UKC

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/30/johnson-pledges-envir...

who's up for booting all the fcking sheep out of our national parks?

Rewilding the lake’s what?

Yes, bring back wolves, bears and lions. That should sort out the fly campers.

Greengrocers, possibly.  

T.

FTFY Greengrocer's

Is it just me or is the Greengrocers' apostrophe becoming more and more common? I see it everywhere now.

It's the new fly camping.  Ambleside was knee-deep in them when I was last there.

T.

Savage V. Diffs

Thread juxto!!

Rewilding the lakes...

While deer stalking?

Come on folks, who’s going to be the first to suss it?

If you're really bothered about rewilding, boot out the sheep and immediately after, the humans.

Do you mean the wenkers in Arcteryx gear that log onto your heels in the clag, thinking that you know where you’re going? I’ve taken some on some long detours.

I change the long passwords on my heels frequently - that helps, as well as taking sudden detours on to very steep precarious hillsides that I already know well - that prevents too many from logging on

The Lakes was originally tree covered up to about the 2500ft contour. Kicking out the sheep would go a long way to re establishing that. 

It would be great to fence off a large area, say the north western fells between Honister Pass and Newlands Hause to keep the sheep off. Start with either some small native plantations or just allow self seeding to take place and watch what happens. 

But more generally the lakes are an ecological desert, fewer sheep would be better.

The views would be a bit shit though...

Greatly reducing the number of sheep would definitely be a good start to conservation in the Lakes. But... apparently ecological destruction is part of the "intrinsic character" of the Lakes - a "cultural heritage" that needs to protected at all costs...

Sigh.

I know a few farmers who have had their hill farms purchased by United Utilities, I think something to do with preserving run-off water quality. These areas seem like an obvious choice to begin planting, but I’m not sure if that’s the plan.

So would you boot out all the farmers as well?

Just wondering what plans you have in place for preserving the traditional way of life. Perhaps you'd rather just clear them off the land?

Rewinding sounds great but generally when I ask no one ever has a credible plan for preserving the existing community and the rural economy. I'd be delighted to see a properly coated scheme rather than a romantic aspiration buttressed with a few suggestions which don't withstand much scrutiny.

I'm all for preserving the traditional way of hill farming life but I massively resent having to pay for it. It's a fact that hill farming is an uneconomic industry that requires taxpayers support to continue by way of subsidy. This means that we're all paying to keep the hills as wildlife free as possible.

The country is broke and we can't afford it, sorry Eric. 

isn't that the same as the oil workers? nobody is going to miss oil extraction but at present it employs 10's of thousands of workers in the UK. The world is changing and I'm sorry but they are going to have to find something else to keep them in the riches they have come to expect. I suppose you would also miss the dock workers and coastal communities that wont be viable when the sea level has risen by 5 meters? Good bye farmers - you shouldn't be farming sheep anyway. 

You're paying much more for wind turbines screwing up the landscape and bird populations.

DC

The Lake District is defined by its local character, traditions, history, legacy, culture. This was created by the indigenous people. When it was made a National park in 1953 this happened because it was beautiful.

It was beautiful because of sheep farming, open views, short grass, wildflowers.

Now you have a disaster area covered in bracken, trees and biomass plantations in all the wrong places blanking out the open views. Run by 27 incompetent quangos.

DC

Personally I'm not a fan of wind farms but at least I get low carbon energy by paying for them. If I could stop paying for sheep then the result would be more trees locking carbon up. 

The lakes hasn't been wild for centuries if not millennia. I'm all for re-wilding places where people don't really live like the great swathes of wet desert that is the highlands of Scotland but it's never going to be a thing in places where people live and depend on the landscape for their livelihoods. 

