The response from the RSPB after it was forced to come clean about its use of special licences was a platinum bound example of the sort of mealy mouthed obfuscation in which it has become rather expert in modern times. RSPB apparatchik, Martin Harper, introduced his sprawling blog on the subject with the words: “And, in the interests of openness, I thought I’d share this information with you”. That information was to explain why the RSPB had sought and then been granted licenses to kill gulls and crows; a practice which it has vigorously opposed when carried out by farmers, gamekeepers and fisheries owners. Alas, Harper’s sudden embrace of openness did not run to informing his readers exactly why he had felt moved to come clean now. What had prompted this confessional mode it turns out was a request by the Countryside Alliance under the Freedom of Information Act, requiring the RSPB to tell the truth about something which up to that point it had been rather reluctant to reveal.
Of course like any individual or body caught out in this way and who or which then relies upon casuistry to get out of a hole, Harper’s explanation merely highlighted the inconsistency of the RSPB’s position. The most telling example of this came when he revealed that among the species culled by the body were magpies, specifically he said “to reduce the threat to certain other bird species”. This clearly runs counter the RSPB’s long running insistence that magpies have no serious impact on other bird numbers, despite the near overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
What this latest example of the RSPB’s inconsistency demonstrates is it’s almost Stalinist obsession with remaining in control of the avian agenda and in particular never to countenance in public at least, any suggestion that some bird species should be controlled for the benefit of others. Hence its default position of blaming loss of habitat or human intervention for the diminution in numbers of any species. It is this which has led to the unchecked proliferation of buzzard, sparrowhawk and other birds of prey and an exponential decline in other rare species such a grey partridge and bar tailed godwit. Critics of it suggest that the RSPB’s reluctance to acknowledge the need for controls through selective culling in the face of evidence to the contrary, is driven by fears of the impact this might then have on membership. The RSPB is Europe’s biggest conservation body and there are a lot of jobs that depend on a regular flow of subscriptions. Could this be so? It would certainly offer one explanation as to why it took a freedom of information request to get the RSPB to admit to something about which it should have been entirely open in the first place.