Rainham Marshes going downhill? (1 Viewer)

[Owl Capone]

I like the place, I see your points, attracting new interest, and raising funds is important. However, its missing my point. Its a wildlife haven, not a country park, it is there to protect the birds living there, not attract visitors. Why is becoming so focused on flagship reserve, attracting visitors, raising funds? I thought the RSPB bought the land to preserve it as it was, therefore protecting biodiversity. Its for the birds, not the people. That contradicts the whole point of the RSPB doesnt it? They raised the money to buy it without these visitors in the first place. No hides, visitor centre, no need for additional funds. Fence it off, have a voluntary warden to help, leave it alone for the birds, if people miss out, then tough, then the RSPB is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing

 

[purple highflyer]

Why not just make it into a giant tv studio,beam out the images live via web cam,save people going outside at all,a small subscription to "Rainham live", virtually zero disturbance,really user friendly for the 500,000 or so who couldn't find a wild marshy area or care less about it unless its shoved in their faces ?.

PH

 

[The sniper]

So where do we bird,if that suggestion was carried forward across the board then no one apart from a chosen few would ever see any decent birds,our hobby would be confined to garden watching with a bit of sea watching thrown in.
Let's face it,birds breed in all manner of places.Places like Rainham are far better as a reserve than being left to their own devices for kids to ride round on motorbikes which is what used to happen.

 

[Owl Capone]

Im maybe going to extremes, but its not about us is it? It is a charity for birds, not a hobby grant. When you donate to WWF they dont go and whack a hut in the rainforest. Public reserves have benefits, of course, but my point is its going a bit too far, veering from its core principle. The RSPB has protected places for years, without this aggresive marketing strategy. Its become more of a business than a charity, where will it end, charging for carparks, charging a tenner to get in, allowing dogs in? If that new hide stops even one pair of birds breeding there, was it worth it, when the other hides are 5 mins walk and usually deserted anyway?

 

[The sniper]

The hides at rainham are not always deserted,I have been to minsmere/titchwell etc many times and have sat in a hide all alone for hours.
If we didn't have hides,we wouldn't be able to see many birds and the less people that see them,the less we get to know about them

 

[JamesA]

Im maybe going to extremes, but its not about us is it? It is a charity for birds, not a hobby grant. When you donate to WWF they dont go and whack a hut in the rainforest. Public reserves have benefits, of course, but my point is its going a bit too far, veering from its core principle.

Yes, exactly, it's a charity for birds (though the tagline suggests people too).

It's really very difficult to make people give up their money. Giving to charity isn't selfless, it's selfish. People give in order to see a return. I suppose you could see it like buying that warm-fuzzy feeling of having helped, or £60/year for some good karma, or something.

For people to give their money at Rainham, you have to provide something in return. With a nature reserve, that's the visitor experience. A lot of birders don't donate to conservation, so how do you make a "normal" person do it? You provide a comfortable and (relatively) rewarding site visit. Comfortable hides from which (in winter at least) you'll get great views of common waterfowl, a genuinely good visitor centre with decent food, and a flat, dry, wheelchair accessible trail that's not so large that it's intimidating. This is bound to put off a lot of people, people who prefer wilder, less populated places and I can appreciate that, but the public would rather give to see some cute ducklings or the look on their kid's face when... yeah, that kind of thing. Simply put, "but think of the sedge warblers" isn't as good a moneyspinner as "we've got warm hides, colourful ducks and CAKE".

Rainham has changed, hugely, and while it might now be too busy and developed for some people, the net gain since acquisition and management as a reserve is surely huge. I think you have to view all the "small" changes (new hides, a hundred-odd square metres of boardwalk, etc) in this context and weigh them up against the increased "value" of the site since 2000, or whenever they bought it.

The RSPB has protected places for years, without this aggresive marketing strategy. Its become more of a business than a charity, where will it end, charging for carparks, charging a tenner to get in, allowing dogs in?

