UKC

Monbiot enthusiastically presents a compelling argument. Well worth a watch;

http://www.monbiot.com/2015/11/06/loved-to-death-2/

In reply to MattDTC:

Interesting talk, I don't agree with everything he says but there are quite a few points worth listening to. Interesting that he doesn't mention anything about how/who pays for it/what checks need to be put in place to stop the countryside just becoming a 'wild' zoo etc.

In reply to MattDTC:

Enjoyed this. He is a persuasive chap. I don't always agree with his choice of language but there is a lot of truth in what he is saying. Thanks

In reply to MattDTC:

Great talk making lots of good points. I can recommend his book, Feral, if anyone wants further info on rewilding in general. Well researched but also a great read.

In reply to MattDTC:

Good on him delivering that sort of message to the coal face. What a shame our politicians are so blind to his approach.

In reply to MattDTC:

You don't need Monbiot to tell you that, for example, the Lake District is a disaster zone. That is pretty obvious to anyone living here with a brain.
DC

In reply to MattDTC:

A worthwhile view. Saves on trawling through many of his writing. It's a good sumery of his stance, most which I'm persuaded by.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

He gives a good understanding of what you feel is wrong though. Well worth a watch to understand the powers working against reform. He is also prepared to take time to spread the word and get the topic talked about.

In reply to Andy 976853:


We (as tax payers) already pay to keep it in it's current state (ie. farm subsidies), so there is money about, it's more about how it is allocated.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Do you agree with Monbiot on the reasons why? Or do you have an alternative analysis?

In reply to Phil1919:


It's an excellent presentation. I think he also did a talk to the NFU, who are perhaps a more hostile crowd.

What authority do the National Parks have in making it happen? Obviously they can't force land owners to make their land more wild, it surely comes down to farming subsidies, what do you reckon?

In reply to RyanOsborne:



I think work needs to be done with some of the institutional landowners, particularly the National Trust, but also, the Forestry Commission and the bigger estates, who are often the freeholders for land that appears to be FC. The NT, I suspect, are terrified of change in high profile landscapes, where people are used to overgrazed uplands and where there will be a lot of adverse publicity if it starts looking scruffier (want of a better word).

Some of the conservation bodies are also very risk averse, sometimes for good reason, but the big, big question of grouse moors continues to be fudged, with a focus on a few species that are fellow travellers with the grouse, rather than meeting the vested interests head on and making some genuine landscape scale improvements. I also think the continued "class war" conversation wrt to grouse moors and ownership is unhelpful, but that's another discussion

In reply to MattDTC:


I agree with pretty much everything he said, apart from the reintroduction of wild boar and wolves. Whilst hill farming is subsidised, what he failed to address was what will replace the food produce there? Imports from other nation's wrecked rain forest? Or that UK produced food could cost more, but the UK population won't pay more, so they'd be back to those imports again. He has some good ideas, but only part of the solution.

He also painted a rather simplistic view on how farms are living off subsidies, which wouldn't be the case if people in Europe paid the real cost of food production in Europe, thus cutting out a great number of EU workers taking a cut before the money is recycled back. But, then it's a global market beyond the EU, so the problem of food production still isn't solved.

In reply to The New NickB:
I have not had time to listen to the whole presentation yet so excuse my ignorance.
However, if he is advocating re-wilding, in the Lakes currently that is a total unmitigated absolute effing mess.
It is called the Law of unintended consequences. Or meddling.
Any local person connected to the land or landscape round here will tell you that.
DC

In reply to RyanOsborne:

I thought it was interesting how he said that the information that the park gives out is misleading in their literature. I think he was saying that they sort of pretend that everything is alright if you read their literature. I think he was saying that they could play a useful role in educating us that things could be a lot better.

In reply to toad:

Yep, National Trust will be key - have you heard anywhere of their stance on creating a more wild, natural landscape? Is there any sign of a policy shift from them yet? If the National Parks change policy, is it likely to influence NT or is their position quite entrenched?

I think the water companies are getting quite aware of grouse shooting (for example) and the impact it has on water cleanliness, and I think United Utilities are quite on the ball in the Forest of Bowland (unlike the Duke of Westminster). I listened to a good podcast this morning with Mark Avery on Talking Naturally. He thinks driven grouse shooting is on the way out, so hopefully a more natural landscape will have a chance to replace the grouse moors. I haven't read Inglorious yet, but it's on my list.

In reply to Phil1919:

Yeah, I see what you mean, I suppose the National Parks authorities have got a marketing role they have to fulfill to attract people and 'come and see our overgrazed, wildlife depleted ecological disaster zones' doesn't have quite the marketing zing to it. I suppose they could always put more emphasis into promoting the more natural areas.

In reply to toad:

We have just cycled from Forres to Aviemore. We came along the magnificent woods of the Findhorn river valley, then the trashed lands of the shooting estate. It really beggars belief. Then past a very large new block of deer protected newly planted woodland. Then into a nicely wooded Aviemore valley. The contrasting landscapes were very noticeable in their differences. Does anyone know who has planted the woodland to the west of the road as you drop down to Carbridge?

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

George tells an cautionary tale of addressing the West Lakes farmers at Wasdale Head on the subject of rewilding and the redirection of their subsidies. It's the closest he's come to a lynching, he told me, rescued only by the sudden arrival of his son in the hall. He came pretty close to a lynching at university as well but that's another story.

In reply to Phil1919:


This has been really noticeable to me, more in recent years but then maybe I'm just more aware of it now. It's nice to see a lot of areas regenerating, but it also seems unfortunate that a lot of estates to do so with fencing, 10 years down the line they'll have blocks of lush ground.

I was up Beinn Mhic Chasgaig recently. The quality of the ground there was particularly shocking, everything is trimmed right back to nothing. Across the glen, the climbers path to the Buachaille, is supporting a huge amount of varied plant life by comparison, I assume that's because it's such a busy place.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

So what are the solutions?

In reply to summo:

This isn't aimed at you particularly, your points (which may or may not be valid) just remind me that there will always be issues when people call for change; if there wasn't then it would be easy. I don't think we'll get anywhere as a society if we adopt the stance that we better not do anything because it may cause problems. Change will be stifled and we'll just continue as we are. I think this 'safe' attitude, along with the knee-jerk panic people get when they envisage wholesale removal of upland farming, replaced by tangled woodlands full of wolves, means that we all sit around wringing our hands. I think the reality of implementing change would be much more incremental and the upland system would adapt (In just the same way that the system in place today was created over many decades). For example, initial policy changes could mean that landowners would be incentivized to leave just the most marginal land alone. It would be a start.
If we just sit around saying 'we better not just in case...', then we'll never get anywhere.

In reply to The New NickB:


there isn't one at present. Unless government policy changes at UK and EU level then farming incentives won't change and neither will food prices move up to their real cost of production, so the farmers / landowners currently have no requirement to change. The NPs sell the land to tourists on the current image of lush green valleys, purple heather covered hills etc.. both north and south of the border (broads being the bigger exception) the tourist industry sell their area under pretty much same line. So no incentives there.

Any change will require a near immediate stop of sheep grazing, deer and grouse rearing (plus a serious cull).... but the forest etc.. that will replace them will take many years to develop into something attractive and productive in terms of providing employment. There will literally be gap of a generation or more. The battle is convincing people to weather this gap, at least 5 governments/elections worth!! You have to consider that a very large number of voters won't grasp the points he trying to raise, they'll just put him in the same camp as anyone who talks about global warming and ignore every word, even if their house get's flood from hill run off.

At best I can see a few pockets of forest popping up by more conscientious landowners who care for the environment, but the other than that zero change.

In reply to summo:

To be honest, I suspect Dave has a quite different point of view from Monbiot! I'm trying to explore what it is.

In reply to summo:


Like I say in my post just above yours, I think this 'all or nothing' way of working; all sheep grazing, or all forest, and nothing in between, with no time for transition, is no help because it just scares people.

Change can be implemented and adopted over time.

In reply to summo:

There are some changes going on but they are slow.

In reply to MattDTC:

I think the current phrase is landscape scale conservation- looking to improve the conservation value of wide areas, rather than isolated nature reserves and the devil take the rest. And I suspect that ironically it works better in the lowlands where there are a variety of owners and you can generate some sort of positive momentum, rather than the uplands where you are dependant on the goodwill of one or two huge landowners, often offshore, who are not really interested in engaging.

