16 million people live within one hour’s drive of the Peak District National Park. And on a spring weekend you could be forgiven for thinking that most of them had gone to Stanage.

Ring Ouzels head that way too, they like Stanage for its moorland fringe mosaic of heather, bilberry, short sward, rough grass and bracken. But their numbers in England have declined dramatically, and the population is now at risk. If they cannot survive at a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) so designated because it is internationally important for its breeding bird population, where can they survive? And if you cannot climb at Stanage, perhaps the most visited crag in the world, where can you climb?

Over the past few years BMC Access Reps, National Park Officers, naturalists and local residents have tried to find a balance. The BMC has consistently argued that sound science must underpin land management and recreation strategies and that reasonable voluntary arrangements offer the best solution to potential conflict. As a result the various interested parties have learnt to work together; we have stopped shouting at each other - although the passion with which each of us values Stanage remains.

So how does it all work? Well, restrictions are not agreed unless indicated by a formula agreed with the RSPB, English Nature and others. Detailed observations this year across the Bamford, Stanage, and Burbage areas determined where the various territories were, and to protect specific nests the BMC agreed and publicised temporary restrictions at four sites. Provisional figures show 23 nests and 32 chicks ringed, although not all chicks were ringed and some that were ringed did perish later.

There were also nest failures. Could these be from climbers, human disturbance and dogs? It could certainly look like it but correlation is not the same as causation, and the observations showed that the major cause of failure was predation. Weather also played a part, as did polygamy.

So did we humans make the birds more susceptible to predation, perhaps by deterring them from using prime nesting sites? There could be some effect here, and it is interesting that the two nests in the busiest climbing areas were both second brood nests. But then, the heaviest predation was not in the most frequented places. And where patterns of activity have changed because of better access under CRoW there was no observed adverse effect. The impact of people can also be positive. They may deter some predators and our feet help keep a short sward in key areas allowing the birds easy access to terrestrial invertebrates - more important than you might think since related land management measures have seen significant reduction in sheep numbers.

What we have learnt this year will help us effectively target what we do next year, so thanks for all your help in letting the birds nest in peace. And when the Minister for Rural Affairs visited Stanage recently he saw that voluntary arrangements provide effective solutions. Oh, and he saw a Ring Ouzel too.

« Back