UKC

I'm sure its been touched upon and discussed on here, but I'm just reading it. I find it very convincing. His take on the desert that is Mid Wales, and the consequences to Scotland's scenery by the interests of a small number of rich folk,shooting deer.

In reply to Phil1919:

It's certainly worth a read, and has some very good points, but I do find him a bit one sided.

For instance he claims that there aren't any birds in this "Welsh desert", whilst I'm finding clouds of Meadow Pipits everywhere at the moment, and can think of some broadleaf woodland areas that have very few birds so it's not as clear cut as he makes out.

It would be nice to have more of a mosaic of habitats though, with some rewilding of areas that have minimal farming or conservation value.

There may, though, already be a move towards this in places with some farmers starting to move back towards coppicing alder in wet valley areas for biofuel.

In reply to Phil1919:

Haven't read it, but isn't it the desert that is the British uplands (not just mid Wales)?

In reply to felt:

Yes, but he uses the hills in Wales as he knows them so well. Most of Yorkshire Dales are similar and the list goes on.....

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

Well I'm sure there are some birds there, but yes, he does have a point. Yes, you stumble across biodiversity every now and again. I recently toured Trawsfynydd nuclear power station (as was). The vegetation around that is astounding as the sheep have been kept away for so long. Just makes you think what the Rhinogs could be like.

In reply to Phil1919:

Why is biodiversity seen as such a good thing?

There are huge natural areas of the earth with absolutely NO bio diversity. It might just be natural in some places and/or at certain times in our history.

In reply to Phil1919:

There are, or used to be, a few exclusion plots here and there. One near the Aber Falls, one in Cwm Idwal and one on Ben Lawers. The difference between what's in them and what's outside them is marked and shows how much could be achieved if we did away with all the bigger mammals.

In reply to Dave Perry:

where ?

In reply to Doug:

The sand desserts. Sand, drought tolerant plants. Nothing else for hundreds of miles.
Arctic Tundra. Miles of - well, arctic tundra

And closer to home, once our land was reforested following the last ice age it was almost certainly all forest as that is the climax vegetation in the UK for the majority of the land and soil profiles.

In reply to Dave Perry:

I can speak for myself, in that I far prefer a walk in a mixed deciduous woodland rather than in a monoculture of say spruce, for example. The first lifts my spirits. The second deadens them. You may be different.

I would have to let a scientist convince you of the deeper importance of biodiversity. There is plenty to read on it. As to the natural occurrence of 'no biodiversity', you may be right, but that's not what has happened in most of the UKs uplands.

I guess if you go out into space you may find no biodiversity, which just makes me think how magical are planet is and how much better it could be.

In reply to Dave Perry:
deserts & arctic tundra are part of the Earth's biodiversity, both have a range of plants, together with fungi & fauna. What more does it need for you to consider it to have biodiversity ? As for the UK, it may have been altered but it still has biodiversity, even built up urban areas have trees, mosses, lichens, birds, fungi, insects etc.

In reply to Phil1919:
I suppose what I'm (slightly) cynical about is the collective view that; Biodiversity = something good.
Nature or natural evolution doesn't care much. After all biodiversity is simply a human description of something humans appreciate but the countless organisms living our planet do not.

The description of outer space is a good one yet it is something many humans appreciate and value.
Same with geology really. Some folk like, gold, others metals. Some just like coal. I just like looking at rocks and touching them.

There are vast areas of our uplands which are as Mr Monbiot suggests largely desert is rather skewed. I've recently come back from a long paddling trip through Northern Canada's boreal forest. The part I paddled through, the Missinaibi R. is pretty much as nature left it.

I listed Bald Eagle, three species of duck, two different divers, three finches and so on. In total of about 14 bird species.
There were about 4 species of fish in the river where I paddled. There are at least 12 in our local rivers!. Flowering plants were few and far between as its mostly forest. But its natural and Yorkshire isn't.

My average count when I do my twice annual bird survey on our dessert which is the North York Moors normally includes:-

Meadow Pipit, grouse, skylark, curlew, carrion crow, wheater Pied wagtail, stonechat, wood pidgeon, reed buntin,swallow, snipe, black headed gull and so on. But certainly more species than I counted in the boreal forests which are natural. And of course our moorlands are entirely man made.

I suppose you could ask yourselves the value of one rhino, one zebra and one elephant grazing on grassland over say, three bison grazing over the same amount of grassland. There are clearly more species grazing the plains of africa than there are or were, the plains of North America. Does that follow that African biodiversity on the plains is more valuable than North American biodiversity on the plains.

Likewise, the boreal forests of europe and canada have far, far fewer species of trees (less than 20) than the rain forests of south america and asia (greater than 1000 tree species).

Keep us, man from interfering in our countryside and it will all eventually become trees. No more skylarks, partridges, snipe, grouse, curlew, dunlin, rooks, pidgeons, linnets, goldfinches and so on. This is the natural succession and order of things. They'll all die out as their life cycle depends on open lands. Of course the number of woodland specialists will increase but we already probably have our full species count of woodland birds. Species numbers won't increase, simply the total number of less species.

More species doesn't mean better. Just different.

In reply to Dave Perry:

I think you are just putting a different slant on it which is fine. I've been across the salt flats of the Salar de Uyuni, and travelled the Atacama. There is very little there. We didn't see an insect in 3 weeks. But that doesn't say much about biodiversity, just the conditions. You value biodiversity by the way you count the birds on the moorland. Biodiversity includes flora as well of course. Personally I think there is too much moorland in most of our uplands and not enough trees. Its complicated but he has many good points.....in my opinion.

In reply to felt:

"how much could be achieved if we did away with all the bigger mammals"

....yes......but......part of Monbiot's point is that we should really have Forest Elephant and wild oxen (Aurocs) roaming the country and that our ecosystem isn't natural without them.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

Nor is our eco system natural without humans hunting animals.

In reply to Dave Perry:

But we are too good at it, so he is saying we should reign ourselves in for our own benefit. What is unnatural about that.