19 February 2005


Mr Grahame Wynne
Chief Executive
RSPB
The Lodge
Near Sandy
Bedfordshire
SG19 2TN

An Open Letter


Dear Mr Wynne

Less than Honest?

In the minds of most ordinary people, the RSPB is simply an
organisation that protects birds, and on that basis they become
members.

But is it really protecting birds other than those that are
financially rewarding in terms of publicity, grants and donations
brought in by emotional claims, and is it serious about reducing its
impact on the natural environment in the light of climate change?

Bird shooting on RSPB land

Early in 2003, I came across a British Association for Shooting and
Conservation web page, where it was revealed that shooters were
"managing" a wildfowl reserve for the RSPB. Within a day of me
bringing this to the attention of an Internet Newsgroup, the page was
removed. Following a telephone call to the RSPB headquarters in
Edinburgh, I wrote to them asking if they would identify the location
of this reserve. They didn't reply.

Later that year, I found the following message from a contributor to
an Internet wildfowling magazine, who said, "I shoot over marches
owned by the RSPB. They lease the Humber wildfowlers the shooting on
there and I suppose we sort of police them for the RSPB".

Consequently, I started to do some research and found that shooting
tenants on your Abernethy Reserve kill around 400 red grouse each
year. The RSPB's explanation is, "it is good for public relations as
the reserve is then not seen as divorced from normal country
pursuits".

This month I accessed two reports that stated:

· "Wildfowling is also permitted on RSPB land in the estuaries
of the Moray Firth, the Inner Clyde and the Firth of Forth". (Source:
Scottish Wildlife Trust)

· "NGO conservation bodies such as the Wildlife Trusts and RSPB
have wildfowling tenants on their reserves. Examples include Montrose
Basin (Scottish Wildlife Trust, Angus), Frampton Marsh (RSPB
Lincolnshire), Ouse Washes (RSPB Cambridgeshire), Tetney Marshes (RSPB
Lincolnshire). Locally, RSPB let sporting rights to Langstone &
District Wildfowling & Conservation Association (L&DW&CA) at the
Langstone Harbour RSPB reserve. Wardening at Langstone Harbour is a
co-operative and joint venture between RSPB, Local Authority and
L&WD&CA. In many cases wildfowling clubs lease sporting rights
jointly with conservation bodies to allow for co-0perative and
integrated management. Nearby examples include Langstone & District
Wildfowling & Conservation Association's joint Crown Estate leases
with the Hampshire Wildlife Trust and RSPB. In some cases wildfowling
clubs jointly own freehold with conservation bodies - eg. Fenland
Wildfowlers Association jointly own c.250 acres of the Welney Reserve
(Ouse Washes) with the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust". (Source: West
Sussex Council)

From this it is clear that birds are being shot on RSPB land despite
its objectives as shown on the Charity Commission website, which a

(a) To conserve wild birds and the wider environment on which wild
birds depend, maintaining bird numbers, diversity and natural
geographical distribution.
(b) To conserve natural and semi-natural habitats and to re-create
habitats.
(c) To encourage others to practice the conservation of wild birds
and habitats.
(d) To promote knowledge of conservation through education and
research.

In my experience many members are unaware of the RSPB's association
with shooters and are shocked when told of it, Obviously the RSPB is
aware of this; hence the difficulty in gleaning information.

Ask an awkward question and it is ignored!

It is bad enough when an organisation that purports to protect birds
fails to do so if enough members of a species are prevalent, but it is
dishonest if it supports and associates itself with those who seek to
harm birds, whilst at the same time accepting money from an
unsuspecting bird-caring public.



Damage to the Natural Environment

The RSPB has jumped on the conservation bandwagon of climate change
and is keen to advise the public of the consequences of global
warming.

On 3 February it posted a media release, warning of the dire
consequences of climate change for mankind and wildlife. (Source:
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/indepe...tcm5-66310.pdf )

Yet what could the RSPB do to reduce its own emissions?

