To any concerned persons - Ham Wall; 'A Home For Nature?' or, 'The New Somerset Recreation Facility?', offering, among other delights, outdoor yoga and canoe tours. For details see RSPB web sites.

As these are RSPB run events I see no cause for concern, I would say giving youngsters and adults the chance to see the reserve from the water would encourage more people to engage with nature. I know one father and son who will be coming along. Might give the yoga a miss though!!

OK, I know this isn’t strictly bird-news, but surely if the RSPB are running Wildlife by Canoe (one-hour trips) on July 19th, on their Ham Wall reserve, then surely they will ensure that the wildlife there isn’t compromised in anyway. Anything that can hopefully promote wildlife awareness, especially among young people, must be good.

On a lighter-note…I was a bit surprised to see an All Night Wildlife Safari, lasting 9 hours from 8:00 pm to 5:00 am on the same day. As someone who has been all-night fishing under a bivvy, I wouldn’t care to spend all that time, without any shelter, only my own waterproofs and drafty hides to hopefully keep me dry and warm, and supply and carry my own food and hot drink! What about all those awful mosquitoes, and you have to pay to enjoy it! Oh for a nice comfy bed!

All these events are, as far as I am aware, related to the Avalon Marshes Festival which runs for two weeks in July.

And is a great way to get new people to appreciate and experience the wonders on our doorstep, run by hard working wardens and local volunteers who don't deserve snide comments from people who, frankly, should know better ;) And we wonder why we have 500 members when the wildlife trust has 20,000! Let's all give the festival our full support...

Do you really consider that to be a fair comparison Stephen? Aren't there some rather more profound differences that might better explain the disparity in membership numbers between SWT and SOS?

Such as ...

1. SWT is a corporate member of a high profile UK-wide charitable organisation. SOS is solely a county society without any national backing, promotion or support.

2. In fact, the situation is even more challenging because SOS is actually competing for members against the RSPB, the largest bird conservation organisation in the world. Anyone living is Somerset who is interested in birds, but who has limited spare cash, may well need to choose between joining the RSPB or SOS. That's if they've ever even heard of the latter above the deafening noise generated by RSPB's vast communications machine.

3. SWT covers all species of wildlife, whereas SOS is restricted to a single group of animals. In any field there are many times more people who are generalists rather than specialists, so the sizes of the two pools of potential members are not justly comparable.

4. In fact, this is exacerbated further because some of SWT's literature suggests that they themselves consider that their remit extends well beyond wildlife in Somerset. Anything cute and cuddly appears to be covered, regardless of whether it is captive, domestic or even occurs in Somerset at all. SOS is sharply focussed only on wild birds that occur in the county.

5. SWT employs several full and part-time staff whereas SOS is run exclusively by volunteers. Even a single salaried person can fundamentally change the capacity potential of an organisation.

And by the way, only around 25% of SWT funds are generated by memberships, whereas it's probably nearer 95% for SOS.

Best wishes to all SOS members (and other readers),

Vikki

I do wonder, particularly in the light of Stephen Moss's comment, how many people are aware of 'behind the scenes' pressures to open up the Avalon Marshes Complex to water based activities. I personally do not think that 'boats on the water' is an intelligent way to promote an interest in nature conservation and any uncontrolled extension of such activities would not only be impossible to monitor but could cause untold harm to the very essence of the reserves.

My comments on the SOS/SWT memberships were, as Vikki points out, somewhat tongue-in-cheek... But on a wider point, either we think people should engage with nature on reserves and other areas of the Avalon Marshes, or we don't. Clearly from her past postings about the wisdom of publicising the nesting of Great White Egrets and other rare breeding birds, Sandra and I are in different camps. I am old enough to remember when you needed to write in advance to apply for a permit to visit Minsmere, the RSPB's flagship reserve, which was only open three days a week! The attitude in those days was that reserves were for birds, not for people. I passionately believe that we should engage people with nature as often and in as many different ways as we can, not keep these reserves for a tiny elite of 'serious birders'. If the RSPB thinks that carefully controlled canoe excursions are OK, I will defer to their expertise. I know that the wardens (both employed and volunteers) at our reserves are passionate about both safeguarding wildlife and engaging people, and I trust them to make the right judgments regarding how to combine the two. It would be good to hear their views... over to you guys and gals...!

This discussion is similar to another thread about information on websites like this one about breeding species. The internet and digital photography have changed the world of wildlife conservation in an irreversible way. We are fortunate in this country in having a sympathetic public view of conservation and wildlife and there are public and private resources to invest in conservation that other countries can only dream of. In my view as a regular visitor to Shapwick and Ham Wall, the balance between public access and conservation is about right. I do have a vested interest in that our holiday cottages attract many visitors who wish to watch birds and other wildlife in the area and value information to enhance their experience. It is a fine line between keeping confidence about rare nesting species and keeping these keen regular visitors informed when appropriate. In the internet age, I find that most of them know what is "about" before I have to decide whether or not to tell them. Many of them show me pictures on their camera to prove it. Very few of the dog walkers or cyclists who frequent the railway line have a clue about or pose any threat to the rare species that might be breeding close by and that is how it should be.

I suspect that most thinking naturalists would positively support encouraging people to 'engage with nature' and I am no exception to this! However, I think there are issues relating to the ways and means of achieving this that are not always carefully thought through.

Hi All

Thought I'd offer a non-reserve RSPB perspective to this, as the Somerset Conservation Officer who gets caught up in a lot of the planning casework, often involving potential disturbance impacts.

Several years ago we were faced with the awful 'Waterlinks' project, developed by Someset County Council, which sought to develop water-based recreational opportunities across the Levels, identifying a series of 'hubs', eg Glastonbury, and 'spokes' ie, water routes between the hubs. Reluctantly, we ended up objecting to this - it wasn't well thought out, and took no account of potential disturbance, etc. on wildlife. But the basic idea of getting people into the wetland environment is sound, provided there are the resources and controls to manage access/numbers/activities in sensitive areas.

This is how we operate on RSPB reserves. You can see from eg. Greylake that it works - in winter people can get to within 30m of feeding wigeon and teal without disturbing them. In my experience, birds will tolerate people provided they're quiet, don't leave paths or step out from behind screens, and don't bring dogs with them. I've watched black-tailed godwit and ruff feeding 20m away at Bowling Green, even though there was only a set of rusty iron railings separating us.

At Ham Wall, we're well aware of possible disturbance issues, and spend a lot time and effort designing activities, new structures, etc, so they don't disturb wetland wildlife, whose security is paramount. From my perspective, I'd be very unhappy if we did things on our reserves which, later, underminded (is that a real word?) our attempts to stop developers doing similar things elsewhere.

In haste,

R

A mistake that is being made by some is to lump together anything which happens on the water as all good or all bad. There is a world of difference between a supervised canoe tour - which is a great way to see wildlife - and relatively uncontrolled recreational use of water which as far as I am aware is not being proposed. If I've misunderstood, do please correct me.

In my experience, wildlife on and beside water is disturbed less by people in small boats than by people on the bank.