UKC

Well done the NT, at last standing up to grouse shooters

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 RyanOsborne 11 Jun 2016
I can't seem to comment on the UKH thread / news (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=643475) so thought this deserved its own thread on UKC.

Great to see the NT standing up to the grouse shooting fraternity and their raptor persecuting ways. Hopefully if vicarious liability is introduced in England and Wales, and more landowners follow the NT's example of dealing with errant tenants, our wildlife will stand a better chance of thriving in our uplands. Of course, the best outcome would be the ban of driven grouse hunting (see petition here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/125003 ) but that might be too much to hope for.

Mark Avery's blog ( http://markavery.info/blog/ ) has some good background info, as does raptor persecution ( https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/ ).
1
 marsbar 11 Jun 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:
I posted and deleted a test message on the other thread, maybe try again?

Please would you mind explaining the issue in simple terms, what is a raptor, and is it ok to shoot grouse but not raptors? Sorry if I am being dim, but I don't really understand what is going on.

Edit

So I looked it up, is raptor another word for birds of prey?
Post edited at 10:41
 Ridge 11 Jun 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> So I looked it up, is raptor another word for birds of prey?

Yes. Mysteriously shot and poisoned by persons unknown who have absolutely nothing to do with the landowner, but seem to be able to move about estates crawling with gamekeepers whilst remaining completely invisible...
1
KevinD 11 Jun 2016
In reply to marsbar:
What is happening is many birds of prey, and other animals, have a habit of mysteriously dying or disappearing near grouse moors. Hen Harriers have a particularly hard time with their numbers way below what would be a sustainable population.
In this particular case someone was photographed, from a considerable distance, with a gun next to a decoy which looked like a hen harrier. It got lots of attention and the excuses being made by the various apologists werent overly convincing. Looks like the explanation given in private to the NT wasnt any better.
Raptors are protected species and so cannot be killed without a specific licence. Grouse can be shot inside a specific season. Although in theory wild animals (unlike pheasants currently they cant be bred enmass in farms before being released) the gamekeepers spend a lot of time and effort medicating them, altering habitats etc in order to get the largest number for the shooters.

Its a good decision by the NT. Whilst doesnt go as far as many would like its a good start.
Post edited at 11:16
1
 marsbar 11 Jun 2016
In reply to Ridge:

So what happens, people want to pay money to shoot grouse, so birds of prey that like to eat grouse are targets.

Follow the money. I should have known.

Why can't people just shoot clay pigeons, or play golf or something if they must?!
1
KevinD 11 Jun 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> So what happens, people want to pay money to shoot grouse, so birds of prey that like to eat grouse are targets.

The "like to eat grouse" is kinda optional. Looking at a grouse the wrong way is enough.
Not just birds of prey either eg mountain hares get shot because they could pass a specific illness/parasite to the grouse. So bang.
Its not dissimilar to red deer shooting. There are sustainable ways to allow for hunting which wouldnt impact other species as much. However those options require a lot more time, skill, patience and a good chance of going home empty handed.

1
 Bimble 11 Jun 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:
I take it the NT will undertake the same level of predator/vermin control (foxes, rats, stoats, weasels) that enables keepered moors to support large populations of lapwing, curlew and golden plover as well as grouse?

Using Mark Avery as a source doesn't make it too balanced an argument either, the man is a swivel-eyed AR loon who is against all fieldsports just because it suits his agenda, no matter the conservation benefits that said fieldsports provide.

And no, I don't support raptor persecution, and anyone doing so needs to be dealt with severely.
Post edited at 15:24
18
 Big Ger 12 Jun 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> Why can't people just shoot clay pigeons, or play golf or something if they must?!

Have you tasted clay pigeons? They're a bit tough.
In reply to KevinD:
> eg mountain hares get shot because they could pass a specific illness/parasite to the grouse. So bang.

And because hares provide alternative prey for raptors, therefore 'supporting' the raptor population (that might prey on the grouse).

So you kill hares by the truckload* to kill the raptors. Scorched earth policy, essentally.

