I noticed the signs about the work which was to commence the same day as Vic (although I did not see his two redstarts so I was probably looking for trouble!!). I e-mailed Stockport Council about it on Tuesday evening and they have replied saying that my concerns have been forwarded to the arboriculture team. I think I read on the Council website that they are carrying out a review of all the trees in local parks (Bramhall Park was specifically mentioned) and that such actions can be expected in them all any time now!!!

The thing that made me laugh most was that on the same date as I saw of the planned action, I had to cut two rowans free of the ties that had been holding them since they were saplings as they were beginning to 'strangle' them. And this was within 15 meters of the huts where the park staff store their tools and have their rest periods.

As for letting staff know what birds are nesting in an area so that it might be spared the chop. I'll never forget the look on the face of the guy in the information centre a few years back when I told him I'd found a firecrest and that people may come asking about it. I might as well have told him I'd just found a pixie sitting on a toadstool.

Just as a footnote, after this visit, I made a promise to myself not to visit the park again in spring because it was so depressing to sit in a place I used to hear all manner of songs and now hear so little (my hearing is still perfect before you ask). Years of mismanagement (or no management where the keg area is concerned) have reduced it to a shadow of what it once was. RIP ECP.

Its not, and should not, be about name calling particular people. It's about identifying good and bad practise and stating what is acceptable and what is not under the banner of country park. Is it a masquerade or a genuine attempt to create and continue something special?

The decline or not of SSSI in Manchester is a documented fact on the relevant website, not name calling. They all just been reassessed.

Most, if not all, wardens at these locations are very dedicated. I, like many, have worked on many sights from Dorset to North Yorkshire. These wardens were knowledgeable people doing a vocation not just employment.

The problems could be coming from decisions higher up on resources allocation and the priority of the relevant council department.

The pressure of varying groups can be well managed to the benefit of wildlife. Penington is a good example, birders, dog walkers, fishermen, sailors, golfers and people just out on a day out are catered for.

Other Country Parks like for example Burrs seem to put more strategic emphasis, to good affect I add, to outward bound activities, and hoards of people who apparently want to camp in the centre of Bury and have a holiday. (Not joking)

Or is that it can a country park mean other things than managing wild life to other people quite legitimately?


(I expect youre back from the Clarks now Vic.)

Without doubt many wardens are highly qualified and highly experienced people and I would say that most of them over the past 40 yeras or so that I have met, both as a visitor to their reserves/Cps etc and as a volunteer warden in my younger days (Oh the joy of wandering around reedbeds at Minsmere at 4am being eaten alive by mossies!) fall into that category.
However on a more local level, without doubt standards vary from borough to borough in Gtr Manchester and not all wardens are highly experienced and highly qualified. In fact one of the Tameside wardens (now retired) who I talked to told me that he had no qualifications at all and little experience prior to becoming a warden. He was actually a very good warden and in fact, did have very good qualifications having obtained them at the Univeristy of Life and Common Sense.
Sadly some, I repeat some, of the wardens in my area do not fall into that category.
In regards to my complaint regarding the loss of habitat at Etherow CP, I have been 3 times to the wardens office only to find it shut each time. From past experience phoning is a waste of time. I sent a detailed e-mail to the appropriate department and a week later I am still awaiting acknowledgement let alone a reply.

Paul, no worries, didn't think you were having a go. One reason I didn't want to get drawn in on this is exactly because its possible to come across as a miserable owd argumentative sod when actually your'e saying it with a smile on your face. If you see what I mean!

Craig Higson wrote:

---

if you report the warblers and report them as breeding then surley the habitat cannot go? Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to knowingly disturb breeding birds - correct, but if its cleared before they arrive (my interpretation of the comments), after they've gone then there is no offence. Similarly if they (or any other bird) aren't actually nesting in said vegetation then clearing that patch isn't an offence.

---

Ah the written form of the language - open to interpretation, without facial expressions, intonation messages can be misconstrued!

I wasn't having a go Craig, I was just clarify the situation if indeed anybody knows of birds being intentionally disturb/destroyed at this crucial time of year.

I for one would appreciate local peoples input into the management of a local site and would be especially grateful of information as to where birds are nesting, especially if it looks as though some development or "management" was about to take place.

I actually got it wrong anyway - here is a colleagues intepretation of the Act:

"Intentionally disturbing birds is not an offence (except for Schedule 1 spp), though destroying them would be. Bird x has the standard protection as most birds (eg Blackbird, Blue Tit, Tawny Owl). If you informed the contractors and relevant parties, then they should be able to wait until the young have fledged.

