Have Butterfly-Conservation gone nuts?

[JohnR]

From today's Big Butterfly Count Newsletter

Look out for Winter Moths this month
Winter moth
The small, dark moths that flutter in car headlights on winter evenings are almost always Winter Moths.
Although not one of our prettiest moths, Winter Moths are a very interesting species that have excellent adaptations to survive the cold season.
Only the male Winter Moths can fly. The females have tiny stumps of wings and spend their time sitting on tree trunks, waiting to be found by the males.
This is clearly an adaptation to living in mid-winter when flight for these tiny, delicate moths is difficult.
Winter Moth caterpillars feed on oak trees and are an important source of food for birds such as Great Tits.

This is a not very artful piece of propaganda along the selfsame lines that various national bird and animal protection societies spew out. Love the grey squirrel, the coypu, the mink, magpies etc. Love the Winter Moth whose offspring can ruin a fruit farm and destroy an apple crop. I have to wage a unceasing battle against the little pest, from grease bands round my trees in autumn to fortnightly spraying in the early spring.

The only time I think a Winter Moth looks good is in my car's headlights just before it splatters over my windscreen.

Come on Butterfly Conservation, don't waste my money trying to get people to think that Winter Moths are anything more than an expensive pest. Next you will be saying that Cydia pomonella should become a protected species.

John

[Susie]

I don't see anything wrong with the article. You may not like them but it doesn't mean they aren't interesting.

[millerd]

Wasn't the Black-veined White considered an orchard pest in the UK at one time?

Dave

[JohnR]

I am not saying that the Winter Moth might not be interesting, nor worthy of recording. The point that I wish to make is that here we have the PR people of a national charity issuing a statement which does not paint the whole picture. If the article ended "the W.M. is a pest on fruit trees" then readers would have a truer picture. What we have is "a moth that you might see at this time of year and its caterpillars, which feed on oaks, are relished by tits" - true, but is this not comparable to the following statement?

Pol Pot (Saloth Sar) was a Cambodian who studied electronics in Paris. He later encouraged his fellow countrymen to work in agriculture.

Ask yourself why the PR wallahs are only presenting one side of the picture. Years ago I used to write propaganda, that's why I am suspicious

[Paul Wetton]

I'm going to join in the moan because I tried to Join BC last year just before Christmas at their special 50% off offer.

I clicked the email link only to find that it was a normal link nothing about joining. I dutifully asked the question, how do I join?

No reply whatsoever. I eventually tried downloading the form to join only to find the offer of half price ran out two days previous.

Any charity running like this seems doomed to failure in my opinion. I was extremely p****d off with them. Please tell me apart from actually helping butterflies why should I join. Would my money be better spent with the BDS (British Dragonfly Society)?

You tell me.

[Pete Eeles]

Please tell me apart from actually helping butterflies why should I join.

That's good enough reason for me

The 50% offer has been extended until the end of January, as shown on the BC home page. The links all seem to work and make sense to me!

Cheers,

- Pete

[ChrisC]

I grow cabbages and i feel the same way about large whites.

"don't waste my money trying to get people to think that Winter Moths are anything more than an expensive pest" they aren't they are just telling people to look out for them. it's the first 3 lines of your quote

Chris
(a man who likes a bullfinch and grows spring greens specifically for large whites)

[Jack Harrison]

A few moans about BC have been aired.

BC is typical of many organisations; the administration can leave a little to be desired .

For example:
I joined the Sussex Branch via HQ Lulworth as required. Apparently HQ did not send on my details to the personnel in Sussex for several months and only belatedly did I start receiving newsletters.

Many will recall my comments (and a measure of agreement on these pages) about the poor quality of the AGM last November. Martin Warren is aware of my views.

A check on BC website five minutes ago includes this: “Help save Pearl-Bordered Fritillaries this Christmas”. Why is that still there?

UKB is NOT the same as BC. But to the best of my knowledge, there is no comparable BC forum to this one; ukb is in effect the public debating chamber.

We are all aware that BC does an excellent job fund raising, acquiring estate and raising the profile of butterflies with the general public. However, it would seem that the management, admin staff, web team are not as dynamic as most of us would wish them to be. We also know that BC management reads many of these discussions on ukb. They would be unwise to ignore the rank and file members.

Jack

[Zonda]

Hmmm! All i know is that Dorset BC does a fantastic job, as regards conservation, habitat development, long term and short term. I know many of these folks are not as interactive on line as some of UKB posters are, but their dedication is unsurpassed, and not all of them are as 'gobby' as me and Jack.

[Jack Harrison]

My criticisms are not aimed at BC branches which I agree do an excellent job. I’m not so sure though about HQ. Turning BC management plans into action requires dedicated staff.

I have seen similar weaknesses in other fields. I have had close family involvement with “special needs” education (how I hate that term). The provisions have in general been superb but with one glaring failing that seems endemic. Administration has been the Achilles Heel time and again. So many clerks, typists, receptionists – you name them – do no more of the (admittedly tedious) work than is required of them, ie type and shuffle paper. Phone calls from my wife or from me have been met with blank incomprehension; the left hand so often does not seem to know what the right hand is doing.

Perhaps the crucial difference between BC branches and HQ is that branch organisers are unpaid enthusiasts. HQ employs paid staff.

Jack

[Susie]

HQ employs paid staff.

Jack

Who are probably paid the minimum.

[Paul Wetton]

Thanks Pete.

I'll have another look.

[JohnR]

HQ employs paid staff.
Jack

Who are probably paid the minimum.

The last annual accounts say that they have 60 staff whose wages and salaries cost £1,302,799 which averages out at £21,713, I guess someone on the minimum wage would get half of that.
Running charities is a good career.

