UKC

Rewilding

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
pasbury 10 Jun 2013
I've just heard about George Monbiot's latest book 'Feral' which will be about rewilding.

I love the idea - our uplands are mostly utterly denuded and domesticated - a situation supported by insane agricultural subsidies.

Letting the natural world back into these places would enrich us all. Are there any objections to rewilding amongst us hillgoers?

Where would be best suited and is there any way we as individuals can encourage rewilding?
 Cuthbert 10 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury:

Yes and no. Many organisations have been on about this for some time but it's not a simple situation.

Organisations such as the JMT want to rewild according to their own views. They are selective about what they see as desirable. If it is going to be done the main issue is reducing the numbers of deer.

Importantly though the culture of the land must be preserved and in the Highlands the landscape is written in Gaelic. Until the NTS, JMT and so recognise this, they will be doomed to make the continual mistakes they are making right now.

"rewilding" is a nonsensical term. It should just be good management as very few people living in the Highlands and Islands want a wild landscape. A natural one yes, but not wild. Interestingly "fiadhaich", the Gaelic for wild, is a negative term when applied to the land.
 Banned User 77 10 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury: Well, Toad needs to come in.. but our ecosystems have evolved in unique ways, so we now aim to keep the moors, moors.. hence cattle grazing etc..

I thinkw e should let more return to forest but the land needs to provide money.. so shooting is an income.. if not land owners will look at other options.. thick forest is essentially useless land to an owner.
 Only a hill 10 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury:
The problem is that nobody can agree what rewilding actually means. At what point do you stop and say "this is what the land should be like?"

After all, humanity killed off the British megafauna that once existed in Britain. Do we want to reintroduce lions etc? The fact is that our uplands are continually in flux, and any "rewilding" efforts will be to some degree artificial.
 MG 10 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury:

> Letting the natural world back into these places would enrich us all. Are there any objections to rewilding amongst us hillgoers?


Wouldn't that imply no more hillgoing?

Better management is clearly needed in many places but there will still be a need for management, in the UK at least.

Red deer, I learnt today, are in the top 100 invasive species
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_world%27s_100_worst_invasive_spec...
 Banned User 77 10 Jun 2013
In reply to Only a hill:
> (In reply to pasbury)
> The problem is that nobody can agree what rewilding actually means. At what point do you stop and say "this is what the land should be like?"
>
> After all, humanity killed off the British megafauna that once existed in Britain.

Not so sure about that... hunting will have been a factor but we have massive changes in climatic conditions in the UK over the past 100,000 years..
 Only a hill 10 Jun 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
Granted ... a combination of factors led to the extinctions, but my point is that it's impossible to agree on an ideal form the uplands should take. Do we want the mountains heavily forested, as they were before the 18th century?
 MG 10 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury: I see he is thinking much more widely than land-based and the UK - which is more realistic perhaps.
 Phil1919 10 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury: There should be as much eco enrichment in as many places as possible. eg The monoculture that surrounds us here in Kendal. Try and influence any areas that you can.
 OwenM 10 Jun 2013
In reply to Only a hill:
>
> After all, humanity killed off the British megafauna that once existed in Britain. Do we want to reintroduce lions etc?

Not sure Lions made it through the last couple of ice ages but Bear, Wolf and Lynx did. The last Wolf was shot sometime around 1700 in Sutherland.
pasbury 10 Jun 2013
In reply to Only a hill:

Beavers are already being re-introduced, wild boar have made a happy escape into the Forest of Dean, the lynx is another candidate. Perhaps bears, wolves and lions would be too much to stomach but this shouldn't derail the argument for a return to native flora and fauna and some smaller predators.
pasbury 10 Jun 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to pasbury) >
> I thinkw e should let more return to forest but the land needs to provide money.. so shooting is an income.. if not land owners will look at other options.. thick forest is essentially useless land to an owner.

I like the idea of uselesness. Much upland would be economically useless anyway without subsidies.
 Banned User 77 10 Jun 2013
In reply to Only a hill:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> Granted ... a combination of factors led to the extinctions, but my point is that it's impossible to agree on an ideal form the uplands should take. Do we want the mountains heavily forested, as they were before the 18th century?

It was sometime before the 18th Century.. not everything of importance happened then..

Thats my point that ecologically we've had 1000's of years, many 100's at least of deforestation. We began deforestation about 7000 years BC.. and by 1500 we'd lost most of our forests.
pasbury 10 Jun 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to pasbury)
>
> [...]
>
>
> Wouldn't that imply no more hillgoing?

