This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38972081
Thoughts on this article?
To quote it:
"We, in Britain, have a very large percentage of it and to cover it in trees is just ecological vandalism."
Mountaineering scotland are also claiming climbers are writing to them to complain regularly?
This is just mental
Thoughts on this article?
To quote it:
"We, in Britain, have a very large percentage of it and to cover it in trees is just ecological vandalism."
Mountaineering scotland are also claiming climbers are writing to them to complain regularly?
This is just mental
21
In reply to ashtond6:
What muddle headed thinking.
If it was left alone the moorland would soon be covered in Birch/Scotch Pine etc without any planting needed. where natural woodland exists in the highlands it enhances the scenery enormously.
I just hope that 'tree planting' doesn't mean the hateful Sitka spruce plantation.
What muddle headed thinking.
If it was left alone the moorland would soon be covered in Birch/Scotch Pine etc without any planting needed. where natural woodland exists in the highlands it enhances the scenery enormously.
I just hope that 'tree planting' doesn't mean the hateful Sitka spruce plantation.
33
2
In reply to ashtond6:
Sounds bizarre, there's an argument for favouring natural regeneration over planting wherever possible but its clear that the woodland cover of Scotland is way below what might be considered 'natural', good for wildlife or what's found elsewhere in Europe (Norway is around 30%).
But has this been correctly reported ? I can understand keeping some particularly iconic or well loved views open so maybe the devil is in the detail, that said, James Fenton is well known for some outrageous statements.
Sounds bizarre, there's an argument for favouring natural regeneration over planting wherever possible but its clear that the woodland cover of Scotland is way below what might be considered 'natural', good for wildlife or what's found elsewhere in Europe (Norway is around 30%).
But has this been correctly reported ? I can understand keeping some particularly iconic or well loved views open so maybe the devil is in the detail, that said, James Fenton is well known for some outrageous statements.
3
In reply to ashtond6:
I have absolutely no idea why mountaineering Scotland would wish to endorse any campaign that actively supports grouse shooting. Notwithstanding any wider ecological arguments, or the repeated issues surrounding illegal raptor deaths, I would have thought the access issues and ugly and intrusive track building by the grouse shooting estates would be enough to suggest that climbing and grouse shooting are not good companions.
Can't help wondering what else is going on here to persuade MS into bed with the estates
I have absolutely no idea why mountaineering Scotland would wish to endorse any campaign that actively supports grouse shooting. Notwithstanding any wider ecological arguments, or the repeated issues surrounding illegal raptor deaths, I would have thought the access issues and ugly and intrusive track building by the grouse shooting estates would be enough to suggest that climbing and grouse shooting are not good companions.
Can't help wondering what else is going on here to persuade MS into bed with the estates
25
1
In reply to ashtond6:
Yeh trees do tend to spoil the view. Glen Affric, the Caringorms, and Loch Maree would all be far better without the bleedin things.
But seriously as long as its indigenous trees they are planting....get on with it. But we do not want acres and acres of conifers. (excepting Scots pines of course).
Yeh trees do tend to spoil the view. Glen Affric, the Caringorms, and Loch Maree would all be far better without the bleedin things.
But seriously as long as its indigenous trees they are planting....get on with it. But we do not want acres and acres of conifers. (excepting Scots pines of course).
9
1
In reply to ashtond6:
To me it depends entirely on what's being planted. The ancient forest west of Loch Maree is phenomenal, and I'm very excited about what the reforresting schemes in the area will look like in another decade. It's great to see this woodland being restored;,we are far poorer without it.
I'd rather have open land than dense commercial plantations however.
To me it depends entirely on what's being planted. The ancient forest west of Loch Maree is phenomenal, and I'm very excited about what the reforresting schemes in the area will look like in another decade. It's great to see this woodland being restored;,we are far poorer without it.
I'd rather have open land than dense commercial plantations however.
8
2
In reply to ashtond6:
'Moorland' is about as artificial as it comes. It wouldn't exist were it not for sheep and grouse. An ecological desert and I'd gladly have most of it under mature Caledonian forest.
'Moorland' is about as artificial as it comes. It wouldn't exist were it not for sheep and grouse. An ecological desert and I'd gladly have most of it under mature Caledonian forest.
35
In reply to pasbury:
Well of course it does! Then, how ever many years down the line, comes the mass felling that's going on all over the place in Scotland now, leaving behind a rural devastation of un-walkable dead branches, tree stumps and gulleys.
> I just hope that 'tree planting' doesn't mean the hateful Sitka spruce plantation.
Well of course it does! Then, how ever many years down the line, comes the mass felling that's going on all over the place in Scotland now, leaving behind a rural devastation of un-walkable dead branches, tree stumps and gulleys.
1
5
In reply to pasbury:
Only if you reduced the grazing. Too many sheep and deer. Nothing wrong with spruce as it provides a quick cash crop(relative to pine and hardwoods), faster employment benefits, but it's all about planning what you plant and where, ratios etc..
> What muddle headed thinking.If it was left alone the moorland would soon be covered in Birch/Scotch Pine etc without any planting needed. where natural woodland exists in the highlands it enhances the scenery enormously.I just hope that 'tree planting' doesn't mean the hateful Sitka spruce plantation.
Only if you reduced the grazing. Too many sheep and deer. Nothing wrong with spruce as it provides a quick cash crop(relative to pine and hardwoods), faster employment benefits, but it's all about planning what you plant and where, ratios etc..
4
In reply to ashtond6:
The article (or perhaps the Scottish Governments target) does seem to confuse 'woodland' and 'monoculture forestry plantation', but the stance of MS seems somewhat odd.
General opinion seems to me to be that 'rewilding' with a patchwork of natural woodland on the moors and reduced deer/grouse would benefit tourism, yet according to the article the MS spokesperson said that tourists "talk about this landscape, they don't talk about going for miles long wanders through woods."
The article (or perhaps the Scottish Governments target) does seem to confuse 'woodland' and 'monoculture forestry plantation', but the stance of MS seems somewhat odd.
General opinion seems to me to be that 'rewilding' with a patchwork of natural woodland on the moors and reduced deer/grouse would benefit tourism, yet according to the article the MS spokesperson said that tourists "talk about this landscape, they don't talk about going for miles long wanders through woods."