With the dogs, you're possibly pushing the argument to extremes here, especially given that Rainham has always been very anti-dog. Charged car-parking for non-members however, that seems to me to be a possibility, especially with high visitor numbers and an over-capacity car park. I don't like this either. Increase in general visitor charge is probably inevitable too, though it would go against their inclusive angle.

If that new hide stops even one pair of birds breeding there, was it worth it, when the other hides are 5 mins walk and usually deserted anyway?

For the record, I think the newest hide is slightly redundant. However, as I said higher up this post and, as Rob has pointed out, you should consider these small losses/gains against the huge overall gain of the RSPB acquiring, protecting and then managing the site.

 

[The sniper]

James,as always you put your point across a bit more eloquently than me.

 

[Owl Capone]

Hi, I see those points, very good thoughts about selfish charity givers who want something in return. It slightly misses my point though. Why not just fence the place off, an achievable amount of money to raise, employ one warden, have volunteers look after and monitor the place. Then you dont have to raise money for hides, running the centre, boardwalks etc... you would only have to raise an achievable amount each year for maintainance costs, then let the birds get on with it. There is a public footpath along the seawall anyway. Surely this would benefit them more, the point of the RSPB? Sending me junkmail with suggested donation amounts, turning marshes into a theme park, I respect the RSPB and its work, but it seems to be becoming a cash raising focused enterprise, money isnt everything, if we lose a few more birds in an era of mass decline

 

[The sniper]

I don't think we are losing any birds by building hides,they are usually built with minimal disturbance.Birds are usually quite hardy creatures and resourceful.If they are being distrurbed then they will usually just up sticks to somewhere else.
The Benefits far outweigh the negatives IMHO

 

[dantheman]

... Why not just fence the place off, an achievable amount of money to raise, employ one warden, have volunteers look after and monitor the place. Then you dont have to raise money for hides, running the centre, boardwalks etc... you would only have to raise an achievable amount each year for maintainance costs, then let the birds get on with it. There is a public footpath along the seawall anyway. Surely this would benefit them more, the point of the RSPB? ...

You're forgetting that for conservation to work in a potentially overpopulated, industrialised nation like this one, you need the general backing of the millions of 'ordinary' people out there. It's no good having a hardcore of birders or even conservationists out there if the general government and population cares not one jot about the countryside and its wildlife.

The benefits of the odd flagship reserve where some compromise seems to be being made in terms of public access over solitude and maximum habitat gain etc probably are very worthwhile in terms of one rather large 'point' of the RSPB - education and the 'spreading of the word'.

 

[Jos Stratford]

My belief is the RSPB is and has always been a charitable group for the protection of birds and their habitat.

I wouldnt say its right in the midst of an urban area, and isnt that easy to access via public transport. If it sacrifices a nesting site of Sedge Warblers for a few daytrippers, does it not contradict everything it stands for?

You may persuade people to go once on a day out, but its supposed to be a haven for wildlife, not a tourist attraction.

Ultimately long-term protection of birds and habitat entails the need to carry the non-birding public with you.

Elmley, etc etc, are there to cater for birders who prefer solitude and a degree of wilderness. I have only been to Rainham only once, but was overall impressed - if they can't double it as a tool to attract non-birders, even if it is one time only, then all the more credit to the place. There are few countries in the world that attempt to create educational reserves in urban areas of the calibre of Rainham and the WWT London Wetland Centre, fewer still that have truly achived it, full marks to the relevant bodies at both sites.

If Joe Public goes home with memories of a good day and a slightly better idea of the wildlife on their doorstep, they might just be more likely to voice concern the next time a Thames Estuary airport is suggested on wader wintering grounds, etc, etc. As for the loss of a Sedge Warbler nesting site, I would suppose the population of all wetland birds is considerably higher at both Rainham and the WWT Wetland Centre now than before these two world-class organisations began their transformations of the sites.