* e.g. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cairngorm+hare+hunting&oq=cairngorm+hare+...
Post edited at 02:22
 thomasadixon 12 Jun 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

Great story and result.
 Bimble 12 Jun 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Have you tasted clay pigeons? They're a bit tough.

And clay pigeons don't bring millions of pounds into local economies that then support not only conservation and habitat management on moors, but also keep small rural communities going.
25
 Doug 12 Jun 2016
In reply to Bimble:

any support to conservation from grouse moor management is more or less an accidental side effect although its played up for PR purposes.
KevinD 12 Jun 2016
In reply to Bimble:

> I take it the NT will undertake the same level of predator/vermin control (foxes, rats, stoats, weasels) that enables keepered moors to support large populations of lapwing, curlew and golden plover as well as grouse?

The NT does manage several areas for the benefits of various birds, alongside the RSPB etc. They have the advantage of doing it specifically for that purpose as opposed to a side effect of maintaining abnormally high levels of one bird. As such they dont do such things as uncontrolled medication or indeed lobbing large amounts of lead all over the area. Has the added bonus that they wont be massacred if the keepers decide that they are a threat to the crop either.

> Using Mark Avery as a source doesn't make it too balanced an argument either, the man is a swivel-eyed AR loon who is against all fieldsports just because it suits his agenda

Lets see what he says on the subject shall we?
http://markavery.info/2014/07/09/shooting-good-wildlife/

Doesnt quite match your claims does it? Anyone with an actual clue would know he is more about conservation and not animal rights as such.

> And no, I don't support raptor persecution, and anyone doing so needs to be dealt with severely.

Of course, of course.
2
 wintertree 12 Jun 2016
In reply to Bimble:

> And clay pigeons don't bring millions of pounds into local economies that then support not only conservation and habitat management on moors, but also keep small rural communities going.

When you see the 50 domestic staff bussed in from the south to a mansion near us, then the two very big helicopters carrying the Sheiks in the next week for a week of shooting, you get some idea of just how much money grouse hunting brings in to the UK.

Most of it however would seem to go to the landowner and domestic staff, none of whom exist within or interact significantly with the local economy. Perhaps an estate manager and a couple of gamekeepers remain all year round.

No idea how else to generate a profit and an income for the local community from upland moors whilst retaining the essence of the moorland, let alone whilst encouraging more biodiversity.

The only workable plan I can imagine is for a charitable "Moorland Trust" to be formed, akin to the Woodland Trust. Would many of those who feel strongly about the issue donate to purchase land and provide local employment? The NT appear to need to generate income from their moorland and chat subsidise it from charitable donations. The woodland trusts model is focused on public engagement, and this relies on woods close to population centres, which much moorland is not. You also remove the injection of foreign cash to the national economy.

No obvious solution.
Post edited at 11:13
 climbwhenready 12 Jun 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> What is happening is many birds of prey, and other animals, have a habit of mysteriously dying or disappearing near grouse moors.

The grouse are attacking them, obviously.

Offence is the best defence and all that.
 marsbar 12 Jun 2016
In reply to Bimble:

Killing hares and Hawks is habitat management?
 Bimble 12 Jun 2016
In reply to marsbar:

Killing raptors obviously isn't, but I've no problem with shooting hares if there's a sustainable amount of them to do so. I leave them alone on the land I manage as there's not many of them and I think they are lovely creatures to have around, but there'd be even less if I didn't keep on top of the foxes quite so efficiently.
11
 Robert Durran 12 Jun 2016
In reply to Bimble:
> ........... hares.......... are lovely creatures to have around, but there'd be even less if I didn't keep on top of the foxes quite so efficiently.

Foxes are lovely creatures too.
Post edited at 17:42
3
 marsbar 12 Jun 2016
In reply to Bimble:

Do you eat what you kill?
 Bimble 12 Jun 2016
In reply to KevinD:

Using a Countryfile poll to gauge opinion is somewhat ridiculous when I know of nobody in the countryside who actually watches it. It's sanitised entertainment for townies and nothing less.