It could:

Stop exploiting birds as visitor attractions that attracts thousands
of sightseers, in the full knowledge that most will come by car.
Close its environmentally damaging visitor centres.
Close its car parks thereby actively discouraging motorists to drive
to its reserves.
Stop hosting countryside fairs that attract thousands of motorists.
Stop using large mechanical diggers and loggers for conservation work.
Stop sending out unsolicited junk mail and newspaper inserts.
·Stop sending out thousands of "Birds" magazines, which are
environmentally damaging in their production, distribution and
disposal.
Stop accepting pages of adverts in its "Birds" magazine that entice
people to travel at home and abroad.
Set an openly revealed target for reducing staff's use of cars both to
travel to work and during operations and stick to it.
Stop using pesticides.


Recently, RSPB Energy, of which the RSPB is a partner with Scottish &
Southern Energy, was censured by the Advertising Standards Authority
for misrepresenting its green energy scheme in adverts in RSPB
publications.
(Source: www.dartdorset.org/JE%20PR%20081204.pdf )

This was a shameful indictment, which conveyed the message that the
RSPB is more interested in its commission than making accurate claims
within its publications.


The RSPB should disassociate itself from all those who seek to harm
birds and not hide behind whether an activity is legal or otherwise.
Furthermore, if you believe in your media release of 3 February 2005,
you should take immediate steps to reduce your organisation's impact
on the natural environment.

To do nothing, displays a gross contempt for those who support the
RSPB to protect birds and care for the natural environment.


Yours sincerely

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

wrote:
snip..

:: Early in 2003, I came across a British Association for Shooting and
:: Conservation web page, where it was revealed that shooters were
:: "managing" a wildfowl reserve for the RSPB. Within a day of me
:: bringing this to the attention of an Internet Newsgroup, the page
:: was removed. Following a telephone call to the RSPB headquarters in
:: Edinburgh, I wrote to them asking if they would identify the
:: location of this reserve. They didn't reply.
::
:: Later that year, I found the following message from a contributor
:: to an Internet wildfowling magazine, who said, "I shoot over
:: marches owned by the RSPB. They lease the Humber wildfowlers the
:: shooting on there and I suppose we sort of police them for the
:: RSPB".
::
::
:: From this it is clear that birds are being shot on RSPB land
:: despite its objectives as shown on the Charity Commission website,
:: which a
::
:: (a) To conserve wild birds and the wider environment on which wild
:: birds depend, maintaining bird numbers, diversity and natural
:: geographical distribution.
:: (b) To conserve natural and semi-natural habitats and to re-create
:: habitats.
:: (c) To encourage others to practice the conservation of wild birds
:: and habitats.
:: (d) To promote knowledge of conservation through education and
:: research.

What part of the word conservation do you not understand?
To conserve one species it may be nessecary to remove another - it's ironic
that you should post this to a gardening forum as *all* gardeners spend a
lot of time killing or removing plants (weeds) so that other *wanted* plants
may grow.

(see any similarities?)


HTH


--

http://www.blueyonder256k.myby.co.uk/

Phil L wrote:
[...]
What part of the word conservation do you not understand?
To conserve one species it may be nessecary to remove another -
it's
ironic that you should post this to a gardening forum as *all*
gardeners spend a lot of time killing or removing plants (weeds) so
that other *wanted* plants may grow.

(see any similarities?)

Don't worry -- or perhaps do worry -- we're next on the list.

Mike.

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Phil L wrote:
[...]
What part of the word conservation do you not understand?
To conserve one species it may be nessecary to remove another -
it's
ironic that you should post this to a gardening forum as *all*
gardeners spend a lot of time killing or removing plants (weeds) so
that other *wanted* plants may grow.

(see any similarities?)

Don't worry -- or perhaps do worry -- we're next on the list.


I doubt it. Gardeners do not usually claim to be conservationists or bird
protectors and hence are unlikely to be accused of hypocrisy for behaving in
a manner Angus believes to be inconsistent with the ideals of self
proclaimed conservationists and/or bird protectors. It is the hypocrisy he
perceives which he campaigns against.

I expect he posted his letter on this newsgroup because many gardeners are
likely to be actual or potential RSPB supporters, not because he has a
hidden agenda against gardeners.

BAC wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Phil L wrote:
[...]
What part of the word conservation do you not understand?
To conserve one species it may be nessecary to remove another -
it's
ironic that you should post this to a gardening forum as *all*
gardeners spend a lot of time killing or removing plants (weeds) so
that other *wanted* plants may grow.

(see any similarities?)

Don't worry -- or perhaps do worry -- we're next on the list.


I doubt it. Gardeners do not usually claim to be conservationists or
bird protectors and hence are unlikely to be accused of hypocrisy for
behaving in a manner Angus believes to be inconsistent with the
ideals of self proclaimed conservationists and/or bird protectors. It
is the hypocrisy he perceives which he campaigns against.

I expect he posted his letter on this newsgroup because many
gardeners are likely to be actual or potential RSPB supporters, not
because he has a hidden agenda against gardeners.

Is Angus MacMillan the 'ruddy duck' "open letter to the RSPB and whole
world" guy ?

I wonder what he thinks about the hundreds of parakeets released into the
wild by petshop owners scared by the exotic pets laws some years back (I
think it was in Maggie's reign) ? Those damned screechy things spread into
the suburbs of Croydon in about August last year and I'm glad I've moved to
Oxford since then. Shooting's too good for them.

Anyway, about these plants and things ?

What exotic type of plant would you like to be successful in growing ?


Richard.

wrote in message
...

(selectively snipped, I do admit)

what could the RSPB do to reduce its own emissions?

It could:


Stop hosting countryside fairs that attract thousands of motorists.

Set an openly revealed target for reducing staff's use of cars both to
travel to work and during operations and stick to it.


Yours sincerely

Angus MacMillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

On a trip to one such RSPB countryside fair, I passed a man beside a parked
vehicle (a Land-Rover, if my memory serves me right) who was displaying
banners in support of the above campaigns. I assume it was one of Angus's
pals, or perhaps even He Himself. It struck me that whilst keen to condemn
the RSPB as hypocrites for organising such events and using heavy-duty
vehicles, the supporters of root-of-blood etc will still exploit the captive
audience such events provide, and drive a less than fuel-efficient vehicle
to get there!

Duncan

[quote=Richard Brooks
What exotic type of plant would you like to be successful in growing ?

Richard.[/QUOTE]

Snoogleberries......

[quote=Douglas][quote=Richard Brooks
What exotic type of plant would you like to be successful in growing ?

Richard.[/QUOTE]


My quote:
Snoogleberries......


'I'll have the roast Fangle beast with Snoogle berries my dear man'

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:38 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , Duncan
writes

wrote in message
. ..

(selectively snipped, I do admit)

what could the RSPB do to reduce its own emissions?

It could:


Stop hosting countryside fairs that attract thousands of motorists.

As if the motorists would sit at home with their cars in their garages
if there was no countryside fair to go to, as they must have done last
year in Scotland where the fair held in the previous few years didn't
happen.

As usual, Malcolm deliberately misses the point. Conservation
organisations should not be encouraging people to use cars. If they
do they're the same an any other entertainment provider advertising
for punters to visit their theme-parks , cinemas, showgrounds, beaches
etc. - who are not claiming to be conservationists. It's the
dishonesty of the conservationists I am criticising.


Set an openly revealed target for reducing staff's use of cars both to
travel to work and during operations and stick to it.

RSPB have had a policy for the last ten years that means that wherever
and whenever possible, staff must use public transport. And, which I
don't think he believes, this applies to all senior management,
including the chief executive, none of whom have a car provided by the
organisation.

The get out here is "wherever and whenever possible" which makes the
policy mean nothing.



