When people stay in an area known for birdwatching with substantial access to beaches and coastal paths, and then you take it away from them (even for a limited period) those people then wonder if they would be better off going elsewhere...
Yes, in that scenario, they probably would
But seriously, do you really find it objectionable that some sensitive breeding areas are temporarily fenced off to allow birds, highly vulnerable to pedestrian disturbance, to brood and fledge chicks safely? Not to mention other fauna and vulnerable plant species whose ecology is confined to marsh or dune habitats already under pressure through agricultural or climatic influences.
The answer is management not exclusion.
Exactly. If you care to read the results of the NE consultation, (I posted links on another East Anglican thread) which arose in response to the opening up/extension of the ECP that improves public access (England Coastal Path) they recommend better enforcement of
existing restrictions and
existing management plans. With the exception of the dunes at Holme, I dont believe there are any further curtailments suggested, just better signage, better fencing and increase of voluntary wardening in response to members of the public ignoring or even destroying fencing and defacing signage. In fact, NE concludes that there will be no significant impact as a result of the ECP route on most of the sensitive sites that are currently being managed, providing existing management strategies are better implemented, that to date, btw, were largely funded by the EU LIFE projects which comes to an end this year.
btw my first post said ‘flora and flora’ which was a typo. I meant ‘flora and fauna of course.
Ps. Personally speaking, maybe this discussion should move to a new thread if its going to develop into a protracted rant, since this one, imo, is better served to discuss sightings/local patch movements etc