But, they are dependant on an overall steering/ coordination body, and that is something that is increasingly difficult to fund

In reply to MattDTC:

We as tax payers pay (indirectly) to help keep it in it's current state (i.e farm subsidies). What would start getting me to wholeheartedly support his ideas were if there was mention of 'we can do this without changes to the CAP or having to try to change other European legislation' or 'we can do this but it will cost X and involve us leaving CAP and the EU'.

I don't expect him to be an expert on all the things I mentioned but at least to acknowledge them; if needed by providing some details by way of hand-out after the speech (and referencing the hand-out as he concluded).

I suspect that the 'Category 5' designation for some parks is more about obtaining funding rather than idealistic recognition. This and other things in the speech start making me feel like it is a bit of a rant rather than a considered alternative to the current situation.

In reply to Andy 976853:

The Category 5 isn't a designation or linked to funding, its one class in a classification of all protected areas in a global database
http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/gpap_quality/gpap_pacat...

In reply to The New NickB:

It's a huge topic demanding an intelligent response unfortunately I am wrestling with more pressing work matters.
It took 10 years from the ascent of Snicker-Snack with ice tools for the FRCC via Max Biden's Langdale guide commentary/appeal to plead that we do not climb Lake District classics with winter hardware.
The National Park was founded in 1951 because it was very very special. How did it get that way? 64 years on most has been lost. Now in a mess. Long time period required to fix.
DC

In reply to Doug:

I looked up the classifications a while ago, and was surprised that category two is National Park, and none of our national parks are better than a 5!

In reply to MattDTC:


yes, but it can only be implemented with changes to the EU, CAP etc... not to mention food supplies and public support. At present the only people who can consider setting aside some land to forest are the ultra rich who bought their hobby estate knowing full well it would run at a loss anyway. Those farming their own land or on multi generation tenancies, can't afford to stop farming it, selling their stock and obtaining the subsidies are the only things keeping a roof over their head. These two forms of ownership are interlinked, as many moors are grazed whilst grouse are reared and there is no point in planting trees without removing sheep. So the little by little, would be little by very very little for a few years, then no further change at all.

You can't have creeping change, unless large fences up put across the moors, fells, highlands to partition bits off to progressively re-forest.

In reply to summo:

I think you paint an overly alarmist picture.
I'll give you one small example. Above my house there is a grazing field that backs onto a wood, where it does so the last 20m of the field is sloping and is full of reeds and the land is 'scrubby'. Recently the farmer bulldozed the whole field to make it flat, remove the reeds and other unwanted vegetation to improve the grazing. CAP creates the incentive to undertake this 'improvement' (by paying farmers to making sure as much land as possible is kept in 'good agricultural condition') it is happening everywhere, often at a small creeping level. With policy changes, this type of small scale but insidious degradation could be reversed on a national scale. This is just one small example, and it doesn't involve tackling the whole EU, food supply and upland land use all in one go!

In reply to MattDTC:



'with policy changes', so you mean changing CAP and involves the whole of the EU. Individual countries aren't allowed to modify, there are terms for nation to share out the funds in slightly differing proportions to do with differing terrain, climate and crops, but not wholesale change.

I suspect in this case the farmer is considering changing the use to arable, rather than just grazing, or at least wants to be take machines over this 20m band for silage etc.. but it's hard to say, I suspect the subsidies will have change little, if at all. Unless it was pure marshland, under CAP it would have still be considered grazing land, but he might have to cut back any especially thick or tall vegetation every few years.

If you planted a little wood on that land, the farmer loses a little income, do you think the UK population will keep buying British and pay a little more, to help him stay in the black, or would they simply shop abroad?

In reply to summo:

Creeping change is happening in a number of places. I've observed quite big fenced off tree planting on the western flanks of the Howgills, in Thirlmere, north of Keswick, for example and a number of rivers have parallel fencing to keep the stock off the banks up to say 10 meters from the water. The Lune/Rawthey.

In reply to summo:

Changes to Agric policy and agri-environment schemes happen all the time, probably too often.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:
Wrynose, Duddon, Eskdale and Ennerdale(I think), loads of planting along becks, what you reckon, good or bad

In reply to Phil1919:

Well if change is happening anyway and eu cap elements that need to change can be modified easily, I expect monbiot is ranting about something that's going to happen anyway over the coming years?

I presume that given the eu's desire to maintain fair markets across all nations, that I will get some nice grants for doing things I already do in my forest.

In reply to Phil1919:


That fencing will be part of migratory fish conservation, trying to protect salmon and seatrout parr, happens all over the country to try and counteract overgrazing and destruction of spawning gravels. They also plant trees along some stretches to provide cover and help reduce water temperatures, not sure how that all works if you add beavers to the equation!

In reply to MattDTC:

Very interesting to watch. I love his use of hyperbole to put his point over. It's interesting how we are brainwashed - when I was in my late teens/early 20s I thought that barren uplands were a good thing - great views, easy navigation etc etc. Then I went to the Alps and began to twig to the idea that it might be more natural to have ecological zones (with humans in them, but appropriately placed).
Then I moved to the US and trees were everywhere - "this is awful, there are no views, navigation is desperate, etc etc.". Then I began to appreciate wilderness and complex ecosystems and that it was good to have to work towards fabulous views and now regard the treeless uplands in the UK as a bit aberrant.

I used to think it was a result of massive of use of every available scrap of wood for navies and charcoal for blast furnaces, but I'd never realised how grotesque the farm subsidies were .

I now understand why the hideous chain-link fences straddle the mountains of snowdonia.

In reply to toad:

With regard to The National Trust and Forestry Commission they are both part of the Wild Ennerdale project and the NT are involved with a High Peak (might have been Dark Peak) vision that was quite radical. So the creeping changes mentioned towards the end of this thread are there. Small steps but in the right direction.

In reply to Moley:


the trees also reduce sunlight and prevent unwanted algae development.

In reply to pneame:

they aren't grotesque, they are the only way many farms stay afloat due to the very low price they get for their produce. Why the low price? because they are competing with producers from around the whole world and the british won't pay more.

In reply to summo:
I think most uk industries operate in global market why not farming.

In reply to summo:


But isn't the point that the farm subsidies encourage non-viable (and environmentally destructive) behavior that is based largely on acreage being farmed, regardless of whether it is sustainable or competitively viable? Not with everyone, but when you get a subsidy, there is a tendency to put that into your economic model, even though it might get pulled at a politicians whim at any moment

Isn't there also (and I'm not talking from a well informed position as I have only spent 1 week in the UK in the last 14 years) a trend towards boutique farming + locally sourced produce that can command a premium price? Also not require as large a capital outlay? Most people will use the cheap = good formula, but isn't there enough of the population who feel differently to use selective marketing?

In reply to Moley:

Yes, I'd read about the fishing fraternity wilding up the river banks. Great. Parts of the Lune have recovered very well. If you get rid of the sheep then beavers would come into their own surely. I don't think they'd clear fell would they?

In reply to MattDTC:

Its great to see UKC opened up to this brilliant discussion and, for once having a really sensible and well informed debate on the wider environment of this country and, in particular, the uplands that we all use as our playgrounds, and generally take for granted.

I've been 'playing' (climbing and walking) in these uplands for well over 50 years now and although I've also always had more than a passing interest in wildlife, until I read Monbiot's book - Feral - earlier this year I'd never really considered most of the issues and possibilities he raises and just taken the status-quo for granted.

As several others on here have stated there are lots of challenges to overcome to achieve even small steps to progressing many of his grander ideas, however, small steps can eventually lead to great strides and a shift in public perception and it is absolutely right that the National Parks could 'if allowed without political interference' play a key role in beginning the process in a practical sense, in many upland areas.

I would urge everyone with any interest in the long term future well-being of our country, and our planet, to listen carefully to the full lecture in the clip above and if still not convinced read the book 'Feral' for a much wider and more detailed understanding of the arguments, not to mention the badly understood and extremely dodgy political thinking that continues to plague environmental policy in this country.

In reply to pneame:


of course, milk being the classic example, where the farmers margin is small or below zero, because they are competing with countries from around the world who produce food much cheaper etc.. there are choice for the UK population here, not just farmer and the national park. The subsidies are the only things keeping some aspects of northern Europe food production going, it's a question of national food security in some respects.


the outlay is proportional, what small scale farming gains in a premium price for the lucky few, they lose out on economy of scale in other aspects. We have usually 5-7 organic entirely grass Herefords, there is no real premium income, it's hobby farming in reality. We have so few acres anything from the EU is irrelevant.

Sadly I don't think enough of the population are only interested in cheap food for a variety of reasons and it's not likely to change, everyone has become too accustomed to spending their wages on other things and take buying meat in big chain supermarkets for a few pound per kilo for granted.

In reply to John Kelly:


I agree, but that means if people want cheap food, then it will be from overseas, beyond the EU. The buyer will have little control of the quality, the conditions an animal lived in, drugs given, feed etc.. but it will be cheap! It's a choice, some foods like liquid milk is limited to a very small range and will have to remain relatively locally produced.

I think it's foolish to not consider food security, for example a lot of veg comes from northern Egypt, you can imagine a political swing there and suddenly you lose a supplier.

We digress a little, but I agree either way farming and the uplands need reforming.

In reply to summo:
I would agree in regards food security but quality and welfare should be manageable by market forces provided people are happy to pay the premium
Generally to feed 7 billion and have a chance to avoid turning all remaining wild space to agriculture we probably have to consider efficiency ( and sustainability) in a fairly seriously

In reply to MattDTC:

perhaps more is already happening than many realise; http://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/

In reply to pasbury:

I think that was the site Monbiot referenced in the vid.

In reply to MattDTC:

There's a bit of a contrast between UK wilderness and the rest of the world!

It's a bit of a "wot we saw" list, but I quite like this

http://thepaddlermag.com/2015/11/11/welcome-to-canadas-barren-lands/

In reply to pasbury:

One of the rewilded sites they mention on the site is the River Wandle in South London. It has a Sustrans route running along it. We stumbled across it and it was an absolute joy to travel through. No wolves yet, but a quality strip of nature passing through suburbia. Worth searching out.

In reply to MattDTC:

Interesting project here in the Cairngorms, maybe only small in the great scheme of things but looks like a step in the right direction?

https://www.facebook.com/cairngormsnature/

In reply to Dave Musgrove:

That Wildland Ltd company is really intriguing, I can't get my head around them, they seem too good to be true?

In reply to Dave Musgrove:

Pity its using planting & fencing, plenty of experience now to show that just reducing grazing is a viable option in that part of the world.

For the more general points made by George Monbiot, although its a well put together presentation, much of it is old, Frank Fraser Darling was making similar points back in the 1950s, unfortunately progress seems a bit slow

In reply to MattDTC:

Only fair to point out that CAP also currently provides the only widespread conservation incentive scheme in Countryside/ Higher Level stewardship. It's far from ideal and has questionable results but it does encourage reduced stocking and compensates for non-improvement amongst other things

In reply to MattDTC:
Not quite the same calibre as Monbiot (in my humble opinion) but Chris Packham's address to the John Muir Trust covers a similar topic. http://www.johnmuirtrust.org/spiritofjohnmuir
Its a bit longer but I still enjoyed it.
I was reminded of this because I was thinking of all the great re-wilding work JMT does. Not enough of it in our National Parks but good none the less.

In reply to Lostsky:

Just listened to it. Very good. Thanks for the link.

In reply to MattDTC:

Only just seen this, amazing video and something I have thought about for a long time

Our national parks are a disgrace compared to everywhere else I've visited around the globe.

I regularly see brits condemning poor practice in patagonia or Nepal, without looking back at home

His point regarding how 'humanly cultured' our national parks are is too true, we should be able to get away from this

I'd like to support this cause

reply to MattDTC:
DEFRRA were the first department again to offer itself up for further budget cuts. With funding for things like flood defence and disease control effectively ring fenced, resources for protection for the natural environment have been devastated. I'm really not sure what the point of nature reserves, national parks, protected status (SSSIs etc) if the is no money to manage them or enforce that protection. Liz Truss is an even more uncaring and incompetent minister than owen Patterson. I didn't think that was possible.

In reply to toad:
Related article also by George Monbiot
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2015/nov/12/toothless-...

I spoke to some colleagues in JNCC last week & they were very pessimistic about the future of nature conservation in the UK & particularly in England & Wales

In reply to Doug:

I guess the idea is to privatise conservation? Rely on those of us want it to crowd fund, buy land etc?

In reply to toad:

Money doesn't solve everything. A big part is convincing the population to respect their environment etc.. judging by litter on road verges or general reactions to recycling etc.. there is some way to go yet.

In reply to summo:

How do you convince the population to respect their environment without a combination of education/ information (which costs shed loads) and a programme of consistent enforcement, which means those that will never care will obey the rules because of a high likelihood of conviction/ punishment.

It's also important to lead from the front. Investment in the environment raises peoples awareness, which leads to better understanding and compliance with environmental laws. If the message from the very top is that environmental regulation is unnecessary red tape, it will be treated with appropriate red tape.

So no, money doesn't solve anything, but neither does no money!

In reply to Doug:

yes, It's really not looking good, is it. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

In reply to Phil1919:


Which is what the NT/ wildlife Trusts / RSPB have been doing for decades, but conservation thinking has moved away from island nature reserves, which are very vulnerable to damage or loss, and towards landscape scale conservation (where the thread began), which can't be done without a national body to co-ordinate and effective incentives and regulation for landowners within those landscapes.

The private model is a very Edwardian approach to conservation, a century later, you'd hope we could do better.

In reply to MattDTC:
I live in a national park and was always a supporter. Then I became a volunteer. Big mistake.

They are, as Mr Monibot described not quite up to speed.

The park here in North Yorkshire supports the largest area of moorland in europe. I was shocked to discover that they (and the National Trust) have a policy to remove any 'scrub' on moorland they own or manage.

Some of the national park's thinking is entirely muddled as they attempt too many opposite aims. So one working party I was on, involved clearing young birch, oak, and pine seedlings from an area of moorland they'd got their hands on. (I refused to take part) - Yet a mile away they were planting juniper trees on moorland as; "They are scarce and not regenerating any more".

The end of my volunteering my 'conservation' skills was when I'd discovered that park staff and other volunteers had removed from the road side several pines I'd planted some 30 or 40 years previously because, they said,

"They were detracting from the moorland scenery".

I could go on but....................

In reply to toad:
That's a very defeatist and monetary outlook from you. I would have expected different.


Why should education cost shed loads, you simply look at what schools, nurseries etc.. already do, have in their syllabus and use more real world examples. The outdoors can than be linked to pretty much any academic subject. Here schools doesn't start until aged 7, but their whole time at nursery they would be in the fields, forest, lake side at least once a week, often more. Collecting things, learning etc.. by age 7 out eldest new a few names (and could identify) of trees, flowers, mosses, lichen, fish etc.. but he also understood plastic recycling process.

Cost, or funding. By some serious fines for pollutions, fly tipping etc.. to the point that they are crippling for anyone caught. Fly tipping is beyond rare here, even though our nearest dump only open 2 afternoons a week and it's 10miles away, the idea of just dump rubbish isn't even consider, one because fines for land or environmental damage are serious (money and/or jail time), but mainly people appreciate the outdoors, with Sweden's open access (all man's rights) everyone feels like it's theirs.

To be allowed to hunt here you need to pay for an annual permit £30-ish, there are roughly 300,000 hunter here, but the money goes to the nature conservancy agency, not a hunting association. That's a reasonably large amount of money. The UK could do the same with an annual fee for everyone, those shooting rabbits, grouse or deer, same fee annually. It wouldn't hurt much individually, but collectively it would have some impact.


I think awareness is engrained, it comes what the teacher, the parents etc.. do. Apart from harsh legislation, we also have 10p back on all plastic and aluminium drink containers, there are simple incentives at all levels. Recycling is just something that happens. In the cinema there are 3 big bins at the front, plastic, paper/card and other... people don't natural just dump on the floor or think that everything goes in a black bag for landfill. The places that stand out are those that don't have recycling options or things that can't be split into their constituent parts. As a family of 4 we create about 1/2 carrier bag of waste that can't be recycled a week. If we had a waste collection (which we don't) it would probably take 6mths to fill a wheelie bin and I'm pretty sure we are by no means unique.


But, there are plenty of things the UK could do, without simply giving cash hand outs to people who make a living from 'protecting' the environment. It's a question of some how measuring what different organisations actually do of merit, before throwing money at them.

In reply to summo:




Field trips are perceived as an expensive, unnecessary hassle. I think there are proper teachers on here who can give a clearer picture, but most schools will only do these things if an external provider can deliver it, they are too busy flat out with the national curriculum - Which is why many conservation bodies try to provide an education programme, but it isn't "core" so it's one of the first services cut.


This is the heart of the problem. If you cut enforcement, there's no revenue from fines. So any punishment is academic. I think you also need to consider relative populations and pop. density between the UK and Sweden, but I agree, the Nordic countries are much more switched on to the environment in general, but education isn't just about kids, you need to make the people understand why protecting the environment is wrong.


We just don't have that individual hunting tradition, I agree that much more can be made from shoots, but anything that could be read as a tax on field sports is complete anathema to this government.


I think this is doable, but it's going to take a lot of time - you should see the media coverage given to reducing the frequency of bin collection, or forcing people to sort waste before collection, and it isn't even an environmental issue, it's purely economic. The UK has run out of landfill space, and alternatives like incineration are massively unpopular. We simply have to reduce waste production, but it's an uphill struggle.


That already happens. Be it government, lottery, aggregates tax etc. All of these things are scrutinised for best value. As far as the government agencies are concerned, there have already been massive cuts in treasury spending since the coalition. It's gone to far already, they already cannot function as effective guardians of the natural environment and that's WITHOUT the additional round of funding cuts.

In reply to toad:

As far as I see it, fields trip are free here. They walk from school. Kids bring appropriate clothes (no such thing a poor weather here, kids have to go out everyday regardless and cloakrooms have drying cupboards and dehumidifiers in there) and every kid has box for spare clothes etc. If they are heading off for the day then we get told to give them a packed lunch (rather than the usual free for all school meals).


Density, exactly, Sweden is twice the size of the UK, but has a sixth of the population for fund and manage it. or damage it, depending on your perspective.

But it is about kids, those kids grow up and then spend their time outdoors and pass the baton on etc.. Apart from protecting the environment, getting people outdoors is pretty good for physical and mental health too. Not everything has to be cost or financially related.


Well it is tax on fields sports here, if you hunt with a shotgun for rabbits, or stalk deer, the same fee annually, the poor pay the same as the rich. But the money goes on research and protection, so people see it as good thing. To get a gun in the first place here, I had to do the equiv. of a week long course, 50% of which is environment related. Then take a written and practical test, followed by police checks. So you aren't allowed hunt without having learnt a far degree of environmental and wildlife related knowledge. If you do hunt without a licence, then it's jail time. Even if people travel from Denmark to hunt, they have to pay a fee. So if the rich American want's to stalk in Scotland, why not charge him a nominal fee. It's all paid online direct to the agency, no real paperwork involved at all, so it's a cheap system to manage too.


It's a head in the sand thing, too little too late.


National Parks, effective guardians? or trying to maintain time capsule museums to match some quaint picture postcard image. Here much more land is in small scale private hands, roughly 300,000 people own forest/farm land of some size. So 1 in 30-ish of the total population, even smaller ratio when you look at families or working adults. In the UK it's obviously going the other way into large scale ownership more than ever before. But here it means more people are connected with the land and it's ways, they have a vested interest. Financial incentives are minimal though to say the least, it's more about quality of life and the area you live in. People here would almost always chose more time off over a pay rise!

In reply to Dave Perry:

I've heard similar tales from others. Which suggests that simply increasing funding as some have suggested could end up doing more harm than good .

In reply to toad:

I'd agree, but you put it better than I could!

As a punter, I'd like to think programmes like Autumn watch chip away at the problem.

In reply to MattDTC:

Worth keeping in mind that we 'unwilded' for good reason. Can't think that Monbiot has made a good case and he starts from a position of prejudice

In reply to Stone Idle:

yeah, initially wars, building great ships and forts from wood. Then wood as a fuel, a building stock. During recent wars clearly the land of trees to try and grow as much found on UK soil was pretty critical. Even during the last two WW wood was major fuel, then in demand from simple things like pit props and telegraph poles, it was only then the penny dropped and serious replanting of the UK began. There is a good book about a guy who started in Scotland in forestry, the police, WW1 and 2, then replanted much of the forest around Betws etc.. Lived around there until relatively recently. His name completely escape me. (rather annoyingly).

The only part I disagree with him on are wolves and wild boar, both I can readily live without.

In reply to Stone Idle:

Probably need to expand that if you want credibility for your position

In reply to Stone Idle:


I didn't.

In reply to Phil1919:


The beaver and migratory fish problem is another subject on its own. Depending on which side of the fence you sit, both sides will provide "scientific evidence" to support their cause. Why beavers are good for rivers and fish or why they aren't!
But that diverts from the thread, so for another time.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

Well, yeah if you want to be a pedant. The royal 'we' refers to the human race which has spent a lot of time getting away from nature for good reason but I shall be at pains to exclude your good self in future. This takes nothing away from the big spaces that can support biodiversity but not a single one of the farmers I speak to support re-wilding - unless someone offers them compensation which is another can of wriggly things.

In reply to ashtond6:





I'd suggest that NPs tend to preserve rather than recreate landscapes, habitats and wildlife populations.

Due to the nature of our small island and its high population density we started from a very different place to just about any other country. Preservation is easy, but once you start looking at recreating something that none of us have ever seen them you open the door to a whole load of experts peddling their own ideals.

Lord alone knows where we should reset the clock back too. Maybe preserving the beautiful landscapes that have evolved in our NPs is a perfectly acceptable aim in its own right?

In reply to timjones:


Is the debate really about reverting back to a point in time? The science proves that our natural world and eco systems are in poor health. Surely we should move forward based on fact and allow parts of our parks and wider countryside to develop for the benefit of both the human and natural worlds? To me that isn't reverting back to a point in time that is progress and learning from our past mistakes.

In reply to timjones:

Sorry for the humongous snip, but this is my biggest problem with Monbiots rewilding arguments (most of which I'm very sympathetic to) we have a massively anthropogenic landscape, and short of bulldozing everywhere north of the Trent with an artificial ice flow, we're going to have to make some arbitrary decisions, but as a rule of thumb - less grouse, more trees.

Mmmm... Also, less corn for animal feed, less plough, more soil, but that's a bigger issue

In reply to Alan M:


The problem with moving forward based on fact is that there is no simple fact to advance towards. There is a large continuous timeline over which the environment has evolved under the influence of major geological events whilst being influenced by a changing climate as well as human influences.

How can anyone honestly claim to know what the "natural" state of the environment would be if it hadn't been altered by human hand?

In reply to timjones:


You are falling in to the trap of either or. It isn't either or.

The fact is we know our current actions and land management techniques are causing huge problems for natural systems in this country hence why so much of our natural heritage is in decline. This will also add huge issues for us i.e soil erosion, flooding etc etc. The way I see it is that our obsession with visual amenity is part of that problem.

Rewilding to me (from my work and meetings I have been to) is to allow natural systems to happen to allow habitats to increase and improve in health etc. That doesn't exclude humans or human actions from the land it happens alongside, its about managing the land for the benefit of humans and nature. That is what I mean by moving forward. Human actions remain part of the landscape and its management so it is not reverting to a point in the past it is coordinated management using human and natural systems in some areas and seeing what develops next.

In reply to Alan M:

As others have said, it's nothing to do with a point in time - it's simply that we should allow nature and wildlife to grow and progress

I understand people have been working these lands for 100s of years and make livings from this. I am not saying this should be stopped, it's just atm it is people100:0nature at the moment

I also think it is poor for people to say, X family has had this land for 100s of years so they deserve it

In reply to Alan M:



I'd tend to agree that natural reversion on some areas is a good option. However there are plenty of "experts" that we should be re-introducing their favoured species.

It's this need to manage "rewilding" that leads I am referring to. I don't believe that it's an either/or choice and you don't need to patronize me by implying that I do. You need to convince Monbiot and any other self publicists that make their living off the back of selling their vision.

In reply to ashtond6:

It would be interesting and probably of value to rewild some areas but the current national parks are not the place. They are, as a result of their character and subsequent development and identity, landscape areas where people visit , live and make money and are not necessarily compatible with the ecological requirements for successful re-wilding. Better to identify less visited areas of sufficient size but the chances of that happening in the present economic and political climate are slim.