However, there is a loophole which says you can destroy nests if it is the result of an otherwise lawful act that could not reasonably have been avoided. Barristers make a living arguing what 'reasonably' means in this context."

And most warblers get on with the act of establishing territories, pairing up, nesting as soon as they arrive right? Isn't that why they sing straight away?

if you report the warblers and report them as breeding then surley the habitat cannot go? Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to knowingly disturb breeding birds - correct, but if its cleared before they arrive (my interpretation of the comments), after they've gone then there is no offence. Similarly if they (or any other bird) aren't actually nesting in said vegetation then clearing that patch isn't an offence.

Craig Higson wrote:

---

But, mangement of these sites is not just about individual species or even groups of species, its about balancing a whole host of pressures on an already pressured resource. Remember these places are not just for birds. In some instances they're not even just for wildlife - they're there for the public and in many instances serve mulitple purposes.

Make sure you pass on your records so they know that that patch of scrub holds Garden Warblers. They may keep it or they may explain to you why its had to go. Either way I suspect a day or two volunteering would open most peoples eyes to things they never thought went on.

---

In response to the 1st paragraph - Surely these places have management plans? And these places can be managed for wildlife and still give a good visitor experience? Areas can be prioritised and designated, clear signage and this is where the value of interpretation lies - convey the right mesages and then you can educate as well as inform people which lead to less instruction.

2nd paragraph - er, let me know if I've over simplified this but if you report the warblers and report them as breeding then surley the habitat cannot go? Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to knowingly disturb breeding birds.

Having watched this thread since it's beginning and welcomed it's typically lively discussion I have hovered over the keyboard with my views a couple of times now. Whilst they will, in due time, be typed out and posted all I would ask currently is that we refrain from name-calling or tarring everyone with the same brush until we have a fuller picture or a better appreciation of what or why such work has goes on. There are many ex and current wardens/rangers and the like who post or atleast view this forum, I in particular commend Craig for his well considered post and I think it unfair to target them, especially when our view can be decidedly narrow and one-sided

I dont really want to get drawn into this, so my reply will be short(ish) and sweet, and from the perspective of someone who has done the job (but who is no longer gainfully employed as such)

Ok - clearing vegetation during brid breeding season should be avoided at all costs.

But, mangement of these sites is not just about individual species or even groups of species, its about balancing a whole host of pressures on an already pressured resource. Remember these places are not just for birds. In some instances they're not even just for wildlife - they're there for the public and in many instances serve mulitple purposes.

Wildlife enthusiasts complain that habitat is mismanaged/lost. Day trippers complain that the paths are muddy, and on and on and on. the number of people who can manage a site better than those employed to do so is quite staggering.

Instead of ranting on here spend a day volunteering. Make sure you pass on your records so they know that that patch of scrub holds Garden Warblers. They may keep it or they may explain to you why its had to go. Either way I suspect a day or two volunteering would open most peoples eyes to things they never thought went on.

The people running these sites are highly qualified, highly experienced people. Try speaking to them.


I shall speak no more.

(Edited several times 'cause I can't spell)


-- Edited by Craig Higson on Tuesday 18th of May 2010 11:08:04 PM

-- Edited by Craig Higson on Tuesday 18th of May 2010 11:10:56 PM

-- Edited by Craig Higson on Tuesday 18th of May 2010 11:13:53 PM

The influx of balsam at etherow CP in one of the SSSI led to habitat degradation for plants and birds. The instances listed by Vic should lead to complaints against any baffoon and contacting local press. Of course some contractors may not be aware of nesting birds in a location they are working in but the wardens should be, and if not they should not be wardens. Other parks in Tameside have also declined. Pole Bank once a favourite haunt of many Hydonians is not even touted as a park these days.

In Bury I'm sure wardens are busy but where is not quite clear. Bury SBIs vary in nature with assessments last done 10 years ago. If you like canoeing there no better place than Burrs CP. This is declared a CP but most of it is cut grass land and a rather odd but popular caravan site populated by holiday makers to the centre of Bury.

The local nature reserves each have dedicated groups working hard in them and places like reddisher wood support good bird populations but other things can be disappointing. Meanwhile, nearby Elton, arguably more important in size, birds, and flora, is left to neglect and the degradation of a few local dead legs, dumping, burning, and shooting. Other people who use and enjoy it in a variety of ways have to endure this. Management of the natural resource appears not to be high on Bury councils agenda.

Other Councils like Bolton do better. Moses gate wardens and volunteers perhaps show how things should be done. This large park is bursting with birds, flowers, and insects on three very different sites. Bolton Parks in general seem to have a higher priority and local pride with various menageries of animals, butterfly house, aquarium and a working farm. Even the local nature reserves appear to be, well, more natural.

Country Parks are more than sticking a sign up at the gate and mapping out a few paths for dogs to empty bowels. It has to be about local political will, as well as skilled and motivated staff who can raise local awareness and efforts. Not to mention good use by local people.

Cheers

Ian

There is a Country Parks Act, but very few "Country Parks" are actually designated under that Act as it involves a lot of bureauocracy for councils, and more importantly conditions they would have to adhere to. Sadly there appears to be nothing under the Trade Descriptions Act which prevents councils calling any area they want a "Country Park". I believe that (eg) Pennington Flash Country Park is not designated under the Act. When I enquired once at the now defunct Greater Manchester Wildlife Working Group I remember there were very very few CPs that were designated under the Act. I suspect Water Parks might be the same but maybe Pete Hines can tell us more about these.
Local Nature Reserves are perhaps better in that they are a designation under Natural England who give monies each year (£20k comes to mind) for upkeep and NE presumably have some say over management. Councils are supposed to have so many per 1000 population.

United Utilities certainly have little or no idea of habitat management. At Strinesdale they've gone from such neglect that one couldn't see the view from the viewpoint because of the trees to spending the last two months hacking back all the understory everywhere. When some of us raised the question of the viewpoint we got nowhere.
I think it may have been cleared 'accidentally' by the contractor.

Hi Vic,

I fully understand where you're coming from.
Many of these country parks would be better served by having no wardens at all employed; (I wonder if perhaps they, and those who appoint them, have to be seen to do something, - anything, to simply justify their existence?).
The bad news is that the brainless activities which you have noted are worldwide and relentless, with wildlife in retreat everywhere save for diminishing pockets of enlightenment.

I should stop here lest I am tempted to jump onto my hobby horse and launch into my usual rant!

Cheers,
Mike P

Hi Vic. I'm afraid this isn't unique to your boroughs. Can you find out who to complain to? It would be worth formally notifying them of these thoughtless actions and asking them to consult locally about any future habitat 'improvements'.
Steve

I was always under the impression that Country Parks were supposed to at least maintain habitat and in most cases actually improve it. Sadly in the area where I live it would appear to be the opposite. Etherow CP and Werneth Low CP are where I do a lot of birding and quite frankly some of the work carried out by the wardens beggars belief. At Etherow a few years ago many of the trees and bushes around the various bodies of water were cut down in the middle of the breeding season. This including cutting a branch down on one of the islands in the boating lake, to which over many years, different pairs of Gt Crested Grebes had anchored their nests. This forced the grebes to nest on the central causeway where practically all were predated. The next work of genius was to cement up a Dipper's nest site on a wall by the weir 2 years ago. One of the latest acts of environmental vandalism is to completely clear 2 areas of scrub (mainly bramble) one of which had been the only regular place where Garden Warblers were recorded in recent years. Needless to say there aren't any this year. There is however a blanket of Himalayan Balsam developing nicely in the two areas in question. Perhaps they should plant some Japanese Hogweed as well! These are by no means all of the dirty deeds. Today there is a notice attached to telegraph poles near Keg Cottage stating that work is shortly to be carried out in removing alders, coppicing hazel and hawthorn, and cutting branches near power lines, on the embankment below keg Cottage. In the middle of the breeding season - what a bunch of *****. To be fair this latter work has nothing to do with the wardens - it appears to be United Utilities (and Stockport MB?). My humour was tested even more when in Werneth Low CP I noticed a small area of thick vegetation had been cleared in the past few days where Whitethroats had bred for the past 3 years. A singing bird was present a week or so ago - it isn't there now. A friend of mine tackled the voluntary wardens carrying out the work - they agreed with him that work of this type was wrong , but they were acting under instructions of the main warden. This is the same warden who when I contacted him over the slurrying of fields on the Low told me that this was good for lapwings! He didn't have the common sense to realise that whilst this would ensure a good early crop of thick grass, lapwings need short grass to have any chance of successful breeding. Is it just Tameside and Stockport MBs that are particularly clueless or is it prevalent throughout GM? Sorry about the length of this rant - but I feel better now! ................. No I don't!