UKC

i posted a while back about rewilding, inspired by a George Monbiot article. He's been at it again in a more fleshed out article here:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/oct/18/uk-carnivo...

There's discussion of the NT High Peak Moors plan wherein it is stated "The open landscapes and vistas of the moors should be retained, so there shouldn't generally be trees on the open moor tops." without any explanation why.
Do you find, as I do, his arguments persuasive. I can imagine areas like Dartmoor, Mid wales, the Pennines all becoming much richer ecosystems with a more diverse appearance, greater resistance to erosion and of greater utitilty to humans if we just took our hands off them and let nature back in. (Scotland deliberately not mentioned as I am english so cannot possibly know anything whatever about it )

In reply to pasbury: I guess the point of the NT is to keep stuff generally as it already is. I understand they try to keep the moors in their current state, considering that this state is historically significant. And changing the moors to forest would mean the end of a lot of bird species that need the moors to survive. I don't think things are as black and white as Monbiot thinks they are. Not saying that the NT is necessarily right, but their plans are in line with their philosophy.

Regarding the reintroduction of large carnivores, once again the situation where this has already happened in Europe is far from being so ideal. I am a close follower of the situation of the bear in the Pyrenees, and the amount of hate the poor animal creates amongst a good part of the locals is incredible. They are hunted like rats carrying the plague. The same goes for the wolves, even more as they tend to wander a lot more.

In reply to pasbury:


Yet you do know about Wales?

Provocative, toi?

PS Yes. Totally agree. Let's get the woodlands back on the Pennines.

In reply to pasbury: I can understand where Monbiot is coming from - there is a tendency to micromanage big areas, when it would make more sense to allow processes to follow natural succession on occasion, but the big issues are really around resetting the clock to some arbitrary historical point, and where you set that point, and whether such a "reset" is even possible.

So - trees in the Peak? People like those big vistas, and the Peak is managed primarily for landscape. Biodiversity/ species richness and ecological importance AREN'T the same thing. The Peak moors support relatively few species, but when they are in good condition, many of those species are very rare - for example the bog plants.

The soil geochemistry is very different. The peat has degraded, it's full of industrial toxins that weren't there 200 years ago. The climate is different.

I'm not saying that the Peak is properly managed now, it isn't always. The burning in late winter/early spring should be an embarrassment to the NT, NE and the Park itself. But sheep numbers are being reduced, and (for example) Kinder and Bleaklow are in much better condition now than they used to be. Maybe there is an inclination to micro manage and interfere, but in the main it's for laudable reasons.

Monbiot has the luxury of preaching from a big pulpit (few conservationists have his media presence), but he doesn't have to do implement his ideas or deal with the practical ecological and social problems that would follow. It's an interesting perspective and there are some good ideas in there, but he's still rather too much the Machynlleth hippy.

In reply to drolex:

This emphasis on the upland bird species illustrates exacly what i mean. There are very few such species compared with what you would get in a mixed/wooded ecosystem. Why are they valued so highly? They would also surely find more localised habitats anyway.
By that measure heather and deschampsia flexuosa must be considered the most valuable species in the whole national park!

In reply to toad:

Bleaklow is a mess. It's a mess because of acid rain from the Industrial Revolution. So leaving Bleaklow alone is not "not interfering with nature". It's just failing to remedy a previous interference, of a particularly devastating and destructive kind.

If we could turn Bleaklow into--mostly--temperate upland rain forest, I think that would be great.

But then, as we know, I love trees. My alter ego is Dogmatix.

http://i34.tinypic.com/2rmuk5t.jpg

In reply to toad:

Agreed that Monbiot makes full use of his platform without having to implement anything which would be extremely difficult.
I am interested in why people without a vested interest in these areas are so resistant to the principal of reducing management/abandoning lossmaking farming practices in certain areas.

In reply to pasbury: I understand your point, but I see both options (keeping the current state or changing it) as artificial as the other. Why does he advocate a return to 16th/17th century ecosystems specifically? This is as arbitrary as keeping the current state. The upland birds are valued because they are here today. The lynx are unfortunately not here anymore. Monbiot balances an dreamed wildlife against actual wildlife, but we don't really know how the change of ecosystem would work.

In reply to drolex: I'd like to hear the position of RSPB on this

In reply to drolex:

This is the point, I think. And it's the weakest part of his argument

In reply to pasbury: Last thing, I'd (genuinely) like to have examples of heavily modified ecosystems which have been successfully rolled back to their "pre-human" state. Anyone has a detailed example of that by chance, with all the consequences for the transitional wildlife?

(This is a good thread btw)

In reply to drolex:

Oh Pick Me, sir!!

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/north_west/ourwork/sonewedholmeflo...

In reply to toad:


The clever men at Oxford
Know all there is to be knowed
But not one of them knows one-half as much
As...

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Mr Badger?

In reply to Tim Chappell: Always saw myself as more of a Ratty, tbh

In reply: The open landscapes and vistas of the moors should be retained, so there shouldn't generally be trees on the open moor tops, lest we upset the climbers and other game-keepers

In reply to pasbury:

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments of the blog.  Not sure I would advocate the return of the landscape to any particular moment in history but would like to see greater diversity within our landscape.  The space is there to support a healthy environment for both the natural and human world.

One of the things I despair most about in the UK is the impoverished state of our natural heritage.   Walk through the green belt and what do you see usually nothing, the fields are void of animals, insect life is practically none existent in some fields.   I was in Poland this summer walking through grass lands on the edge of a major city (Similar to a typical greenbelt in appearance), adjacent to a major highway and in amongst major farming infrastructure one thing struck me as I moved through the field….Wildlife! You just don’t see insects, farm land birds, and mammals both predator and prey in those numbers in the UK.  Something is so very wrong!!

In reply to Alan M: from my experience of living in the countryside, you can't be looking very hard! The place is teaming with life.

In reply to JIMBO:

We might have different ideas of what constitutes impoverished natural heritage. I am not saying we don't have a wildlife or natural heritage etc just in comparison to alot of our European neighbours we are impoverished.

Take wild flower meadows you're lucky to see an outstanding one in the UK compare that to our continental neighbours. Walk through grasslands in the UK and then go and walk through the grasslands near Poznan and Skwierzyna in Poland or France for comparison etc

In reply to Alan M:


There are certainly some *specific* problems with our flora and fauna, but it takes a professional, e.g. Toad, to pick them out accurately, and on a proper scientific basis rather than one of hearsay/ perception.

But at that latter level (I'm not an environmental scientist), I'd say my own experience is one of happy profusion rather than of empty desolation. Even in the crowded south-east, too. I've seen Kingfishers, Herons, Buzzards, Green Woodpeckers, Lesser Spotted ditto, Oystercatchers, and Little Owls in the middle of Milton Keynes, for example.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


PS Oh, and just yesterday, a gorgeous sight on the rugby pitches on the way into St Andrews: 40 or 50 Curlews, grazing away quite happily among the molehills.

In reply to pasbury:
why does it have to be an either-or? I like the rolling vistas of the Pennines, and I love the idea of more trees - why not have areas of both - there is enough of the Pennines to support both environments....

In reply to pasbury:

Nothing particularly new about the notion that our large sections of our uplands are deserts - in Scotland the idea dates to Frank Fraser Darling (and possibly even earlier?).

In reply to drolex:
I've got an interesting paper somewhere in the which the authors where looking at land in southern France which had been farmed by the Romans but had since reverted to Forest. As far as I remember there were still noticeable differences in the community composition and productivity of forests on ancient agricultural sites, compared to other parts of the forest.

In reply to pasbury: Franz Vera is the person who is most often mentioned in conjunction with talk of rewilding. This isn't a bad summary. He's not talking about dense woodland, though

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091104/full/462030a.html

In reply to pasbury: I'm all in favour of reducing accessibility to promote greater wildness; not just for the sake of 'rewilding' - horrible word, that - but because making greater effort to gain access is something to be valued in an online, multichannel, 24/7 world of information overload.