1
15
In reply to ashtond6:
Joint Press release from Mountaineering Scotland and SGA is here - https://www.mountaineering.scot/assets/contentfiles/pdf/GAMEKEEPERS-AND-MOU...
And the letter to which is refers is here - https://www.mountaineering.scot/assets/contentfiles/pdf/GAMEKEEPERS-AND-MOU...
Be wary of reading more into this than is there.
Joint Press release from Mountaineering Scotland and SGA is here - https://www.mountaineering.scot/assets/contentfiles/pdf/GAMEKEEPERS-AND-MOU...
And the letter to which is refers is here - https://www.mountaineering.scot/assets/contentfiles/pdf/GAMEKEEPERS-AND-MOU...
Be wary of reading more into this than is there.
4
1
In reply to OMR
I think MS are being used to give credibility to a group under a lot of external pressure. I know both are to an extent recreation self interest groups, but I think MS have rather more to lose in terms of reputation. If this was the BMC I'd be much more vocal, but as it is I'm not Scottish and I don't really have a dog in this race, other than a general concern about illegal activities and ecological integrity of the uplands.
I think MS are being used to give credibility to a group under a lot of external pressure. I know both are to an extent recreation self interest groups, but I think MS have rather more to lose in terms of reputation. If this was the BMC I'd be much more vocal, but as it is I'm not Scottish and I don't really have a dog in this race, other than a general concern about illegal activities and ecological integrity of the uplands.
2
In reply to ashtond6:
I posted this in another thread on the same subject, so here's my rant again:
I'm flabbergasted by this letter my MS & SGA! It show's such a fundamental misunderstanding of so many things about upland ecology and woodland creation policy.
What is this "wild moorland" that's being threatened? There are huge areas above the altitude that trees will grow that no-one is ever going to plant trees on. These will always be open. There are areas below this tree line that aren't suitable for trees to grow on (e.g. blanket bogs) which policy prevents being planted on. Then there are the extensive areas of heather and grass dominated moorland where trees should grow naturally but are systematically burnt or grazed to be kept open. They aren't 'wild', they're kept that way by management! It's a proportion of these areas that will (hopefully) be planted or naturally regenerate with trees. Our history of forest clearance and continued obsession with Victoriana - red grouse shooting and subsidy-reliant hill farming - means that huge areas that would 'naturally' have forest cover are kept open.
I'll accept that if all new woodland creation was wall to wall productive sitka spruce it wouldn't all be welcome, but that's far from what's happening. Forestry is moving away from monocultures as a response to increasing pathogen threat. Resilience in diversity. There's a huge amount of native woodland creation being promoted too - low density planting of suitable species, recreating what might have been there before we cut it all down. I love the idea of walking through a native wood before breaking through the natural treeline into the hills - that's far 'wilder' than walking across a burnt grouse moor.
In Scotland we have about 18% forest cover, which is absolutely miniscule. Contrast that with Finland which has 73%!
I posted this in another thread on the same subject, so here's my rant again:
I'm flabbergasted by this letter my MS & SGA! It show's such a fundamental misunderstanding of so many things about upland ecology and woodland creation policy.
What is this "wild moorland" that's being threatened? There are huge areas above the altitude that trees will grow that no-one is ever going to plant trees on. These will always be open. There are areas below this tree line that aren't suitable for trees to grow on (e.g. blanket bogs) which policy prevents being planted on. Then there are the extensive areas of heather and grass dominated moorland where trees should grow naturally but are systematically burnt or grazed to be kept open. They aren't 'wild', they're kept that way by management! It's a proportion of these areas that will (hopefully) be planted or naturally regenerate with trees. Our history of forest clearance and continued obsession with Victoriana - red grouse shooting and subsidy-reliant hill farming - means that huge areas that would 'naturally' have forest cover are kept open.
I'll accept that if all new woodland creation was wall to wall productive sitka spruce it wouldn't all be welcome, but that's far from what's happening. Forestry is moving away from monocultures as a response to increasing pathogen threat. Resilience in diversity. There's a huge amount of native woodland creation being promoted too - low density planting of suitable species, recreating what might have been there before we cut it all down. I love the idea of walking through a native wood before breaking through the natural treeline into the hills - that's far 'wilder' than walking across a burnt grouse moor.
In Scotland we have about 18% forest cover, which is absolutely miniscule. Contrast that with Finland which has 73%!
36
In reply to ashtond6:
I have emailed Neil (communications officer, MS) and invited him to this discussion.
Glad others are sharing my concern.
Thank you
I have emailed Neil (communications officer, MS) and invited him to this discussion.
Glad others are sharing my concern.
Thank you
3
In reply to OMR:
Thanks for posting those links.
We've been in touch with Mountaineering Scotland and expect a further statement from them later. As you've suggested, there's a danger of reading more into the current story than is really there. Unfortunately the wording of their press release invites speculation, as it may have placed rather too much emphasis on the reforestation versus heather moorland question. Bigger picture is that they are calling for a landscape policy for our uplands that takes into strategic account all sorts of land use including trees and grouse moor, but also wind farms etc
Thanks for posting those links.
We've been in touch with Mountaineering Scotland and expect a further statement from them later. As you've suggested, there's a danger of reading more into the current story than is really there. Unfortunately the wording of their press release invites speculation, as it may have placed rather too much emphasis on the reforestation versus heather moorland question. Bigger picture is that they are calling for a landscape policy for our uplands that takes into strategic account all sorts of land use including trees and grouse moor, but also wind farms etc
7
In reply to gaz.marshall:
I agree with you 99%. If the right seed stock was used you could get some spruce and pine growing up to 800 or 900m but these would be very dwarfed versions due to the conditions. No point trying to use uk seed stock, better to import from nordics. Similar with the wetlands, the sort of squelchy dampness that stuff like cloud berries love will also support certain pines, they don't grow much over 10m and could take over a hundred years to get 20-30cms thick, their roots have a natural tar preservative in, that used to be extracted it olde days. These slightly forested marsh margins are supposed to be great for things like capercaille and pine martins. Not to mention the smaller critters and plants.
I agree with you 99%. If the right seed stock was used you could get some spruce and pine growing up to 800 or 900m but these would be very dwarfed versions due to the conditions. No point trying to use uk seed stock, better to import from nordics. Similar with the wetlands, the sort of squelchy dampness that stuff like cloud berries love will also support certain pines, they don't grow much over 10m and could take over a hundred years to get 20-30cms thick, their roots have a natural tar preservative in, that used to be extracted it olde days. These slightly forested marsh margins are supposed to be great for things like capercaille and pine martins. Not to mention the smaller critters and plants.
Post edited at 12:45
5
In reply to ashtond6:
Glad I'm not the only one thinking this was a rather alarming statement from MS. I can only hope it's a poorly worded press release that fails to really define the problem. I (perhaps wrongly) infer from it that areas like Glen Affric are seen as less important vistas whereas in reality the commercial coniferous forests are probably what MS are against (and I'm with them on that)
Glad I'm not the only one thinking this was a rather alarming statement from MS. I can only hope it's a poorly worded press release that fails to really define the problem. I (perhaps wrongly) infer from it that areas like Glen Affric are seen as less important vistas whereas in reality the commercial coniferous forests are probably what MS are against (and I'm with them on that)
Sitka planting is back again after a bit of a break. Huge plantation on the east side of the Ochils and a fair bit going in around the Borders.
In reply to ashtond6:
Mountaineering Scotland are being used as "willing fools" and if they carry on like this they'll start to lose members. They should choose their friends more carefully. First they got rid of the people during the clearances. Then they got rid of the trees so that they could kill the wildlife more easily for sport.
Mountaineering Scotland are being used as "willing fools" and if they carry on like this they'll start to lose members. They should choose their friends more carefully. First they got rid of the people during the clearances. Then they got rid of the trees so that they could kill the wildlife more easily for sport.
9
In reply to ashtond6:
Updated response from MS:
https://www.mountaineering.scot/news/clarification-on-joint-press-release-w...
Updated response from MS:
https://www.mountaineering.scot/news/clarification-on-joint-press-release-w...
In reply to gaz.marshall:
That stance makes more sense - questioning commercial blanket forests, not natural reforestation, and just wanting some sort of national policy. But doesn't explain why they chose a joint campaign with SGA, nor why all the quotes in their original article don't make the distinction.
That stance makes more sense - questioning commercial blanket forests, not natural reforestation, and just wanting some sort of national policy. But doesn't explain why they chose a joint campaign with SGA, nor why all the quotes in their original article don't make the distinction.
2
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Yes. The detail of the clarifications makes more sense, unlike their decision to issue a joint statement with the SGA, which is still massively counterproductive if your message is one of sustainable upland management.
Yes. The detail of the clarifications makes more sense, unlike their decision to issue a joint statement with the SGA, which is still massively counterproductive if your message is one of sustainable upland management.
2
In reply to toad:
I agree. The BBC story is far less nuanced than the point they're trying to get across. That could have been much clearer in their press release. I boils down to putting the right tree in the right place, which is a long established principle, but perhaps not practiced as well as it should be.
I understand the superficial alignment with the SGA - both organisations have concerns- but its patently obvious that the foundations for those concerns are wildly different. MS is concerned about landscape which is an entirely personal and cultural issue (I like to see forests, you might prefer to see open hills). SGA are concerned about maintaining a very controversial land use.
I agree. The BBC story is far less nuanced than the point they're trying to get across. That could have been much clearer in their press release. I boils down to putting the right tree in the right place, which is a long established principle, but perhaps not practiced as well as it should be.
I understand the superficial alignment with the SGA - both organisations have concerns- but its patently obvious that the foundations for those concerns are wildly different. MS is concerned about landscape which is an entirely personal and cultural issue (I like to see forests, you might prefer to see open hills). SGA are concerned about maintaining a very controversial land use.
2
In reply to gaz.marshall:
To an extent, I agree, but alongside that 'personal and the cultural' thrust of Mountaineeering Scotland (MS), there appears to be scant acknowledgement by them that the prized landscapes under discussion are someone's factory floor.
MS has 13,000 members, that's a very small fraction of the total number of people taking their leisure in these landscapes. Internationally, the John Muir Trust (JMT) has even fewer- about 10,000. JMT gives you the landscape of Knoydart, amongst other beauties.
We can cast the SGA as the baddies if it makes us feel good, but they arguably have a deeper cultural and personal connection to that landscape than the average hillgoer.
I wonder if and when grouse shooting becomes less viable economically, would hillwalkers, sense an opportunity, putting their money where their mouth is, to pay for expansion of scrub woodland and Caledonian pine forest?
I wonder how many hillwalkers are putting money into that landscape- and I don't mean Lottery money. How many are actively campaigning to shape the system of taxes and grants available to land managers?
> ...... MS is concerned about landscape which is an entirely personal and cultural issue (I like to see forests, you might prefer to see open hills). SGA are concerned about maintaining a very controversial land use.
To an extent, I agree, but alongside that 'personal and the cultural' thrust of Mountaineeering Scotland (MS), there appears to be scant acknowledgement by them that the prized landscapes under discussion are someone's factory floor.
MS has 13,000 members, that's a very small fraction of the total number of people taking their leisure in these landscapes. Internationally, the John Muir Trust (JMT) has even fewer- about 10,000. JMT gives you the landscape of Knoydart, amongst other beauties.
We can cast the SGA as the baddies if it makes us feel good, but they arguably have a deeper cultural and personal connection to that landscape than the average hillgoer.
I wonder if and when grouse shooting becomes less viable economically, would hillwalkers, sense an opportunity, putting their money where their mouth is, to pay for expansion of scrub woodland and Caledonian pine forest?
I wonder how many hillwalkers are putting money into that landscape- and I don't mean Lottery money. How many are actively campaigning to shape the system of taxes and grants available to land managers?
Post edited at 21:34
6
4
In reply to ashtond6:
Try going to the Eastern Grampians. It's been muir burned to an inch of its life, literally! Heather moorland is a disaster area.
Try going to the Eastern Grampians. It's been muir burned to an inch of its life, literally! Heather moorland is a disaster area.
In reply to llechwedd:
1. Only small resources would be needed to kick off what is needed
2. Footpath builders etc are volunteers so that would also happen
Why do people think what has already happened for 1000s of years, now needs managing?
1. Only small resources would be needed to kick off what is needed
2. Footpath builders etc are volunteers so that would also happen
Why do people think what has already happened for 1000s of years, now needs managing?
1
1
In reply to ashtond6:
What has happened for thousands of years in the UK is called land management. Whether it was sound management in the case of The Clearances, or more recently, in the 1980's, the afforestation of the Flow Country, is debateable. In both cases, an economic imperative acted as driver for new practice.
It's lovely that there are volunteers to build footpaths. But the hint at their contribution to the local economy is in the name, 'volunteers'.
Unless there's an understanding of economics of planting up, or natural regen, of native tree species, it's just gardening. All the claims for non monetary benefits flowing from 'wilderness' won't keep a roof over your head.
What has happened for thousands of years in the UK is called land management. Whether it was sound management in the case of The Clearances, or more recently, in the 1980's, the afforestation of the Flow Country, is debateable. In both cases, an economic imperative acted as driver for new practice.
It's lovely that there are volunteers to build footpaths. But the hint at their contribution to the local economy is in the name, 'volunteers'.
Unless there's an understanding of economics of planting up, or natural regen, of native tree species, it's just gardening. All the claims for non monetary benefits flowing from 'wilderness' won't keep a roof over your head.
2
8
In reply to ashtond6:
The madness has started
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-38955586
The madness has started
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-38955586
4
1
7
In reply to ashtond6:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/15/scottish-governments-forest...
Worth a stroll through the below the line stuff. Whilst there is the usually tally of nutters, there would appear to be a more reasoned groundswell of criticism there.
One person did ask if MS was jealous of the BMC renaming backlash and had decided to have one of their own.....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/15/scottish-governments-forest...
Worth a stroll through the below the line stuff. Whilst there is the usually tally of nutters, there would appear to be a more reasoned groundswell of criticism there.
One person did ask if MS was jealous of the BMC renaming backlash and had decided to have one of their own.....
In reply to llechwedd:
Governments have long since recognised the contribution of volunteers to the economy, be it in the environmental sector, social care, or whatever. Their contribution is just as important to the local economy as a paid employee. And of course the economics of commercial forestry and land management were long ago distorted by public sector subsidies and incentives.
the micro management of sub hectare heather plots for a certain species of ground nesting bird is the very definition of gardening.
Governments have long since recognised the contribution of volunteers to the economy, be it in the environmental sector, social care, or whatever. Their contribution is just as important to the local economy as a paid employee. And of course the economics of commercial forestry and land management were long ago distorted by public sector subsidies and incentives.
the micro management of sub hectare heather plots for a certain species of ground nesting bird is the very definition of gardening.
In reply to llechwedd:
Do you know anything about the history of Scotland and the clearances? To glibly suggest that the forced removal and destruction of entire communities may have represented sound land management is ignorant and insulting. I suggest you spend a little more time understanding the sheer scale of the destruction inflicted on those communities and families affected by the clearances before you frame any further comments. The clearances were unambiguously awful for the Scottish Highlands.. Not just in terms of land management but in terms of culture, language and economic diversity. And it's a legacy that has left deep scars to this day.
Do you know anything about the history of Scotland and the clearances? To glibly suggest that the forced removal and destruction of entire communities may have represented sound land management is ignorant and insulting. I suggest you spend a little more time understanding the sheer scale of the destruction inflicted on those communities and families affected by the clearances before you frame any further comments. The clearances were unambiguously awful for the Scottish Highlands.. Not just in terms of land management but in terms of culture, language and economic diversity. And it's a legacy that has left deep scars to this day.
14
1
In reply to alastairmac:
I'm not wishing to put words in Llechwedd's mouth, but I think you've misread him: He said that taken as a form of land management (or, I guess you could say, the precursor to land management based on sheep farming and, later, stalking) the merits of the Clearances are debatable. That's not an endorsement!
I'm not wishing to put words in Llechwedd's mouth, but I think you've misread him: He said that taken as a form of land management (or, I guess you could say, the precursor to land management based on sheep farming and, later, stalking) the merits of the Clearances are debatable. That's not an endorsement!
5
In reply to llechwedd:
The economics are sound. Go to Norway, Sweden, Finland. Masses of forest of all types, almost all are actively managed, but you will still have diversity and true open access for recreation. As well as generating far more income or employment than 99% of Scotland's forest currently delivers.
And yes, the land has always been managed, but we live in more educated or enlightened times, so we should manage it with a view to future, for the benefit of the majority, not a minority of the population. Many will fight it and can't see it changing but a massive overhaul of the NP policy could massively improve them for the locals and generate employment other than seasonal tourism.
> Unless there's an understanding of economics of planting up, or natural regen, of native tree species, it's just gardening. All the claims for non monetary benefits flowing from 'wilderness' won't keep a roof over your head.
The economics are sound. Go to Norway, Sweden, Finland. Masses of forest of all types, almost all are actively managed, but you will still have diversity and true open access for recreation. As well as generating far more income or employment than 99% of Scotland's forest currently delivers.
And yes, the land has always been managed, but we live in more educated or enlightened times, so we should manage it with a view to future, for the benefit of the majority, not a minority of the population. Many will fight it and can't see it changing but a massive overhaul of the NP policy could massively improve them for the locals and generate employment other than seasonal tourism.
In reply to llechwedd:
I can't think that the 'economic imperative' has been anything more than a synthetic thing generated by vested interest (big landowners) and subsidy for a couple of hundred years!
They're a result of some bad things happening in the past (clearances is what I'm primarily thinking of).
I think there are genuine monetary benefits flowing from allowing wilderness to naturally regenerate, though of course they are mainly in the tourism/leisure fields - e.g. the sea eagles are thought to have boosted the economy of Mull (though I would hesitate to put a figure on it).
> What has happened for thousands of years in the UK is called land management. Whether it was sound management in the case of The Clearances, or more recently, in the 1980's, the afforestation of the Flow Country, is debateable. In both cases, an economic imperative acted as driver for new practice.It's lovely that there are volunteers to build footpaths. But the hint at their contribution to the local economy is in the name, 'volunteers'. Unless there's an understanding of economics of planting up, or natural regen, of native tree species, it's just gardening. All the claims for non monetary benefits flowing from 'wilderness' won't keep a roof over your head.
I can't think that the 'economic imperative' has been anything more than a synthetic thing generated by vested interest (big landowners) and subsidy for a couple of hundred years!
They're a result of some bad things happening in the past (clearances is what I'm primarily thinking of).
