I completely disagree with you, as I think premium rate hides shouldn't be allowed at all on RSPB reserves. Members pay a lot of money to become members of the RSPB to support the RSPB and also get free access. A lot of members also donate extra money to the RSPB like myself, as well as membership fees and I think that RSPB membership should give members free privaledged access to all bird hides.
Regards,
Ian.
It's great to have the choice - thanks RSPB :)
I just wish they would ban focus lock bleeps on cameras (and I am a photographer!)
And I completely disagree with you Thomo. There is no reason whatsoever why RSPB membership should entitle members to free access to either reserves or to the hides on those reserves.
Free entrance to RSPB reserves is a membership benefit that the RSPB grants. They also grant members concessionary rates for most (but not necessarily all) guided walks, talks, and other events for which fees are charged on reserves and elsewhere. This is precisely the case with this photography hide - it is open to anyone who wants to use it (for a fee) with RSPB members getting a 25% discount.
The sort of people who want to make use of this sort of hide are prepared to pay a premium for the privilege. On the other hand, I would be surprised if most (if not all) of those who are complaining about not being allowed free access would spent more than 30 minutes in the hide (which would have to have been booked for a half day session for them) before leaving - probably complaining that it was a waste of time, and that the viewing screen gave views that were just as good/better.
�
Don't forget if the RSPB did'nt have membership subscriptions or donations from it's members they would not survive and the RSPB should provide all there hides and guided walks free of charge to it's members as a thank you to it's members for all the money they get from all of them. And I do spend much longer than 30 minutes that you suggest In the bird hides.
Unknown said:The pay for hides you refer to are specifically by people to cater for pro photographers. RSPB is a charity for the members I believed it is run for the good of the creatures.
The RSPB is not "a charity for the members which is run for the good of the creatures." The RSPB is a charity devoted to the conservation of birds and other wildlife, any 'benefits' that members may get are a bonus.
As a charity run for the benefit of birds and wildlife the RSPB requires funding, and the more money it can raise, the more benefit it can pass on to the wildlife. The fact that professional (and keen amateur/semi pro) photographers can be prepared to pay a premium for exclusive access to hides built with them in mind means that it is a potential source of funding - why shouldn't the RSPB take advance of a potential business opportunity to raise funding? Charities do not need to rely exclusively on free handouts, they can (and should) do what they can to raise money via business opportunities that are not contrary to their objectives.
If it wasn't for the RSPB members the RSPB wouldn't survive and all it's members should be allowed free acces to those additional hides.
In addition the RSPB isn't very democratic at it's annual general meeting where normally nothing can be normally discussed or proposed in any other business unlike the National Trust that does allow this.
Unknown said:Don't forget if the RSPB did'nt have membership subscriptions or donations from it's members they would not survive...
The vast majority of members will continue to support the RSPB, and make additional donations. Some will probably be even more willing to support them if they demonstrate more willingness to trial alternatives ways of raising funds other than simply asking for handouts (...perhaps by charging for premium services, or something...).
Unknown said:...and the RSPB should provide all there hides and guided walks free of charge to it's members as a thank you to it's members for all the money they get from all of them.
No, they definitely should not. Some of these things cost extra money to put on (including the cost of staff time), and can only work if numbers are restricted. These are extras, above that which should be expected from the cost of membership. If all events and services had to be funded through membership fees then membership fees would have to be increased which would potentially reduce the overall funding available for conservation because less people would be members.
Unknown said:And I do spend much longer than 30 minutes that you suggest In the bird hides.
I don't doubt that you spend more than 30 minutes in most bird hides, but we're not talking about a bird hide that is designed for watching birds, we are talking about a bird hide that has a restricted view and is designed specifically for the photography of a few species. As a photographer/birder who is often out with friends, and other people, who are not photographers, I can assure you that most birdwatchers are ready to move on after much less than 30 minutes when the number of species visible from a hide is limited, the view is restricted, and there is very little likelihood of any change.
Well if the minimum subscription rate has gone up as it seems according to the RSPB website they will have enough money. That is if they don't lose members because of this. And I am very much against the privaledged few who can afford the fees to these additional hides, in detriment to it's RSPB members.
The RSPB will never 'have enough money" Thomo. The more money a charity raises, the more it can spend towards its cause. It's not like household budgeting where there are fixed costs and when you have covered those + have enough spare for a good holiday each year and a little luxury spending, you know that 'the books are balanced' and therefore you have enough money. If the RSPB raises more money it can easily find conservation campaigns to spend it on, all similar charities have to prioritise projects because of a lack of funding (which in some ways is a good thing, but it doesn't mean that the projects that don't go ahead weren't worthwhile).
Unknown said:And I am very much against the privaledged few who can afford the fees to these additional hides, in detriment to it's RSPB members.
How is it detrimental to RSPB members? They get views that are just as good (probably even better for birdwatching as opposed to photography), for free from the viewing screen - and the money raised from those who do pay to use the hide will potentially fund improvements that benefit both the photographers and everyone else (including the birds).
I'm sorry but it sounds like a case of "if they can have it, I want it as well", without the admission that you can have exactly the same access (anyone can pay).
And how do we know that the hides we use are better. And why should the privaledged few get access to these hides. And. if the rise of the minimum ammount has risen from £3.00 to £4.00 per month is correct it's a lot of extra money for the average person to fork out at an annual cost rise from £36.00 per year to £48.00 per year. That might back fire on to the RSPB if they start to lose a large number of members because of this rise, with no publicity at all. And as you know it won't affect me as I'm a Life member of the RSPB. But I'm greatly worried by this.