https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/15/future-several-rspb-nature-reserves-risk-charity-cuts-costs?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D&fbclid=IwY2xjawGkl9tleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHRFXqdz-H1cXd4oqEnbAd8h5s4u4q1C-_WagiDsQXY_wKEUmUPman5p5jA_aem_9oh5RG_ONLy9FJAYeXV98A#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17317046468967&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2F2024%2Fnov%2F15%2Ffuture-several-rspb-nature-reserves-risk-charity-cuts-costs
I read this article and also Mark Avery's blog (you can see it here - https://markavery.info/2024/11/16/rspb-makes-a-statement/) but cannot find anything about it on the RSPB website. It seems more than a bit odd that such a significant change in approach is not better explained, although I may have missed it somewhere on the site? This is a worrying development that implies fewer small reserves, in favour of 'flagship' reserves, albeit with fewer amenities. Close to me are a network of small reserves along the north shore of the Thames in Essex, which can't be amalgamated easily but if lost will take away vital habitat in a highly developed part of the UK. Rainham is presumably safe, even if its cafe and shop are not, but the RSPB surely owes it to members to explain this strategy in more detail?
Absolutely. Further, local councillors are already commenting on my local FB group about the threat to Rye Meads and their comments aren't helpful, in fact they verge on the conspiracist. The RSPB need to get across this issue and quickly or risk severe damage to their reputation.
If the RSPB leadership stays silent it will sadly leave space for increasingly conspiracist supposition. It is vital to know whether reserves like Rye Meads are likely to be sold off, mothballed, or whatever. I can't see other organisation, like the Wildlife Trusts, having the means to take on these reserves if the RSPB, with the biggest balance sheet of all UK wildlife organisations, can't (or won't) maintain them. That leaves the depressing prospect of them being sacrificed to raise funds. If the position is that bad, it needs explaining. I wasn't at the virtual AGM, but understand the messages coming from the RSPB team were mixed. If I want carefully managed 'visitor experiences' I can go to WWT sites. We need as broad a mosaic of reserves as we can, in my view, and not a consolidation that removes easy access from some communities.
Regards,
Ian.
I visited Rainham recently ....... I don't think it can be assumed to be safe.
Our herring gulls are red listed birds. Think about that the next time you hear some flaming idiot calling for a cull of them.
https://markavery.info/2024/11/11/open-letter-to-the-new-chair-of-rspb/
This was an open letter to the new RSPB Chairman a few days ago from Mark Avery!
agree completely, these small reserves can be very valuable. Rye Meads is small, but the habitat is a link in the Lee Valley corridor.
Good morning,
Thank you for your interest in the recent review of our nature reserve operations. You can read more about it here: https://www.rspb.org.uk/whats-happening/news/changes-on-our-reserves
Thank you
I prefer to whatt Mark Avery has to say!
This should have been discussed at the RSPB AGM by RSPB members. I knew about this 12 months ago. That is why as a life member I won’t be giving any donations to the RSPB because of that reason. It should formally announced at the RSPB’s 2024 AGM with a full debate by RSPB members. It’s nearly impossible for any RSPB members to have any RSPB motions put forward. At National Trust AGM’s motions are allowed by National Trust members.Although any motion if passed by National Trust members is not mandotry by the National Trust management to be acceptred.. VERY DISAPPOINTED BY THE RSPB’s SENIOR MANAGEMENT!