As someone who manages vermin over what is admittedly a smaller area than a grouse moor (150 acres) and who will be keepering a small shoot on there next season, I can see each day the benefits of wildlife management. Don't control foxes? No leveretts, ground nesting birds or landowner's chickens. Don't control corvids or squirrels? There goes the songbirds.
17
 Bimble 12 Jun 2016
In reply to marsbar:

With the exemption of foxes and rats, yes, I do.
 marsbar 12 Jun 2016
In reply to Bimble:

Fair enough. I'm not opposed to land management in a sensible way, but I also don't think money should be allowed to override common sense or conservation.
 Robert Durran 12 Jun 2016
In reply to Bimble:

> As someone who manages vermin.......

How do you define vermin? A predator species which can be sustainably killed to protect other species?
1
 Bimble 12 Jun 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

In my case, species that happen to predate upon other animals on that land whose existence is more necessary than that of the vermin. Lambing is a much better prospect if you've not got a hungry vixen with an even more hungry litter, waiting to pick off any newborns.

Nobody can sanely argue that the countryside is self-maintaining or ever will be, that's a fallacy. There'll always be those who say that maintaining habitats to rear and then shoot gamebirds is somehow immoral or wrong, but I'd love to see what they do for the countryside in comparison; how many wild birds their feeders help maintain over winter, or how much new habitat their cover crops provide.
7
KevinD 12 Jun 2016
In reply to Bimble:

> Using a Countryfile poll to gauge opinion is somewhat ridiculous when I know of nobody in the countryside who actually watches it.

Apart from he doesnt do that. He uses it as a starting point for discussing his own thoughts.
I love though how you focus on that rather than the fact his position is considerably more nuanced than the one you claimed he had. I take it you cant admit you were talking shite and trying to smear him?

> As someone who manages vermin over what is admittedly a smaller area than a grouse moor (150 acres) and who will be keepering a small shoot on there next season,

pheasant?

> I can see each day the benefits of wildlife management. Don't control foxes? No leveretts, ground nesting birds or landowner's chickens. Don't control corvids or squirrels? There goes the songbirds.

Weird. I went for a ride through the local woods earlier (mix of Wildlife trust land and unmanaged land) and there was plenty of wildlife. Not a single gamekeeper in sight.
Admittedly some other areas were a bit quiet but my moneys on the monoculture crops being the blame and not the gangs of corvids etc.
 Robert Durran 12 Jun 2016
In reply to Bimble:

> Nobody can sanely argue that the countryside is self-maintaining or ever will be, that's a fallacy. There'll always be those who say that maintaining habitats to rear and then shoot gamebirds is somehow immoral or wrong, but I'd love to see what they do for the countryside in comparison.

I am sure the issue is far from black and white, but I'm just as sure that's it's reasonable that the views of those whose main concern is to maintain artificially large populations of a single species for shooting should be treated with suspicion.



In reply to Bimble:

You could argue that any money brought in is ridiculously small compared with the cost of flooding that grouse moors seem to contribute to - recent flooding in the Calder Valley being an example.
In reply to Bimble:

> I've no problem with shooting hares if there's a sustainable amount of them to do so

Jugged hare anyone?

https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/more-mountain-ha...

I'm sure that truckload was a sustainable kill, rather than an extermination.
In reply to Bimble:

> Nobody can sanely argue that the countryside is self-maintaining or ever will be, that's a fallacy.

The countryside is self-maintaing. It's been doing its thing for a couple of billion years before humans turned up.

What you mean is that an anthropocenric countryside isn't self-maintaining, and needs man's input to make it look like man wants it to look. Depending on which man you ask, of course...
1
In reply to RyanOsborne:

You always forget how much country people hate animals, don't you?

jcm
3
KevinD 12 Jun 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> You always forget how much country people hate animals, don't you?

Thats a bit unfair. There are plenty who do like animals. Its just that there are some who do seem to feel that any animals which get in the way of breeding up some living targets should be killed.

 Pekkie 13 Jun 2016
In reply to Bimble:

>> Nobody can sanely argue that the countryside is self-maintaining or ever will be, that's a fallacy.

What happened in Britain before our hunter-gatherer forebears arrived 10,000 years ago? Put a fence around any
piece of land and it will regenerate naturally - just visit one of the areas in Scotland, Snowdonia etc where this has been done. What you are really saying is that land used for human activity - sheep farming, grouse shooting etc - can't be self-maintaining because that human activity has upset the natural balance.
OP RyanOsborne 13 Jun 2016
In reply to Bimble:

> I take it the NT will undertake the same level of predator/vermin control (foxes, rats, stoats, weasels) that enables keepered moors to support large populations of lapwing, curlew and golden plover as well as grouse?

Yeah right. Like game keepers are trying to create an environment for lapwing, curlew and golden plover. That's just an accidental side effect of trying to create a grouse mono-culture, and you know it. And why do game keepers get to choose which animals are allowed to survive in our uplands and which ones aren't?

> Using Mark Avery as a source doesn't make it too balanced an argument either, the man is a swivel-eyed AR loon who is against all fieldsports just because it suits his agenda, no matter the conservation benefits that said fieldsports provide.

He's stated numerous times that he isn't against all shooting, and as the former conservation director at the RSPB, he's probably in the top 10 best qualified people in the UK to discuss the impact of upland habitat management on birds.

> And no, I don't support raptor persecution, and anyone doing so needs to be dealt with severely.

Glad to hear it, do you support vicarious liability?
OP RyanOsborne 13 Jun 2016
In reply to Bimble:

> bring millions of pounds into local economies

Who cares? If exterminating hen harriers to the point of extinction brought in millions of pounds, billions of pounds or an infinite supply of money, why does it matter? It's still not acceptable for gamekeepers to drive an animal to extinction in our country for the sake of any amount of money. If people can't live in an area of the country without destroying the wild animals that live there then people shouldn't live there.
1
OP RyanOsborne 13 Jun 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> You always forget how much country people hate animals, don't you?

I think the vast, vast majority of people who live in the countryside love wildlife, most of the people I know certainly do. But you get the odd vociferous nut-job game keeper or farmer who thinks that 'the animals in the countryside wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the conservation work I do by killing all the hen harriers, foxes, stoats, weasels, badgers, etc'.
 Doug 13 Jun 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

Sounds a bit like some French foresters who seem to believe that if they don't fell & replant, the forest will disappear - I've heard this from someone quite senior in ONF (French equivalent of the Forestry Commission) while talking to a group of international forestry students (they demolished his arguments without any prompting from me
pasbury 13 Jun 2016
In reply to wintertree:

> When you see the 50 domestic staff bussed in from the south to a mansion near us, then the two very big helicopters carrying the Sheiks in the next week for a week of shooting, you get some idea of just how much money grouse hunting brings in to the UK.

I thought it was only profitable because of the various subsidies received by virtue of owning the land and various other tax breaks?
 wintertree 13 Jun 2016
In reply to pasbury:

> I thought it was only profitable because of the various subsidies received by virtue of owning the land and various other tax breaks?

The main subsidy is about a 1% ROI on the value of the land. At that rate you'd be better off selling it and investing the cash in almost anything.

I'vw never seen a detailed breakdown of a business model for a grouse estate. Those black helicopters didn't look cheap however...

 Pekkie 13 Jun 2016
In reply to wintertree:

No one's mentioned the effect of upland monoculture with no trees - sheep farming & grouse shooting - on flooding on lower lands which costs billions and lots of heartache to the people flooded out. A robust cost-benefit analysis wouldn't show grouse shooting as being profitable at all - and sheep farming isn't profitable anyway.
KevinD 13 Jun 2016
In reply to Pekkie:

Graeme Alderson mentioned it. Whilst I don't think the evidence is clear yet it definitely deserves some research time.
 galpinos 13 Jun 2016
In reply to Pekkie:

Bring back wolves.....

vimeo.com/86466357
 petellis 13 Jun 2016
In reply to Pekkie:

> >> Nobody can sanely argue that the countryside is self-maintaining or ever will be, that's a fallacy.