Sadly, there are severe limits to what might be done in England. Keep the Durham moors as inaccessible as possible for as long as possible, and raise the height of the Haweswater dam to prevent access to the valley by road are two things that might be relatively easily won; for given definitions of relative, at least.

Other than that, everything else runs into lots of problems very quickly.

T.

In reply to pasbury:

I can't understand why a richer ecosystem is necessarily more attractive.
Would it make the Sahara or the Antarctic a better place?

In reply to toad:
>

The £17.3 million needed to acquire and manage this small area of degraded peat bog ( and the Thorne & Hatfield ones)demonstrates a facet which no one has yet touched on. The huge costs attendant upon the bureaucracy attached to modern conservation.

Strange how we seem to turn a blind eye to this yet can cite agricultural subsidies as justification of arguments to, e.g. 'clear the sheep'.
Unless you factor the financial into the argument, a discussion on whether to introduce this species or that, is as facile as asking which one would win in a fight.

'Gardening' of the wild suits the purpose of a bureacracy- far better to have the mindset of a farmer than a forester. Thinking short term rather than in decades, a smoother ride for the accountants. Maybe acquire some new properties along the way just to give a semblance of progress and to feed the beast.

'Save Snowdon for the nation' was the cry a few years ago. But Snowdon would not have evaporated had it not been 'saved'. Now we've bought it what do we do with it? Generally, as has been said -its about micromanagement. Easy to achieve consensus that way.
Just look at the people on the top table at the National Trust. Do you really think that HRH Charles or a guy who was an Easyjet exec are going to upset the status quo?

Yet when local conservation movements are in their infancy, a different ethos ensues. In fact this guy, if he but knew it, was pivotal in English Nature's (aka the taxpayer)acquisition cited by Toad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bunting_(eco-warrior)

Alan M cited Polish grassland as an exemplar of what Britain has lost. Could it not be that as Agriculture intensifies there, along with population pressures, in a few years the Poles will be asking where all the corncrakes have gone?

In reply to pasbury:

The thing about our hills is that you immediately feel you're above the treeline in a greater range: that refreshing, blowy air, those rocks, the short grass, sparkling brooks, vistas etc., not stuck in the trees as you would be at a similar elevation in the Vosges, Black Forest and so on. In many ways the greatest garden landscaping project that Capability never did.

Not denying the drawbacks, mind.

In reply to llechwedd: In fairness, most of that money went on stuffing the developers mouths with gold- effectively buying the remaining mineral rights from the peat diggers - rather than beaurocracy

In reply to toad: and I suspect the lawyers took a large proportion as well

I know Pasbury didn't want to venture North of the Border, but:

http://www.andywightman.com/?p=3291

comic, informative and well argued.

In reply to pasbury:
don't see your point at all, there is a lot to be said about good desserts ,my favourite dessert for example is apple crumble with ice cream (not custard),although vanilla cheesecake comes a close second.

In reply to toad:

Makes you wonder if, had they waited a few years until the arguments against peat extraction grew louder and stronger, they could have had the sites for a lot less.
I don't know the specifics of that case, but it sounds to me the same hysteria that generated 'save snowdon for the nation'.

Speaking of which, under new ownership the benefits are already obvious, with the richer ecosystem evident at the summit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-19762769.

Meanwhile, two years earlier across the bridge in Anglesey, they spent £2500 to capture and kill each grey squirrel. It's a post code lottery I tell you!

Anyway, back to trees in the landscape..
We have the likes of Chris Townsend evoking the same tired imagery of the ranks of serried conifers marching across the upland landscape, blighting the view and impoverishing the environment. Others less informed bleat out the same trite crap. It must be true then.
Flow country type planting apart, Spruce generates a useful crop which can be sold. Furthermore, large blocks of coniferous woodland have become the places from which red squirrels (one of our rarer mammals) recolonise adjacent areas. Forestry has come a long way from the horrors of blanket afforestation, and the scales of economy needed to turn a profit are those same ones that us the modern savvy consumers use to obtain the best price, which then accelerate the decline of rural communities.