I would think that access to any rewilded areas would be a high priority. In the US the National Wilderness Preservation System does not exclude people and trails are managed - there just isn't any other infrastructure.
 Banned User 77 10 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury: Agree..but thats not going to happen, unless we (the state) by huge tracts of land.. and as we're looking to sell of forests that looks unlikely..
 MG 10 Jun 2013
In reply to Only a hill:
> (In reply to pasbury)
> The problem is that nobody can agree what rewilding actually means. At what point do you stop and say "this is what the land should be like?"
>

Presumably simply not doing anything to the land (or sea) and waiting is rewilding, anything else is management of some form.

I have relatives in parts of the US where this is happening naturally due to land simply being uneconomic to farm anymore. Within 40 years fields have reverted to forest and various large animals are recolonising areas from which they were previously extinct. Even in New England within an hour's drive of New York City there are areas of woodland which were previously farmed but now totally abandoned - just the remains of dry stone walls give the game away.
pasbury 10 Jun 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

My view is not to consider to which date we wish to turn back the clock but to consider what would want to grow in such-and-such a place - if it's forest so be it - if it's alpine semi-tundra moorland so be it.
If land is kept denuded just to service the requirements for obtaining subsidy (which we pay for) then it has no real value or use except as a means of income for just one landowner.
pasbury 10 Jun 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to pasbury) Agree..but thats not going to happen, unless we (the state) by huge tracts of land.. and as we're looking to sell of forests that looks unlikely..

The national trust already own a lot - I'm not sure lobby them would be much use though

If a scheme was launched to allow the public to contribute to the purchase of land for rewilding I'd contribute, and I wouldn't much care where it was either.
 MG 10 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury: For the sake of argument, if your scheme purchased the entire Cairgorm National Park. What would you do with it that the likes of NTS aren't already doing on the bits they own? Bear in mind the number of people who earn a living from it currently?
pasbury 10 Jun 2013
In reply to MG:

Sounds interesting.

It's also happening in Europe too.
 Simon Caldwell 10 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury:
>> Wouldn't that imply no more hillgoing?

> I would think that access to any rewilded areas would be a high priority.

I don't think access bans would be the problem. More the sheer difficulty of walking through unbroken woodland and then scrub before eventually (in parts of Scotland) getting high enough for walking to become easy again.
pasbury 10 Jun 2013
In reply to MG:

The high Cairngorms might be the nearest thing we have to a true wilderness anyway! Overgrazing by deer is probably a problem but short of dropping a pack of wolves onto the plateau I don't know how that would be addressed.
Just think of allowing the Caledonian forest ecosystem to spread though - that would be great.
Access should be preserved but not softened for the masses. And as to the skiing and funicular - well I know what I'd like to see but I don't want the argument to get side-tracked!
 tony 10 Jun 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to pasbury) For the sake of argument, if your scheme purchased the entire Cairgorm National Park. What would you do with it that the likes of NTS aren't already doing on the bits they own? Bear in mind the number of people who earn a living from it currently?

I'm not sure that's a great place to start the argument. The Cairngorms is quite different to a lot of the Highlands - the skiiing and relatively easy access create economic elements which don't exist in other places, so the difficulties in dealing with wilderness issues in the Cairngorms may not be relevant in the North-West, for example, where the economic arguments are quite different.
 MG 10 Jun 2013
In reply to tony: OK, pick your location. Also note, as above, Monbiot is talking much more widely than just mountains.
 MG 10 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury:

> Just think of allowing the Caledonian forest ecosystem to spread though - that would be great.

Aren't NTS trying to do just that? Anyway, how would that happen without controlling deer numbers - which immediately results in a managed landscape again. (Although I understand deer are fed in winter. Does anyone know what would happen to numbers if they weren't fed or hunted?)
pasbury 10 Jun 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to tony) OK, pick your location.

The Cambrian plateau. Deforested, overgrazed for many decades, subject to inappropriate conifer plantations, exploited inappropriately to obtain agricultural subsidies, agricultuarally useless without same subsidies.
pasbury 10 Jun 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to pasbury)
>
> [...]
>
> Aren't NTS trying to do just that? Anyway, how would that happen without controlling deer numbers - which immediately results in a managed landscape again. (Although I understand deer are fed in winter. Does anyone know what would happen to numbers if they weren't fed or hunted?)

Deer are the big issue - I agree. Lynx would take young red deer and any roe deer I suspect. I can't see wolves being re-introduced anywhere in the UK so you're left with culling - which is management.
I think the idea that there should be 'no' management is a bit of a red herring anyway.

 PeterM 10 Jun 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to pasbury)
>
>
> Importantly though the culture of the land must be preserved and in the Highlands the landscape is written in Gaelic. Until the NTS, JMT and so recognise this, they will be doomed to make the continual mistakes they are making right now.
- could you elaborate on this point? I'm not sure I fully understand it. If 'rewilding' is what I understand it to be, then culture will have no place in it. The landscape doesn't care...

