What I am saying is basically this birdwatchers do pay to visit sites which are managed for the things they enjoy, i.e RSPB reserves and Trust sites.

Whether we pay to use facilites such as hides etc, at council run parks is a seperate issue.

In a previous post Wigan Flashes was mentioned as a site where perhaps birders should pay to view birds, but here the site is viewed from a public footpath,

95% of the people who use the towpath are non-birders. How then do you differentiate, do you levy only those carrying binoculars?.

If a farmer as an area that he/she manages for wildlife then there is nothing wrong with them issuing permits or charging birders to enter that site.

The RSPB and other wildlife groups are in a constant battle to get a wider audience to appreciate wildlife, go into the countryside or even town park and enjoy it.

Since the days when we lived in caves and painted pictures of bison on the walls, we have been free to enjoy the drama of the natural world.

Now in the age of virtual reality many of our children are becoming alienated from nature. I have seen teenagers run away terrified from butterflies, thinking they sting.

Before the IT generation, children grew up with nature as part of their lives, whether catching sticklebacks or picking daisies.

The last thing we want is charge for them to enjoy it, that does'nt mean to say sites that are managed for wildlife can't, but only to area's where non-wildlife watchers can't get access.

Yes private finance is required to protect wildlife sites and species, hence my comments in a previous post regarding sponsership of threatened fauna/flora, and the wider use of

webcams to relay pictures to malls etc,.

A culture where commercial companies and civil councils are proud to show an icon of a Bittern or a Barn Owl on their letterheads and corporate emblems needs to be promoted.

In return they will have to show commitment to help save the species they sponser, and feel it greatly enhances their ethical image to be seen to do so.

It is an emotive issue Craig, to me viewing wildlife, landscapes or the heavens is a natural given freedom, one of the few we have left, if we ever lose it a major meteor strike

would be a blessing,becouse the very essence of our lives would be dead.

John. Forgive me but you seem to be missing the point. I am not saying it is right or wrong, I am asking what we could do. How do we give our green spaces and wildlife a value beyond the intrinsic that stops them being cut or damaged or destroyed? (Not forgetting ecosystem services that no one seems interested in because anyone outside of conservation and ecology circles just doesn't get it).

There seems to be a double debate emerging about what some consider a moral right to be able to watch wildlife or enjoy the countryside for free versus the idea that if we don't do something we'll have no countryside / wildlife left to watch.

And, don't forget that you are probably paying for what you are looking at/the public space you are in anyway. Council tax, tax to the eu for farm subsidies, money you pay for products provided by farmers who maintain the land etc.

There is of course a fundamental point here, if I was walking along a footpath or even a lane, I could be watching the wildlife, simply walking my dog or just going from A to B.

You cannot simply watch CCTV to see if I have raise my bins to view a Sparrowhawk, it's impractical, Orwellian and frankly very scary.

We pay on a RSPB reserve for a facility that provides us with managed habitat to maximise the amount of birds we see. Likewise a golfer pays for the use of the managed green

of a golf course, but if he taps a ball along a quiet lane should he also pay?.

We seem to be unique on the planet at the moment in wanting people to pay for everything except breath, the USA as vast areas of open access forests that they treasure as

an essential component to a decent quality of life.

Many people are struggling at the moment to put food on their table, charge them to enjoy watching a Mistle Thrush in the local park and you might as well take their breath away.

Should astronomers be charged for standing on a quiet footpath and view the stars through their bins, or a train buff for standing in a public place watching trains.

Perhaps a young guy should be charged for watching a girl he's took a fancy to walking down the road, and vice versa.

Whats at stake here is the very essence of our quality of life, charge people for watching wildlife in a public place where they are doing no harm, and you destroy this nations soul for ever.

The current obcession with charging us for everything, even things provided by nature, making everything materialistic as the potential to ruin the lives of thousands.

It is being used by the nationalists in Scotland as the main reason to exit the union, before long perhaps the Welsh and Cornish too.

Maybe now is a time to think about the future autonomy of Mercia as well.

O.K. Focusing a little more on the 'should we pay' principal. Sometimes when I'm gazing over farmland wondering when I will see something other than crows or magpies I think 'This is the RSPB's fault. If we didn't have bird reserves, which we pay to buy and maintain, landowners would not be able to argue 'why should you be able to see birds on my land for nothing?' And, of course, they are probably right. Apart from the outlay on some binoculars, maybe a 'scope and perhaps some specialist clothing, how many other hobbies can be carried out at precisely nil cost? If I was someone else looking at me, I would think 'what a cheapskate'. I see the taxes point put forward, and I know of agricultural supplementary payments, but the odds on bringing back wildlife to the wider countryside are stacked against us. You only have to look at how sales at the likes of Aldi and such have taken off in these austere times. People are looking for cheapness right now. What sort of public backing would we get for a scheme which meant we pay more for our food, but have corn buntings and their likes back on farms across Britain? Me, I have to come clean. I was a permit holder at places like Rostherne Mere and Woolston Eyes in the past, but after a few years I began to think that paying to see birds when I could see interesting stuff on the 'outside' for free did not seem like the offer of the week. Now it is beginning to look as if paying for the privilege of entering special places might be a bargain.

This issue as surfaced before, in the late 1980's. In the Warrington area at the time Moore, the area where the nature reserve now stands was to be used to dump

waste carried over from New York. It was a wonderful earner for the land owner, and there were even some local people in favour. The site would of been full within 2yrs and

the people of Warrington lost some wonderful countryside with zero benefit. Thankfully British farmers put a halt to the idea, fearing imported pests.

At the same time Woolston Eyes was to be totally used for landfill, with no consideration for rare wildlife, and Risley Moss closed becouse of council cutbacks.

The environment minister at the time called people who enjoy free access to the countryside "Wooly Hatted Librarian Types", and said they were costing the country jobs.

"The people who matter in our society" he said, "Are the people who pay to have fun in theme parks and shopping malls, people want to spend £20 on a trip out".

I cannot put into words my anger at that arrogant statement, it was meant to divide the British people, and succeeded.

There are millons of people who don't care a hoot about wildlife, only material gain.

Shortly afterwards whilst selling raffle tickets for the RSPB, I was the victim of much scorn,"Only losers care about wildlife" I was told.

Those of us who signed the online petition to keep our forests open to all in 2010 were slandered, being called "Zombies" in some government quarters.

It all comes down to the quality of life, if like me you think our ancestors gave their lives on the battlefields of Europe to protect our freedoms and lifestyle,

then you consider our free access to nature sacrosanct.

If however like quite a few people nowadays you think that every blade of grass as to be an earner, you are paving the way to a private countryside, where those that can't

afford access to it rarely leave their home. Such a concept to me seems like "Hell".

This however does'nt mean that private companies can't sponser nature reserves, I for one would'nt mind bird watching hides painted in "Asda" green or " Tesco" white.

There is I think a great opportunity for private companies to gain good PR by supporting nature havens.

They could even relay pictures from webcams on estuarys, reserves and in nest boxes to screens in shopping malls, coffee bars, company receptions etc,.

Companies could even "adopt" a species to which local sites are important i.e Bittern, Black Necked Grebe and Barn Owl, and show icons of these animals on their letter headings

and promotional documents. That would give organisations could PR whilst offering a lifeline to threatened wildlife.

The great test is coming when the landfill at Moore finishes and the nature reserve faces an uncertain future, and that is very soon now.

More like "We're all in this together. Aren't you?". Bunch of conniving *******s.

What doesn't appear to have been mentioned in this thread is that we DO pay already. We pay our taxes and a (very small) proportion of the revenue pays for state or local authority open spaces - and the staff to look after them.

I'm quite happy to pay my taxes to support such activity in the same way that I want to support state education and the NHS, Fire service, Police, etc. I just don't want my hard-earned cash to bail out bankers who can't organise the proverbial!

Cuts are being made by a bunch of Old Etonians in Westminster and local authorities and govt. depts are being forced to decide where to make those "austerity measures". "We're all in this together" they say! Expletives deleted!!!

Steve Suttill wrote:

---

and local authorities and govt. depts are being forced to decide where to make those "austerity measures". "We're all in this together" they say! Expletives deleted!!!

---

And this Steve is the nub of what I am getting at. Lots of people going off about species extinction and doom and gloom scenarios (which by I don't necessarily disagree with).

When making cuts councils will look to what costs money against what it brings in. So libraries that cost more than they bring in are an easy target. As are green spaces. When planning future development it's often easier and cheaper to look at undeveloped land rather than brownfield in a town centre. Would thenBorough of London ever think of concreting over St James's park? Probably not because it contributes to a huge tourist income.

So my question is how do you make a green space more valuable.

Mike, no, of course stating the situation isn't negative. But until the last few posts has anyone come anywhere near posting a 'what about trying this' type answer? Conservationists are all too good at painting the doom and gloom scenario. I wonder how many people said Sir Peter Scott was off his trolley trying to save the Hawaiian Goose? A species that was all but doomed. Answers like how do we get everyone to pay when they come in (as mentioned by John) are valid questions, but how about people flinging in a few positive ideas rather than finding constant problems?

This might sound like I'm a happy clapping isn't everything wonderful sort of person. I'm not. I see the damage being done through cuts and development every day. I just think there's a way to think differently about how to put a value on what we think is precious.


Edited 'cause I first typed it on the iPad which I hate and I always rush and invariably come across as a right git or just plain stupid!!!

-- Edited by Craig Higson on Tuesday 29th of January 2013 09:56:58 PM

This is a good thread. One thing overlooked is that a lot of money to enhance and protect sites comes from developers themselves. Skeptical of one developers claims on one site in ecological benefits in a Site of Biological Importance in Leigh I paid a visit and hada to agree their work was a success. Yes there was a housing development but a SBI in decline was managed enhanced and prospering with long term manangement paid for by the development via ground rents. The Great Crested Newts were by all accounts very hapy and expanding. This could not be confirmed but nothing could be found to say it wasn't. Bird wise Chiffchaff Sedge Warbler and Reed Bunting appeared to confirm claims. Other sites only thrive because of volounteers. One in Bolton proudly boasts very rare and I think up to eighteen species of dragon and damsel fly thanks to a local groups efforts. You have to contribute not just use. Even if that is 'only' reporting things via Rodis so that developers have to take into account wildlife.

Hi Craig,

Some sensible constructive comment here all round. However, with respect, facing and voicing stark facts does not imply giving up or being negative. No one is suggesting we stop trying or give up on conservation.
Speaking for myself, I am both active, vociferous and passionate about conservation and will continue to be so to my last breath, but I see the future as bleak because my head tells me that as a species we cannot/will not change quickly enough, and the result over coming decades will be accelerated mass extinctions.
Extinction is of course part and parcel of evolution. As we know, more species have existed and become extinct than are extant at present, but we are robbing the natural world of its ability to adapt and evolve over time by natural selection due to the abnormal accelerated environmental changes we are causing in our increasing struggle for finite resources, silly wars over competing dogma/ideologies and ever increasing food requirements for excess populations of humans living in marginal habitats and sadly desperate conditions.

Stating the situation as it is, is not being negative; it's just being honest, surely?

I'm not saying who should or shouldn't pay! But yes, why not everyone?

I'm asking what or how people think we could do to add value to our green spaces to perhaps discourage them being destroyed.

Why is everyone so negative

20 years ago no one recycled. Now it's common practice. If you had said then that most of the population would have been separating rubbish into 5 bins I wouldn't have believed you. (Given the negative feelings so far I'm sure someone can find a problem with this too),

If nobody bothers nothing will change, and then we can all stand around and shake our heads and say I told you so.

It would be impossible to charge on public areas like penny,as for every birder ,theres 10 dogwalkers,people out with the kids,would they pay? ,I daupt it otherwise the entrance car park would be empty instead of full all the time,most would rather walk another half a mile than pay £1.20,so I daupt theres ever a time when people will pay to walk in the only bits of local green spaces left.If they charged on the north bank at penny ,you can guarentee,suddenly the only place with birders would be the south side.

In short, - no, for the reasons expounded below.

Whilst Andy's view of the future may seem to some to verge on the cynical, he is of course correct as to the way things are heading and at least has the guts to say so.
He is in good company; Attenborough is quoted last week as saying that humans are a scourge species. If any other species were as destructive to the environment as we are, we should be searching for a means to eradicate it, like we did with the smallpox virus. Will we lose the elephant, rhino and tiger from their natural habitats in our lifetimes? - Almost certainly, because the rarer they become the greater the black market prices for their various body parts. That's what humans are especially good at.
-So onwards to bedlam and beyond 7 billion, (thanks in part as well to the intellectual giants of the Catholic Church).

Surprising! I didnt expect such negative views!

Whilst I dont doubt there is some element of truth in what Andy says (about a certain desire by some to make species extinct to reduce reasons to protest) I find it just a little defeatist and possibly cynical? I completely agree that we as a species are pretty c**p at looking after the planet but does that mean we should stop trying??

Anyway - thats going off at a tangent that I wasnt seeking to explore. What I'm getting at is how would/should/could we as a society (i.e. birders, environmentalists, outdoors loving people) give value to the environment that we all clearly love and enjoy but others dont. For e.g We happily pay to go into RSPB reserves - many have public rights of way through them. And before anyone shouts - yes I know that if the Government (of any political persuasion) chose to buy up an RSPB reserve they potentially could. But the principle is there. In Africa game reserves such as tsavo (Tsavo East is 20000kmsq or maybe sqkm) charge people to go in! These might be extreme examples, but rather than always coming up with problems with ideas why do we (not users on here specifically) not explore possibilities of these ideas.

I spend a lot of time in the lakes and snowdonia, and value the free access (and the free mountain resuce service!!). But if someone wanted to charge me a fiver everytime I went in I would gladly pay it if it meant hat the area had more protection.

In a bit of a rush so some of that may be garbled - apologies if it doesnt make sense


-- Edited by Craig Higson on Monday 28th of January 2013 08:57:56 PM

-- Edited by Craig Higson on Monday 28th of January 2013 08:58:26 PM

As you have said Craig, the environment is rarely recognised as an economic asset, exceptions maybe being National Parks and the likes of rainforest reserves, where tourism is a well-established and acknowledged provider of income and jobs. The government's Natural Environment White Paper covers the concept of Natural Capital, so hopefully in time the economic benefits of green spaces, etc will become more ingrained and provide more lobbying power. Whether that could ever match up to the lobbying power of developers, multi-national companies etc is a big challenge.

With the cut backs in funding to local government, I can't imagine that we will ever again see professional countryside ranger services being provided by councils in the way that they have been. The Natural Environment White Paper also includes Local Nature Partnerships, which will presumably cover some of the gaps left the demise of Ranger Services. Wildlife Trusts will hopefully continue to broaden their remit in working with communities to protect and manage local sites.

Visitor revenue must be a source of income that will be given greater consideration. How that would ever be implemented for most of the countryside and urban green spaces is difficult to comprehend. For example, how could a charge be made for areas which have public rights of way across them? There's also the economic arguments of health benefits to the general public who have access to green spaces, which would make it politically difficult to charge people in any conventional way to access country parks etc. Presumably other ways of raising revenue, via levies on certain services can be explored. This is of course already done via car parking charges for example, which would have been unimaginable at Pennington Flash back in the day when Frank Horrocks et al were pioneering at the site, but which are taken for granted nowadays, so such changes can take place.

Definitely not, but the very act of 'collecting' money at some of the places you mention would not only be financially counter productive (presumably people would have to do this so you might as well employ wardens), and it would be physically impossible as keeping people out if they haven't paid would be totally impractical. Let's face it, there are too many top positions in business and Government held by people who are only interested in money and power. To them every species that becomes extinct is a triumph as it just smooths the path towards total world domination by mankind: one less species, one less reason for people who care to make a stand. All we can do is count our blessings that we are alive now when there is (and has been) wildlife on view in reasonable numbers. Some of our younger 'readers' may well have to witness a rather unpleasant meltdown of civilisation. Silent Running anyone?

I've just read the post about the (possible) disbanding of the Mersey Warden service, and I know this has affected many other similar services across the country. Its the same old story - no one can see any 'economic' benefit to these services so they are the first to be scrapped. Add to this the way that our green spaces suffer to allow economic growth, especially seemingly under our current 'greenest ever' government, got me thinking. How different would it be if we paid to visit these areas? Would you be willing to pay every time you went to Pennington or Wigan Flashes, or Etherow CP, or even Alexander Park? Take it up a level, how about paying to go in to the Lake District, or the Peak District National Parks?

It seems to me that the only way to protect these areas is to give them their own economic viability. I know some sites already have parking charges, but we all know that rarely goes directly to the park itself. Usually it will just go to the big melting pot that is LA coffers.

I'm not saying we should, just wondering if people think it would actually make a difference?

-- Edited by Craig Higson on Sunday 27th of January 2013 07:55:27 PM