Who Are Our Nature Reserves For? (1 Viewer)

ClarkWGriswold · Jan 16, 2013

There are some threads out there at the moment which are raising some very serious issues. Not wishing to detract from those (only an idiot would wish to do so) and go off on tangents I thought I'd start an alternative thread.

My own thoughts are that they are there for everyone to enjoy responsibly. Of course, what defines responsible behaviour is subjective and I accept that. Personally, I want an area where I can introduce my children to our wildlife or where I can lose myself for a few hours and forget about the stresses of life. A variety of wildlife is nice but not strictly necessary as they are at the age where everything is new. I find the vast majority of birders and photographers extremely friendly and willing to help those who want to learn, I.e. me:t::t:

I have no issue sharing this space with others who have other interests - joggers, cyclists, horse riders for example as long as they persue their interests responsibly. I've never had any issues with joggers or cyclists whilst horse riding and never had an issue with joggers or horse riders whilst cycling. I hate jogging so I'll leave that out. I have friends/ family/ colleagues who enjoy our great outdoors but couldn't tell a robin from a raven. Each to their own is what I say.

A nature reserve I fairly regularly frequent is Whiteford Point on the North Gower. This is an area I've enjoyed since a child. Many people use the area for a variety of interests but it just seems to work. The opportunities to watch our wildlife are also usually very good.

What do other people think?

An issue I've noticed when visiting reserves whilst on holiday (US, Canada and Australia) is that there's usually more litter on the UK reserves. This massively annoys me and could so easily be rectified if certain individuals weren't so damn lazy.

Rich

ClarkWGriswold · Jan 16, 2013

As an addition if anyone has any recommendations for reserves they enjoy perhaps those too could be suggested?

Rich

George London · Jan 16, 2013

They should be for everyone with respect for (or in the case of young children, with someone with respect for) the reserve.

To me you could change the words 'Nature Reserve' to 'Museums' or 'Parks' 'Historic Houses'...

I think all the 'responsible' or 'irresponsible' behaviour - littering or not; letting your dogs run uncontrolled or not; being selfish generally, photographers choosing to (or just not thinking) flush birds or push in front of others; being aware of who and what is around you, or shouting and generally being inconsiderate; teaching your children that they're in a very special and precious place, and that they should behave accordingly, or being idle with them and allowing them to run uncontrolled(

); helping others and being patient, or being rude and generally acting as if you are the only person/family on the planet - comes from respect, or a simple lack of respect. Lack of respect for other people, the land, and the wildlife.

I say ban the lot of them. Only problem is how to correctly identify the wronguns... And of course, the debate of debates, how to get people to respect everything around them so they don't need to be banned.

I think it's a great question Clark, if anyone can answer it they're a better man than me...

Cheers George

Farnboro John · Jan 16, 2013

I had a feeling that real reserves are for wildlife?

John

ClarkWGriswold · Jan 16, 2013

I hesitated to put in photographers and birders George because of previous issues. My contact with both has 99% of the time been positive so I left it in.

I agree with the rest of what you say:t:

Rich

George London said:
They should be for everyone with respect for (or in the case of young children, with someone with respect for) the reserve.

To me you could change the words 'Nature Reserve' to 'Museums' or 'Parks' 'Historic Houses'...

I think all the 'responsible' or 'irresponsible' behaviour - littering or not; letting your dogs run uncontrolled or not; being selfish generally, photographers choosing to (or just not thinking) flush birds or push in front of others; being aware of who and what is around you, or shouting and generally being inconsiderate; teaching your children that they're in a very special and precious place, and that they should behave accordingly, or being idle with them and allowing them to run uncontrolled(); helping others and being patient, or being rude and generally acting as if you are the only person/family on the planet - comes from respect, or a simple lack of respect. Lack of respect for other people, the land, and the wildlife.

I say ban the lot of them. Only problem is how to correctly identify the wronguns... And of course, the debate of debates, how to get people to respect everything around them so they don't need to be banned.

I think it's a great question Clark, if anyone can answer it they're a better man than me...

Cheers George

ClarkWGriswold · Jan 16, 2013

Ideally John I agree. Reality I feel introduces compromise (particularly for overcrowded countries) I'm not going to go into what I do for a living but access to reserves is important to me. I temporarily noticed the problem when I broke my ankle last October.

The first time we were in Canada I noticed disabled access was better than ours. For example, there was a ramp down to the path to Pyramid Lake outside of Jasper complete with deer tracks set in the concrete.

Rich

With hindsight maybe the title should have read "who/ what are our reserves for?"

Farnboro John said:
I had a feeling that real reserves are for wildlife?

John

Farnboro John · Jan 16, 2013

ClarkWGriswold said:
Ideally John I agree. Reality I feel introduces compromise (particularly for overcrowded countries) I'm not going to go into what I do for a living but access to reserves is important to me. I temporarily noticed the problem when I broke my ankle last October.

The first time we were in Canada I noticed disabled access was better than ours. For example, there was a ramp down to the path to Pyramid Lake outside of Jasper complete with deer tracks set in the concrete.

Rich

With hindsight maybe the title should have read "who/ what are our reserves for?"

Mm. Tricky one. My local patch used to be 50% inaccessible, then first off it was decided it ought to have a circular path instead of going out and back, then someone decided it must have access for all, so instead of a muddy track that left the wildlife 50% of the wetland area to be undisturbed in, we have a six-lane motorway that goes all the way round, is used by dog-walkers (minimal trouble as most don't want their dogs in the water) pram-pushers, buggy-pilots, cyclists, runners etc. The disturbance was made significantly worse by making the paths passable to all: even the circular track, when it turned ot morass in autumn, put off most able users. In my view it is wrong to make everywhere disabled-friendly, or whatever today's acceptable phrase is.

John

dantheman · Jan 16, 2013

Surely you need different levels of 'nature reserve'. It's an all too-encompassing term. Use and access dependent on what 'special wildlife' species are there/where the reserve is located/who owns it etc etc etc ...

eddy the eagle · Jan 16, 2013

I agree with John,nature reserves are just that,reserves for nature.Humans are the outsiders and as such should only observe and enjoy.Anything that disturbs the nature should not be allowed and if necessary that includes bird watching and photography if that means disturbing the nature.We are guests in these places and should treat them accordingly and leave nothing but footprints.My thoughts on this matter possibly count for nothing. Eddy.

locustella · Jan 16, 2013

They are always for people in a general sense, protecting environment people live in, the mechanism people are part of, but only sometimes they should be directly for fun. And they are for educational reasons and to increase the number of supporters of wildlife protection.
Actually they are to protect nature from people to save people from themselves. They are founded to ISOLATE given area from human activities. So treating them as amusement parks is missunderstanding, denies sense of their existence.
Maybe it depends on character of such reserve. In case of landscape reserve without timid animals or plants easy to damage, nothing is against intense penetration by people. There are different types of reserves, special trails for pedestrians in chosen areas.

MJB · Jan 16, 2013

ClarkWGriswold said:
With hindsight maybe the title should have read "who/ what are our reserves for?"

John is right about "what"; The Norfolk Naturalists Trust (apparently masquerading as The Norfolk Wildlife Trust - the former title automatically encompasses geology, the latter assumes every punter knows of geology's inclusion by default) has more than a few reserves that exclude the public mostly because the public's presence would be damaging in some way.

Nevertheless, for public support, conservation organisations usually have to provide public access, even though many people are desperately uninformed at the very time when information is more readily available than ever before.
MJB

michaelboustead · Jan 16, 2013

I don't hunt or even own a gun. Many of the reserves in the Maryland and New Jersey were created for hunters and I suspect that at least a sizable portion are supported from hunting fees.

I bird on State Gamelands in PA.

Not right maybe, but is.

George London · Jan 17, 2013

eddy the eagle said:
I agree with John,nature reserves are just that,reserves for nature.Humans are the outsiders and as such should only observe and enjoy.Anything that disturbs the nature should not be allowed and if necessary that includes bird watching and photography if that means disturbing the nature.We are guests in these places and should treat them accordingly and leave nothing but footprints.My thoughts on this matter possibly count for nothing. Eddy.

I hope your thoughts count for something... surely everyone's thoughts count for something!