> "rewilding" is a nonsensical term.
- We may agree on something after all

 malk 10 Jun 2013
In reply to PeterM: could you elaborate on rewilding as nonsense?
 tony 10 Jun 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to tony) OK, pick your location. Also note, as above, Monbiot is talking much more widely than just mountains.

Different places have different issues. I don't think there's much point in picking one location, particularly if there's an interest in environments other than mountains and then trying to use our woefully inadequate skillset and knowledge to come up with an answer, without working out what the questions should be. Essentially, it's about the way in which land is managed, or not managed, and what the priorities should be - conserved ecosystems for environmental benefits, managed land for economic benefits (and within both of those, there are numerous subsets), degrees of compromise, and so on.
 MG 10 Jun 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> Different places have different issues. I don't think there's much point in picking one location,

Often an example helps highlight potential possibilities and problems

particularly if there's an interest in environments other than mountains and then trying to use our woefully inadequate skillset and knowledge to come up with an answer, without working out what the questions should be.

That was part of the point of an example. Also, I don't think lack of expert knowledge means we shouldn't try and answer questions, otherwise we would never dare think about pretty much anything, let alone do anything as dangerous as vote!


Essentially, it's about the way in which land is managed, or not managed, and what the priorities should be - conserved ecosystems for environmental benefits, managed land for economic benefits (and within both of those, there are numerous subsets), degrees of compromise, and so on.

Well, yes.

 tony 10 Jun 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
>
> Importantly though the culture of the land must be preserved and in the Highlands the landscape is written in Gaelic. Until the NTS, JMT and so recognise this, they will be doomed to make the continual mistakes they are making right now.

Why are you choosing to rewind to the point at which Gaelic was the language? There were people in the Highlands before the Gaels - why not rewind to the Picts?
Removed User 10 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury: I think the JMT is the biggest hope for the highlands, in the main they wish to allow the landscape to revert to something like it was in the distant past unlike the NTS who see wild land as in need of improved access and an opportunity to sell tea towels and leather bookmarks!
 Ramblin dave 10 Jun 2013
In reply to PeterM:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
> [...]
> - could you elaborate on this point? I'm not sure I fully understand it. If 'rewilding' is what I understand it to be, then culture will have no place in it. The landscape doesn't care...

I know you're not necessarily saying that this would be a Good Thing, but this sort of idea seems incredibly problematic. It begins to feel a bit like those of us who live and work comfortably in cities and the agricultural lowlands that people who live in the highlands should have their lives and livelihoods proscribed by the need to preserve a "wilderness" that we can go and gawp at as and when we fancy it.

There's a balance to be struck, obviously, but any grand plan that purports to improve and diversify the ecosystem of the highlands (or any other populated area) has to remember that local people have been a part of that ecosystem for thousands of years.
 tony 10 Jun 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to tony)
> [...]
>
> Often an example helps highlight potential possibilities and problems
>
which may or may not be generally applicable, which is why I wasn't keen on your choice of the Cairngorms - I think there are some very specific issues there which are not applicable in many other places.
>
> That was part of the point of an example. Also, I don't think lack of expert knowledge means we shouldn't try and answer questions, otherwise we would never dare think about pretty much anything, let alone do anything as dangerous as vote!
>
So what was your question? Rewilding, or environmental management, or whatever, means different things to different people. Blithely launching into a set of solutions is a bit pointless if different people are working to different agendas and different understandings.
 MG 10 Jun 2013
In reply to tony:

> So what was your question?

Mainly to the OP to see what sort of thing he envisaged. It seems to him rewilding doesn't equate to no (or even minimal) management, which I suspect is probably how many people would think of it.



Blithely launching into a set of solutions is a bit pointless if different people are working to different agendas and different understandings.

Exactly.

 Fredt 10 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury:

While you're at it, could you reverse the climate change that has been a major contribution the the change in landscapes?
 toad 10 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury: Sounds like George Monbiot has been reading Frans Vera - From a very brief skim, it sounds like the kind of thing the Dutch have been doing with large scale, minimal intervention systems (again, like the UK, without the big predators that would really make it work properly)

worth a read:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091104/full/462030a.html
pasbury 10 Jun 2013
In reply to MG:

Yes, it's really impossible to see how a totally unmanaged area could work in these crowded islands - it will always be a matter of our choice to re-introduce species for example, and then the edges of any wilderness area would need to be managed anyway.