I think there are genuine monetary benefits flowing from allowing wilderness to naturally regenerate, though of course they are mainly in the tourism/leisure fields - e.g. the sea eagles are thought to have boosted the economy of Mull (though I would hesitate to put a figure on it).
In reply to toad:
Yes, the contribution of volunteers is enormous. I struggle to disentangle this word 'economy' when it comes to volunteer contribution though.
It seems to me that volunteers are being taken for granted in modern society. We call them 'the voluntary sector', as if these people weren't untold thousands of individuals who may have little in common beyond living lives of quiet desperation, jobless but trying to hold on to some dignity by volunteering.
Volunteers keep libraries open when the councils tell us they should be shut in order to save money. Paid jobs then disappear. With volunteer run libraries, a depressed person might only be able to hold a job down because the still open library is a source of advice and support. So the volunteer supports the local economy
This model of integrated volunteering is heavily reliant on those 'between jobs', retired people, students, and partners of the comfortably waged. There's a pool of such people in urban areas, and a much more mixed economy. In rural areas it is not so easy.
Tourists contribute to the rural economy by spending in B&B's , but the money rarely gets spent on footpaths. there isn't enough to go around, and there'd be even less if paid employment fell.
I like your style re; that ground nesting bird. In this instance, I'd say it's more akin to allotment holding:
Read all the books you like about gardening with nature, and natural pest control, but in the end , spray the few stunted veg with costly chemicals, when all the while you could have just gone to Lidl and bought a better one for a fraction of the cost.
> Governments have long since recognised the contribution of volunteers to the economy, be it in the environmental sector, social care, or whatever. Their contribution is just as important to the local economy as a paid employee. And of course the economics of commercial forestry and land management were long ago distorted by public sector subsidies and incentives. the micro management of sub hectare heather plots for a certain species of ground nesting bird is the very definition of gardening.
Yes, the contribution of volunteers is enormous. I struggle to disentangle this word 'economy' when it comes to volunteer contribution though.
It seems to me that volunteers are being taken for granted in modern society. We call them 'the voluntary sector', as if these people weren't untold thousands of individuals who may have little in common beyond living lives of quiet desperation, jobless but trying to hold on to some dignity by volunteering.
Volunteers keep libraries open when the councils tell us they should be shut in order to save money. Paid jobs then disappear. With volunteer run libraries, a depressed person might only be able to hold a job down because the still open library is a source of advice and support. So the volunteer supports the local economy
This model of integrated volunteering is heavily reliant on those 'between jobs', retired people, students, and partners of the comfortably waged. There's a pool of such people in urban areas, and a much more mixed economy. In rural areas it is not so easy.
Tourists contribute to the rural economy by spending in B&B's , but the money rarely gets spent on footpaths. there isn't enough to go around, and there'd be even less if paid employment fell.
I like your style re; that ground nesting bird. In this instance, I'd say it's more akin to allotment holding:
Read all the books you like about gardening with nature, and natural pest control, but in the end , spray the few stunted veg with costly chemicals, when all the while you could have just gone to Lidl and bought a better one for a fraction of the cost.
In reply to alastairmac:
I wonder if you know as much as I do about the clearances? Answered ? Good. Now where has that got us?
I replied to a question "Why do people think what has already happened for 1000s of years, now needs managing?"
The Clearances are a brutal example, chosen so that even those with a dilettante knowledge of Scotland, can recognise it as management of the land.
Read the landscape of today, and the sheer scale of the effects are chilling, staggering, nauseating . So..." what has already happened..." does indeed tell us that it needs managing, today, more than ever.
I hesitate to say this, but I feel there is something of a responsibility upon all of us who use the uplands to question if we, collectively, and as individuals are not perpetuating that legacy of depopulation.
There is something just a little selfish in being able to project our fantasies of wilderness onto the lonely areas. How often, myself included, do we hear 'I avoid the Lake District cos it's too busy, Scotland's only a few extra hours on the motorway'. So let's plant some rowan trees...
> Do you know anything about the history of Scotland and the clearances? To glibly suggest that the forced removal and destruction of entire communities may have represented sound land management is ignorant and insulting.
I wonder if you know as much as I do about the clearances? Answered ? Good. Now where has that got us?
I replied to a question "Why do people think what has already happened for 1000s of years, now needs managing?"
The Clearances are a brutal example, chosen so that even those with a dilettante knowledge of Scotland, can recognise it as management of the land.
Read the landscape of today, and the sheer scale of the effects are chilling, staggering, nauseating . So..." what has already happened..." does indeed tell us that it needs managing, today, more than ever.
I hesitate to say this, but I feel there is something of a responsibility upon all of us who use the uplands to question if we, collectively, and as individuals are not perpetuating that legacy of depopulation.
There is something just a little selfish in being able to project our fantasies of wilderness onto the lonely areas. How often, myself included, do we hear 'I avoid the Lake District cos it's too busy, Scotland's only a few extra hours on the motorway'. So let's plant some rowan trees...
4
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
I should certainly hope it's not an endorsement! But even on a clinical intellectual level ( which I guess you may operate on if you have no connection to the land, people and culture of the H&I ) it's irresponsible not to recognise the scale of the devastation caused by the clearances. It needs to be said that there is no ambiguity about that.
I should certainly hope it's not an endorsement! But even on a clinical intellectual level ( which I guess you may operate on if you have no connection to the land, people and culture of the H&I ) it's irresponsible not to recognise the scale of the devastation caused by the clearances. It needs to be said that there is no ambiguity about that.
3
In reply to summo:
Not really true.
True.
Not true.
Lots of Finns I know have gone trekking or ski-trekking over the border in Russia to actually see diverse old growth forests. Outside of the national parks, which south of Lapland are a rather small percentage of land, Finnish forests aren't particularly diverse and to a great degree aren't managed with recreation in mind. Forests have been traditionally a massive part of the country's economy though, so they are very important, but as an economic resource before anything else.
I just got back from three days in Scotland with my son. We went over to Cairngorm to ski one day, but decided that it wasn't worth the lift pass cost, so hired fat bikes in Aviemore instead and rode up to the Osprey centre at Loch Garten and back through all the lovely forest paths. Those areas of old forest around there are absolutely beautiful (and also the most nordic feeling place I've been to outside of Norden!), it would be good if Scotland could have more Caledonian pine forest but my understanding is that it is completely down to too many deer stopping it? We also walked yesterday up through Steall Gorge to the hut and wire bridge, some of those pines are wonderfully beautiful as well.
