim destroying one species for the benefit of another is wrong? The hypocracy of the RSPB comes from the fact they criticise others ( gamekeepers etc) for doing exactly the same. It is common knowledge that this practise occurs on a daily basis throughout the game shooting calendar,of which I am not ashamed to admit I play a willing and active part, but it is a practise when undertaken by the RSPB which they would rather not be discussed in public lest it effect donations.

Incidentally, I didn't get the info' from ST magazine, it was simply a thought which occurred after seeing their advert.

[Paul taylor]

Get where ur comin from scully.

[kent]

Where did I claim destroying one species for the benefit of another is wrong? The hypocracy of the RSPB comes from the fact they criticise others ( gamekeepers etc) for doing exactly the same. It is common knowledge that this practise occurs on a daily basis throughout the game shooting calendar,of which I am not ashamed to admit I play a willing and active part, but it is a practise when undertaken by the RSPB which they would rather not be discussed in public lest it effect donations.

Incidentally, I didn't get the info' from ST magazine, it was simply a thought which occurred after seeing their advert.

 

I took it from the statement you made "the charity has no qualms whatsoever about destroying species which pose a threat to their particular choice of species"." I find it all rather hypocritical." No mention of gamekeepers

Now if you had mentioned gamekeepers being criticised I should have responded. That's why they set up meetings to discuss action plans for ground nesting birds with said keepers asking for both help and input. The few Keepers who have landed in bother with the RSPB is always due to one thing BOP persecution. Well the fact is its illegal and even the RSPB got turned down when they wanted shut of the Eagle owls near me, did they go and do them anyway? No! Keepers who act illegally loose their jobs and their way of life and it seems most who fall foul tend to be crass armatures working part time on small private shoots

Keep fighting and we can only create dangerous and powerful enemies. IMO its their money and they have it to spend mainly because they made a better job of PR than the shooting orgs ever did and had more fanatical acumen than all the wildfowling clubs put together, many of which lost ground to them only for the RSPB to later walk away with tidy profits from the assets on the land and a reserve.

[Scully]

 

I took it from the statement you made "the charity has no qualms whatsoever about destroying species which pose a threat to their particular choice of species"." I find it all rather hypocritical." No mention of gamekeepers

Now if you had mentioned gamekeepers being criticised I should have responded. That's why they set up meetings to discuss action plans for ground nesting birds with said keepers asking for both help and input. The few Keepers who have landed in bother with the RSPB is always due to one thing BOP persecution. Well the fact is its illegal and even the RSPB got turned down when they wanted shut of the Eagle owls near me, did they go and do them anyway? No! Keepers who act illegally loose their jobs and their way of life and it seems most who fall foul tend to be crass armatures working part time on small private shoots.

Keep fighting and we can only create dangerous and powerful enemies. IMO its their money and they have it to spend mainly because they made a better job of PR than the shooting orgs ever did and had more fanatical acumen than all the wildfowling clubs put together, many of which lost ground to them only for the RSPB to later walk away with tidy profits from the assets on the land and a reserve.

You mentioned 'keepers', not me. I didn't mention gamekeepers specifically in my second post as I meant shooters in general. I don't regard the charity with the same degree of respect you appear to have for them, regardless of their 'power' and have long regarded them as an enemy to shooting. I have no intention of cosying up to them for any purpose.

The RSPB's hypocrisy also lies in the fact it favours certain species (often iconic with a vulnerable or cute appeal to the general public) for its 'conservation' work as it is carried out specifically with the gathering of revenue uppermost in its intent. An intent which includes in the past of misleadingly inaccurate statements on their website such as they are 'not a rich charity' and that they 'do not receive Government funding'. Both statements were withdrawn after reference to the Advertising Standards Authority, who took no further action, but the intent was to mislead for profit.

I don't see the relevance regarding 'keepers and illegal persecution of raptors; (although it is done for financial gain it is an illegal practise, and no right thinking person condones these actions,even though your statement regarding loosing their jobs and a tendency for those responsible to be part timers on small shoots isn't entirely accurate) I'm talking about favouring one species over another for financial gain, which when even carried out legally has nothing to do with conservation, but is something that gamekeepers, farmers, and the RSPB have in common. I don't object to this; what I object to are attempts to deceive the general public into believing this is not the case. You wont hear the RSPB claiming domestic cats have a detrimental effect on songbirds unlike other bird charities. I wonder why? Didn't they once state that there were no studies that showed domestic cats played a significant part in the apparent demise of garden bird numbers? Could this be because no studies have been undertaken?

Getting back to the ad', I had simply wondered if the donating general public would be so quick to donate if they were fully aware of the RSPB's hypocrisy.

[kent]

Shooters don't favour Duck, pheasant, grouse and partridge do they then? You cant have it all ways! Perhaps we just have different experiences as I do shoot on ground rented from the RSPB and I do help with wading bird protection at home Larsen traps were delivered FOC to all who might make use of them.

I still say pick who you step into the ring with. Forget Avery he is gone and many "on the ground" RSPB guys are very happy about that and regret the damage he created in his wake

[Scully]

Yes, of course shooters favour duck, pheasant, grouse, partridge and all manner of species as opposed to another. I don't think I claimed otherwise. What I'm trying to say is that we're not hypocritical about it. Predator control is undertaken mostly for the preference or benefit of one species over another, be it flora or fauna, whether it's for financial gain or not. The general public may not like it but are aware of it as shooters tend not to shy away from the subject, at least where I come from. The same cannot be said of the RSPB.

Game shooting takes part principally for financial gain, as does farming. Isn't everyone aware of this; including the general public? Isn't this why we come in for so much criticism? I don't think the RSPB are as open as to why they prefer one species over another, as their treatment of creatures which for instance predate ground nesting birds isn't something the RSPB likes to be too well known lest it effect donations.