> What happened in Britain before our hunter-gatherer forebears arrived 10,000 years ago? Put a fence around any

> piece of land and it will regenerate naturally - just visit one of the areas in Scotland, Snowdonia etc where this has been done.

Where are these places in snowdonia?

I'm fascinated as to how places like the lakes and the moors of the dark peak would actually look with out the overgrazing and grouse shooting. I know the end result would probably we well forested, but we don't have the full ecosystem because we don't have all the grazing or predator species that would have existed 10000 years ago so the constantly evolving landscape that went with them wouldn't form.

Where would the treeline be in the lakes for example?

In the case of climbing on the moors of the peak the crags would become shaded by trees fairly fast. (On that note does anybody know why they planted trees underneath Stanage?)
 petellis 13 Jun 2016
In reply to Pekkie:

> No one's mentioned the effect of upland monoculture with no trees - sheep farming & grouse shooting - on flooding on lower lands which costs billions and lots of heartache to the people flooded out. A robust cost-benefit analysis wouldn't show grouse shooting as being profitable at all - and sheep farming isn't profitable anyway.

Yeah - but 24% of the population voted Tory so its unlikely we will see much done to change that (in fact they seem to be currently reversing some of the previous measures to limit upland drainage).

From what I have seen some of the national parks seem to have decided on an imaginary date in the past and they are attempting to freeze-frame the landscape at that point. I love the flowery meadows in the Dales for example, but it is still freeze framing on an (admittedly nice looking) landscape.
 wintertree 13 Jun 2016
In reply to Pekkie:

> No one's mentioned the effect of upland monoculture with no trees - sheep farming & grouse shooting - on flooding on lower lands which costs billions and lots of heartache to the people flooded out. A robust cost-benefit analysis wouldn't show grouse shooting as being profitable at all - and sheep farming isn't profitable anyway.

I don't think the evidence is as strong as you think when it comes to forest vs heather moorland for flooding. I'd like to see a significant fraction of our upland moors return to a more "native" medium-low density broad-leaved forest. Who is going to pay for it? Are you going to confiscate land off the owners, or are insurance firms and the government going to buy it up to reduce their flood liabilities?

> A robust cost-benefit analysis wouldn't show grouse shooting as being profitable at all - and sheep farming isn't profitable anyway.

Well that depends on how you pick and choose what to include in the analysis. One might equally consider a financial case where developers aren't allowed to compound flooding problems by building unsuitably on large quantities of valley side land above ill thought out valley bottom settlements, and where the money raised by moorland usage goes in to more water retention / flood alleviation schemes.

Like I say, I'd love to see some proper, extensive forests grown for future generations, that are not extensively managed or monocultures, with just a subset of moorland kept. Something has to fund it however, unless we just start confiscating land for the greater good.
OP RyanOsborne 13 Jun 2016
In reply to wintertree:

> I don't think the evidence is as strong as you think when it comes to forest vs heather moorland for flooding. I'd like to see a significant fraction of our upland moors return to a more "native" medium-low density broad-leaved forest. Who is going to pay for it?

I think water boards are probably our best bet. United Utilities seem to be becoming quite aware of the problems (both flooding and contamination) of altering the landscape for a grouse mono-culture, and they own quite large areas of upland.

In terms of the grouse moors which are owned by the super rich elite individuals, I doubt there's much hope at the moment, particularly given the current government / media.

KevinD 13 Jun 2016
In reply to wintertree:

> Are you going to confiscate land off the owners, or are insurance firms and the government going to buy it up to reduce their flood liabilities?

The government already pays substantial amount for substandard land management.
With regards to the insurance companies. I dont see why they should pick up the bill. Surely it would be better instead for them to be allowed to hold those whose action damage their clients accountable.

