On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 02:14:12 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Nov 5, 7:13*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:15:33 -0000, rbel wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:24:44 -0000, BTO GBW *
wrote:

kay;904411 Wrote:

Has anyone asked Garden Bird Watch for their response?

We completely understand the suspicion that sometimes surrounds 'citizen
science' projects, especially where some form of subscription is
involved. The year-round BTO Garden BirdWatch (GBW) certainly has
scientific merit, with a sizeable publication record of peer-reviewed
scientific papers. The survey relies on its robust and repeatable
methods to collect large-scale information on how birds (and other taxa)
use gardens and how this use varies over time, in relation to
surrounding habitat, within garden practices and geographic location.

Although there is variation in the ability of individual participants,
and in the amount of time they spend carrying out the recording, our
statistical models typically include a site-effect, which enables us to
control for this variation. From a statistical perspective, the sheer
size of the project increases its robustness, since it is the underlying
patterns that are important.

The survey is self-funded, through the generosity of its participants
and without this funding we would not be able to operate such a scheme.
GBW data feed into conservation indicators and have real value, allowing
us to collect information for a habitat that is difficult to monitor. It
is worth noting that the BTO is an independent and impartial research
organisation. It does not campaign and it is well-respected for its
rigorous scientific position.

As a contributor to GBW for some years I fully support the project and I *
am happy that I get out it as much, if not more, than I input. *

Like what? *Do you believe it can actually provide data outside of the
participating gardens and be used to extend that information to whole
bird populations?

Whilst I *
do have some concerns about the big business ethic of the RSPB and the *
disproportionate influence it has in some quarters, I wholeheartedly *
support the aims of the BTO and am grateful for the knowledge that I have *
gained from them, particularly from their reports and publications.

Good, I have no problem with your position with the BTO who probably
do some good in some areas.

But you haven't addressed the specific issue I raise. *Why not?



It is worth bearing in mind that the OP does have a long history of *
confrontations with various conservation organisations and URGlers may *
wish to check his bona fides before responding.

I don't deny I criticise dishonesty and misrepresentation in the
conservation industry. *Many are fakes in reality. *They exploit the
natural environment to fund their agendas; they don't conserve it.

So rather than follow Malcolm's obsession against me, who follows me
around like a little dog, look at what I say objectively and if you
wish, argue against it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There's no doubt that all the big charities have jumped to gap from
just charity to career and well paid at that.
At one time the tin rattler in the street would be working for
nothing. Now they're all on a percentage. There are beaurocrats and
fancy offices.
I have given up donating money, I think they are all too dodgy and
most of the money is used in adminisration. If you every get to talk
to some of the hierarchy, most of them know nothing about their
charity, it's just another business to them. I have spent money in
creating my own reserve. ******** to these money grubbers.
A case in point is the "Fair Trade" ripoff. They give some farmer
in Costa Rica an extra ten pence/kilo for coffee beans. The they
charge me an extra fifty pence. No thanks.
All these charities for third world countries are the same. Clowns,
idiot and crooks.

I agree entirely!

Some time ago I was speaking to an RSPB volunteer at a stall in
Glasgow who wasn't aware that the organisation had an income of over
£1million a week, with the CEO was earning around £100,000 a year and
fifteen other executives earning over £50,000. That's not "charity".
Organisations kike these are tax avoidance vehicles and should be
stripped of charitable status.

Charitable status should only be awarded to those organisations that
are entirely run by volunteers with perhaps a maximum of
administration staff in single figures to deal with day to day letters
etc.