My take on it is not to 'preserve' but to assist in returning land to something approaching a natural state. Crucially we are at a stage where a lot of land in Europe (and evidently America) is now surplus to modern agricultural requirements and in the UK we seem to be resisting the urge to rethink what we do with it. Preserving it in a state of biological poverty to maintain a set of unsustainable, uneconomic and out of date agricultural practices seems mad. All for the idea that a few sheep scattered across an otherwise empty landscape is somehow picturesque and part of our 'culture'.
pasbury 10 Jun 2013
In reply to Fredt:

Unfortunately not, but my guess is that, in the UK, humans have determined the appearance of almost every square inch of our landscape.
 Ridge 10 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury:
Ah, thousands of square miles of stinging nettles, bracken,himalayan balsam and assorted other invasive species. Sounds wonderful.
 malk 10 Jun 2013
In reply to Ridge: who said that?
In reply to pasbury: A European Lynx can bring down an adult red deer, I understand. I can't see why wolves shouldn't be re-introduced - it's a helluva more economical way of controlling deer than culling them in the numbers that are necessary (even the Government believes we need a 90% cull).

Almost all British ecosystems are plagioseres (arrested secondary plant successions) and many, if not all, are dependent on human activity, particularly grazing by domesticates. Hence chalk downland developed as a response to grazing, ditto the Thames meadows etc, etc. Human activity inadvertently created very rich ecosystems; Colin R Tubbs reckoned that the British Isles were at their most biodiverse around 1750 before enclosure and monoculture took a hold.

Hence there really is no such thing as wilderness, in the way Aldo Leopold believed existed in North America, in the UK and precious little across the planet. Even large portions of the Amazonian rainforest has been shown to be a plagiosere no more than 2000 years old.

However, UK upland and lowland ecosystems have taken a terrible beating in the past 150 years and I applaud the work of the JMT, SNH and SWLG to bring some of the overgrazed we refer to as mountains back into some semblance of their former glory.
 Fat Bumbly2 10 Jun 2013
Clearance III
Excluded for sheep
Excluded for deer
Excluded for cuddly but fierce beasties wot look good on nature documentaries.
Removed User 10 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury:
> I've just heard about George Monbiot's latest book 'Feral' which will be about rewilding.
>
> I love the idea - our uplands are mostly utterly denuded and domesticated - a situation supported by insane agricultural subsidies.
>

Hmm, I guess George was talking more about England and Wales than Scotland. Certainly re introducing bears to the Lake District and the Pennines would go some way to addressing the root cause of upland domestication; over population.

> Letting the natural world back into these places would enrich us all. Are there any objections to rewilding amongst us hillgoers?
>

I don't know quite what George was suggesting. You must bear in mind that these lands do still provide a living to a small number of people and we must be mindful of their welfare. Would anyone seriously propose rewilding parts of the South Downs and putting hundreds of agricultural workers out of work? What is different about land above 1000 feet? If a re introduction of more forest into the Highlands of Scotland could be arranged then I'd be in favour of that along with a halt in the building of more tracks. Perhaps estate workers could find some work in eco tourism but I think the possibilities are limited. At the moment however the pressure is on to cover large tracts of upland with wind farms and their associated roads and huge pylons.

> Where would be best suited and is there any way we as individuals can encourage rewilding?

You may want to make your views on the issue known to the Scottish Government here: http://www.mcofs.org.uk/windblow.asp although I'd ask that you point out you live in Bristol.
Removed User 10 Jun 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
> [...]
>
> Why are you choosing to rewind to the point at which Gaelic was the language? There were people in the Highlands before the Gaels - why not rewind to the Picts?

Yesterday I was sitting on a beach along from Arnisdale (Arne's Valley) looking across to Knoydart (Knut's Fjord) after having had a nice coffee and some cake in a cafe by the Pictish Broch up Glen beag.....

http://www.iwacc.com/pages/GAELICNAMES2006.pdf

..that said, most of the names are gaelic but you'd expect that I suppose.
Removed User 10 Jun 2013
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:
> Clearance III
> Excluded for sheep
> Excluded for deer
> Excluded for cuddly but fierce beasties wot look good on nature documentaries.

..and finally excluded for people too. After all we're very destructive as well. We must be careful what we wish for.
 MG 10 Jun 2013
In reply to Removed User:
> (
> ..that said, most of the names are gaelic but you'd expect that I suppose.

Gaelic linguistic imperialism wiping the Norse heritage of the Highlands! Down with it!!
 Ridge 11 Jun 2013
In reply to malk:
> (In reply to Ridge) who said that?

That would be the result of 'rewilding'. Unless the OP means exchanging one managed landscape to another managed landscape, which in no way could be described as 'wild'.
pasbury 11 Jun 2013
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to pasbury)
> Ah, thousands of square miles of stinging nettles, bracken,himalayan balsam and assorted other invasive species. Sounds wonderful.

In upland areas it would be more likely dense birch thickets at first. Read 'Weeds' by Richard Mabey - his overriding point is that weeds need humans to thrive.

KevinD 11 Jun 2013
In reply to Removed User:

> I don't know quite what George was suggesting. You must bear in mind that these lands do still provide a living to a small number of people and we must be mindful of their welfare.