In reply to Bulls Crack:
Maybe true for England, but much of the practical experience of 're-wilding' comes from projects in the Cairngorms, some started before the National Park was created (e.g. Abernethy, Inshriach, Glenmore & others) although at the time it was mostly called 'restoration'

In reply to Doug:

I'm beginning to see how the Cairngorms is ahead of the game. They need to rename Aviemore......'Aviemore in the woods'.

In reply to timjones:
I apologise if the either or comment came across as patronising, that was not my intention. I was answering your point about 'no fact to advance towards'. I read it as the landscape is what it is so why change?

I agree with Monbiots sentiment, his description of our NPs etc. Im not overly convinced by reintroductions of wolves, bears etc but I am willing to accept science led trials and see what happens. I support the proposed trials of Lynx in a few areas. People once said no beavers we now have a trial completed in Scotland, a 5 year trial underway in England and one about to start in Wales. I think not ruling anything out until we have some facts is how it should be.

I think moderation is needed some parts of the country should be dominated by natural management systems i.e Ennerdale some places should be dominated by human management system i.e. intensive farming areas like Cheshire. If you take Ennerdale for example there are loads of places in the Lakes and the North of England where that type of land management could take place without loss of amenity for humans. On the other hand I would not encourage the management of Bedfordshire in the same way etc.

In reply to Alan M:

You are bang on, but it's worth mentioning that some of the most interesting rewilding projects, such as the Ouse washes, are going on in the lowland Fens

In reply to Bulls Crack:

having lived in a park they are very place where it should start. It might look like a pretty museum when the tourist visit, because that's all it is. Employment and development of any kind is killed by the NPAs etc.. The people who actually live in them struggle to get by, just so those from town can have their weekend picture postcard view. Much more sustainable money could be made from forestry and other avenues, rather than from selling a few teas & cakes or tat to a punter. A great number of tourists spend no money in the parks, most no more than £10 or £20.

In reply to ashtond6:


Most are actually family businesses, I presume if you have kids you are all for handing your hard earned assets over to the state when you die. Maybe give the kids £5k to cover the funeral costs and a big wake?

In reply to timjones:


For half the UK everything that's happened, has occurred in the past 12,000years since the ice sheet receded or melted. So it's a question of picking the point in time to restore to, or better still just removing or ceasing the practices which are most detrimental, then giving nature a helping nudge here and there, with replanting etc..

As you say there is no natural state, we can only aim to make it a little more natural again.

In reply to Stone Idle:

You still haven't set out your 'good reasons' for which we destroyed the natural world and persecuted hundreds of species to extinction or near extinction. What are they? Cheap meat? Grouse shooting?

In reply to RyanOsborne:


Why not say cheap food, leisure pursuits and the privileged lifestyle that we can achieve by lowering the cost of living?

Are you attempting to kid yourself that you're not part of the problem?

In reply to timjones:



Not at all, I'm just trying to support a solution.

In reply to MattDTC:

This is one of the best debates conducted on these forums with lots of well informed and thought provoking points being raised.
I have lots of sympathies with Monbiot's overall rewilding arguments but am realistic enough to realise that the wholesale re afforestation of all our uplands is never going to happen. However, his arguments about intensive management of uplands for uneconomic sheep farming and minority interest grouse shooting which then lead to flooding on massive scales downstream and a loss of natural biodiversity on the hills are very persuasive. The scientific evidence that changes in current practice could significantly influence carbon capture and our CO2 emissions at minimal cost is also compelling.
The national parks can take a lead on this. The Yorkshire Dales NP for instance has huge acreages of prime moorland ripe for improvement in the northern part of its area, well away from the honeypot fringes of Wharfedale and Craven were big changes would be harder to justify to the mass user groups. The same is also true for huge areas of central Wales.

In reply to Dave Musgrove:


I would disagree slightly, but only on locations, Wensleydale and Swaledale aren't quiet, Coverdale is... but all could benefit from change and more diverse sources of income, as well as wildlife diversity. You can run over from Slipstones to say Great Whernside and see nothing but blandness. It could be so much better, for users and owners.

In reply to Alan M:

I think the management of Bedfordshire should including rewilding of a percentage of its area. Each field, each farm. each area of parkland, each garden should have its own wildbit. The Wandle river in South London is a great example of what can be done in a city environment. Well worth a cycle along/through if you get the chance. Its one of the 10 (I think) rewilding projects includuded on the rewilding site which has been a success.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Sorry I completely disagree

For example, yosemite used to be farmed and lived in. This was removed and the place makes a total fortune and brings lots of people and money to the local area (and for miles around)

I do not want to discuss income tax as it is not relevent - not no, I do not think people should have there worth given to the state rather than their family

BUT - does that mean the Nps should belong to these people forever?
Could the worth be relocated etc? I do not knowthe answrr, all I know is that our national parks are not really national parks

In reply to MattDTC:

There has been lots of reasoned arguments both for and in part against 'rewilding' in NPs in this thread but I wonder what your thoughts are on the change in the landscape if, for example the shooting interests replaced by replacing the grouse with a landscape full of, or at least a huge amount of reforesting?

I don't mean in the economic sense but visually? I absolutely love the wide open sweeping views of our North York Moors, the Dales, the Lakes and so on. I've tried as some you have I'm sure, to visualise what it would be like forested (Not wall to wall commercial conifers). With the exception of the Lakes, where the tops would or could, be above the tree line, would the atmosphere for walkers, and climbers be changed? I ask myself if I'd really get the same enjoyment in places which are no longer open with wide vistas?

It would certainly change the feel of the pennine way, the sea to sea and the lyke wake walk!!

In reply to Dave Perry:

Reforesting, it will take sometime and by the time it's full scale forest, most of us who recall the grouse moors etc. will be dead!

I under went that change moving from the dales to very rural Sweden. About 15% of where we are is fields, the rest forest, marshes and lakes. It is attractive in different way, more diverse for wildlife and supports more diverse leisure activities.

In reply to ashtond6:

The national parks probably own less than 0.1% of the land within them, they aren't about ownership, it is a designation enforced on the actual owners of the land that binds them to a myriad of conditions, very very few of which actually benefit anyone with in the parks.

In reply to summo:

It's irrelevant that Nps don't own the land. They should own most of the land.

In reply to ashtond6:

why? What would that achieve? You can implement legislation to allow access and improve environmental measures.

The NPA owning more land would probably be the worst thing possible outcome for people living in the parks and the environment.

So when the NPA of cairngorms began a few years, they should have compulsory purchased all the land? Or when YD and L NPA merged 2 weeks or so ago, the government (ie the tax payers) should have spent a few £100 billion buying all the land, property and businesses? Pure madness.

In reply to ashtond6:
I believe about 96% of the land in the Lake District National Park is privately owned.
Thank God.
You would not trust any of it to the twenty-odd quangos that are supposed to be running the show (ha ha!!), or to the private charities buying it up as fast as they can (e.g. Wildlife trusts). Absolute disastrous mess.
DC

In reply to ashtond6:




It's a name - they never were in the N American sense -or intended to be. Hence my suggesting they're the wrong place to start.

In reply to ashtond6:

There's more chance of the moorland regenerating naturally than the parks owning the land.

In reply to summo:

I'm not saying it is possible now, it maybe too late due to the economies within them. I am just challenging whether this is right - I don't think it is

In reply to ashtond6:


that's because 99% of UK National park land isn't a wilderness, they aren't designated protecting a specific environment, species etc... they are trying to hold a picture postcard image, created by people. Which means there must be plenty folk living there. The UK must have the most populated NPs in the world.

I don't think wildlife or people would be worse off, if all NPAs were scrapped and the land was managed by harsher environmental laws that applied across all of the UK and the same for planning legislation, than enforces the actual landowners to do everything. Then you wouldn't have NPA charging loads of money for people just park their car, so a few dozen people could have jobs that didn't real achieve much in the big scheme of things. The taxpayer is funding the NPAs already, then they pay to park, pay to pee etc.. yet the minute anyone asks them to be efficient financially they get upset.

In reply to summo:


Interesting idea, although surely some places deserve special protection? Would it reduce the attractiveness to tourists if they weren't labelled as national parks?

On a separate tangent, would there be a case in any of our national parks for moving towards more of a system like they have in Yosemite, whereby there's an entrance fee, but actual rangers and decent facilities and the land isn't owned / farmed?