> The economics are sound. Go ... Finland. Masses of forest of all types,
Not really true.
> almost all are actively managed,
True.
> but you will still have diversity
Not true.
Lots of Finns I know have gone trekking or ski-trekking over the border in Russia to actually see diverse old growth forests. Outside of the national parks, which south of Lapland are a rather small percentage of land, Finnish forests aren't particularly diverse and to a great degree aren't managed with recreation in mind. Forests have been traditionally a massive part of the country's economy though, so they are very important, but as an economic resource before anything else.
I just got back from three days in Scotland with my son. We went over to Cairngorm to ski one day, but decided that it wasn't worth the lift pass cost, so hired fat bikes in Aviemore instead and rode up to the Osprey centre at Loch Garten and back through all the lovely forest paths. Those areas of old forest around there are absolutely beautiful (and also the most nordic feeling place I've been to outside of Norden!), it would be good if Scotland could have more Caledonian pine forest but my understanding is that it is completely down to too many deer stopping it? We also walked yesterday up through Steall Gorge to the hut and wire bridge, some of those pines are wonderfully beautiful as well.
2
1
In reply to llechwedd:
Blame all those Victorian poets who romanticised that empty space! But I agree, I think us mountaineers are quite good at ignoring the human (or missing human) landscapes of where we climb.
> I hesitate to say this, but I feel there is something of a responsibility upon all of us who use the uplands to question if we, collectively, and as individuals are not perpetuating that legacy of depopulation.There is something just a little selfish in being able to project our fantasies of wilderness onto the lonely areas. How often, myself included, do we hear 'I avoid the Lake District cos it's too busy, Scotland's only a few extra hours on the motorway'.
Blame all those Victorian poets who romanticised that empty space! But I agree, I think us mountaineers are quite good at ignoring the human (or missing human) landscapes of where we climb.
2
In reply to llechwedd:
Apologies if I'm being dense, but I'm not clear what you point is.
Are you saying that expanding our forests might be a bad thing because the current land management supports rural jobs but that bigger forests and a move towards more 'wild' land (whatever that means) will reduce these opportunities? Or are you saying the opposite?
I think the whole rewilding/wilderness argument is a bit of a red herring here. Even MS are saying they support the sensitive expansion or creation of native woodlands (not sure SGA would always agree with this if it was on a popular and lucrative grouse moor).
What's potentially controversial to many people is the expansion of productive non-native forests. But they will directly support jobs, which might stem rural depopulation, which I think you're saying is a good thing.
So either way, forest expansion is potentially a good thing. Right?
Apologies if I'm being dense, but I'm not clear what you point is.
Are you saying that expanding our forests might be a bad thing because the current land management supports rural jobs but that bigger forests and a move towards more 'wild' land (whatever that means) will reduce these opportunities? Or are you saying the opposite?
I think the whole rewilding/wilderness argument is a bit of a red herring here. Even MS are saying they support the sensitive expansion or creation of native woodlands (not sure SGA would always agree with this if it was on a popular and lucrative grouse moor).
What's potentially controversial to many people is the expansion of productive non-native forests. But they will directly support jobs, which might stem rural depopulation, which I think you're saying is a good thing.
So either way, forest expansion is potentially a good thing. Right?
3
In reply to TobyA:
I will agree with some bits of Nordic forest. There was a spell in the 80s where the thinking was to farm spruce. Clear fell and mono culture replant
It didn't last long and for the last couple of decades since its it's been more mixed planting, boundaries, marsh or stream edges aren't felled etc... But that decade for mismanagement will remain for a life time .
Yeah. Over grazing is the problem. It's the same here too many elk which love young pine, but the city living green party fans don't like elk being shot and the quota is too low . So in places here you only have pine bushes or pine trees over 50yrs old.
I will agree with some bits of Nordic forest. There was a spell in the 80s where the thinking was to farm spruce. Clear fell and mono culture replant
It didn't last long and for the last couple of decades since its it's been more mixed planting, boundaries, marsh or stream edges aren't felled etc... But that decade for mismanagement will remain for a life time .
Yeah. Over grazing is the problem. It's the same here too many elk which love young pine, but the city living green party fans don't like elk being shot and the quota is too low . So in places here you only have pine bushes or pine trees over 50yrs old.
In reply to gaz.marshall:
You may not be being dense, I'm not the most linear of thinkers. I struggle to make verbal sense of the overwhelming feeling that everything is connected. When I was younger, I saw this connection in an immature way, in terms of ecosystems, plants and animals, evil gamekeepers and industrial pollution. A childhood in 1960's industrial Merseyside gave a sense of callously trashed and impoverished ecosystems. In the 1980's, with inappropriate planting of conifers in the Flow Country as a tax avoidance scam, I trained to become a forest manager, reasoning that if I could influence policy from within, I'd be doing my bit. If forests were to be planted, I wanted to be in on it -the environmental aspects of land use change should be planned for.
So, yes, I am pro -forests, but not because I have a thing for trees ( though I have), it's more just a way of linking to that thing about the land and living things I live in and with.
Due to a shrinking jobs market, I left forestry 20 years ago, but before I did, I co authored EU funded research on private forestry costs and revenues in every region of each country of Europe. This was meant to inform the provision of grants for the same. Where to begin? Lies, damned lies and statistics seems to be a fair summation, but doesn't shed light....forests are long term investment. new ones are a sign that someone is playing the long game, and, with a mature grant system, that trees are being planted appropriately. or, in the case of the UK of the 1980's, an accountant has just discovered a loophole in the tax system and the gains are too good to miss, (see, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_Country), inappropriately.
In the 1990's there was a rise in the number of further education courses with some element of environmental management in them. I'm not entirely sure that this was because we'd all become more caring for the planet. I think it was just another manifestation of the loss of traditional jobs linked to the land, in post industrial, but increasingly mechanised Britain- 'Leaving school, but not sure what you want to do, and media studies not your thing?...you could always be a environmental pontificator, somewhat divorced from the productive and economic component of land use. Never mind that Agricultural, forestry, and even gamekeeping courses then, and now teach the centrality of respect for the environment. It's paradoxical that with increasing population pressures, and increasing numbers of 'environment' trained individuals, honeypot areas apart, the uplands are probably less intensively managed than they were previously. Modern technology, and scales of economy by which we all live our lives, make sure of that . Drive down the costs..and yet, there appear to be so many more people who feel they know what should be done to make things right..stop the sitka, let's introduce red kite, beavers and red squirrels, give us more birch scrub....Sorry, got to go now, wife's just back..saying something about the three bags of kiln dried birch logs- all the way from Lithuania for only £10..