Did the RSPB make it known to the general public when they delivered FOC Larsen traps to you, that they were killing other species to protect wading birds, even though they were getting someone else to do the actual killing?

The Rivers Authority had a local press release some years ago when they issued local shooters and anglers with floating Mink traps.

I'm pleased to hear 'on the ground' members are happy about Averys departure, but 'on the ground' members don't dictate policy, or do those members who are cat owners dictate a 'non-policy' by this fact? Some issues are too important to let the size of your enemy keep you from entering the ring. Hypocrisy, in my opinion, is one of them.

[Penelope]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/shooters-up-in-arms-as-rspb-impose-ban-on-wildfowling-1-2070855

 

http://www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk/opinion/question-of-the-week/wigtown-wildfowl-woes.

 

http://www.shootingtimes.co.uk/blogs/509650/Wildfowling_under_attack.html

 

http://www.gallowaygazette.co.uk/news/letter-rspb-works-with-wildfowlers-1-2154492

[kent]

Yes, of course shooters favour duck, pheasant, grouse, partridge and all manner of species as opposed to another. I don't think I claimed otherwise. What I'm trying to say is that we're not hypocritical about it. Predator control is undertaken mostly for the preference or benefit of one species over another, be it flora or fauna, whether it's for financial gain or not. The general public may not like it but are aware of it as shooters tend not to shy away from the subject, at least where I come from. The same cannot be said of the RSPB.

Game shooting takes part principally for financial gain, as does farming. Isn't everyone aware of this; including the general public? Isn't this why we come in for so much criticism? I don't think the RSPB are as open as to why they prefer one species over another, as their treatment of creatures which for instance predate ground nesting birds isn't something the RSPB likes to be too well known lest it effect donations.

Did the RSPB make it known to the general public when they delivered FOC Larsen traps to you, that they were killing other species to protect wading birds, even though they were getting someone else to do the actual killing?

The Rivers Authority had a local press release some years ago when they issued local shooters and anglers with floating Mink traps.

I'm pleased to hear 'on the ground' members are happy about Averys departure, but 'on the ground' members don't dictate policy, or do those members who are cat owners dictate a 'non-policy' by this fact? Some issues are too important to let the size of your enemy keep you from entering the ring. Hypocrisy, in my opinion, is one of them.

 

Not members RSPB employees. I don't think they would commission an advert about the killing of crows but I do feel you are very misguided by the hype peddled. Try talking to the guys with spotting scopes I have yet to meet an anti among them, many actively approach us for conversation of sightings etc. and many of us shun them, it is then us that are wrong - things have to change. We hold as many enemies to our cause within our own ranks as sit in RSPB offices and reserves, its good to have views just be sure you have the facts correct before you go looking for what might not exist .

[Scully]

 

Not members RSPB employees. Ok, my mistake.So do on the ground employees make up policy?I don't think they would commission an advert about the killing of crows but I do feel you are very misguided by the hype peddled. Call it hype or whatever you like; it doesn't prevent the points I have made from being fact.Try talking to the guys with spotting scopes I have yet to meet an anti among them, many actively approach us for conversation of sightings etc. and many of us shun them, it is then us that are wrong I don't shun them either, and have spent many a happy hour on the viewing balcony chatting with members and employees overlooking Bass Rock. things have to change.Correct; but this works both ways. We hold as many enemies to our cause within our own ranks as sit in RSPB offices and reserves, Very true, and its heartening to know you still consider them as enemies also.its good to have views just be sure you have the facts correct before you go looking for what might not exist .If you can show any of the facts I have posted to be untrue then I'll retract them.

[kent]

This is going nowhere, I think you are reading things that are not there now

[Fisherman Mike]

I'm a member of the RSPB and the BTO and the BASC... I bought my last gun from a senior member of the RSPB ! I've shot crows and other corvids on RSPB reserves in order to protect rarer ground nesting birds...no problem...if the roles were reciprocated and there were hundreds and thousands of marsh harriers for example and just a few crows I dare say we would be shooting them to preserve the crows.

 

Lets face it if there were no avian game, or avian pest many of us would just start shooting anything that moves like they do in France and Spain and ****** the consequences.

 

I don't opine that the RSPB favour one species over another, but conservation must have its parameters as should shooting.

 

Its up to the RSPB trustees how they spend their money in order to drum up membership....The BASC could do just the same but its such a minority organisation that it would be a waste of money. I think you may forget Scully with respect, that 6 out of 10 of the adult population are bird lovers whereas I would be surprised if 6 out of a thousand were game shooters.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Fisherman Mike

[Scully]

I totally agree Mike, it is entirely up to the RSPB how they spend their money, although for the reasons given I can't agree it doesn't favour one species over another for the purposes of generating revenue. All I am asking, which is a point I think has been missed, is that the RSPB (whether it loves or loathes us shooters) conducts its affairs with the general public with openness and total honesty. This isn't or hasn't always been the case, and until it does I for one will not treat it with the amount of respect others seem to think it deserves.

With respect,I haven't overlooked the numbers of bird lovers outweighing the numbers of game shooters; many game shooters are also bird lovers, including myself.

[kent]

You started the thread as lets bash the RSPB, there is your issue. It seems not all shooter share your view and see the wider picture

[Scully]

I've stated a few facts about the RSPB which you obviously don't like, but that doesn't prevent them being facts. If the RSPB conducted themselves openly and with total honesty perhaps I wouldn't feel the need to 'bash' them. As I've said many times; I don't mind who campaigns against shooters, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, so long as they do it with honesty and integrity. Once an organisation feels the need to resort to deceit to bolster their agenda then they have lost any moral ground they believed they had, as far as I'm concerned

Whether all or no shooters share my view is totally irrelevant to RSPB policy.