In reply to RyanOsborne:


There already are SSSIs etc.. You can protect all places with the right legislation, everywhere in the UK, inside or outside the NPAs can have special protection where it is justified. It might put some tourists off, but at least there would be less holiday homes sitting empty for most of the year. If NPs were wilder places there would be different things to visit and certainly more employment compared to the current uses of the grouse moors etc...


But how do you move that way, do you remove all the people and businesses from within our national parks? The problem is the fact that the land was designated an NP in the first place.

Plus in the USA it's a little different, their parks are wilderness more comparable to remote Scotland, more than half the park land is in Alaska too. They also have national forests where the forests and grasslands are open to commercial activities like logging, livestock, as well as recreational activities like camping, hunting, and fishing. National forests cover twice the ground as the Nat Parks and are probably more akin to UK NPs, as they aren't wildernesses. Protection measures exist, but the land is still worked, it's not a museum.

In reply to summo:


No doubt that the US's system is very different, and they obviously have much larger areas of contiguous wilderness areas, but I wonder if, with the inevitable end of farming subsidies, and the narrower and narrower existence that hill farmers seem to eek out, whether the UK couldn't learn something from the USA system of having 'proper' wilderness with an obvious economic benefit for the people in and around there.

If we could somehow move to a system whereby people living in the park were working as rangers / wildlife guides and the like, rather than making a marginal living in really tough conditions to be a farmer, then surely everyone would get more out of our national parks? Just an idea, obviously it'd be difficult to implement, and take a long time for it to evolve.

Not sure how it would work for the grouse shooting fraternity though, who obviously don't need the economic benefits that the system would bring.

In reply to MattDTC:

Given that it takes about 200 years for an oak to fully mature, I wonder how long full rewilding would take? In the meantime we'd have a fairly scruffy, brambly, inaccessible landscape; which would be constantly evolving to the benefit of some species and determent of others. The next 5 or 6 generations wouldn't be able to "enjoy" it because they wouldn't be able to get past the brambles - unless there were paths which would defeat the whole object.

Persuading people that that not being able to use or visit the landscape for generations will have a worthwhile outcome - if it is worthwhile - is the challenge.

In reply to Annabel Tall:

I think the picture you're painting of a blanket ban on accessing the countryside is a bit over dramatic and unnecessary. We can still walk in, and enjoy, Glen Feshie and Ennerdale for example, despite the efforts going on there to restore functioning native ecosystems.

In reply to Annabel Tall:

That's an oversimplified picture. For a kick off, I don't think anyone is saying rewilding = mature high canopy woodland. That's sort of what Oliver Rackham used to talk about but that wasn't really in the context of rewilding, as at the time he wrote History of the Countryside (which is still an excellent read), it wasn't such a major issue. Obviously any habitat change is going to depend on how the process is managed (and yes, it's a managed process, it isn't just a case of throwing the sheep out and locking the gate), prevaling climatic and other environmental conditions, and what position you are starting from. If you look at the famous Dutch example at Oostvaardersplassen, the problem really isn't with overgrown bramble, because the herbivore population have taken care of that - it is far from being a perfect example, for a whole raft of reasons, but mostly with it being quite an old example where a lot of mistakes were made (look up Frans Vera if you want to know more)

Your picture also fails to take account of river and wetland management in this process, which will have a big impact on succession, as well as having knock on economic benefits in managing flood risk downstream.

however (and it's a recurring theme throughout the thread), rewilding is not like getting pregnant - it isn't an all or nothing process and there's plenty of scope for management within what perhaps might be better called an extensification exercise - changing from intensive production to other systems, gradually reducing inappropriate grazing, or even just changing grazing species - we are already seeing this through the various subsidy options for rare or traditional breed animals.

In reply to Annabel Tall:


With the right tree shelters and management of the under growth, initial tree cover will be fairly quick, certainly enough to block out enough light from black & raspberries trying to take over and the bracken, which is currently more than taking over mid height moorland. From planting two sessions with a brushcutter over the first 10 years would assist this, if people wanted to use this area for other activities. 200years is a little exaggeration, even a 50year old oak forest is pretty impressive, but it's about having a range of species, that grow at different speeds, different heights etc..

In reply to RyanOsborne:


The national parks are part of the town and country planning system. Perhaps they should never have been called that, because they are quite different from the fenced-off wilderness areas in other countries from which people are largely excluded (but they have the space to accommodate this). Here, they are just parts of the country which have been designated for a higher level of planning protection than most. In most of the NPs farmers are a small minority, and most of the population are engaged in other activities, and many live in villages or towns, such as Keswick, Ambleside or Bakewell for example.

In 2008 there were 5,099 businesses in operation in the Peak District national park providing 18,900 jobs. Slightly more than 3000 of these were in agriculture. Furthermore, half of national park residents commute outside the national park for work. Conversely, an estimated 4 in 10 jobs in the national park are occupied by people commuting into the national park for work.

In the Lake District, 41,000 people live in the National Park. 15,000 people work in tourism. 2,500 people work in farming

In Snowdonia, the largest employment sector is Public Admin, Education and Health (26.4%), with Distribution, Hotels & Catering slightly behind at 25.9%. Agriculture, forestry and related activities employ only 9.3%

In England and Wales, the national parks are not wilderness, and haven't been for centuries. Scotland is wilder, but even there possibly only the Cairngorms can be considered true wilderness. Elsewhere, man's intervention has over centuries created the landscapes we now have, for good or bad. You'd have to turn the clock back to neolithic times to recreate true wilderness (but even then there was industrial activity such as the stone axe 'factory' in Langdale).

There is of course scope for debate about whether the landscape could be differently managed. However even if all the farmland were turned over to wildlife it would still not be wilderness, unless you are proposing to depopulate the NPs entirely. I doubt there would be enough jobs as guides and rangers to employ even the relatively small numbers now engaged in agriculture. Besides, for many hill farmers it is more a way of life than an economic activity and they will not easily be persuaded to give it up.

In reply to Howard J:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should depopulate the national parks, but I think within the national parks there might be the scope to create more wild areas, and I think it can provide economic benefits which could replace the un-viable sheep farming if / when agricultural subsidies end.

I see your point about sheep farming being more of a way of life, but I also get the impression that young people aren't really taking it up. Whereas I can see a lot of young people who care about wildlife and wilderness, and would absolutely love to be a wildlife guide or park ranger. So I think rewilding offers a much better economic outlook for rural areas. Maybe I'm overestimating the lack of desire for young people to be sheep farmers though.

I wonder how it would look if your stats regarding the percentage of people employed in each industry in the national park were compared to the percentage of land dedicated to each of those industries.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


If or when subsidies end, then people will have a choice of buying imported food, or paying more for UK produce. There isn't scope to create more wild areas in parks, as their planners won't allow it, turning a hill side into a wood, or flooding a field, would be considered detracting from the image of said park etc..


I imagine that the number of rangers/guide employed would be minimal and their pay low, so it would be no more attractive than the current low tech end of farming. Rangers/guide won't be free, you either pay indirectly through tax, or directly through a guiding fee. How much would you pay for a day out, especially at this time of year?

In reply to summo:

>If or when subsidies end, then people will have a choice of buying imported food, or paying more for UK produce. There isn't scope to create more wild areas in parks, as their planners won't allow it, turning a hill side into a wood, or flooding a field, would be considered detracting from the image of said park etc..

But what about the farmers themselves? What will they do when the subsidies end and they can't scratch a living at the market price for food?

>I imagine that the number of rangers/guide employed would be minimal and their pay low, so it would be no more attractive than the current low tech end of farming. Rangers/guide won't be free, you either pay indirectly through tax, or directly through a guiding fee. How much would you pay for a day out, especially at this time of year?

I was thinking more of a park entrance fee / annual fee, a la Yosemite. Could also pay for the mountain rescue services in that park like the ranger service does in Yosemite I think? I guess a lot of the employees in US parks are actually employed in touristy stuff like running the shops and what not, rather than actual ranger / guiding jobs so it wouldn't be a direct comparison.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

you are missing my point, the UK taxpayer will pay the real price of food, rather than send money to Brussels, who take a cut, then send a little back to the farmers. UK shops will sell food at the real prices. Shoppers will either import or buy UK produce. Global food markets are changing and unstable times globally could impact imports, not to mention climates, so the UK's happy little shoppers might have to start paying farmers a decent price one day. (I certainly hope so).


