This is a major issue with me - has been for bloody years.
That there are
seven times more RSPB reserves in Kent than in all of Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, Durham, Cleveland and North Yorkshire put together, disgusts me.
To put it another way, one RSPB reserve (I'm ignoring Coquet Island, which is a "
preserve" really, and out of bounds to mere peasants)
between the Scottish borders and Bempton Cliffs.
And let's be clear, the one reserve accessible to the public - Saltholme - is a joke: £2,000,000 for a
theme park. The area was already an established, safe-from-development bird habitat - it didn't need "saving" by the RSPB - and the RSPB's "contribution" is nothing more than a honking big visitor's centre.
The argument that there's more to save in the South is - to be frank - self-fulfilling bullshit (no offence, Ashley - that's not aimed at you). The reason there's less up here in the first place is in no small part, down to years of the RSPB neglecting the North East as a matter of policy: massive amounts of now-lost habitat up here needed protection, but the RSPB quite deliberately focused its attentions elsewhere.
A couple of years back a similar thread came up on a bird photography site I used to frequent: one contributor from Northants found it hard to believe some of the things I said about the RSPB so - as a member - contacted them to ask about the North East.
The RSPB was
unequivocal that the North East is simply not a priority to them - they said this:
"Land is usually acquired by the society within the frame work of our Reserves Conservation Strategy. This takes full account of the "birds of conservation strategy" that may be present on the land available for purchase as well as the quality of and the ease and cost of recreating or restoring habitats.
We do seek to purchase land in areas where there are gaps in current RSPB reserve coverage, but as yet, nothing suitable has become available in the areas you mentioned.
The selection of priorities for acquisition is largely governed by their relative importance for key species and habitats in need of conservation action."
Which boils down to "we're not interested".
Of course there are viable potential locations up here, with "key species", that should be of interest to the RSPB, and there's simply no doubt that elsewhere the "barriers" quoted in this response would not stand in the way of the RSPB getting involved in order to save habitat.
And surely it's part of the RSPB's remit to
improve things? Well the North East has plenty of opportunities for it there...
He cancelled his RSPB membership as a result of this reply, and its an organisation which will never get a penny out of me. That might be parochial, but it's hard to get enthusiastic about the RSPB's efforts to save birds 5,000 miles away when they're happily ignoring the concreting-over of every last bit of greenery in North East England.
Stuff 'em.