Which I believe is part of his point. Currently they are receiving subsidies which due to the targets used encourage certain behaviours which have, what he sees, as a negative impact on the environment.
Therefore change the targets.
Here is a short summary of his position.

http://www.monbiot.com/2013/05/27/a-manifesto-for-rewilding-the-world/
 Banned User 77 11 Jun 2013
In reply to Gentleman Antiquarian: We're never going to go wild.. we will always have a mish mash of open country, farming lands, hunting grounds.

Re the deer cull, thats just a huge debate on environmental and socio-economic grounds. Lose the deer, lose the income and landowners may look for alternative income from their land.

I can't see how wolves are a feasible option at all. I think focusing on the establishment of lower taxa will be more beneficial, mussels in rivers, fish in rivers, crayfish, get bee populations healthy, otters, beavers.

I was working on a freshwater mussel project it Maine, snorkeling in rivers and lakes of Northern Maine, almost at the Canadian border, and the rivers were pristine. Just teaming with mussel beds, crayfish.. fish. It was just superb to see.

We will always have to manage our land though. That's a given. bringing in higher predators won't work in such a small tight island.

But if we bring in wolves, we need to change gun laws or at least increase gun ownership. in the US they now have pretty good systems to protect wildlife but it involves the use of non-lethal amunition..
 Cuthbert 11 Jun 2013
In reply to MG:

The reality is that the methods required are actually very easy to implement:

1) stop encouraging high deer numbers
2) cull deer to reduce the numbers to a sustainable level

Of course this would mean that much of the establishment is unable to then run a "sporting" estate but that is no bad thing.

It would however take a massive change in attitudes and the demographic of landownership and that is a desirable thing.
 Cuthbert 11 Jun 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
> [...]
>
> Why are you choosing to rewind to the point at which Gaelic was the language? There were people in the Highlands before the Gaels - why not rewind to the Picts?

I'm not choosing to rewild. I think the term is a nonsense.

I just think that given the vast majority of feature names in the Scottish Highlands are named in Gaelic, and the general support and measures taken to preserve Gaelic, that the language should be a fundamental part of the landscape measures taken to enhance it. If Gaelic dies (it wont) then a massive part of the cultural landscape dies with it and to bring it back would be 10x harder than any moves to grow trees.

Whether someone likes Gaelic or otherwise is irrelevant, without it they can't properly understand the landscape. This applies particularly to rangers, officers at CNPA, mountain leaders at the Lodge and so on.
 Banned User 77 11 Jun 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> The reality is that the methods required are actually very easy to implement:
>
> 1) stop encouraging high deer numbers
> 2) cull deer to reduce the numbers to a sustainable level
>
> Of course this would mean that much of the establishment is unable to then run a "sporting" estate but that is no bad thing.
>
> It would however take a massive change in attitudes and the demographic of landownership and that is a desirable thing.

It may be.. but how will that happen? You want to force changes in land ownership?
 MG 11 Jun 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> The reality is that the methods required are actually very easy to implement:
>
> 1) stop encouraging high deer numbers
> 2) cull deer to reduce the numbers to a sustainable level
>


I was wondering what level of deer numbers would result if there was no feeding (or other encouragement for higher numbers) and no shooting either. Still too high for woodland/landscape regeration?
 MG 11 Jun 2013
In reply to MG: And if too high, who would pay for the culling?
 Cuthbert 11 Jun 2013
In reply to MG:

I don't know but probably yes in the short term but if fences are used the deer numbers would fall quite quickly.

SNH run the Creag Meagaidh estate and are very welcoming and able to explain their management practices.
 Cuthbert 11 Jun 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

It's already happening with community buy outs and so on. The slow change of land attitudes is hard to identify but it is definitely happening withe decline of the establishment.
 Banned User 77 11 Jun 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> It's already happening with community buy outs and so on. The slow change of land attitudes is hard to identify but it is definitely happening withe decline of the establishment.

that's different.. thats free markets no? Not forced changes which I thought you were suggesting.

I'm not sure it is declining that much, especially in the east. Large estates still seem to dominate. Is it changing in those areas?
 MG 11 Jun 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
> [...]
>
> that's different.. thats free markets no?

Free-ish - it is easy for communities to buy than outsiders.

But anyway it seems to be me the best approach is to tweak laws so that large landowners still get what they want from owning land (bauble property, some shooting, some tax incentives) but still put in large amounts of money to manage it, while at the same time ensuring that bio-diversity and access and so on become financially desirable. Many areas wouldn't be of interest to "community buyouts" and if landowers are pushed out in these areas, management costs would otherwise fall in one way or the other on the public.
 Cuthbert 11 Jun 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

Different from what? That is how it's happening. The other changes are from the political pressure being exerted.
 Cuthbert 11 Jun 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

I'm off to Tiree this afternoon. Owned by the Duke of Argyll I hear there are some who are becoming interested in a buy out and attended the Community Land Scotland conference in Skye last week.
Removed User 11 Jun 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>

Slow being the key word. With regards to the decline of the establishment, I'm not holding my breath just yet.