You are deluding yourself if you believe in "low Carbon energy", "renewable", "zero Carbon" "Carbon neutral". Wind turbines in particular, if you do a full lifetime Carbon audit and understand the numbers, the maths. Don't be a victim. The landscape is ruined by turbines, the energy economics are rigged:

"Wind farms – Ponzi schemes on stilts that benefit speculators, troughers and land owners whilst trashing the environment and plunging the great unwashed into fuel poverty. Marvellous. Without subsidies, they are totally unviable as a supplier of grid scale power. With subsidies, they are completely unreliable as a supplier of grid scale power. It’s a lose, lose situation that our kamikaze government continues to support. For how much longer is this farce sustainable though?"

DC

You think hill farmers are rich? 

I note you live in Southampton. I lived there ages ago and found I didn't get to visit the Lake district very much at all and never really got much contact with nature at all.

Nice of you to propose that small farmers who have often looked after their land for generations should just be thrown off because, well, times change and so do town dweller's tastes with respect to how the countryside should look.

Even the Duke of Sutherland offered his tennent's alternatives when he cleared them off their crofts.

I agree with many of your points so I'm hoping to avoid victimhood!

I hope you agree that, when the wind is blowing, they provide low carbon energy. 

How much do we pay to preserve this way of life? Be interested to see your figures so I can make up my own mind.

While you're looking for a source for the costs for subsidising hill farms maybe you could also come up with the costs for subsidising lowland farms or the farming industry as a whole?

I'm also interested in knowing why you think it is a good idea to clear upland farmers off their land while not advocating the same for lowland farmers. I don't know but I'd guess an acre of farm in Hampshire would support a lot more wildlife if it were rewilded than an acre of Lakeland fell. After all, if we're imposters on a fell then surely we are imposters everywhere else?

I think it's important to remember that much of the highlands of Scotland is an 'emptied' landscape, the same for most rural places in the UK. Many people once did live and work in these places. If we keep that in mind, then I think it opens up much more possibilities of what can happen in these places now and into the future.

If we are truly serious about responding to the ecological and climate crisis, then the work to restore the ecological fabric of these places, is vast, and will require thousands of people, being employed in new types of jobs. . In doing so we could restore and create a new social/culturally fabric in these places too.

Even so, the few people who still live and work in these places need to be acknowledged and invited to be an integral part of what has to come or the transition. So I find the language of 'sheep wrecked' or 'booting out the sheep' really unhelpful and I believe will only lead to more conflict, which is not helpful to anyone or anything. 

Lake District has always been and always will be a mixed living economy, largely as a result of local people.

DC

Understood, appreciate your politeness, but the answer is nope!! There is no point in low Carbon energy unless we make ourselves extinct - that is the only way to achieve it. Turbines need base-load, dispatchable (on-demand) backup in order to cover for intermittency (e.g. this week when wind has delivered SFA). So you have constant duplicity - you are paying twice for something that doesn't achieve anything. It's a complex analysis but obvious when you dig into the maths of the subsidy trail.

e.g: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/09/23/the-costs-of-offsh...

DC

Well yes, the inhabitants were subsistence farmers living low impact lifestyles mainly in the glens. A harsh lifestyle that would be incompatible with today's expectations. I think it's also worth noting that overpopulation was a problem and that the clearances, not just in Scotland, but in England and Ireland too, resolved albeit in a cruel and heartless manner.

Maybe you could be a bit more specific about what you propose, how much it would cost and who would pay for it.

Agreed.

Ok, I'll play. I'll dig out a few facts and figures later when I have time. I feel that it will be time wasted however as it sounds rather like your mind is already made up. 

In the meantime, could quote where it was I said hill farmers should be evicted? You could quote where I said that humans are imposters on the fells while you're at it then we could have an honest debate, rather than one where you find it necessary to put words in your opponent's mouth.

Why stop at the Lakes?

Tear down all the towns and cities.

RIP up all the roads, railways, electricity and water supplies.

Shut down all agricultural activity.

Kill off all the humans and agricultural animals.

Let's not muck about with token gestures, eh?

I climbed on Gouther Crag earlier this year. The sheep have been taken out of the valley, the natural course of the river reinstated and trees planted. I have never seen so much wildlife in the lakes before.

You didn't say it explicitly but your assertion that "we can't afford it" and offering no alternative while agreeing with the position that hill farm land should be returned to wilderness rather implies that. I suppose the farmers could stay in their homes and live off job seekers allowance but I don't imagine that's what you're advocating.

If it was up to me I'd get rid of the subsidies for sheep farming. Then I'd set up a small unit of police officers assigned to guard British wildlife and uphold our Protection and Conservation laws. This unit would have one purpose until the illegal killing of wildlife stops, or would become a permanent unit. 

that's a stupid set of suggestions. what is so sacred about a few sheep and a tiny number of farmers( who could easily probably turn their hand to applying for rewilding grants as I think that is the key skill of most farmers/landowners these days) . It turns out that agriculture is two of the top 5 emitters of carbon dioxide and the major industrial emiitter of methane. over 10% of the emmisions problem.  The other sectors being buildings which have significantly addressed CO2 emissions with Building standards, and insulation of existing housing stock. Transport which on land at least is undergoing a major transition to electric and hydrogen. Electricity and heat production produces 28% but is the furthest along the path to sustainablity. And Animal husbandry. 

Agriculture and animal husbandry has as far as I know done nothing to address its emissions problem, And its not actually difficult to cut down emissions from that industry at all. Just stop farming animals. Its cruel anyway but as far as reducting CO2 and methane emissions go the solution is available and the industry is not acting. That is willfull vandalism of the climate.

And why aren't they acting? who knows but  I personally don't think the rest of us should suffer because of their intransigence or ignorance.

Well what a surprise! There has been no change there for decades with or without sheep. The river will go where it wishes during the next flood - straight to the scene of the accident, that's how nature works. In fact I would guarantee the bracken in Swindale has reduced biodiversity as it chokes everything. Fields behind my house are farmed for sheep and cattle - you have never seen so much wildlife in your life, a constant marvel to watch, same altitude as Gouther.

DC

You need to do more maths, you are being conned, unless of course it is your own properties turbine which is a fine idea.

DC

You are living in fairyland if you believe all that crap. There is no problem with CO2.

DC

What will the wolves and bears eat ?

The natural tree cover would thin out with height, and there would be less cover in areas of rock, scree and thin soil. The views would be incredible. Borrowdale is the nearest we have, and in my opinion its the most beautiful valley in the Lakes.

That report looks at financial cost and find that it hasn't fallen. Fair enough but it makes no assessment of the actual cost vs something like coal or gas or indeed nuclear taking into account storage and decommissioning.

It's obvious you don't like wind generation but I do wonder what your alternative is? Stick with fossil fuels? Invest in more nuclear?

Why do you believe it is crap?

Dave Cumberland you are a complete dick!

David was skirting around the Global Warming denial, but its nice to finally have confirmation.

You might have even had some good points regarding the actual effectiveness of wind power, but instead of backing up your assertions with evidence, you went full conspiracy theory and ruined it.  So close.

#bushdid911

I agree.  This is often an argument against reforestation but I could agree less with it.  a beautiful stand of trees is far prettier that a blank field with some sheep.

I reckon there's a case for expanding projects like Wild Ennerdale to other areas but on the whole the Lakes is nowhere near a wild place and never will be. If you compare the U.Ks national parks to most other places they're a bit of a joke in terms of the natural environment. 

A mix of preserving the landscape as it is and managing for greater biodiversity is probably a pragmatic approach but Yellowstone it ain't.

Scotland on the other hand has a lot of potential for habitat restoration and/or rewilding

Walkers and climbers.

The views from where? If you reforested up to 2500' in the Lakes then the fell tops in Borrowdale would be approx 500' below the treeline! I imagine the LDNP is a unique environment, worth preserving as is, rather than trying to replicate forest zones around the world.    

I have a radical suggestion; maybe the sheep farmers could try to make a living from sheep farming. 