So, if a hide, maybe not to all of our tastes, serves an overall beneficial goal, then maybe it's worth overlooking (and it can hardly be an eyesore, the whole of the Thames Estuary is an eyesore ).

I wouldnt say its right in the midst of an urban area, and isnt that easy to access via public transport.

Take a look at population density maps, the reserve's catchment is just about Europe's most densely populated zone.

 

[JamesA]

Hi, I see those points, very good thoughts about selfish charity givers who want something in return. It slightly misses my point though. Why not just fence the place off, an achievable amount of money to raise, employ one warden, have volunteers look after and monitor the place. Then you dont have to raise money for hides, running the centre, boardwalks etc... you would only have to raise an achievable amount each year for maintainance costs, then let the birds get on with it. There is a public footpath along the seawall anyway. Surely this would benefit them more, the point of the RSPB? Sending me junkmail with suggested donation amounts, turning marshes into a theme park, I respect the RSPB and its work, but it seems to be becoming a cash raising focused enterprise, money isnt everything, if we lose a few more birds in an era of mass decline

You can't just fence it off for the same reason that, for example, Born Free's argument about zoos is silly. How can you encourage someone to care for and donate money to something they have no connection with? How can you get someone donate money to, eg, ZSL, to help them fund a tiger conservation project without ever having seen a tiger? Simply put, I don't believe that you can; or at least it's a million times harder. People's giving is partly a selfish thing - they need to feel that they're doing a good thing, they need feedback, and results. This is what they're buying, evidence of their generosity. With Rainham, that evidence is nice hides and views of pretty ducks. With other charities that evidence might be stories of a family's life turned around or good news about some other cause. I don't believe it would be easy to raise even the money to maintain a site like Rainham if there wasn't the development as there is at the moment. Bear in mind also that money raised at Rainham isn't necessarily spent at Rainham - it goes towards maintaining all those nice small quiet RSPB places where there are no big visitor centres or hides. Besides, not everyone wants to birdwatch from a seawall in what was, until recently, the kind of place where you wouldn't rock up with a four-figure-sum's worth of optics...

Dan makes a good point too: the best way to protect something or somewhere is to engage the local communities in it - they have to see a benefit to having the place or they'll try and do stupid shit like build a super-prison or a Disney place on it. Theme park on the marshes, you say? It could easily have been so...

You can probably argue that Rainham is a microcosm of the whole RSPB: a small area of the total site turned into a highly developed finely tuned money spinning education machine, entirely to fund a much larger, inaccessible area which is where the wildlife really benefits. Or, put another way, without places like Rainham sites like West Canvey, Vange, Wallasea, Bowers and all the rest would eventually be lost to housing, farming, industry or Disney. If a few pairs of birds are forced off on Purfleet marsh, then so be it.

 

[The sniper]

Not densely populated,it has about 3 million people who are less than 49 minutes drive
I would say there's 1.5 million plus within 10 miles

 

[Owl Capone]

Excellent points and I never really thought of the cash from Rainham benefiting more remote reserves, it is sad that humans cant seem to give without expecting something in return, but you are right. The cynic in me fears that if Rainham is a great success story, making money, then all reserves will end up going the same way, but with space running out, I guess there really is no choice, the lesser of two evils I suppose. I am in no way slating the place, think the latest hide is a bit strange, I love visiting there, but love the wildlife more! Im probably living in an ideal world, not an extremely overcrowded county. It is amongst urban areas, but I was trying to say it isnt that easily accessible, if a youngster from eg Dagenham, wanted to keep up the interest and return.

 

[The sniper]

You can get a train to dagenham (2 stops ) and then a 15 minute walk or 5 minute run

 

[JamesA]

Excellent points and I never really thought of the cash from Rainham benefiting more remote reserves, it is sad that humans cant seem to give without expecting something in return, but you are right. The cynic in me fears that if Rainham is a great success story, making money, then all reserves will end up going the same way, but with space running out, I guess there really is no choice, the lesser of two evils I suppose. I am in no way slating the place, think the latest hide is a bit strange, I love visiting there, but love the wildlife more! Im probably living in an ideal world, not an extremely overcrowded county. It is amongst urban areas, but I was trying to say it isnt that easily accessible, if a youngster from eg Dagenham, wanted to keep up the interest and return.

Agree on the transport, the walk from Purfleet station is just too long - the bridge over the Mardyke was a brilliant idea. There were murmurings about getting some Havering/Furrock buses to swing by the car park but I don't know what happened there.

Regarding people giving, I did come across a little more negative than I could've been; some people do genuinely give altruisticly, there's just more people who give when they too benefit from it. I also neglected to say that this is no bad thing, everybody wins...

 

[Digbert Doobrey]

Out of interest what do the people, who think Rainham has turned into a 'theme park', think of the London wetland centre? For every Rainham there is a Vange Marsh or an Elmley. Reserves that are far less developed for the public in mind. Or even places like Two Tree Island, where you can try for a Wryneck on migration whilst dogding the dog walkers and the people flying their model airplanes.

When I was at infant school we had trips to a local nature centre which I loved and its a huge reason that today I love birdwatching and am a member of the RSPB and the WWT. I would imaging that a lot of the facilities at Rainham have been built with Schools and people with young children in mind. Now I dont like having a hide 'invaded' by kids as much as anyone but getting kids interested and exposed to local wildlife is vital to the wellbeing of our hobby and conservation in general.

In my opinion people having a moan are being pedantic. Rainham is still a cracking reserve for the hardcore and lone birder. Just look at the list of rarities that turn up there and an average day's birding will almost always give you a species count of 50plus. In spring and summer the trails are alive with warblers so the 'just one sedge warbler nest' argument is a redundant one.

Perhaps the money spent on the new hide would have been better used raising the Barrett hide. However I'm sure if you ask Howard Vaughan or any of the regulars down there they had a very good reason for putting it where they did.

As someone earlier said the RSPB could've just let Disney have it or left it for the local bike riders/gangster wannabies. But lets just enjoy what we've got. A fantastic reserve that provides something for everyone yet puts birds and conservation first, both for the present and the future.

 

[upstarts1979]

I think owl capone will not be swayed completely but I would summarise and say that maybe Rainham is a sacrificial lamb in respect of loosing its 'wild' aspect. The creation of new habitat there will ultimately benefit a wider range of species and attract more would be converts to the interest (not a hobby its a way of life..conservationist). Money raised and support gained from Rainham will help preserve the vast wilderness of Forsinand (sutherland) and other places that very rarely see people. The birds that breed at these wild areas could well pass through Rainham and add more interest. Birds will breed on busy reserves but the vast majority will breed in wild areas that are free from the public which have been protected by the RSPB.
The general public want access to everywhere whether for dog walking , rambling or whatever, best to attract these types in a more controlled situation and at the same time gain more members that would otherwise have no interest in conservation. At my local reserve at Upton warren in Worcestershire we have picked up many new members from the general public who have just wandered up on the reserve the reserve by accident having a presence does encourage people to join us in the fight to preserve nature and wild sites.
B John

 

[tittletattler]

And many 'prambirders' such as myself visit Rainham. Our kids love and respect wildlife, generally, as a result. Perhaps Rainham should have been fenced off and our kids should have stayed at home playing on there PS3s and thus depriving the RSPB of future members.

 

[auchinbowie]

There is another aspect to this. Places like Rainham and Minsmere have high profiles and will be preserved in the flood defence plans. The truly wild locations, which are devoted to the wildlife rather than the punters, will most likely be allowed to go back to the sea, when present sea walls are breached. A sad fact of life and conservation politics. Does one promote the latter, in an attempt to gain public support for their continued existence and thereby destroy their special appeal? There is no perfect solution.