Forest expansion, yes, potentially good
> Apologies if I'm being dense, but I'm not clear what you point is. ......What's potentially controversial to many people is the expansion of productive non-native forests. But they will directly support jobs, which might stem rural depopulation, which I think you're saying is a good thing. So either way, forest expansion is potentially a good thing. Right?
You may not be being dense, I'm not the most linear of thinkers. I struggle to make verbal sense of the overwhelming feeling that everything is connected. When I was younger, I saw this connection in an immature way, in terms of ecosystems, plants and animals, evil gamekeepers and industrial pollution. A childhood in 1960's industrial Merseyside gave a sense of callously trashed and impoverished ecosystems. In the 1980's, with inappropriate planting of conifers in the Flow Country as a tax avoidance scam, I trained to become a forest manager, reasoning that if I could influence policy from within, I'd be doing my bit. If forests were to be planted, I wanted to be in on it -the environmental aspects of land use change should be planned for.
So, yes, I am pro -forests, but not because I have a thing for trees ( though I have), it's more just a way of linking to that thing about the land and living things I live in and with.
Due to a shrinking jobs market, I left forestry 20 years ago, but before I did, I co authored EU funded research on private forestry costs and revenues in every region of each country of Europe. This was meant to inform the provision of grants for the same. Where to begin? Lies, damned lies and statistics seems to be a fair summation, but doesn't shed light....forests are long term investment. new ones are a sign that someone is playing the long game, and, with a mature grant system, that trees are being planted appropriately. or, in the case of the UK of the 1980's, an accountant has just discovered a loophole in the tax system and the gains are too good to miss, (see, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_Country), inappropriately.
In the 1990's there was a rise in the number of further education courses with some element of environmental management in them. I'm not entirely sure that this was because we'd all become more caring for the planet. I think it was just another manifestation of the loss of traditional jobs linked to the land, in post industrial, but increasingly mechanised Britain- 'Leaving school, but not sure what you want to do, and media studies not your thing?...you could always be a environmental pontificator, somewhat divorced from the productive and economic component of land use. Never mind that Agricultural, forestry, and even gamekeeping courses then, and now teach the centrality of respect for the environment. It's paradoxical that with increasing population pressures, and increasing numbers of 'environment' trained individuals, honeypot areas apart, the uplands are probably less intensively managed than they were previously. Modern technology, and scales of economy by which we all live our lives, make sure of that . Drive down the costs..and yet, there appear to be so many more people who feel they know what should be done to make things right..stop the sitka, let's introduce red kite, beavers and red squirrels, give us more birch scrub....Sorry, got to go now, wife's just back..saying something about the three bags of kiln dried birch logs- all the way from Lithuania for only £10..
Forest expansion, yes, potentially good
2
In reply to ashtond6:
Hi Ashtond6, sorry for the radio silence. Long before the timing of this press release was rearranged I had booked time off and, after working through most of what was supposed to be an afternoon off yesterday, enjoyed a very good gig in Glasgow (Chuck Prophet in case anyone's interested - and very good he was too) and picked up my son, his wife and my toddler granddaughter from the airport, where they've just arrived for a holiday from Canada. Right now my son and his wife have jetlag, my granddaughter is playing around quite happily and I'm wishing I hadn't opened up the computer on what's meant to be a day off.
So you'll perhaps pardon me for not rejoining a debate which doesn't seem short of comments - other than to say Mountaineering Scotland want the Scottish Government to develop a landscape policy. Full stop. We put out a press release linked to above, along with the letter to which it refers. Then we put out some clarification which I think someone else has posted, but can be seen here in any case - https://www.mountaineering.scot/news/clarification-on-joint-press-release-w...
Now, if you'll forgive me, I'm away to catch my granddaughter who is far better at climbing stairs than descending them. Back to the grind tomorrow.
Hi Ashtond6, sorry for the radio silence. Long before the timing of this press release was rearranged I had booked time off and, after working through most of what was supposed to be an afternoon off yesterday, enjoyed a very good gig in Glasgow (Chuck Prophet in case anyone's interested - and very good he was too) and picked up my son, his wife and my toddler granddaughter from the airport, where they've just arrived for a holiday from Canada. Right now my son and his wife have jetlag, my granddaughter is playing around quite happily and I'm wishing I hadn't opened up the computer on what's meant to be a day off.
So you'll perhaps pardon me for not rejoining a debate which doesn't seem short of comments - other than to say Mountaineering Scotland want the Scottish Government to develop a landscape policy. Full stop. We put out a press release linked to above, along with the letter to which it refers. Then we put out some clarification which I think someone else has posted, but can be seen here in any case - https://www.mountaineering.scot/news/clarification-on-joint-press-release-w...
Now, if you'll forgive me, I'm away to catch my granddaughter who is far better at climbing stairs than descending them. Back to the grind tomorrow.
2
In reply to Toccata:
I was born on the edge of the moors.
Most of my climbing and walking has been done on the moors.
I now spend a lot of time working on the moors.
I like the moors.
I was born on the edge of the moors.
Most of my climbing and walking has been done on the moors.
I now spend a lot of time working on the moors.
I like the moors.
3
In reply to summo:
Wolves
> Yeah. Over grazing is the problem. It's the same here too many elk which love young pine, but the city living green party fans don't like elk being shot and the quota is too low.
Wolves
2
In reply to Jimbo W:
Precisely and they are about. But without an initial human led deer and elk cull, the kind of wolf led population control would require far too many wolves. There are lynx too, but again they are not sufficient in number as their territories are vast. Bring in cougars or perhaps find some sabre tooth DNA.
Wolves are fine in the remote parts where human interaction is very limited, but the deer are not that bothered, if hungry in winter they'd happily scaveng grain off bird tables during the day.
> Wolves
Precisely and they are about. But without an initial human led deer and elk cull, the kind of wolf led population control would require far too many wolves. There are lynx too, but again they are not sufficient in number as their territories are vast. Bring in cougars or perhaps find some sabre tooth DNA.