On a trip to one such RSPB countryside fair, I passed a man beside a parked
vehicle (a Land-Rover, if my memory serves me right) who was displaying
banners in support of the above campaigns. I assume it was one of Angus's
pals, or perhaps even He Himself. It struck me that whilst keen to condemn
the RSPB as hypocrites for organising such events and using heavy-duty
vehicles, the supporters of root-of-blood etc will still exploit the captive
audience such events provide, and drive a less than fuel-efficient vehicle
to get there!

That's the one. I believe it was he himself. He either owns or has
access to a Land Rover, but normally drives a Range Rover because he
likes it and not, it seems, because he needs its off-road abilities. And
he says he won't consider amending his own environmentally-damaging ways
until compelled to do so by government. When accused of hypocrisy he
just says that he is not a conservationist! I leave you to work out the
logic of his position!

The logic of my position is quite clear. I am not a conservationist
and never have been but I expect those who say they are, to be honest,
and not engage in environmentally damaging activities just to make
money.

Simple really! Obviously not simple enough for Malcolm :-(


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:40:55 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:38 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , Duncan
writes

wrote in message
m...

(selectively snipped, I do admit)

what could the RSPB do to reduce its own emissions?

It could:


Stop hosting countryside fairs that attract thousands of motorists.

As if the motorists would sit at home with their cars in their garages
if there was no countryside fair to go to, as they must have done last
year in Scotland where the fair held in the previous few years didn't
happen.

As usual, Malcolm deliberately misses the point. Conservation
organisations should not be encouraging people to use cars. If they
do they're the same an any other entertainment provider advertising
for punters to visit their theme-parks , cinemas, showgrounds, beaches
etc. - who are not claiming to be conservationists. It's the
dishonesty of the conservationists I am criticising.

But as your criticism comes from being a self-confessed nimby, it isn't
exactly very honest either, is it?

Of course it's honest. I don't believe in fake conservation either on
my doorstep or elsewhere.

The use of your word "either" implies that you accept that the
so-called conservationists.are dishonest.

Good for you, Malcolm. I would gp further in the light of information
gained so far under the Freedom of Information Act and say that some
are the next best thing to a bunch of crooks.


The RSPB's slogan is "For birds, for people, for ever". In other words,
their conservation is for the benefit of people as well as of birds,
something that you appear unable to grasp.

That's the problem. They are encouraging environmentally damaging
activities that are damaging to both.



Set an openly revealed target for reducing staff's use of cars both to
travel to work and during operations and stick to it.

RSPB have had a policy for the last ten years that means that wherever
and whenever possible, staff must use public transport. And, which I
don't think he believes, this applies to all senior management,
including the chief executive, none of whom have a car provided by the
organisation.

The get out here is "wherever and whenever possible" which makes the
policy mean nothing.

Which is a wholly erroneous opinion.

Not at all. It's a convenient get out.




On a trip to one such RSPB countryside fair, I passed a man beside a parked
vehicle (a Land-Rover, if my memory serves me right) who was displaying
banners in support of the above campaigns. I assume it was one of Angus's
pals, or perhaps even He Himself. It struck me that whilst keen to condemn
the RSPB as hypocrites for organising such events and using heavy-duty
vehicles, the supporters of root-of-blood etc will still exploit the captive
audience such events provide, and drive a less than fuel-efficient vehicle
to get there!

That's the one. I believe it was he himself. He either owns or has
access to a Land Rover, but normally drives a Range Rover because he
likes it and not, it seems, because he needs its off-road abilities. And
he says he won't consider amending his own environmentally-damaging ways
until compelled to do so by government. When accused of hypocrisy he
just says that he is not a conservationist! I leave you to work out the
logic of his position!

The logic of my position is quite clear. I am not a conservationist
and never have been but I expect those who say they are, to be honest,
and not engage in environmentally damaging activities just to make
money.

Simple really! Obviously not simple enough for Malcolm :-(

You've forgotten (or deliberately left out) one very important fact,
namely that the money the RSPB raise is ploughed back into conservation.
Perhaps if you took the trouble to visit a reserve you would appreciate
this more than you obviously do from your position as
non-conservationist nimby critic.

