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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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).

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.