Great idea, I guess none of them have ever thought of that before. Why not email the NFU, I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear your suggestion.

Have a like. I'm susceptible to becoming too involved in internet tiffs and one day I will realise that other people hold differing, and more deeply held, views to my own.

Eric, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, but I'm sorry I was provocative.

No, the Lakes was originally under the ice sheet.

Bring that back.

Actually, the Lakes was originally under the sea. Are you suggesting we put it back in the sea?

Our whole Island is a managed landscape. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make some changes to the ecology (slowly and carefully) but it does interest me that some people are thinking we should just bin off the communities that live in these places. 

In reply

And of course, the rather more dramatic volcanic eruptions, lava flows, earthquakes and associated volcanic activity may well have had something of an effect on the landscape, but those pesky sheep  - wow, they're the real bastards!

Accepted.

I was a bit sarky as well.

You might scoff but the scientists have put us now in a new geological era, the Anthropocene. An era recognisable for-ever-more in the fossil record. Changes wrought by humans on their environment, amongst them the 6th mass extinction will be readily recognisable. So yes we are as catastrophic/dramatic as all of the other proper geological events you list, and more so as they are global in extent. And yes sheep are our tool. We drive other species from existence by mono culture (in this case grazing) and climate heating. Extinction is forever.

Bit of a non argument "bringing back the ice sheets" especially in view of global warming. 

Man has wrecked this planet, we have a duty to try  and rewild our National Parks and other areas as much as is feasible. As to no views as some a saying tree cover at height is naturally very sparse. Trees absorb carbon and reduce flooding, and might add a few extra belays too.

You are talking sh1te again. Decarbonisation = Extinction. It's the only way to make it possible. You do not understand the Lake District landscape, geology, climate, scenery, economy, culture and traditions. You certainly do not understand the catastrophic natural geological and climatic changes that have affected the area for millennia. Go read some books.

DC

Indeed why listen to the vast majority of climate scientists, people who have spent entire careers studying, why take heed of decades of peer reviewed hard science when we could all be listening to the proverbial bloke down the pub who reckons it's all crap

Lots of people would disagree with you "ecological desert" comment. As an instance, I've just been scrolling through a Cumbria bird list and it seems to cover over 400 species. A botanical survey shows that most parts of the district have berween 100 and 199 species per tetrad with a very substantial number in excess of 200. 

Am I? The on-shore wind subsidy was cut by Cameron in 2016. We spend more on subsidies to fossil fuels than we do to renewables.

Why would de-carbonisation = extinction? 

AJM don't bother, Dave Cumberland is a bot. He's been deployed to create the illusion that there is reasonable doubt, or maybe just to undermine community cohesion.  Just ignore it.

Good idea cull all the sheep and keep people out along the lines of Uluru. Or just re-introdue wolves and let nature take its course

I think you mean "pal-reviewed", and I think you mean "people who have spent their entire careers receiving subsidy" to toe the party line. That's how it works otherwise this debate would not exist.

DC

Fossil fuels, particularly oil and gas are tax-generative, they contribute massive amounts to the exchequer. Turbines only exist because of subsidy - fact.

DC

This extract from an article explains it I think:

So far as “zero Carbon Cumbria” is concerned, why would anyone try to achieve that? It is physically impossible unless all these processes are stopped: Steelmaking, cement and concrete production, electricity generation, manufacturing, transport of people and goods, agriculture, oil or gas boilers and woodburners, quarrying, roof tile manufacture, block and plasterboard manufacture, nuclear plants, wind turbines, sewage works, water plants, rail tracks, roads, pipelines, bridge construction, forestry, fishing, healthcare. The only true “zero Carbon” strategy is to make ourselves extinct. Bear in mind “zero Carbon”, “Carbon-neutral”, “renewable” are unsustainable concepts if you do the maths. They are physically impossible for obvious reasons if you think about it. There will be much disquiet among the local population about this massive grant at a time of economic difficulty.

DC

By that measure you would dismiss all peer-reviewed scientific  research?

Doesn't leave you with much does it?

Apart from the shiny hat

I think you have a misunderstanding of the way the carbon cycle works. Lets say for the sake of argument that the Earth's terrestrial carbon budget is 100 (it doesn't matter what). That carbon is all the carbon involved in soils, plants, animals. That carbon cycles itself, for example if you cut down and burn 100 trees but plant 100 trees in their place, then over the next 50yrs or so the carbon released into the atmosphere will be drawn back down to the new trees. The problem starts when you take carbon from the Earth's long term storage (that which is buried in fossil fuels and carbon rich sedimentary rocks) and add it to the Earth's short term terrestrial budget, say you take 10 out of the ground this now increases the budget to 110 and so on. New carbon cannot be removed from the system by the Earth except on longer timescales - 100's of thousands to millions of years. As the greenhouse properties of CO2 have been accepted as scientific fact for over a century, adding to the carbon budget of an already overstretched system seems a bit of a foolish idea and while I agree with you that we'll never be zero carbon, we can be carbon neutral without cement and fossil fuels. Why wouldn't you try?

Most of the U.K. guides I know wear Arcteryx. Do you find they follow you as well.

Ok, not so many cryptic crossword anagram solvers on here then?

I was more surprised that someone felt that they could make a statement about how the Lakes were 'originally'. It jars with my rudimentary understanding of deep time. 

Over time, the planet will be fine. The humans won't. 

Well, what is the tax take per GJ of generated electricity for gas/coal compared to solar/wind then? 

If turbines only exist because of subsidy, why is the BEIS levelised cost of wind and solar less than that of coal or gas, now, in 2020 with further falls forecast?

Hmmmm? Feck off.

Sounds like someone's trying to justify the months wages they chucked at a Beta AR and £30 beanie...

:P

I own 2 bits of Arcteryx.

A pair of trousers that are casual type ones. They're fine. 

A Baselayer top. It's naff. Warm but cannot cope with moisture at all. Just stays wet like a tea towel from the market. 

I do like the dead bird skeleton dinosaur thing tho.

That pterodachstein's quite hot too.

You do not understand. The atmosphere does not distinguish between Carbon dioxide from man or nature, from plants, from volcanoes, from termites, from rotting trees and vegetation, from the soil, rocks, oceans, animals and plants.

Check out the residence time of Carbon in the atmosphere - by that I mean ALL Carbon, both anthropogenic (ca. 4% of total and natural Carbon (dioxide)) and natural.

I think you will find that residence time of all Carbon molecules in the atmosphere from all sources is around 8 years, or stretching it - 30 years.

In fact if you search dreaded Google tonight it will tell you residence time is four years:

https://www.google.com/search?q=co2+residence+time&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB865G...

DC

Anyway, back on topic....

Accepting that even the term rewilding means different things to different people,  I think a start would be to..

Restrict the car access to certain valleys. This would naturally make the environment in these places more likely to support more species. People will still walk in, but most wont because of the extra effort. A few examples would be Martindale,  Longsleddale, Mungrisedale, Matterdale, as the easy ones. More controversial Wasdale, Duddon Valley. In all cases local residents would have access without restrictions 

Designate some areas sheep free. The where needs a good deal of planning, and will probably be done by the right non elected quango.  They at least lack the political self interest that often knackers long term thinking, but I appreciate the quangos have other faults. 

Deal with all the bl**dy bracken. Especially around the E side of Ullswater. 

Sensible tree planting, diverse species, by someone other than the FC who dont seem to be able to see the environmental aspect of their work clearly enough at times.

Genuine question, what's the problem with the bracken?

Is it too dominant for other plants to grow or is it an invasive species? I had never thought about it but you do see more bracken in the lakes than elsewhere, even the sheep don't eat it.