Why pay for mountain rescue, the UK's voluntary MRTs, their skill, passion, dedication etc.. are the envy of the world's mountaineers?

I would look at how many people actually work as rangers per hectare, compared to how many people are currently employed within parks now in the UK. All the stuff you are suggesting is load paid jobs, still not able to support a family at the houses price in most NPAs. The UK's current NPA have warden and rangers, they also have caf£nd shop staff. All low paid, as the government can't afford to give them more and UKs NPA users already pay lots for parking.

Forestry could in a 50 years provide plenty of jobs. I know farmers in parts of Scotland where they rent 3000 acres for sheep farming, which is roughly 1200hectares, but that is only supporting a few people. The same area of forest could easily manage to support several times that number of people and it wouldn't be on the kind of low wages you will be paying your rangers. This is before you actually use the wood too, as a resource that the UK is currently a massive net importer of.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


Well said!

Monbiot is critical of farm subsidies, neglecting to mention that UK standards of living, enjoyed by himself and others, are maintained by global inequality. For biodiversity, this is arguably a much more pressing issue than how we plant up the garden in a few National Parks.
Land does not relocate overseas in the same way manufacturing does. So we pay owners of land in the UK to do things which are uneconomic. Not all bits of upland Britain in National Parks are sterile deserts as Monbiot would assert. There are bits which are, though- just as there are outside the National Parks. Patterns of, and pressures on, land use are permeable to some extent - the Park boundary is merely an artefact.
The Forestry Commission ( as was) has been mindful of leachates entering the headwaters of river for decades, and both remedial and new planting plans have to identify and care for Salmonid spawning beds.
My Friend Gwyn, at Blaen y Nant in the Nant Ffrancon is a tennant farmer whose family have farmed there for centuries. He grazes sheep and cattle around Cwm Idwal.
Boo, Hiss! you may say- woolly maggots =bad! but he also plants native trees, and teaches school children about the natural world, with a genuine love of nature. He tells me that the farm is his gravestone- how he leaves it to the generation to follow is important, and it is a passion with a strong non -monetary slant. His farm has Salmon and Sea Trout spawning areas, there is a healthy population of twite, waders, chough, and so on.
Maybe Monbiot thinks it would better still with Beavers...
He made a comment about landowners competing to host reintroductions- 'I've got beavers' vs 'but I've got lynx'. Isn't this the sort of mentality which gave us Rhododendron ponticum and the grey squirrel? Never mind, in North Wales we've got Red Squirrels now, each one costing tens of thousands of pounds and valuable enough to form committees and action groups for decades to come.

Some years ago, in the Snowdonia National Park, a 'green' transport plan proposed that visitors be prevented from driving there, public transport, or self propelled were the alternatives. Visitors and local business quashed it, because they wanted ease of access. I think some of Mr Monbiot's rewilding proponents are energised by the same need for short term gratification. Their inability to interact with wildlife frustrates them; as they never stray far from the honeypot paths on the few hours they spend away from their cars, they rarely see anything but habitats degraded by their own presence and the thousands like them. If only a lynx went past to relieve their alienation from the natural world...

In reply to llechwedd:

if you want to see how much a farm receives in cap payments bash in the name or the postcode
http://cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/Search.aspx

if I understand it correctly farm businesses in the post code LL57 received £1.6 million in 2014

In reply to John Kelly:


with a 102 recipients. Although the average is £16k ish, the few big hitters getting nearer £100k means in reality many are claiming way under £10k... it does help dispel the myth farms are living off subsidies. What's missing though is how many hectares it covers, which to some degree is more relevant.

In reply to summo:

It's interesting stuff, the acreage in probably available
I would disagree with you that this dispels the 'myth', the average, 16k, is a lot of money in my world

In reply to John Kelly:

yes but if that farm was 200-300acres, it could easily have a few machines costing £30k plus.. A single beef cow at slaughter is worth roughly £700-900. So everything is proportional. Just because they were given £16k, doesn't mean that is £16k profit, it was probably money already spent going out on something else. The payments come towards the end of the year, so many farms which are on the breadline are going into the red and need the payment to shift the debt.

Plus, a few farms/colleges/businesses got way over that £50k plus. Many got less than £5k, which isn't that much at all. Have a look at the list. Or try it where you live, it's all very open with names of farms etc.. so you can see just what they get and how big their farm is on the ground etc..

In reply to summo:

It's not an ideal system, and of course Higher/Entry Level Stewardship have just changed again. sometimes it's money for something that happens anyway, sometimes it easily covers the cost of the activity, sometimes it's hopelessly inadequate. FWIW I'm uneasy about some very big farms, and indeed voluntary sector bodies claiming some elements, but then genuine conservation & landscape benefits wouldn't happen otherwise.

I'm afraid a lot of the problems do come back to Defra having been cut so hard since 2009 that the department and it's agencies cannot function effectively. There's a a narrative of a bloated public sector and easy back office savings, but I get the feeling that in the last few years, Defra has been abandoned - I don't know if that's worse than health or education being the personal playthings of certain ministers, but ever since Justin Greening, none of the ministers responsible for the environment portfolio seem to have understood it, never mind actually cared, but once again that's probably veered off topic.

In reply to toad:


I would agree huge farms have an economy of scale and benefits should be aimed at those lower down who don't. The big 1000hectare farm that has say 50 hectares in true agri environmental farming, shouldn't get as much as the smaller 100 hectare farm that also has the same amount, as the smaller farm is clearly doing more etc..


Whilst there is always the talk of energy being a national or critical asset, national food production seems to fly on by in terms of how important it is. Ministers do the talk of course, but then very little happens afterwards. They are quick to trumpet how 50 of them flew on an expensive trip to China to try and sell more produce there, but fail to truly deal with the production in the UK in the first place.

And that's ignoring the EU, just like a single currency can't suit all nations, the various forms of the CAP haven't worked either. The flex that is built into it, just isn't enough to address the massive variety within European farming.

In reply to John Kelly:




There are some on there which seem absolutely insane.

http://cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/Details.aspx?CAPPaymentProcessed2ndId=4308...

This is a company with a net worth of £148 million, based in London, and they're receiving nearly £2 million in payments under the CAP.

Grosvenor Farms, part of the Duke of Westminster's estate, are earning nearly a million quid in subsidies. The estate of a man worth £9 billion is earning a million pounds in subsidies per year. How can this be justified when there is so much pressure on public expenditure?

In reply to RyanOsborne:


But Yosemite (and the other US national parks for that matter) are isolated areas with only a handful of access points, which can be controlled. The UK national parks are places where people live and work, with hundreds of points of access. The boundary of the Peak District NP runs right behind my house, your suggestion would mean I would have to pay a fee to visit the pub just across the road, and my wife would pay a fee to drive through it to work. This is neither practical nor desirable. The UK national parks are entirely different from the US ones and serve a different purpose, which is not to preserve a natural wilderness but to protect areas of particular beauty, albeit a largely man-made environment, from inappropriate development.

In reply to RyanOsborne:
One of the biggest in LL57, got an award from Snowdonia NP; "Landscape Conservation Award to Cymdeithas Porwyr Aber a Llanfairfechan because of its success in partnership working, its stewardship of the environment and its success in protecting livestock and a way of life. " it was a few years ago though.



Why does worth matter, it might be asset rich and still make very little profit. Or as they say "turnover is vanity, profit is sanity".

I would look a little deeper beyond the headlines to see what they farm, how many they employ, how many hectares, what and where they sell it etc.. £2m might actual seem like a good deal, I don't but the devil is often in the detail.

In reply to Howard J:

I don't think it would work with the current boundaries of the national parks, but could work with wilderness areas within the NPs.

In reply to summo:


They are a society of locals who hold grazing rights on the Carneddau (Porwyr=graziers).
Maybe a bit of contextual info wouldn't go amiss ( not aimed at yourself summo, I'm enjoying your posts here, alongside the redoubtable Toad):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4899800.stm

So, just to clarify, that's 22 graziers sharing that sum in relation to the grazing management over 2700 hectares.

In reply to llechwedd:

Thanks for the info, I thought it must be some kind of collective, as you need some serious acreage to get that level of funding.

In reply to summo:
I shouldn't be surprised, but the amount the NT gets from cap is an eye opener!

In reply to toad:

I imagine in the lakes they get a shed load of money.