I'm assuming you have seen this. It may be of interest to others.
http://www.andywightman.com/?p=2801
 tony 11 Jun 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to tony)
> [...]
>
> I'm not choosing to rewild. I think the term is a nonsense.
>
> I just think that given the vast majority of feature names in the Scottish Highlands are named in Gaelic, and the general support and measures taken to preserve Gaelic, that the language should be a fundamental part of the landscape measures taken to enhance it. If Gaelic dies (it wont) then a massive part of the cultural landscape dies with it and to bring it back would be 10x harder than any moves to grow trees.

I take your point about Gaelic remaining as a living language, but for a real and full understanding of the cultural impact of the environment, it's surely as important to recognise the other cultures that have been influential, and that the history of the Highlands is strongly multicultural? Eric's point about various place names demonstrates that, and you wouldn't discuss the history and culture of Orkney, for example, without a major emphasis on Norse influences. Recognising the influence of other cultures other than Gaelic doesn't diminish the place of Gaelic culture, but does promote a far wider understanding than a monocultural interpretation.
 Ramblin dave 11 Jun 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
> [...]
>
> It may be.. but how will that happen? You want to force changes in land ownership?

I find it kind of weird how much this is seen as unprecedented and more or less unthinkable...
 Billhook 11 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury:
Oh, if it were so simple. Yes I love the idea. But everyone has different ideas of what re-wilding would look like.

Nature if left to itself would return to woodland - the climax vegetation for 99% of the country.
However, we've got deer in the Scottish highlands which prevent much of the tree regeneration.
Then you've got people who love the wide open moors - so they'd want wild cattle to graze "to introduce bi-odiversity", then a host of other interests would fog the issue.

But in principle I like the sound of the idea.
 Banned User 77 11 Jun 2013
In reply to Ramblin dave: its a tricky one..

I don't like how land is just passed down through the aristocracy when that land was taken from the people. But if land was bought fairly, then any re-distribution should be at a fair market price. I suppose at the extreme end we have the land grabs, was it Zimbabwe? of the white farmers.

I also wonder how much will really change, new owners will still have an economic interest and I think reality will bite..
 Cuthbert 11 Jun 2013
In reply to tony:

I don't know why you are presuming that I am excluding other languages. I didn't say that. I simply said that Gaelic is by far the most important of those languages and I was referring to the Highlands.

But that is a tangent, if just makes me slightly sad that the vast majority of mountaineers, including professionals, have almost no understanding (I mean beyond the absolute basics) of the languages appearing on maps.
 tony 11 Jun 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> I don't know why you are presuming that I am excluding other languages.

Because you never mention other languages, despite the fact that there are many placenames which have their roots in languages other than Gaelic. A proper understanding of the cultural associations of environment has to include an awareness of the all the cultural influences.
>
> But that is a tangent, if just makes me slightly sad that the vast majority of mountaineers, including professionals, have almost no understanding (I mean beyond the absolute basics) of the languages appearing on maps.

So you'll be happy with the idea that Pictish and Norse placenames should be discussed in the context of their history? For example, I hadn't realised until recently that the River Oykel in the far north and the Ochil Hills further south probably have the same roots in a Pictish word meaning 'high territory'. Likewise, Caithness takes its name from a Norse word. It becomes really interesting when you start looking at other language influences and understand the great cultural diversity.

 Ramblin dave 11 Jun 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
Unlike, say, England, where any fule kno why "High Snockrigg", "Jopplety How" and "Great Cockup" are so called.
 Billhook 11 Jun 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

I agree with you.

One of the most illuminating experiences I had was talking to a native speaker of gaelic, and he simply translated the names spread across the map as if he was reading geographical descriptions in English. It was like opening up book of possibilities into the dark.

Knowing this when we moved to Eire, I got a Irish speaker to do the same with our local maps. Just as eye opining.

The land and the language are entwined.

It'll be the same with Welsh maps too.
 MG 11 Jun 2013
In reply to Dave Perry:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
>
> I agree with you.
>
> One of the most illuminating experiences I had was talking to a native speaker of gaelic, and he simply translated the names spread across the map as if he was reading geographical descriptions in English. It was like opening up book of possibilities into the dark.


Obviously interesting. But so too is knowledge of the geography, botany, geology, weather, ownerhip, history, birds etc etc of an environment. Very few people have detailed knowledge of more than one such area so being upset that people don't care about Gaelic (in Scotland, or place names more generally) is a bit one sided. If people have no knowledge or interest of anything to do with mountains they climb or places they visit, that would be a pity.
 PeterM 11 Jun 2013
In reply to Dave Perry:

> The land and the language are entwined.