I understand that, but if we release all carbon from the terrestrial pool i.e vegetation, animals, soils, then although atmospheric carbon will be increased greatly in the short term - the Earth as a system also has the capacity to absorb and cycle that carbon back in the short term. However when you release carbon from long term storage, thus increasing the reservoir size, the Earth no longer has the capacity to absorb that carbon and it increases long term atmospheric levels. 

Residence time is worked out by dividing the size of the reservoir by the flux out so will itself be in a state of flux and as anthropogenic carbon sources in the form of fossil fuels increase and the Earth loses its capacity to draw down carbon this will increase. 

This conversation is much wider than the Lakes - as it affects every corner of the planet - Clearly there is no point continuing the discussion if we do not all agree that fossil fule carbon emissions are causing global warming.

Those that seen the sence in the 99% of scientific work that agrees on this have a basic decision - do we try and do something about it or do we just carry on with easy options and see how it works out. The earliest effects we will see, probably within my lifetime are more unpredictable weather, and increased human and animal migration as areas become more difficult to live in. This will inevitably lead to war and strife and more refugees.

The effects of this can be reduced if we all take some simple steps to decarbonise. Wind and Solar for electricity generation is now providing to be cheap and reliable - yes back up is needed but its much better to keep gas for emergencys than to burn it all the time. This will make the UK far more independent with more diplomatic options as we are not so tied to international gas imports. In the long run storage of excess renewables is the solution, be this battery and other methods like compressed air. This has already been shown to work on small island grids and we are on our way to scaling it up.

Yes turbines have an effect on the bit of land where they sit, but so does an oil or gas well. Perhaps some areas of the planet that used to be beautiful before they were drilled can be returned slowly to a more natural state. A windturbie will not leave any long term effects on the landscape. They are far less likely to kill birds than similar sized glass buildings,and the biggest killer of wild birds is always going to remain domestic cats. There is lots of research into reducing bird strikes including simple ideas like painting just one blade black apparently being effective. I am really failing to see the downside. It's time the people of the Lakes had a slightly inconvenience wind turbine to take the burden off much larger populationa that live near and have their lives blighted by smoke stack power plants that used to generate there electricity.

As for sheep it's clearly not a economic way to farm, the farmers can continue to have jobs managing the landscape (subsidised to the same extent) but we need more trees (hardwood). I for one think the Lakes are a bit ugly without the trees, it's a barren landscape, it should be a rich tapestry.

But then if you do want to just carry on as you are don't come complaining down the line when those that can't live where they used to due to global warming want to come and join you or you children. 

Yes.

Who are these nearby large populations blighted by smoke stack power stations? Drax is a long way from the lakes.

I don't see the lakes being particularly suitable for wind turbines, and immediately outside the NP there are loads of wind farms.

We're also overlooking the fact that the Lakes isn't Yosemite, there aren't gates on the access roads, visitors aren't controlled. It's just like any other part of the UK, and would probably be better off if the NP didn't exist. 

A lot of this thread comes across as telling the locals: "We pay your wages, you should do what we say".

Very intelligent and articulate riposte. Obviously a well balanced individual. Chip on both shoulders!

It is native but has been allowed to run riot to the detriment of other species.

I had never thought about it but you do see more bracken in the lakes than elsewhere, even the sheep don't eat it.

Plus, it's total tick town. 

And with that statement you've just lost all credibility.

Hahaha. Ask a feck off question and get a feck off answer.

Sorry, that's was not my intention. I was rebutting the arguments of DC who was talking about the "indigenous people"of the Lakes being ignored (a whole other thread on the history of Britain would be needed to dig into this consept). I think it's great that the UK national parks are lived in, but when DC is trying to say there should be no wind turbines in the lake district it has to be balanced against the acknowledgement that power for people in the Lakes will otherwise come down a cable form somewhere else, where other local people live with the power generation. The "indigenous people", and any newer arrives to the Lakes are lucky to be living in an area with relitivly minimal industrial air pollution, unlike the communitys slightly further south.

Thankfully most of the Coal stations have now closed however, plenty of gas ones remain working 24/7,and if DC had his way all the Coal plants would still be chugging away merrily. 

It's grim stuff, agreed, and the least graceful of the ferns, but there are a few pluses: from now till April it lends a superb russet to the fellsides, particularly on a cold, sunny day, while its smell on a warm afternoon can be great. Incidentally this year's Braxit lot was unusually stunted because of the three-month drought and not as hard as normal to plough your way through.

Is there more in the Lakes than elsewhere? I'm not sure. Maybe it's just easier to see because it's tilted up at an angle. Dartmoor and Exmoor, for starters, are covered in it. Knole Park in Kent, like many of the "wilder" parts of the south-east, is Bracken City, AZ. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6330612   

Dartmoor covered in it? A few dodgy bits in the SE corner but I cant think of much up there, and none on the high moor? Gorse is much more of an issue, hence the swaling. 

Yes, I was thinking of the areas of the high moor around Haytor, i.e. https://www.overflightstock.com/media/761697ca-b4e0-4f16-9c8a-4e2388b2c47a-...

I assumed that, like the Lakes, it was widespread everywhere on the moor, but I don't know the other parts at all, so I stand corrected. 

I have lived on the western fringe of Exmoor and do remember there being a lot there.

There's little money in Hill farming these days. Hill farmers are basically just maintaining the current landscape, they could be redirected to maintaining a rewilded one. Plus most farms diversify into tourism and other ways. Farming could carry on as now in the valleys too.

I think we could go part way towards rewilding  in the Lakes. More but not total tree cover is a start. It absorbs carbon and reduces flooding. I am sure people in Keswick and Cockermouth would welcome that.

Are you a scientist? 

It would help with the credibility of your arguments if you attributed the “Ponzi scheme” quote.

I’d also like to more fully understand your point about the residence time of the atmospheric carbon.

When I talk about attribution I’m thinking of something more rigorous than a google link.

You’re dead right about the bracken though.

What an odd view. I live 'slightly further south' (in north Lancashire just south of Lancaster. I regularly see Black Combe and the Lakes fells from my former lockdown walks. There are no coal fired plants anywhere near here. I can also see two nuclear power stations at Heysham and they're pretty low carbon emitters. I'm not a big fan of wind turbines on the fells (on visual grounds). Our national parks are the finest remaining stretches of countryside left in our country and to plaster them with industrial-sized turbines purely on the grounds of 'fairness' to everyone who's not an inhabitant is just complete nonsense.

'Our national parks are the finest remaining stretches of countryside left in our country'

I haven't read the whole thread but I wouldn't agree with this. Sure, the Lakes for example has got the mountains, but its valleys are slurried regularly. Its uplands are grazed constantly. It has a noticeable lack of tree cover and generally suffers from unhelpful farming practices. The south east for example has some fabulous woods in comparison.  

There is some good local land use practice that can be found in small bits.

The bracken would reduce naturally with reforesting, it's a woodland clearing plant that likes sunshine. When all the trees were cut down that's what enabled it to take over. 

You are wrong on so many counts. Where do you get this stuff from? 'Regularly slurried fields' - what do they put on fields by you or do they put the pig, cow and sheep shit into a hole in the ground? 'Uplands grazed constantly' - sheep in the Lakes are sent away to the lowlands for half the year. It's been that way for centuries and is partly responsible for creating the open aspect of the fells that draws in the visitors. Please don't spout simplistic 'untouched citadel of nature' stuff that some posters on this thread seem to think the Lakes can be, cleared to produce a true wilderness . 'Noticeable lack of tree cover' - it's a mountainous area that's been grazed by sheep and cattle for milennia and open to all kinds of severe weather. There are plenty of trees in the valleys.

So, because 'the south east' has some good woodland then The Lake District National Park is a tip? You do know that the Lakes is on the west coast,  subject to the highest rainfall in the country with some of the highest winds and poorest soils. No surprise then that it can't produce a wood to outshine leafy Surrey. Please let us know where this amazing non-national park (or AONB) countryside is so that we can alert the government and get it protected before it's gone forever.

