Any one got any thoughts on the RSPB’s central management decision to categorise all their woodland reserves as Category 4…Of no value to the RSPB strategy… and is mothballing (at best) or SELLING (at worst) despite the fact that woodland has, as a resource for nature, been identified as poorly managed nationally and, since the 1970s 70 to 80 percent of the birds living in woodland have been lost to us? A free thoughts come to mind for discussion: 1. RSPB management have forgotten what they are about, 2. Birding ids much more difficult, and therefore not as profitable as it is in Category 1 and 2 reserves… Wetland, Estuarine, Cliff
Hey WillEgan...Mereshead is categorised as a 3 and looks like it may be Okay because of its strategic value. But who knows. They do seem to be moderating their terminology and backtracking a little...it is possible that mothballing may not actually mean mothballing, but more Volunteer lead/managed, as it costs the RSPB nothing to run a reserve managed by volunteers. Which is good, up to a point, but it does assume a lot about volunteers ( especially when they have have had no part in the consultation process.Where we volunteers have offered thoughts it has been into an unstructured system which will be very difficult to use to inform thinking...more of a let the volunteers get it off their chest strategy I am thinking) and it does mean that volunteers will be taking on roles that should be covered by the paid Assistant Wardens that are currently being made redundant (can you make somebody redundant when the role that they performed still exists??? Would that be constructive dismissal?).
Thanks for reply . Do we have a definition for category 3 and whether these could be mothballed?
out of interest what score was Rainham as this seems to be the most prominent cuts so far
a lot of charitable organisations seem to expect far far too much of their volunteers these days l. Let us hope they backtrack from full mothballing though
I cannot find specific definitions of the grades. They relate to how closely each reserve contributes to the RSPB strategy. So reserves categorised as 4 do not, apparently, contribute to the RSPB strategy as it stands at the moment…the problem with this is that the strategy seems to be driven by finance rather than environmental need…which in reality is that all the reserves the RSPB often have value because all habitats in the UK are a disaster area.
https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/24674876.rspb-rainham-marshes-one-60-sites-facing-proposed-cuts/more info here
Presume the 32 mentioned are those that were rated as a 4?
Blimey. They're scrapping Rye Meads? That's a lovely reserve.
Our herring gulls are red listed birds. Think about that the next time you hear some flaming idiot calling for a cull of them.
The final results of the redundancies have been published to the selected few… notably not the general membership… what surprises, and depresses me, is that only 600 comments, representing 800 people, were sent in during the consultation process. There are 15000 volunteers!!!! This is why places like Rainham Marshes, and lots of other reserves, are being devastated by the changes being imposed by this group of bureaucrats at the centre of the RSPB… hardly anyone is complaining or registering displeasure. Now we need to wait to see how the RSPB management is going to behave with regards to closing and mothballing reserves… they will do as they please if people who volunteer do nothing… i appeal to everyone…be vocal… don’t use the excuse’ there is no point’ , there is always a point to standing up to people making informed and stupid decisions.
I know that Mark Avery has written/emailed he charity commision about this. I don’t know what was in that email!
Regards,
Ian.
If it is Rainham Marshes you are talking about it is too little too late… i am reliably informed that nobody there fed back through the consultation channels set up by the RSPB… it is no good complaining after the event if you opt out of the consultation process…everybody needs to get involved now… over the next 3 months or si they are making final decisions about category 4 reserves… keep, dispose or mothball… get involved, give the RSPB a set of reasons to keep these reserves an active part of the uk conservation programme.
Is 'mothballing' necessarily a bad thing? Isn't it just letting Nature get on with things minus human interference? in other words, rewilding. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
The original definition was ’mothballing with a view to eventual disposal’ which is not good. Plain mothballing means no management. Bearing in mind nearly all woodland sites are Category 4, and quality, well managed woodland for wildlife has been highlighted as a scarce resource nationally, it means there will be fewer examples of well managed woodland, which means, over time, they will become degraded and less valuable for wildlife. There will also be fewer examplars of good practice for others wanting to improve their woodland as a quality wildlife resource and looking for good practice to emulate. This categorisation does not take into account that 75% of the birds living in woodland have been lost to us because of poor management and because of loss of woodland. So, my thinking is, in the very short term, it may not be a major issue, in the medium and long term it is bad (if not disastrous) news for wildlife. The fact that the RSPB bureaucrats do not see ALL habitats as a priority in the UK, a country which has been shown to have very low wildlife species diversity when compared to other European countries is, to me, a major problem.