> Well that depends on how you pick and choose what to include in the analysis. One might equally consider a financial case where developers aren't allowed to compound flooding problems by building unsuitably on large quantities of valley side land above ill thought out valley bottom settlements

Yes they should be held accountable and given the bill for the damage caused.


 Pekkie 13 Jun 2016
In reply to petellis:
> Where are these places in snowdonia?

>Here's a place that was a former army firing range that was fenced off from sheep and left to go wild because of unexploded ordnance (I wouldn't recommend skipping over the fence for a look!) It demonstrates that if you put up a sheep-proof fence around virtually any upland area, in thirty years you have a woodland with a wide diversity of species. There should be more projects like this. Obviously not turfing farmers out but on a voluntary basis.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/magnificent-woodland-emerges-for...
Post edited at 15:13
 Mike Peacock 13 Jun 2016
In reply to petellis:

> Where are these places in snowdonia?

The obvious small ones are in Cwm Idwal:
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1035051
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1035101
 petellis 13 Jun 2016
In reply to Pekkie:

Thanks.

Its great the trees are growing back and it is as expected (look at the beautiful birch forest at the far end of lawrencefield for example, or the way the NT can't stop the birch invading the moorland around Brimham).

But zero grazing is as much a managed landscape as over grazing. Of course that might be getting hung up on a technicality but it will have an impact.

I'd imagine that reforestation of the uplands would have a significant impact on the way that they were used for leisure because at the moment you can see a long way. The Peak isn't that high for example, I wonder if parts of it wouldn't start to feel like Fontainbleau if it were allowed to grow into mature oak (although the forests of Font are also heavily managed of course!). I don't necessarily see any of that as a bad thing though.

Imagine the weight of timber if the whole of the dark peak and yorkshire moors became a forest - talk about carbon sequestration....
pasbury 13 Jun 2016
In reply to galpinos:

> Bring back wolves.....


they can eat the shooters
 toad 13 Jun 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

I think it's probably an oversimplification to look at any rewilding as either open moorland or some sort of high forest. A lot of the work on restoring uplands degraded by management for grouse is about restoring wetlands and peat degraded by gripping, grazing, burning and industrial pollution - it's unlikely that woodland would be appearing any time soon, although hopfully we would see more trees and woody species in the mix. More likely would be a wetland mosaic with some birch/ willow scrub together with areas of shallow ephemeral open water - wildlife rich, and probably just as visually appealing (I may be biased on that point, I like bogs)

We probably need to be careful of building it up as some sort of silver bullet for flooding, a good, wet healthy bog doesn't have that much flood storage capacity, although more woodland on the lower slopes should have an impact on flash flooding in the downhill communities.
 wintertree 13 Jun 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> The government already pays substantial amount for substandard land management.

A low ROI to the land value however, so the land does not represent a good investment. My point is simply that the subsidy alone is not a means to profit.

> With regards to the insurance companies. I dont see why they should pick up the bill.

If the costs of flooding are as directly linked to moorland management as you say, it would be sound business sense. There's approx one million acres of moorland in England, valued generously at say £4K per acre. Total cost to purchase £4Bn or a couple of years of flood payouts. Perhaps the insurers are not fooled as they know the flooding situation isn't so simple, especially lately where heavy prolonged rain saturates all land based storage for weeks at a time to the point where the water flow is steady state and land use doesn't matter...

> Surely it would be better instead for them to be allowed to hold those whose action damage their clients accountable.

I'd like to see a law firm who can link moorland management at an estate level to urban flood damage in a legally and technically sound way. I'd rather see them or to work on air pollution if such a firm ever existed...
 toad 13 Jun 2016
In reply to wintertree:

as an aside, historic air pollution is one of the myriad confounding factors in why the Peak moorland (in particular) looks like it does, and why there isn't a straightforward route to revegetating - very historic 19thc. industrial pollution, and more contemporary acidification from coal burning power stations and similar. We were well on the way to deforesting similar habitats in NW Europe through acid rain at one point last century.
KevinD 13 Jun 2016
In reply to wintertree:
> A low ROI to the land value however, so the land does not represent a good investment. My point is simply that the subsidy alone is not a means to profit.