So then we arrive at the situation where conservation is top-down, not bottom up. Economies of scale and consumer led democracy.
I would argue that we should be thinking about an economic underpinning of the decisions of conservationists. How much do you want it and how much is it going to cost? Are YOU prepared to contribute or is it just another subject of debate for the ill informed middle class? Would you be prepared to pay for access and would you find it acceptable that others who hadn't paid were denied access?
The obvious sylvan beauty of e.g.the flagship Creag Meaghaidh NNR comes at a cost. Estimates of the Tourist money brought in to the region are cited to justify the cost. But, taken to its logical conclusion, if more hills were 'returned to nature' would it not be the case that the costs would remain but the projected returns diminish?

In reply to llechwedd:
That link didn't work, here it is -or should be
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-19762769

In reply to colina:

Yeah but I see your fine puds and raise you a treacle sponge with home made vanilla custard.

Anyway, back on thread, erm, bring back the bears!

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://hungryatmidnight.com/wp-conten...

In reply to llechwedd:

Ill take two to go with a latte.

In reply to llechwedd:

Good post, the best I've read on here.

Questions about forestry though. Is forestry really profitable without the tax breaks? I'm not sure that it is. Further, it used to be the case that pine grown in the UK was only used for wood pulp as it's moisture content was too high for building material. If that's still the case then presumably the market for UK timber is fairly limited?

In reply to Removed User:

If we stopped packaging things in plastic, and replaced with wood pulp derived cardboard, there would be a market for low quality timber, and we'd have a double environmental win; less non-biodegradable rubbish to deal with, and potentially more ecologically diverse mixed woodland developed...though I suspect there would have to be legislation to stopped monoculture crops.

Others more knowledgable would be able to say if timber from mixed woodland, could be efficiently produced, extracted and pulped......

In reply to Removed User:

I've been out of forestry for a while now so don't know the current tax regime. Certainly, since the 1990's they've closed the tax loophole of the 1980's which led to a splurge of blanket afforestation on unsuitable sites.

The broadleaf coppice type industries that once generated a regular cycle of income are, in a national sense extinct. Only so many people will buy a hazel hurdle fence panel.
There are national and regional initiatives to promote the planting and utilisation of broadleaves (hardwoods) such as Coed Cymru. One of the basic issues is trying to achieve consistency of quality and supply from timber seller to buyer - small parcels of timber to specilaist buyers. It's still much easier to buy french oak or american walnut, or to go to Oakfurnitureland.
I built a house out of oak that grew across the valley from me. It's a thing of great beauty but this style and method of construction was a labour of love and could never compete with conventional stuff on the open market.

Softwoods(conifers) will generally grow more quickly on upland sites but still require the crop in the ground for decades before the investment matures. Thinnings may not provide any income in the interim if their value is low and costs of extraction are high.
The issue of producing high value construction grade timber is complex, related to site/species constraints, the costs and timing of interim management of the crop, and the state of the global market/rates of interest. Thus it may be prudent to go for the certainty of a minimal input/ 'no thin' policy and clearfell the lot for pulp.
Some modern harvesting machinery can cost in the million pound bracket-so although the chainsaw and skidder harvesting gangs still exist, Finnish companies grab an increasing share of the contracts. Likewise they have stakes in UK forests (I don't mean the fencing kind).
In essence the forest owner ties up his money for decades, but the added value is mostly after it has left his gate.
So, we have the scenario recently where ships in Swansea dock have offloaded timber shipped form Russia. It was economic to do this rather than fell similar timber in the hills of the South Wales valleys.
So yes UK forestry does require grants and aid.

In reply to llechwedd:

From my memories of the case that wasn't likely to happen

In reply to Doug:

Thanks for that, I hadn't realised what the conservation bodies were up against. Fisons, the then owner, were making an annual profit of £3.8 million on a £47 million turnover. Obviously they weren't going to give up without a fight.

10 years down the line though:
http://www.amateurgardening.com/home/will-uk-peat-ban-damage-the-environmen...