Good so you accept I'm not a conservationist so how can I be
hypocritical when criticising conservationists for damaging the
natural environment? One doesn't need to be a thief to condemn
thieving.

You're all mixed up , Malcolm. Try to think logically.


And, to bring this back on topic, do you, or your wife, remove weeds
from your garden to prevent them smothering other plants, or cut your
lawn or hedges?

We're not the Royal Society for the Protection of Weeds. If we were
we'd be honest enought not to cut weeds.

Get the point?



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "BAC" contains these words:

I doubt it. Gardeners do not usually claim to be conservationists or
bird
protectors

I'm very surprised you think that after being a reader of this group
for so long.

Nothing I've read on this group to date has led me to revise my opinion that
most gardeners put their gardens first. There are exceptions, I concede.


One of the reasons this group is targeted by CONman trash, is that an
erstwhile urgler is a professional conservationist whose employer
successfully took the spammer to court and won.



I know that Angus was sued, successfully, by the Woodland Trust to prevent
his use of emotive words like 'slaughter' to describe the WT's deer culling
activities on his 'Roots of Blood' website. He put a copy of the Court
decision on his site, I think.

If his intentions in posting here are to annoy an individual or individuals,
as you suspect, I'd guess the 'target' would be more likely to be Malcolm,
with whom he continues to indulge in vitriolic exchanges, mainly concerning
Angus' jaundiced views of RSPB activities.

"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Phil L wrote:
[...]
What part of the word conservation do you not understand?
To conserve one species it may be nessecary to remove another -
it's
ironic that you should post this to a gardening forum as *all*
gardeners spend a lot of time killing or removing plants (weeds) so
that other *wanted* plants may grow.

(see any similarities?)

Don't worry -- or perhaps do worry -- we're next on the list.


I doubt it. Gardeners do not usually claim to be conservationists or
bird protectors and hence are unlikely to be accused of hypocrisy for
behaving in a manner Angus believes to be inconsistent with the
ideals of self proclaimed conservationists and/or bird protectors. It
is the hypocrisy he perceives which he campaigns against.

I expect he posted his letter on this newsgroup because many
gardeners are likely to be actual or potential RSPB supporters, not
because he has a hidden agenda against gardeners.

Is Angus MacMillan the 'ruddy duck' "open letter to the RSPB and whole
world" guy ?

He is in the habit of writing open letters, and has certainly disapproved of
the RSPB's support of the governments decision to exterminate Ruddy Ducks in
the UK, yes.


I wonder what he thinks about the hundreds of parakeets released into the
wild by petshop owners scared by the exotic pets laws some years back (I
think it was in Maggie's reign) ? Those damned screechy things spread
into
the suburbs of Croydon in about August last year and I'm glad I've moved
to
Oxford since then. Shooting's too good for them.

Careful, the denizens of Oxford might harbour similar thoughts about some
escapees from Croydon :-) Angus' normal response to queries like yours is to
suggest adoption of a 'live and let live' policy, confident that matters
will reach a 'natural balance' if left to their own devices.


Anyway, about these plants and things ?

What exotic type of plant would you like to be successful in growing ?


I've been intrigued by that Money Tree I've seen on TV recently ...

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:15:37 GMT, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from "BAC" contains these words:

I doubt it. Gardeners do not usually claim to be conservationists or bird
protectors

I'm very surprised you think that after being a reader of this group
for so long.

One of the reasons this group is targeted by CONman trash, is that an
erstwhile urgler is a professional conservationist whose employer
successfully took the spammer to court and won.

Now Janet, that's not a nice description of me, but I'll forgive you
just this once if you are the "Janet" that wrote this: Somehow I
think you are :-)

__________________________________________
Hi guys,
I'm still here, too, ...well, on and off.
Nice to read what you are all up to. Janet, why did you move? You had
such a nice place from the sound of it...?