It helps though and does beg the question what is the taxpayer getting in return.

> If the costs of flooding are as directly linked to moorland management as you say

Actually I didnt say that but lets not let minor details get in the way.

> it would be sound business sense.

Not really no. It would require some long term thinking and some poentially legally dubious collaboration. Otherwise company a would take the hit and company b through to e take the customers by offering lower premiums.

> Perhaps the insurers are not fooled as they know the flooding situation isn't so simple, especially lately where heavy prolonged rain saturates all land based storage for weeks at a time to the point where the water flow is steady state and land use doesn't matter...

I dont believe anyone has said it is that simple. To reiterate though there is evidence indicating it doesnt help and that is worth investigating further. If is is found to contribute to certain types of flooding then I dont think it is unreasonable to regulate and, if necessary fine, those responsible for their impact on others.

> I'd like to see a law firm who can link moorland management at an estate level to urban flood damage in a legally and technically sound way. I'd rather see them or to work on air pollution if such a firm ever existed...

Look over the pond to the USA where things may get rather interesting for VW and other car companies for their imaginative approach to pollution standards.
Post edited at 18:16
In reply to Pekkie:

In the UK, there's a well-established sequence of (post-glacial) natural reforestation, with pioneering, fast-growing, short-lived species such as birch, aspen and hazel, then supplanted by the slower-growing, taller and longer-lived beech and oak.

This can be determined by pollen analysis.

It was thought that pre-Neolithic Britain was covered with an almost entire forest, but more recent research suggests this was not the case, and areas of natural heathland existed, depending (not unexpectedly) on the bedrock and soil geology.
 wintertree 13 Jun 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Actually I didnt say that but lets not let minor details get in the way.

Sorry; I should have said "as you seem to be strongly intimating".

Clearly my insurance example is naive but the cost of the moorland pales into insignificance compared to the long term costs of floods. Perhaps it's all a sinister grouse shooting cabal.

> If is is found to contribute to certain types of flooding then I dont think it is unreasonable to regulate and, if necessary fine, those responsible for their impact on others.

Paragraphs before you were suggesting it would be almost impossible for insurance firms to attribute reduced liability to better land management, yet you think the exact same approach can be done with increased liability from poor land management. You can't have it both ways...

Mire generally identifying a source of harm that is causally difficult to connect from individuals at one end to type other and fining people is a vert worrying legal precident. You cite VW in the states; however it is not the harm they caused that is leading to potential legal actions, but their blatant violation of laws in doing so.

KevinD 13 Jun 2016
In reply to wintertree:

> Sorry; I should have said "as you seem to be strongly intimating".

Actually I clearly stated more research would be needed.

> Clearly my insurance example is naive

To put it politely.

> but the cost of the moorland pales into insignificance compared to the long term costs of floods. Perhaps it's all a sinister grouse shooting cabal.

yawn. I know you dont have an argument worth a damn but you could try a bit.

> Paragraphs before you were suggesting it would be almost impossible for insurance firms to attribute reduced liability to better land management, yet you think the exact same approach can be done with increased liability from poor land management. You can't have it both ways...

Are you taking the piss or can you honestly not spot the difference? Hint one costs the insurance company and their customers lots and needs either a joint industry response or some companies having a serious competitive disadvantage whilst the others take advantage of their actions. The other results in those responsible dealing with it.

> Mire generally identifying a source of harm that is causally difficult to connect from individuals at one end to type other and fining people is a vert worrying legal precident.

lucky I didnt say that then did I. You seem to be valiantly swinging against a strawman and, rather entertaining, being beaten even by that.
To make it simple for you and to save you making random shit up and claiming its my position.
I think more research should be done into whether the landmanagement (not just grouse moors but developers and choice of farm crops) does increase the risk of flooding.
I think in those cases where it is found to be the case there should be laws passed to limit the damage and if necessary recover the costs.