I live in the Lakes. I used to live near the North Downs. They are viewpoints I hold from my perspective and my experiences. 

Kendal is in the Lakes is it? When did they change the boundary? I live near Lancaster so that must make me an unchallengeable expert on all things Bowland by your reasoning. Why did you leave such an earthly paradise as the North Downs to move near to such a blighted and awful area? Well you're entitled to an opinion even if it's wrong.

I'll fight to the death anybody who threatens the Herdwicks... Other than that, I'm fine with crocodiles in tarns n shit. 

Thanks. Yes, l'm happy with my opinion. 

It's the Gateway to the Lakes. Haven't you seen the big sign?

The most popular bits of the Downs (like Boxhill) are the grassland rather than the woodland.

Thank God.  The voice of reason.

Yes, great views out over the weald. More good woods out there as well. 

I can see a solution here: promote more woodlands in every possible place south of Donington services and leave the rest of the barren north to people who appreciate the landscape  that's been in place for the last three or four hundred years and can still find enjoyment in the measly few hundred types of flora and fauna existant there.

So you'd keep Scotland as it is as well?!

I know they're so cute.

You could just kiss them... you know if they're consenting and all

Looks OK every  time I take a trip north.  I'm pretty sure it's no more of a desert than the Lakes.

This is Ethel. I met her on the descent from Loft Crag. 

She's beautiful. She deserves to live in a woodland, away from the cold. To raise her family as she desires without interference.

She's a homing Herdwick, fiercely territorial and guards her patch of fell jealously, and prefers to snaffle treats off people heading for the ODG. 

Ethel's carrying some timber. Serious #Gainz.

Do you mind?... She's merely a full-figured lass. 

To be hunted down and eaten by the reintroduced wolves and mountain lions 😄

Bah! Mutton dressed as lamb.

The story goes that the last English wolf was killed on Humphrey Head. That's where the great re-wilding project ought to begin. It would give the old codgers in Grange-over-Sands a spring in their step for sure.

No, it has lots of similar characteristics. I get that feeling of wildness and 'away from people', appreciation of the hills when I cross the border, but I'm basically entering one big sheep/cattle farm, which turns into one big deer reserve as I go further north.  I just fancy a little more wildlife in the form of flora and fauna to pass through and get amongst. 

I don't know how much you want in terms of flora and fauna variety, I quoted some figures earlier which show considerable levels of diversity . For some reason people seem to be hankering after rain forest ecology on terrain which at one end is bordering on taiga

Not all the Lake District is beautiful. There are some starkly bleak bits, same with the Pennines. Also I remember seeing a pile of fleeces smouldering in Seathwaite some years ago. Clearly we should stop making clothes out of plastic and eat our local produce. The Tories seem hellbent on destroying the rural economy anyway (cf post-Brexit trade) so hill farmers have bigger worries than rewilding.

We need to have careful planning for our National Parks and uplands with rewilding and traditional ways of life being part of the equation. We don't need deep Green (clearance of humans) or deep Blue (the Market red in tooth and claw). We need expertise, compromise and consensus.

As we live in an Idiocracy, I'm not holding my breath. 

Much of the west coast of Scotland would naturally be temperate rain forest dominated by oaks & birch similar to some forests in SW Norway. There are some small remnants which show us how it could be but they are few. Further east the Cairngorm pinewoods are a western outpost of the Taiga forests of Northern Europe, but again we only have remnants.

Exactly. The original poster suggested 'getting rid of all the f*cking sheep' which rattled a few cages. The key words are 'careful planning' and I would add 'over many years'. 

Stop speaking sense! That's not how UKC works!!

My point is that the UK is a large enough landmass to contain a variety of landscapes, some having a richer mix of animal and plantlife than others. If diversity is a good thing then it also applies to types of terrain.

Ah, I haven't read through the thread.