I would suggest that it has nothing to do with the notion of 'rewilding'. I'm pretty sure wild cats, trees, capercaillies, e.t.c don't give a shit what language one speaks or what we've decided to name something,
 MG 11 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury: Things like this are probably a practical and achievable aim, rather than the nebulous concept of "rewilding". Also possible in areas that are pretty densly populated.

http://www.nationalforest.org/forest/
 BnB 11 Jun 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

As a linguist (by qualification, not by trade) and a part-time inhabitant of Skye, I share your delight in deciphering place names.

But the antiquity of the placenames is also a weakness: the ubiquity of certain descriptions betraying the tight physical horizons of those whose names for the hills have endured. How different is life today....

If I never encounter another Glas Bheinn or Meall Dearg I won't be sorry.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> I find it kind of weird how much this is seen as unprecedented and more or less unthinkable...

I was thinking this myself.

The government doest think twice about forcing change of land owners when it comes to land development for fast choo-choos or more box housing etc. Both of these are seen as progressive and necessary.

Simplistically, why not apply the same logic for renaturalisation of managed land which in our enlightened conservation age should be seen as equally progressive.
pasbury 11 Jun 2013
In reply to MG:

I really don't think the concept of rewilding is nebulous - though some seem to object to the word itself.
As a concept it's simple but in practice it could mean many different things, depending on what you're starting with, local limitations and what end result is planned.
In England, Wales and Ireland I think anything other than a limited version of rewilding isn't possible as there simply aren't the large areas that are theoretically needed.
Scotland is another matter but of course here there are patterns of land ownership and use that would need changing (as Saor Alba says)
Removed User 11 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> Scotland is another matter but of course here there are patterns of land ownership and use that would need changing (as Saor Alba says)

So who would own "rewilded" land?

I'd have thought it was either the state or rich people who just wanted to own a huge back garden and didn't need to make any money out of it?
pasbury 11 Jun 2013
In reply to Removed User:

A trust body would be the ideal. Like the John Muir Trust or National Trust - then they are constituted for a specific purpose.

But if some rich person wanted to buy a load of land and do the same thing then great - but it wouldn't be secured in that case.
 toad 11 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury:
> (In reply to MG)
>
>Whilst Monbiots vision is fairly unambiguous, if not immediately achievable, I think that the concept of "rewilding" has so many meanings to so many groups and lobbies that "nebulous" is pretty much on the mark.

Introducing a few photogenic carnivores to your private estate is no more rewilding in itself than is allowing flood defenses on the East coast to fail progressively - Both are in actuality closely managed and monitored activities, even though both might lead to more "natural" environments.

I'd suggest that on pretty much all the scales discussed here, this is really more about extensification and habitat linkages than "rewilding" per se. Even in the big upland areas, some management will be required - you can take the sheep off the pennines, for example, but you can't put the soil chemistry back to pre Industrial Revolution conditions, and you can't encourage the boggy conditions back without manipulating the water levels - there is this very simple idea that it would all be lovely if we just let everything revert to birch woodland, but in reality the habitats, climate, geochemistry were all much more complicated than that - it isn't just a case of reverting to some pre-enclosure idyll, it's about making some big management decisions to decide which of the various pre-industrial idylls we'd like to revert to. For example, That's why in an effort to make a more "natural" landscape, helicopters are dumping grass seed and lime on the pennines

So, in the meantime, let's look at the sustainability issues. How do we link the fragmented areas of flood plain, ancient (ish) woodland, heathland to create large, less intensively managed areas? How do we buffer them against short term changes in Defra/government policy, funding regimes and change in the overall economic climate? A change of government policy tomorrow would turn most extensification programmes over in a month, similarly, how would we cope with a change in economic conditions that might make commercial agricultural activity in these areas much more attractive? - remember the uplands have been in and out of favour economically for millenia - just because they are on their arse now, doesn't mean there won't be a different picture in 50 years, and these rewilding/extensification projects are very long term.

I'd like to read Monbiot's book - he's been happy to defend the published extracts on line, and seems to have done his research properly, even if he's been deliberately (I suspect) provocative in what he wan't to achieve.
 toad 11 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury: I suspect it would be more of an umbrella group - like the RSPB/ NT on the Eastern Moors in the Peak.