I dont think that the taxpayer or insurance customer should pick up the costs of someones elses poor decisions.
 wintertree 13 Jun 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Are you taking the piss or can you honestly not spot the difference? Hint one costs the insurance company and their customers lots

Not if it saves more than the payouts due to prevented flood damage - the point seems to have sailed over your head. The land is cheap, flooding expensive

> and needs either a joint industry response or some companies having a serious competitive disadvantage whilst the others take advantage of their actions. The other results in those responsible dealing with it

I'm not taking the piss. Either there is a traceable financial link from moorland management to actual flood damage. If you can say with authority who is responsible to fine them fairly then you're smarter than anyone else around here.

Please excuse me if I've been arguing a straw man but that's the best I could interpret from your comments about fining those responsible, I was trying to interpret that into something realisable.

> I think in those cases where it is found to be the case there should be laws passed to limit the damage and if necessary recover the costs.

Now you've stated something clear; I agree with that. Well, being perhaps more realistic I'd pass laws based on research to improve land management and fine for non compliance with those laws, rather than fine for recovering costs of flooding, because I do think it's very hard to legally link actions on moorland to flood costs in a specific, case by case basis, and your rampant disparaging of my clearly naive insurance model concours. Also why only punish those whose illegal action happens to be caught in a flood and not those for whom it hasn't happened, yet.
Post edited at 19:23
OP RyanOsborne 14 Jun 2016
In reply to wintertree:

> Clearly my insurance example is naive but the cost of the moorland pales into insignificance compared to the long term costs of floods. Perhaps it's all a sinister grouse shooting cabal.

I don't think it's naive. I'm sure I read somewhere that some of the insurance companies were looking into it. Not necessarily buying up all the moorland in the UK, obviously, but buying strategic strips up hill of vulnerable towns, that could be forested. Not sure any went through with it. But regardless of their direct action, they could lobby the government to change the policy / subsidy situation.
KevinD 14 Jun 2016
In reply to wintertree:

> Not if it saves more than the payouts due to prevented flood damage - the point seems to have sailed over your head.

No it really didnt, I pointed out several flaws which you even responded to. So I have no idea why you then jump back five steps. I will leave you to it since clearly not going to get anywhere sensible.
 wintertree 14 Jun 2016
In reply to KevinD:

Well unit you can demonstrate a legally sound way to link flood damages to individual properties to the actions of specific landowners so that you can fine those responsible, I'm all ears. You can sidetrack by arguing with my token insurance counterpoint but that doesn't solve anything.

As I said, you can have an evidence based set of laws on land management and fine for non compliance with those. However the idea of fining moorland owners because an urban area in a flood prone area floods is risible, when at best you have some general research not specific to the geography of that area, that current moorland management is a contributing factor to the floods.

As I've also said before, "steady state" heavy rain upon fully saturated ground appears to be a rising cause of the worst recent floods and is a whole other class of problem.
Post edited at 12:12
 petellis 14 Jun 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:

> In the UK, there's a well-established sequence of (post-glacial) natural reforestation, with pioneering, fast-growing, short-lived species such as birch, aspen and hazel, then supplanted by the slower-growing, taller and longer-lived beech and oak

Yes, and we can see this happening before our eyes in many places. But in many areas the model of a "climax ecosystem" is a bit more sophisticated than that. The interaction with grazing animals meant there was something like a 500 year cycle from grassland clearing to shrubs and a series of trees and back to woodland in a constantly moving landscape. The model of it growing into an oak forest and stopping is outdated and never made sense. We don't have the full range of grazing animals and predators which means we can't properly recreate this.

Its amazing how long seeds must survive in the ground waiting for an opportunity to grow. I was told recently about a site in Hertfordshire where there hasn't been heather growing for 500 years, but given the opportunity when the land management changed and up it sprouted.
In reply to petellis:

> But in many areas the model of a "climax ecosystem" is a bit more sophisticated than that.

Indeed. I wasn't trying to present a sophisticated model in one sentence, but merely to hint at the basic concept...

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