I disagree, humans should only observe and enjoy wildlife wherever they are, reserve or not! A reserve is specifically set aside to celebrate wildlife, and should be treated as such... rather than just a normal piece of 'wild land' it is a 'hallowed' piece of wild land?

Surely much of the beneficial purpose of the reserves is that they are accessible, that they are specifically NOT just for the wildlife, but as a vehicle for humans to learn about wildlife. If reserves were purely 'reserves for nature' then shouldn't we keep humans off that land?

locustella · Jan 17, 2013

George London said:
much of the beneficial purpose of the reserves is that they are accessible, that they are specifically NOT just for the wildlife

This is rather purpose of city parks and recreation areas, not reserves. Obviously recreation areas can be beatiful and looking wild too.

George London · Jan 17, 2013

Locustella, I think you are rejigging the the original question and applying your conclusion with no qualification... would you care to elaborate?

Actually what you said is interesting to me because I reckon in the UK (and I understand the forum is global, so these comments are, perhaps, UK specific) most reserves are easily accessible to a great deal of people, which perhaps blurs what you are saying about 'city parks and recreation areas' (but I'm not sure because you haven't said

).

George

ClarkWGriswold · Jan 17, 2013

I see your point L. For once I feel quite lucky in this area. Town is going to the cats and every other pub seems to be shutting down. We do, however, have 2 great parks. Margam Park and The Gnoll. Both can get quite busy but both are large enough to cope. If you get there early there's also the chance of some decent birds. Facilities are very good and the cheese and potato pie at The Gnoll is great.

Rich

locustella said:
This is rather purpose of city parks and recreation areas, not reserves. Obviously recreation areas can be beatiful and looking wild too.

locustella · Jan 17, 2013

George London said:
most reserves are easily accessible to a great deal of people, which perhaps blurs what you are saying about 'city parks and recreation areas' (but I'm not sure because you haven't said).

So they are not reserves but sort of recreation areas. They are only called reserves. Obviously there are few kinds of reserves and only so called strict reserves are closed for people. But if most of reseves are aeasily accessible ...

dantheman · Jan 17, 2013

When I was young I thought of nature reserves as places set aside for the preservation of wildlife ... SSSI's, RSPB reserves etc, basically for the wildlife. Over the last 20 years and more there has been a move for greater access, with town councils getting more involved, and money grants for access (eg there was a £20k grant for re-doing the footpath at my local reservoir recently. It's good for wildlife, but not officially a nature reserve as such. Hopefully the wildlife hasn't suffered)

The use of 'nature reserves'/open access areas as educational tools cannot be understated. A bit like zoos/safari parks in previous times.
As long as the collateral damage along the way is not too great ...

Country Parks are not Nature Reserves, but they can be nature reserves. Things have changed.

(Of course talking from a UK perspective here)

Stevie babe · Jan 17, 2013

For me it should be illegal for dogs to be allowed out anywhere in the public domain off the lead. There should be controlled exercise zones for that activity with dog owners cleaning up after their mutt has left their trade mark behind. At the moment it seems that many dog owners disregard requirements / requests to keep their dogs under control when going through reserves. Radipole in Weymouth comes to mind.

That together with a no cycling policy in reserves though how that gets enforced is another matter since most cyclists I have come across think they own the footpath and seem only able to respond with vulgarity

That, to me, would take out the majority of disrespect to the countryside. The disabled generally appreciate where they are and tend to respect where they are and what they do.

dantheman · Jan 17, 2013

Stevie babe said:
That, to me, would take out the majority of disrespect to the countryside.

I think you're referring more to the way your use of the countryside is spoilt for you (disrespected) ...

... ?

I think the greatest disrespect to the countryside is the way that changing agricultural practices have altered the landscape eg with the loss of wildflower meadows/pesticides, the building of roads, pollution and the like.

The fraction that is left in reasonable shape of course needs some kind of protection from being overrun with human trippers and their toys - dogs and bikes included.

Who Are Our Nature Reserves For? (1 Viewer)

Carpe Carpum

Carpe Carpum

Well-known member

Well-known member

Carpe Carpum

Carpe Carpum

Well-known member

Bah humbug

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Carpe Carpum

Well-known member

Bah humbug

Well-known member

Bah humbug

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread