uk.environment.conservation

On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 09:13:30 +0100, "BAC"
wrote:

>
>"Robert Seago" wrote in message
>news:4f1e45d53crjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>> In article <1189075428.21136.0@proxy01.news.clara.net>,
>> BAC wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>> Finally, there'd be locations where no restrictions are justified - not
>>> on conservation grounds, anyway.
>>
>> Yes. There was a time when most of us in the Trust could not believe that
>> the general public, non members, would be allowed in our reserves. I
>> still think that in some ways that was a mistake, but in all honesty if
>> antything is going to be conserved, it will only be because there are
>> enough people passionate about nature, and for that they have to have
>> access to it. I did as a kid, as previous rural generations did.
>>
>
>I have to agree that people, by and large, are much more likely to act in a
>manner helpful to the conservation of something, if they have come to accept
>the particular something is worthy of conservation, than if they have just
>been told by people with some specialist knowledge that they should act in
>such a manner.
>
>For example, some years ago, the leader of our local town council ordered
>the mowing of a (council owned) reserve area attached to the riverside
>showground, destroying a number of skylark nests in the progress, because he
>wanted the area as 'overspill' for a show he was organising. He couldn't
>understand the value of leaving the reserve area undisturbed at that time,
>and even offered to make the council office garden a 'reserve' in exchange
>for the disturbed area. That was crass ignorance, coupled with the belief
>the 'show' was more important than a few skylarks, anyway.
>
>We also have a (trust owned) wetland reserve, which features a hide from
>which people may observe the location without disturbing the wildlife.
>Unfortunately, the hide seems to attract the undesirable elements of
>society, as it is frequently the target of attacks by vandals, and has been
>burned down twice. I'm sure the people responsible know why it is there, the
>fact is they just don't care.
>
>Now, no-one is ever going to be likely to convince 100% of the people that
>'nature' merits treating with respect, but I'm sure that
>allowing/encouraging access to sites to allow people to experience and
>hopefully come to value what is at risk is a step in the right direction -
>even if it does involve some disturbance of wildlife in the process. What is
>important, IMO, is that people choose to act in a manner sympathetic to
>their 'natural' surroundings, not *why* they choose to do so. It might be
>that they wish to study birds and nature, or they might want to paint or
>photograph it; they might want to simply enjoy being there, they might want
>to exercise their dogs, they might wish to exploit the inhabitants by
>fishing or shooting, I'm not sure it makes much difference, providing that
>whatever it is they want out of it motivates them to cherish and protect it.
>
>I'll get off my soap-box now :-)
>

Can I have a shot of it? :-)

Since the introduction of the Land Reform Act and the Loch Lomond
National Park numerous areas that people previously enjoyed have had
to be closed in the evenings because of anti-social behaviour. The
lochside is now one great sea of litter including syringes, condoms,
beer cans, bottles, nappies etc. Trees are cut down for fire-wood (
they're even using chainsaws) and fires set against the bases of
trees.

This is the reality of encouraging the public into the countryside.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)