UKH

Hello,

The latest Climbers' Club newsletter contains this sentence; "Beware new bird restrictions are being discussed for Lundy which could result in climbing being restricted to 1 or 2 months at the end of the Summer."

Does anyone know anything about this, to me somewhat startling, idea? 

There were some details about it on the CC Members' Group on Facebook which can be found here:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/climbersclub/

Gist seems to be that restrictions will remain until middle week of august, then 50% of restrictions will be withdrawn. The remaining restrictions will lift from mid september.

Before we begin speculating what might/might not happen it’d be worth waiting until after Rob Dyer, the BMC Access Officer, has discussed proposed restrictions with the Warden. 

Obviously with Christmas around the corner this may take a little while longer than usual, but from what I gather (having just got off the phone with him) it’s high on the agenda.

I would have thought the Landmark Trust would want as many climbers' visits as it could get, and restricting them to a couple of months would be dumb. A partial lifting of the ban before a full lifting seems much more reasonable.

Just hope there's a decision that gives people enough time to cancel their trips and get a refund if necessary!

Why so? The properties are already booked a year in advance. Climbers who camp are useful, I suppose, but other than that it doesn’t make much difference, I’d have thought.

jcm

Perhaps they are putting the needs of the wildlife above the need to make a profit? If this is the case, it's laudable I'd say.

Hasnt the bird ban been extended the last number of years beyond the start of August date anyway? Surely this would just be fixing it a little more permanently in peoples minds - given the nesting trends already experienced.

Personally, climbing past nesting (or fledging) birds is not enjoyable for many reasons, though inconvenient to the better weather conditions, I'd support the conservation considerations over my climbing interests.

Climbers must be a steady % of visitors and therefore income, but my bet is they are not as significant as other groups of visitors. Climbers are seasonal, historically frugal individuals, use the lower cost accommodation and happy to cook their own food. We are not all this stereotype I know. On a per capita basis I suspect climbers are low yield individuals.

The climbing on, and Lundy itself both hold a special place in my heart. What ever the restrictions, it is definitly worth making the effort to visit.
 

Many climbers stay in the buildings rather than camp.

Just as long as the conservation reasons are genuine. Too often we've been excluded from places on a precautionary principle rather than due to any actual conflict.

FWIW I've climbed there on several visits in the second half of August/early September and never once seen any nesting birds on normally restricted crags, let alone had to climb past any.

I would agree, that many of the popular crags do not seem to have nesting birds (or evidence) directly on them. I'm sure some areas are restricted more because of the access/ tops are the sensitive areas rather than the cliff faces.  I will confess to having many more bird encounters at other venues than at Lundy. I also have only climbed on Lundy late August and September myself, so am not "in season" for most birds.

Your sentiment that restrictions should be for valid reasons is without doubt correct and fair. 

I trust those negotiating and deciding the restrictions will also be fair and appropriate. 

Completely agree. The logic seems to be:

Q: Global seabird populations are crashing, why?

A: Climate change, pollution and over-fishing are causing ecosystem collapse.

Q: So what can we do?

A: Not much really, it's out of our hands, and requires political change at a supranational level.

Q: But there must be something we can do?

A: Well I suppose we could place a blanket ban on all human access, to give the few remaining birds the best possible chance of breeding success.

The problem I have is that this last bit sounds plausible, but isn't based on any actual science as far as I've seen. It just plays on the trite emotional logic that because the problem is created by humans, removing them must therefore be a good thing. It also gives the conservationists on the front line something to do and makes them feel useful. However it doesn't actually achieve anything positive, while being a massive fail on the one thing that can make a real difference - which is outreach and PR. The only way to enact real change is to win the hearts and minds of the general public, and by far the best way to do that is through direct experience. By engaging recreational users and working with them to come up with the least restrictive option, you get a double win - the birds are better protected and you are creating informed ambassadors for them outside the conservation bubble.

Very astute analysis Adam. To whoever disliked his post, perhaps you'd like to publish your own extensive palmares in the field of conservation work which we can compare to Adams?

The ringed ouzels of Stanage are a case in point