By Michael Smith (Veshengro)
The municipal parks in Britain were created so that the working masses could go and get some fresh air, seeing that they lives in tenements where little light and fresh air ever got to.
That such parks can be and are a haven to wildlife, however, is and must come secondary to the original uses.
As parks, local municipal parks, and open spaces, are predominately for people and their needs of exercise in the open air they must, therefore, be managed primarily with that goal in mind. Wildlife, thus, must come – and does so under the law even – second.
It is this that must be understood when it comes to managing such parks and that it is people and their needs that come first.
Wildlife has its place but it will have to be one lower than the needs of the people for healthy recreation, even if this is just walking in a managed natural environment or well kept gardens.
There are a number of people who think that publicly owned parks and open spaces should, first and foremost, be managed – or better not – for wildlife and that people should be controlled in where they go and when and how.
This is a total and utter misunderstanding of the way parks are to be managed under the laws under which they were brought about. Wildlife was not a consideration at all back then.
While, as I said, wildlife certainly has its place and should be given consideration, primary consideration must be given to those for which parks and open spaces were made a statutory requirement, namely people.
The priorities must be gotten right and the priority is that parks and open spaces are for people's enjoyment and recreation and that should not take second stage to anything else.
Parks and open spaces are green oases in the often grimy inner cities and were thought to provide green spaces in which the working masses could go for a walk and enjoy some fresh air, even though in those days it was much more regulated what one could do in parks, and not just the Royal Parks of London. Park Keepers had real powers then and bylaws were rigorously enforced.
Parks and open spaces, under the laws that brought them about, which are still valid to this day in the same way, are primarily for people and management should reflect this, though each park and open space will have its unique areas that can also be managed for wildlife though without hampering the enjoyment of the place by the people.
Unfortunately there are some misguided people who think that wildlife has to come first in the management of parks and open spaces and will insist that this is to be so. It can, however, not be so, and that already as a result of the laws and statutory instruments under which the great majority of parks and open spaces, which are publicly owned, were created.
Thus care must be taken and those that make the demands that wildlife must have priority must be informed of the fact as to how the cookie crumbles, so to speak, as to how parks and open spaces are meant to work.
We cannot go about excluding visitors from parks at certain times, or from certain areas at certain time, just because someone thinks that wildlife needs to be protected during the breeding or nesting season or that this or that cannot be done in ways of necessary management because it might remove cover for one or the other kind of animals.
I don't think any of us have any problems with wildlife but it all comes down to a matter of priorities much like that one might encourage cyclists in parks but also in that one lets them know in no uncertain terms that it is pedestrians in the park that have priority.
“Public” parks and open spaces are here, primarily, for the enjoyment and use of people and it was for people and their use that they have been legislated for in the Public Health Act of the 19th century and the subsequent ones.
© 2011
Post Title
→Local Parks: For People or for Wildlife?
Post URL
→https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2011/05/local-parks-for-people-or-for-wildlife.html
Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection
