Recreation and Conservation

Bilberries beginning to ripen

Once again I've been told that my insistence that recreation comes first on Blacka is misguided. The argument goes something like this.

"Calling the site a nature reserve safeguards it from those renegades who would want to do things here which would be inappropriate. The sorts of activities in mind would be trail riding, motor bikes, raves and a long list of other activities. We would be better advised to accept a strong conservation priority and certain restrictions because this would protect the place and quiet users like us from its being spoiled if people think they can do just what they like here."

Some of those who've tried to argue this way have been conservation minded and intelligent. But it surprises me that they cannot see the absurdity of the argument. Public parks are there for recreation first - does this mean that we shouldn't stop anti-social activities going on in them? Does that encourage those who want to trample the flower beds? If we say that certain land was given for the benefit of the people does that really mean that every person has the right to do exactly what they like here, flouting the wishes of the majority? And, just to be a bit pointed, I can't think of many things that come closer to vandalism than the mass poisoning of mature trees, the indiscriminate use of chain saws and the importing of vast quantities of barbed wire.