[Jack Harrison]

The last annual accounts say that they have 60 staff whose wages and salaries cost £1,302,799 which averages out at £21,713, I guess someone on the minimum wage would get half of that.

Averages are meaningless in these situations.

Hytothetical example. One banker earns £1.9 million. Nine lowly staff are all on equal salaries and earn £100,000 between them. Total pay packet = £2 million giving an average pay for the total staff of ten = £200,000. This is a pointless statistic. Nine of those staff get a mere £11,111. The median salary of £11,111 is a far more meaningful figure, ie five people earn that amount or more, five earn that amount or less.

I have no idea how individual salaries break down in Butterfly Conservation. But presumably the top executives earn salaries commensurate with their status, then the remaining 50 or so will be paid significantly less that that average of £21,713 so while they may get more than the statutory minimum wage, they are certainly not getting twice that amount.

Jack

[Matsukaze]

Running charities is a good career.

So it should be. You're not seriously proposing that BC should be staffed by temps or people neither able to run an organisation effectively nor deal with the range of callers BC deal with in a professional manner for the sake of saving a few thousand pounds on their salaries, are you?

[JohnR]

Running charities is a good career.

So it should be. You're not seriously proposing that BC should be staffed by temps or people neither able to run an organisation effectively nor deal with the range of callers BC deal with in a professional manner for the sake of saving a few thousand pounds on their salaries, are you?

I didn't have in mind just a few thousand pounds - I resigned from the board of a similar sized charity when the administrator gave a herself a six figure sum "because her colleagues in other charities were getting similar amounts"

Are we sure that BC isn't

staffed by temps or people neither able to run an organisation effectively nor deal with the range of callers BC deal with in a professional manner

I've seen no evidence of it - hence my first post.

[Jack Harrison]

Debates on UKB certainly never shirk from controversy. This is another good example.

I do hope that Headquarters Management of BC maintains a watching brief on ukb.
Perhaps some senior personnel will feel it appropriate to contribute to the discussion if only to "clear the air".

Jack

[Gibster]

It's good to be critical of a charity's bad practice, but if there is evidence that a charity is doing good work across the country then maybe it would be wise to overlook a few of their faults? Let's face it, Butterfly Conservation is far from being the worst offender when it comes to money wasting and admin issues. Take Oxfam.... (oooh, contentious but look at the wages!)...hard working volunteers may be the salt of the earth, but HQs are often a very different kettle of fish (in my uninformed opinion).

We all know and realise that many of the butterflies we enjoyed last season, and those we are all impatiently awaiting this season, would simply not be there were it not for organisations such as BC, EN, RSPB. These organisations do not deserve our derision or critique out of hand. Our countryside would very definitely be a far poorer place without them (despite the occasional mistake )

I pay my subscriptions, so should everybody else on this site. Our battle is getting 'the others' to join up and to keep organisations such as BC from becoming a disassociated political entity.

Soapbox - off - goodnight.

[Neil Hulme]

Hi all,

Hocus pocus or not, many consider ‘Blue Monday’ (today in 2011) to be the most depressing day of the year. Having just read this rather depressing thread, I’d like to point out the following.

For a start, I wonder how many have actually read the Butterfly Conservation Annual Report and Financial Statements (31 March 2010) at http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/u ... 310310.pdf ?

No organisation is perfect, and without spending a lot more money on staff who are there to sort out every glitch (rather than conservation), I reckon the fact that BC ‘successfully maintained a high (membership) retention rate of 92% for the sixth year running’ is pretty good going. Of course most of us members joined BC because we are passionate about conserving our butterflies and, yes, even ‘orrible’ moths. So the fact that ‘spending on Conservation rose by 12% to over £2.3m, at which level it constituted 86% of total spending’, will no doubt be a welcome indication that subscriptions are being used to do what we want them to.

It’s also worth flagging up that ‘Butterfly Conservation has been featured as a top scoring charity on the website http://www.intelligentgiving.com. The Top Rated status is only given to charities that receive a ‘quality of reporting’ score of 75 per cent or more in our in-depth analysis of annual reports. Scoring this highly indicates that BC is one of the most transparent in the country.’

If there is a shred of evidence that BC staff salaries are anything other than commensurate with each and every of the 60 staff positions held, I think we should all be privy to it.

So cheer up – and get out there and (if health and time allow) do something to help the cause. After all, Butterfly Conservation is a charity run mainly by volunteers.

Neil

[Jack Harrison]

I feel suitable chastened by Neil’s comments about not having looked at the BC Annual Report.

Perhaps the most significant piece of enlightenment was on page 56:
“No employee earned £60,000 per annum or more (including taxable benefits but excluding employer pension contributions) during the period.”
So while my point about average and median remains, it would seem that the Chief Executive is not on a huge salary; thus even the most junior clerks will be getting get sensible wages. With the exception of not providing a breakdown of actual salaries and wages, (Why so reticent? Or have I missed something?) I have to say that the report is wholly transparent.

One thing abundantly clear is the decentralised structure of BC. I remember years ago when I joined being amazed that I had to join individual branches rather than the organisation as a whole. That is decentralisation in the extreme. I don’t happen to like excessive decentralisation in ANY field. Take the NHS. N stands for NATIONAL. Yet it is anything BUT national with post code lotteries, local budgets, and so on; it sometimes seems to be pot luck as to whether or not someone can get a particular treatment.

Still I had better get off my hobby horse.

Maybe I had expected too much “hands-on” from BC Headquarters. HQ concentrates on other matters - making deals with Marks & Spencer, cleverly getting £40,000 from Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, etc, etc. That's impressive.

With a better understanding of the function of HQ and the devolution to the branches of the more mundane matters, I am able now to take a less cynical view.

Jack