My guess in Scotland would be a SWT/NTS led group with input from SNH/ JMT and whoever else wants a slice of the pie. Plus however much we wish it otherwise, there will still be commercial interests there - the shooters, recreational access groups like MCoS & the Ramblers, Forestry people who even in the most optimistic scenario will still be needed for some extensive deconiferisation work etc
 MG 11 Jun 2013
In reply to toad:
just because they are on their arse now, doesn't mean there won't be a different picture in 50 years,

Can I just say "windfarms" at this point!?
 Billhook 11 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury:

If a bear chased you up a gully which normally was beyond your grade would it count as an assisted ascent?
pasbury 11 Jun 2013
In reply to toad:

Thanks for an interesting post. I can guess what extensification means (I'm not professionally involved in conservation) and yes habitat linkages are a part of the rewilding idea - part of the inspiration behind the idea came from MacArthur & others work on island biogegraphy.

It's clear that management is a major part of the concept but where rewilding seems to differ is in it's final aim to return a habitat to a 'natural' state rather than an artificially selected and maintained state as we do today. So I would envisage management reducing over time.

Your point about sustainability is crucial too - without secure ownership of the land we are at the mercy of short term decisions and one thing that rewilding needs is plenty of time.
pasbury 11 Jun 2013
In reply to Dave Perry:

You'd better ask Pursued by a bear.
 mockerkin 11 Jun 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to pasbury)
>
> [...]
>
> Aren't NTS trying to do just that? Anyway, how would that happen without controlling deer numbers - which immediately results in a managed landscape again. (Although I understand deer are fed in winter. Does anyone know what would happen to numbers if they weren't fed or hunted?)

>> Why do they feed them in winter if there are too many of them? That doesn't happen in the Lakes and we have far fewer red deer. In the snow in March/April (that killed seven thousand sheep in Cumbria) many red deer froze to death. Eighteen were found dead in one tiny area alone.

KevinD 11 Jun 2013
In reply to mockerkin:

> Why do they feed them in winter if there are too many of them?

because "too many" is with regards to the landscapes ability to support them rather than other purposes. Such as giving lots of opportunities for shooting.
llechwedd 13 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury:

> Letting the natural world back into these places would enrich us all.

'letting'..?

'enrich us all'
-since the UK population exceeds 60 million, and as they can't all access the uplands, then presumably the mere EXISTENCE VALUE of any reintroduced species is considered to be 'enriching' (assuming you're not just looking at a 'reordering' of what's already there)-e.g. I've never seen the Blue Whale but nice to know it exists, so, hey, I'm enlightened and can continue on with my destructive consumerist lifestyle.

Are people enriched by being told that the landscape they perceive of as barren has several different species of upland willow upon it or are they only to be enriched by the introduction of the Lynx?

If it's enrichment through personal sighting then not all species are as 'high vis' as the Red Kite or Sea Eagle so you'll need to travel to meet it= more access-sounds like more domestication to me.

And so to the concept of rewilding -well, it's gardening on a grand scale- surely the epitome of domestication? You may of course not want to acknowledge that this is the process that underpins your personal Walden.

Saor Alba highlights the link between land and language.
There is a modern component to this- linguistic landscaping-would sir prefer to see the reservoir or the rebadged 'lake/loch'.
The Fisherfield 'wilderness' is no more wild than many other parts of scotland but the mere name seems to provide a frisson of expedition excitement for car going munro baggers. Ah, yes, the remoteness that we drive to!
All sounds very suburban- fits well with wild swimming and wild camping.

Ramblin Dave has said it quite succintly- folk meddling in areas they contribute little to.

and why such selectivity in the species for reintroduction?
Surely with the reduction in the population of 'gael' e.coli since the highland clearances, SNH and JMT can rectify the matter with a 'jobbies amongst the heather' grant for indigenous estate workers. Of course, you visitors will still have to carry yours out in case they contain the 'grey squirrel' of the e. coli world.



Jim C 13 Jun 2013
In reply to Only a hill:
> (In reply to pasbury)
> . Do we want to reintroduce lions etc?

Maybe just bears and wolves:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-22220384

http://woodlandtracks.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/rewilding-scotland-returning-w...
 Adam Long 13 Jun 2013
In reply to toad:
> (In reply to pasbury) Sounds like George Monbiot has been reading Frans Vera - From a very brief skim, it sounds like the kind of thing the Dutch have been doing with large scale, minimal intervention systems (again, like the UK, without the big predators that would really make it work properly)
>
> worth a read:
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091104/full/462030a.html

British Wildlife magazine did a very good rewilding special issue a year or two back - well worth a read. It includes stuff on Frans Vera and an in-depth piece on the Oostvaardersplassen project. Unlike most of the BW stuff it is available online, in full, here: http://www.britishwildlife.com/classicarticlesview.asp


 timjones 13 Jun 2013
In reply to pasbury:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> My view is not to consider to which date we wish to turn back the clock but to consider what would want to grow in such-and-such a place - if it's forest so be it - if it's alpine semi-tundra moorland so be it.
> If land is kept denuded just to service the requirements for obtaining subsidy (which we pay for) then it has no real value or use except as a means of income for just one landowner.

Maybe we should "rewild" Bristol

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...