• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Untouched by human feet....in England! (1 Viewer)

M

mudman

Well-known member
In the Humber estuary there is a large offshore island, of a Hundred plus hectares, by the name of Whitton sands. It is incredibly special by the very fact it is almost untouched by humans, no landing areas, no grazing, no traces of habitation, just hundreds of acres of wavering reedbeds, marsh harriers and bearded tits, a true wilderness in the English lowlands. And now the RSPB have announced they are to save this island ( from whom? ), tame the wilderness, and bring in earth moving machinery to create lagoons and ponds. Do they not realise just how precious a large area of land in England that is untouched by humans actuallly is!?! Can they just not leave it to the birds, no they have to create a new ' reserve' , improve what is already perfect, from what was already a reserve! To top it all the work will be done during the summer, remind me just when birds nest and rear their young?!? The island is covered with continuous reedbeds, difficult to work with bulldozers and diggers without destroying countless nests. Avocets obviously trump the previously rare birds of the reedbeds.
 
Last edited:
mudman said:
In the Humber estuary there is a large offshore island, of a Hundred plus hectares, by the name of Whitton sands. It is incredibly special by the very fact it is almost untouched by humans, no landing areas, no grazing, no traces of habitation, just hundreds of acres of wavering reedbeds, marsh harriers and bearded tits, a true wilderness in the English lowlands. And now the RSPB have announced they are to save this island ( from whom? ), tame the wilderness, and bring in earth moving machinery to create lagoons and ponds. Do they not realise just how precious a large area of land in England that is untouched by humans actuallly is!?! Can they just not leave it to the birds, no they have to create a new ' reserve' , improve what is already perfect, from what was already a reserve! To top it all the work will be done during the summer, remind me just when birds nest and rear their young?!? The island is covered with continuous reedbeds, difficult to work with bulldozers and diggers without destroying countless nests. Avocets obviously trump the previously rare birds of the reedbeds.
Click to expand...
If the RSPB manage to improve the habitat and even get more varieties of bird life, and so the RSPB have my support.. The public anyway won't be allowed onto the Island to visit that reserve.
Ian.
 
I wondered what studies had been done on the flora and fauna before making these decisions. It seemed a short period (to me) between access and substantially altering the habitat when any real gems such as very rare invertebrates could be difficult to survey.

All the best
 
Paul Chapman said:
I wondered what studies had been done on the flora and fauna before making these decisions. It seemed a short period (to me) between access and substantially altering the habitat when any real gems such as very rare invertebrates could be difficult to survey.

All the best
Click to expand...

As long as it's going to improve the habitat and not destroying it I'm all for it. And as the op who started this thread said that management would start in the summer disturbing the nesting birds, in another article, management on the island is not starting until September, that's after the nesting season.
Ian.
 
Last edited:
Ian

I hope that you are right. I remember some conversations with an ex-RSPB head of non-avian biodiversity and believed that they often relied on volunteers for non-avian biodiversity surveys. But maybe you are right......

All the best
 
In summary, 'wilderness' is such an incredibly rare situation in the U.K. That should not it be cherished for its own sake, and not 'improved' upon? This is a very large area for the English lowlands, I guess uniquely so, with no human impression upon it. Who are the RSPB to then start carving it up. It is part of the Humber Wildfowl refuge and as such is legally protected from human encroachment from the 1st September to the the 20 th February, this dates back to when it was an open sand/ mud flat, now it is a huge continuous reedbeds, uncovered by the all but the most exceptional tides.
 
mudman said:
In summary, 'wilderness' is such an incredibly rare situation in the U.K. That should not it be cherished for its own sake, and not 'improved' upon? This is a very large area for the English lowlands, I guess uniquely so, with no human impression upon it. Who are the RSPB to then start carving it up. It is part of the Humber Wildfowl refuge and as such is legally protected from human encroachment from the 1st September to the the 20 th February, this dates back to when it was an open sand/ mud flat, now it is a huge continuous reedbeds, uncovered by the all but the most exceptional tides.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I can't agree with you. The RSPB are very good with management and no doubt the Island will see more variety of birdlife and wildlife through RSPB management.
Ian.
 
IAN JAMES THOMPSON said:
I'm afraid I can't agree with you. The RSPB are very good with management and no doubt the Island will see more variety of birdlife and wildlife through RSPB management.
Ian.
Click to expand...

I do not doubt at all that they are, but my whole point is that is not genuine wilderness an incredibly rare habitat in the UK, and even more so in lowland England, and so very precious in its own rights?!?

I think Whitton sands is totally unique in England, totally untouched by the actions of man, never embanked, never drained, never farmed, never grazed, no human interfereance whatsoever, ever. So the RSPB manage it, (carve it up) and some bird species increase, but is this the be all and end all, is it worth the loss of something truly unique in England? A wild place tamed to farm Avocets in artificial lagoons.

The Humber is losing some of its breeding grounds for Avocets on Reads Island a few miles Down stream, Reads island always had human management or even habitation, it was embanked and grazed, even had a resident shepherd historically. Yes the RSPB did some great work creating lagoons for Avocets, which were a great success, but they were working on what was already a managed habitat. The natural processes of erosion are now destroying the banks and the lagoons they embanked on Reads, so now the RSPB are to take its wild neighbour into its custodianship and tame it, another artificial habitat from something which was previously only as nature created. Does wild not mean anything anymore?
 
Last edited:
mudman said:
I do not doubt at all that they are, but my whole point is that is not genuine wilderness an incredibly rare habitat in the UK, and even more so in lowland England. I think Whitton sands is totally unique in England, totally untouched by the actions of man, never embanked, never drained, never farmed, never grazed, no human interfereance whatsoever, ever. So the RSPB manage it, (carve it up) and some bird species increase, but is this the be all and end all, is it worth the loss of something truly unique in England? A wild place tamed to farm Avocets in artificial lagoons.

The Humber is losing its breeding grounds for Avocets on Reads Island a few miles Down stream, Reads island always had human management or even habitation, it I was embanked and grazed, even had a resident shepherd historically. Yes the RSPB did some great work creating lagoons for Avocets, which were a great success, but is was already a managed habitat. The natural processes of erosion are now destroying the banks and their lagoons they embanked on Reads, so now the RSPB are to take its wild neighbour into its custodianship and tame it, another artificial habitat from something which was previously only as nature created.
Click to expand...
How will it be tamed as it will still look and be a wilderness even though it's been managed for the benefit of all wildlife. That is much much better.
Ian.
 
Nutcracker said:
That's a waste of money, the island won't be there in 50 years! It'll have either moved, or (more likely, with projected sea level rises) gone altogether.
Click to expand...

More likely to be better for wildlife in the period that it is there however.

Furthermore, it is a lease, not a purchase - if it is well-written lease, the obligations of the two parties should be set out in cases of flooding, loss of the land to changes in the estuary, etc. They are paying an annual rent in return for utilization of the piece of land - depending on how the terms are defined, the lease could even terminate if the piece of land ceases to be (as the lessor no longer has something to lease). Alternatively, if detailed in the terms, the lessee (RSPB) or the lessor might be expected to conduct works to present loss (seawalls or whatever) - failing here could be deemed a breach of agreement and be grounds for termination/compensation. Or it could be worded as Force Majeure and thus just bad luck on whichever party.

Thus, to my mind, not a waste of money as the wildlife benefits in the meantime, which could be anything up to fifty years. And also not necessarily a loss of money even if catastrophic loss were to occur in the first months, as this could depend on the terms of the contract.

I stand to be corrected on any or all of these points :-O
 
IAN JAMES THOMPSON said:
As long as it's going to improve the habitat and not destroying it I'm all for it. And as the op who started this thread said that management would start in the summer disturbing the nesting birds, in another article, management on the island is not starting until September, that's after the nesting season.
Ian.
Click to expand...

Ian

My point is a simple one. I do not believe that the RSPB are necessarily well placed to understand the overall effect that they have on biodiversity. I fear that in this country, we are seeing headline gains - Marsh Harriers, Bitterns, Avocets, Cranes, Red Kites, Bearded Tits, etc - whilst habitats are being lost and amended and we are seeing species less headline dependent upon other more obscure habitats lost or in catastrophic decline.

I know nothing of the current biodiversity of Whitton Sands. I expect that very few people do (if anyone). I just hope that some of the few people who would be able to provide specialist and obscure advice on less headline species have been involved.

Don't get me wrong the overall more holistic approach of the RSPB to Nature greatly encourages and I am occasionally wrong. I may be simply jaundiced by what my own amateur eyes and limited knowledge tells me on a daily basis.

Good birding
 
mudman said:
In summary, 'wilderness' is such an incredibly rare situation in the U.K. That should not it be cherished for its own sake, and not 'improved' upon? This is a very large area for the English lowlands, I guess uniquely so, with no human impression upon it. Who are the RSPB to then start carving it up. It is part of the Humber Wildfowl refuge and as such is legally protected from human encroachment from the 1st September to the the 20 th February, this dates back to when it was an open sand/ mud flat, now it is a huge continuous reedbeds, uncovered by the all but the most exceptional tides.
Click to expand...

Paul Chapman said:
Ian

My point is a simple one. I do not believe that the RSPB are necessarily well placed to understand the overall effect that they have on biodiversity.
Click to expand...

Without knowing more, I'd infer from this that it has always been vulnerable/has changed. And although it may have been relatively untouched by humans it will be hard to tell (eg when it was a mudbank 500 years ago it may well have been harvested for whatever lived there.)

It may be a refuge for certain species but sounds rather like succession to reedbed has occurred in recent times?? In which case ...

Wild per se is great ... although given that man has messed up so much (sure we'd all agree that is a given), sometimes active management to redress the balance isn't a bad thing.

I wonder what environmental surveying has been done - like Paul et al I would hope they'd been thorough before engaging in any major works.
 
I think Mudman makes a good point about the value of wilderness areas. This is the current link about what the RSPB intends: RSPB's newest reserve is an island paradise for birds Given that the island is already described (in the RSPB's own words) as "teeming with wildlife" and "an important home for a wide range of birdlife. This includes breeding marsh harriers, avocets and bearded tits, as well as wintering hen harriers and lots of pink footed geese, lapwings and golden plovers", it doesn't seem immediately obvious why this area needs any management at all, let alone the creation of an artificial lagoon.

The island is in any case right next to the Blacktoft Sands reserve where several lagoons have been created already. In the photo you can just see Whitton Island at the top left: Blacktoft Sands. Also Alkborough Flats opposite with more lagoons. Why not focus instead on improving areas which are currently of much lower wildlife value, rather than trying to farm particular species on wildland which is already of high quality?
 
Interesting topic!

The value here is that Whitton sands is the largest separate place in England created and developed completely by nature, without human interference. And that natural processes have value by themselves in the 21. century, where even reserves are intensively managed by man. This is something so rare today that not even normally mentioned in conservation.

And the fear is that RSPB will take well-meaning but more narrow approach and maximize counts of single vegetation types and species, while destroying the natural processes with bulldozers and other management.

The same discussion is now on Bialowieza forest in Poland. Conservationists want to keep natural cycles of growth and evolution of forest ecosystem running, while foresters want to cut and replant trees in an orderly fashion, although nowhere is said that the forest must develop in an orderly way, and existed for millenia with, for example, periodic die-offs of single tree species.

I had pleasure of treading another land in Europe literally untouched by human feet before, large islands (up to 3 km long) developing in the middle of Vistula in Poland. Fascinating place, sand flats, jungle-like forests of giant poplars and hop tangles, occasional elk, deer and black storks. And really unvisited by man except of an occasional angler.

I wonder how others feel about the value of simple absence of humans and natural processes in wildlife? Is it the quality by itself valuable in the 21. century? Would RSPB be interested in preserving it? The island is anyway, naturally rich in birds including rare marsh harriers and bearded tits.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

G
A 14 night Cruise from Southampton to Norway and Iceland, 22/6/23 to 6/7/23.
Replies
3
Views
916
greer3
G
wolfbirder
Morocco Marvels and Meanderings 21 - 28 March 2023
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
wolfbirder
wolfbirder
H
Birdwatching more locally
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
Mysticete
Mysticete
wolfbirder
Canary Islands Conundrums - Fuerteventura and Tenerife 25-31 March 2022
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
Gonçalo Elias
Gonçalo Elias
dwatsonbirder
A fleeting visit to St Kilda
Replies
14
Views
2K
MKinHK
MKinHK

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top