Should the SBA membership be growing faster??

[Trog]

Well, the included insurance and compensation cover is a big selling point. Anyone with bees should be a member, if only for the insurance. It only takes one ratty colony to sting someone's child and (these days) you're bound to be sued. House insurance will not cover your bees!

[marion.orca]

Well I'm a " newby " and I've just joined, though not voted on this poll I have to admit. As I saw in a previous post, the cost for just the remainder of the year [ 4 months ] made me at first hesitate and I did consider waiting until 2012 to join. But, as I'm hoping [ fingers crossed ] to be able to move my hive nearer home to facilitate winter feeding, the hive would be more visible than at present, so the deciding factor was the insurance cover. I'd rather them be covered than not [ though they still will be in a safe place ] and hopefully I will have no need of the insutance cover - better safe than sorry, and peace of mind for myself. And I'm looking forward to my first magazine too !
Just for the record - you definitely can get stung through latex gloves - the little darlings were a bit tetchy one day and decided they weren't too keen on my bee-keeping skills so went for the attack whilst I was holding the frame. Dropping it was NOT an option - biting my lip whilst asking them to stop was !

[gavin]

I think it's sad that people like DR and Gavin are so dispirited that resignation seems to be the only option.

Just a wee clarification. I'm still a member and still encourage every beekeeper in Scotland to join. The benefits of membership are well worth the subscription, individually and collectively. The voice the SBA has in government is part of that, and the benefits of the insurance and compensation plus the magazine more of it. My personal resignation was from an Executive which made a decision that I could not support and which I wished to be free to openly criticise in public. Such things happen in organisations, I can't expect everyone to share my clarity of thought on scientific and technical matters, especially when they have been drip-fed nonsense for many years! DR's frustrations are up to him. I share some of them, but I don't think that he is making sufficient allowance for the fact that the SBA is and will stay an organisation run by enthusiastic amateurs. Yes, some things could be improved. Try to help the process then, don't walk away. These things take time.

[The Drone Ranger]

I feel there is no point in me financing an organisation that doesn't represent my views

By the way my wife works for a horse magazine which doesn't have a bigger circulation than Scottish Beekeeper.

100 pages, full colour, laminated covers, printing cost per issue 82p

When people say the magazine can't improve that's just incredible to me.

[gavin]

Maybe you should sample the wider activities of the organisation before being so certain that it doesn't represent your views? And if it doesn't why not engage more and show that there are members who are fed up with the image portrayed by the magazine in the years since Mr McArthur took over? Help the new editor develop the magazine back to something that could make the members proud?

The current subscription (with that insurance and compensation cover) costs the price of the jars of honey you can get from 2-3 super frames, or 1/6 the common price of a 5-frame nuc, or 1/10 the price of a full colony of bees (without the box!). And also a small fraction of my usual spend when I visit the beekeeping supplier's shop.

You can see that I'm not going to just let you walk away .....

[Mellifera Crofter]

... And if it doesn't why not engage more and show that there are members who are fed up with the image portrayed by the magazine ...

I haven't followed all of this, so I might be missing the point of the discussion, but
(a) I can't vote on this because I don't know what the growth figures are;
(b) I rather like the magazine. I've only just joined the SBA and read my first issue from cover to cover. Magazines don't have to be just eye candy.
(c) But I hate the SBA website. It's clumsy, hard to navigate, and not very pretty - I think it it will benefit from having some eye candy here.
Kitta

[gavin]

Hi Kitta

Great to see your comments. A little history may help.

The magazine was an excellent organ for its time perhaps 20 years ago. Nigel S has only recently taken it on and things are changing. Perhaps 5-20 years ago it was used far too much to portray the views of the editor at the time, and they alienated some of the membership and gave a negative impression of the organisation. You may have seen some of the afters in the exchanges on here between me and the one banned member who was that editor.

It is definitely improving now and I'm a bit surprised that DL feels this is a good time to abandon the SBA.

As for the website, Al produced the current design of the website many many years ago. For a couple of years the SBA had a new, more modern website but the webmaster left the organisation in frustration I think, and took the website down as he did so. Al was persuaded to reinstate the old website so that the SBA has a presence and has continued to look after it on a care and maintenance basis while a new long term webmaster was sought. There was a person identified to take on this role, but I think that this hasn't worked out. Now the SBA is looking for a new volunteer to develop the site. There was an advert in a recent issue to appeal for volunteers for this position and for the General Secretary as Bron is now the Vice-President. So yes, the website could be more modern but there are reasons for that. If there is anyone reading this who would like either of these unpaid and under-appreciated positions, do let Phil or Bron know.

Gavin

[The Drone Ranger]

"although we have looked at the prospect of an A4 colour magazine the cost at present is prohibitive"

The president of the SBA has said it so it must be true

[gavin]

At last! You have a good reason to leave the SBA ... the President said that an A4 colour magazine would cost too much!



On the magazine, what is the issue really - the format? The content? The nature page? The impression given of the organisation? The impression the magazine gave a few years ago when others were in charge? Kitta and others before her have said that they quite like it as it is now. I could dig out figures when this was discussed before but it seems like we are running a low-cost magazine which actually does meet what most members want, in particular a monthly means of keeping in touch. As I recall the option of dropping some (or even half) the issues to allow a different format was not a popular one.

You mentioned 82p per copy for printing. OK, at 12 issues per year, and preparing for posting (packeting) and the postage costs themselves (what, 70p per copy? I'm guessing) that could eat up £18 of the £25. So, a few pound rise in the subscription to keep the show on the road and ... you would have an even better reason to leave.

[Jimbo]

Hi DR,
You say the SBA don't represent your views. What are your views? You might find some people who are still in the SBA may have similar views and if they were known maybe change can be made.
On the magazine. I feel there is a big improvement since the change of editor. Our association had a good debate on the format of the magazine. Everything was discussed from the format, size, cost, electronic version, comparison to other publications etc. In the end at the vote of members there was an overwhelming majority on keeping it as it is.