In reply to summo:


Whereas in the New Forest National Park it's a Farrow & Ball painted Shepherd's Hut on wheels load of money

In reply to toad:

I would imagine it's in line with subsidies given to other large farming units.
I would suppose that they operate to fairly high environmental standards.
Not sure it's particularly relevant to a discussion as to wether subsidies are producing good environmental outcomes or merely supporting the historic status quo

In reply to John Kelly:



>

Oh absolutely, and it's a relatively small part of their overall budget

In reply to toad:

In your view then, do you consider subsidies, as currently configured, have an overall positive environmental impact?

In reply to John Kelly:

I suspect you are asking the wrong person. My limited experience would suggest some do, some don't, but overall, I think it depends who you ask and what their environmental priorities are. Not dodging the question genuinely not sure

In reply to toad:

It's complex but I think (and this is from a pretty ignorant starting position) that Monbiot may have a point.
That said I love the farms, the bloody farmers and the lake district landscapes, luckily I'm too old to get tangled in any future wild wood on way to Gimmer

In reply to John Kelly:

But if the slopes of Gimmer were allowed to rewild, the climbers would keep a path open by using it. Best of both worlds.

In reply to Phil1919:

What about the wolves!!!!

In reply to John Kelly:

Dream on......

In reply to John Kelly:

Gimmer is part of Langdale Common which Is owned by Jim Lowther. According to this profile in the independent http://www.independent.co.uk/i/page-3-profile-jim-lowther-landowner-9434198... he is not your typical landowner and is far more open minded to managing land in a different way. So wilder walk up is not beyond the bounds of possibility. How about some (mountain) ash trees on the crag? I found that profile in the Independent after watching Chris Packham's talk to John Muir Trust- he makes reference to Jim Lowther and quotes the info in this profile.

In reply to MattDTC:

I wonder what place humans have in some of these visions for a re-wilded landscape? Some of those promoting these are more interested in restoring wildlife and ecology rather than recreation or agriculture. There has been much comparison with US national parks, but you have to pay to enter most of these, permits may be needed for wilderness areas, and sometimes there are quotas. Should we be careful what we wish for?

In reply to Howard J:

Access is often restricted to the most important areas - ironically mostly by private gatekeepers for either economic or wildlife protection reasons. The publicly (and quasi-publically -NT) owned land is the most likely to have free access. If you think about it, you already effectively need a permit to access most of the Lake District - the NT car park sticker!

On a wider note, if quotas or restricted access are necessary to protect the long term viability of an area, should free access trump these considerations? - this is certainly already the case in law as it stands

In reply to toad:


Interesting question! If the price to pay to live alongside some animals is that we can't have unlimited access to everywhere, then I for one would accept it.

I think this question is already being asked with the Alladale site and the 'ramblers want free access' vs 'the landowner wants big mammals' argument.

I also think this already happens to some extent with protected nesting sites for endangered birds as an example, albeit I appreciate you're asking about something slightly different.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


These protections usually work to accommodate human activities alongside wildlife, and restrictions are usually time-limited or cover quite restricted and very specific areas. How would we feel if, for example, Jim Lowther (referred to in an earlier post) were to exclude climbers from Gimmer in pursuit of a more natural landscape? And if he were to, do you think we'd get much support from the general public?

In reply to RyanOsborne:


'Can't have' implies that someone else prohibits you- because you don't understand the thing and its' relationship with the land, and would damage it . 'Can't have' is deemed necessary because those using the land are viewed as not exercising proper stewardship over it. It has gone 'wrong' and it needs 'fixing'
By contrast, to live IN nature means exercising some self restraint to avoid undue disturbance of a species/ecosystem. Not so much 'can't have' as 'don't have'.
This arrangement can be found with traditional sustainable patterns of land/plant/animal use. . You can cut the grass at the right time to ensure the wildflowers seed, you can avoid cutting the hedge or burning the heather when birds are nesting. But land use practices are rarely sustainable over a longer timescale. Human population and rising standard of living pressures have meant that creatures which were once sharing a living space with humans are now found in zoos.
This is the price past, present and future generations have paid to enable us to, e.g. sit in front of a computer and declare our thoughts and feelings rather than bust a gut to survive. The systematic persecution of Hen Harriers over a large swathe of moorland by a few with vested interests, real though it is, is a side show to this pressure.

And what if we did create a near pristine biome with everything in it? It's likely that some would justify the economic pressure to develop and degrade land outside this wilderness park. So that 'park' then becomes a zoo, surrounded by development, and removed from the traditions and cultures of local society which, language apart, are the only things distinctive about modern British society.

Many people would be glad to know that the Blue Whale exists; they don't have to see it personally, it has an existence value. Similarly, Lynx and Wolves exist- in other countries. I've seen them with my own eyes- on the TV- watched close up and personal. But I'd prefer to be content with knowing they exist elsewhere, rather than be denied, as per Alladale, the continued experience of roaming across the land. Whereas I'm sure that the many, who never roam far from their cars or TV sets, see the restriction of access as necessary to allow the megafauna superstars (press the red button now to vote for them-there'll be something else to meddle in next week ) to live there, heavily subsidised.
There are already enough pressures, physical and funding- wise on the existing 'wild' landscapes.

In reply to Howard J:


I can only speak for myself, but I'd probably react in a similar way to how I react to Range West at Pembroke being off limits, which is to accept it on the basis that the countryside caters for more than just my climbing, be that shooting it with tanks or to provide habitat for wild animals.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

Except Range West isn't off limits, you can climb there subject to some limitations.

OK, let's extend it from Gimmer to the whole of Langdale, the whole of the Lakes being out out of bounds. No recreational access permitted to allow the landscape to re-wild. Elsewhere, the whole of Stanage out of bounds to all. Is that something the climbing community can be expected to welcome?

I'm not suggesting that these scenarios are likely or even possible. But we should be aware that some of those promoting re-wilding aren't interested in human use and may regard us as part of the problem. Which is not to say that climbers shouldn't support re-wilding, but we need to be careful how we do so. There is a good precedent with nesting birds, where a process seems to have been worked out which broadly satisfies both RSPB and climbers.

In reply to Howard J:


It's a bit hard to consider and answer, I don't know of any examples of anyone suggesting that, certainly not from what I've read. And it's not the case with the backcountry Yosemite permit system where this conversation started.

In reply to MattDTC:

Wild boar could make shopping more exciting in Betws y Coed

https://www.facebook.com/RTvids/videos/1107431095933809/

In reply to Howard J:

I do appreciate that you are not suggesting that these scenarios are likely. There is scope for much of the uplands to be a bit wilder and to restore some of the natural processes. That does not necessarily exclude other land uses like access or farming it just tips the balance slightly to give a broader range of outcomes. For example not just sheep or just grouse or just red deer. If you tip the balance right to the other extreme perhaps you do get something like the Alladale project, but there is plenty of space in the middle. As an example, I think Ennerdale finds that balance; there is native woodland restoration, some farming with cows and (fewer) sheep, forestry, public access, a desire to let the river act in a natural way, protection of drinking water etc etc. What disappoints me is that so much of the English uplands is the same dull grass moor with lots of sheep. It could be so much more exciting than that.

In reply to Lostsky:

Of course I was stating extreme examples. You're right, rewilding does not necessarily exclude agriculture or leisure access, although much of the emphasis seems to be attracting people to see wildlife. How welcome will other recreational activities be? especially those which can be said to adversely affect ecosystems, which include climbing. Quite apart from the easily observable impact of erosion, research has demonstrated that climbing has an effect on the ecosystems of rock faces. Will we still have a place in this brave new world?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020402072635.htm

In reply to Howard J:
Of course we will have a place! As far as I can make out, Monbiot and others are highlighting over grazing with sheep, intensive burning on grouse moors and too many red deer as the unholy trinity of upland issues. These all suppress the fundamental processes that allow trees, scrub and richer vegetation to develop. [And I think he has a gripe that the landowners receive massive public subsidy without delivering very much for the public]. If there was lower grazing pressure then erosion scars would heal faster and if upland species could spread happily away from the crags (where they currently shelter from grazing pressure) then our impact would probably be less significant too. I don't see any obstacles to climbers and walkers finding their place in a brave new world.

In reply to MattDTC:
For those interested, Geographical are running a series of articles about rewilding at the moment:

http://geographical.co.uk/nature/wildlife