Combination of things in the last year or two... creeping development
nearby, reduced rural services, annual rainfall still rising. The
final
straw was in Spring of 2002 when the new Loch Lomond National Park
opened a disneyfied abomination called the "Lomond Experience", a
trippertrap honeypot and designer shopping mall (parking for 8,000
cars)
on the loch edge.The plan is to keep the rapidly rising numbers of day
trippers corralled in one place to protect the natural environment
which
has been under severe pressure.The centre aims to suck in an *extra*
million and a half day trippers per year to the area we lived in.

The bad news is that our old place is on the main scenic, tourist
route to the LE centre :-(. The summer it opened, the huge increase in
traffic, noise, fumes etc made being outside in the garden
intolerable;
endless accidents, 5 fatalities within a mile of our gate, no peace
and
a lot less privacy. Yuk. So we got out :-)

Janet.

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

Seems we both have the same dislike of the fake conservation of the
National Park

Does that make you "CONwoman trash" ? :-))


BTW Sometime in the future I'll publish what a senior executive of
the organisation that employed your erstwhile urgler wrote about their
advocate and the judge. That can wait for now. Currently I've bigger
heads to scalp.






Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

BAC wrote:
"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Phil L wrote:
[...]
What part of the word conservation do you not understand?
To conserve one species it may be nessecary to remove another -
it's
ironic that you should post this to a gardening forum as *all*
gardeners spend a lot of time killing or removing plants (weeds)
so that other *wanted* plants may grow.

(see any similarities?)

Don't worry -- or perhaps do worry -- we're next on the list.


I doubt it. Gardeners do not usually claim to be conservationists or
bird protectors and hence are unlikely to be accused of hypocrisy
for behaving in a manner Angus believes to be inconsistent with the
ideals of self proclaimed conservationists and/or bird protectors.
It is the hypocrisy he perceives which he campaigns against.

I expect he posted his letter on this newsgroup because many
gardeners are likely to be actual or potential RSPB supporters, not
because he has a hidden agenda against gardeners.

Is Angus MacMillan the 'ruddy duck' "open letter to the RSPB and
whole world" guy ?

He is in the habit of writing open letters, and has certainly
disapproved of the RSPB's support of the governments decision to
exterminate Ruddy Ducks in the UK, yes.


I wonder what he thinks about the hundreds of parakeets released
into the wild by petshop owners scared by the exotic pets laws some
years back (I think it was in Maggie's reign) ? Those damned
screechy things spread into the suburbs of Croydon in about August
last year and I'm glad I've moved to Oxford since then. Shooting's
too good for them.

Careful, the denizens of Oxford might harbour similar thoughts about
some escapees from Croydon :-) Angus' normal response to queries like
yours is to suggest adoption of a 'live and let live' policy,
confident that matters will reach a 'natural balance' if left to
their own devices.

I was born here (Radcliffe Infirmary) so my accent is like a relative's
(clue-"ere's a little poem I wrote") but that's probably mainly due to
living in Carterton for the first ten years whilst it was also partly
populated by Americans which I think helped to strengthen the accent.

Besides, guns aren't the norm here in Oxford so it's a lot less 'angry' and
you can see most of the sky.

As to your last paragraph I wish I received that some years ago when I was
assisting on "The Sexual Imperative" series as we spent thirteen days living
and sleeping in London Zoo. Those lions and tigers ought not be locked up
like that! ;-) Let's see Angus's policy at work then.


Anyway, about these plants and things ?

What exotic type of plant would you like to be successful in growing
?

I've been intrigued by that Money Tree I've seen on TV recently ...

Is that also when they say "cash cow" when talking of "where there's muck
there's brass" ?


Richard.

wrote in message
...

[snip]

During my reading of your letter which I snipped, I acquired a strong
feeling that you do not have much appreciation of the principles
wildlife conservation.

There is more to it than softheartedly attempting to keep alive every
wild animal in sight.

I am sure the RSPB knows its job better than you do.

Franz