Wolves are fine in the remote parts where human interaction is very limited, but the deer are not that bothered, if hungry in winter they'd happily scaveng grain off bird tables during the day.
Post edited at 19:08
1
1
In reply to ashtond6:
is it just me, but if you write an open letter to your MSP and issue a press release - then need to issue an explainer; you've kind of fundamentally failed in your initial endeavor.
For example; I don;t expect the BBC news item is going to get re-written to pick up on the finer points of the issue.
MS come across (in the news item) as anti tree - and consequently SGA have much more gain from this than MS or anyone MS represents.
bit sad really.
is it just me, but if you write an open letter to your MSP and issue a press release - then need to issue an explainer; you've kind of fundamentally failed in your initial endeavor.
For example; I don;t expect the BBC news item is going to get re-written to pick up on the finer points of the issue.
MS come across (in the news item) as anti tree - and consequently SGA have much more gain from this than MS or anyone MS represents.
bit sad really.
Post edited at 19:41
5
In reply to OMR:
Thanks Neil, hope you will rejoin the thread once peace has descended again, meantime enjoy the visit.
Thanks Neil, hope you will rejoin the thread once peace has descended again, meantime enjoy the visit.
In reply to daWalt:
For example; I don;t expect the BBC news item is going to get re-written to pick up on the finer points of the issue.
This should be tattooed on the heart of anyone who has direct dealings with the press. You get ONE chance to get it right. You can write as many subsequent clarifications as you like, but if you stuff up the original press release, you've stuffed up forever. Good intentions count for precious little to a hack on a deadline and limited word count. They've moved on to the next thing and your story is done.
> is it just me, but if you write an open letter to your MSP and issue a press release - then need to issue an explainer; you've kind of fundamentally failed in your initial endeavor.
For example; I don;t expect the BBC news item is going to get re-written to pick up on the finer points of the issue.
This should be tattooed on the heart of anyone who has direct dealings with the press. You get ONE chance to get it right. You can write as many subsequent clarifications as you like, but if you stuff up the original press release, you've stuffed up forever. Good intentions count for precious little to a hack on a deadline and limited word count. They've moved on to the next thing and your story is done.
4
In reply to toad:
Also in the future any group wondering what their opinion on trees is; using Google it will pull up the original article, not just their secondary release .
Also in the future any group wondering what their opinion on trees is; using Google it will pull up the original article, not just their secondary release .
In reply to summo:
My direct experience with Scottish estates isn't just that deer are having to scavenge grain, but rather that estates are actively feeding them. In Arnisdale, the deer are almost tame, and there are ticks bloody everywhere as a result. Plus this area used to be Lyme free, but not any more, and I don't understand why the public health angle is asserted at the large populations of deer that are being allowed to accumulate and range, but I digress. As I understood it, the positive effect of Wolves isn't so much that they kill deer/equiv in any great numbers, but rather that they keep populations moving, at that increase in ranging tendency reduced the pressure allowing new tree growth and regeneration.
> Wolves are fine in the remote parts where human interaction is very limited, but the deer are not that bothered, if hungry in winter they'd happily scaveng grain off bird tables during the day.
My direct experience with Scottish estates isn't just that deer are having to scavenge grain, but rather that estates are actively feeding them. In Arnisdale, the deer are almost tame, and there are ticks bloody everywhere as a result. Plus this area used to be Lyme free, but not any more, and I don't understand why the public health angle is asserted at the large populations of deer that are being allowed to accumulate and range, but I digress. As I understood it, the positive effect of Wolves isn't so much that they kill deer/equiv in any great numbers, but rather that they keep populations moving, at that increase in ranging tendency reduced the pressure allowing new tree growth and regeneration.
1
In reply to Tom Valentine:
I was born in a house on the moors, grew up there and have lived surrounded by them for over 2/3 my life. Like you I used to love them. Then I started going on holidays throughout Scandanavia (mainly Norway and Sweden) and suddenly realised moors were simply what was left after you killed most of the trees, plants, mosses, fungi, lichens, insects, birds, small mammals and large mammals.
Now I'm not so keen.
> I was born on the edge of the moors.Most of my climbing and walking has been done on the moors.I now spend a lot of time working on the moors. I like the moors.
I was born in a house on the moors, grew up there and have lived surrounded by them for over 2/3 my life. Like you I used to love them. Then I started going on holidays throughout Scandanavia (mainly Norway and Sweden) and suddenly realised moors were simply what was left after you killed most of the trees, plants, mosses, fungi, lichens, insects, birds, small mammals and large mammals.
Now I'm not so keen.
8
In reply to toad:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39002357
> They've moved on to the next thing and your story is done.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39002357
1
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
That sort of proves the point. The story is no longer inappropriate planting, it's the members backlash against MS
That sort of proves the point. The story is no longer inappropriate planting, it's the members backlash against MS
1
In reply to ashtond6:
Blog from Mark Avery. doesn't say anything particularly new, but he's a respected voice in the conservation community
http://markavery.info/2017/02/20/dewilding-scotland/
Blog from Mark Avery. doesn't say anything particularly new, but he's a respected voice in the conservation community
http://markavery.info/2017/02/20/dewilding-scotland/
In reply to ashtond6:
And this too.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/20/trees-forest-cover-sc...
and the story is still the controversy around the initial press release and the muddled retraction
And this too.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/20/trees-forest-cover-sc...
and the story is still the controversy around the initial press release and the muddled retraction
In reply to toad:
From that Guardian article:
"Trees aren’t intrinsically good. Covering another 8% of Scotland with lifeless industrial blocks of non-native plantations won’t meet government goals of enhanced landscapes, richer wildlife or more jobs. Modern mechanised forestry is not a big employer"
"lifeless"?
"industrial"?- ah yes, in the countryside we should all chew rushes, or look like something out of country life. P1ss off, it aint the Cotswolds (or Glenfeshie...).
"blocks"- Gormless twit. Why does he think trees grown for a commercial return are grown in close proximity? I'm not going to tell him. as he could learn that himself , if he chose..
I'd imagine that people like this twunt are blind to their own impact on the landscape when visiting remote places. The sort that pontificate about woodland glades in an abstract sense, when actually a dense 'block' of tree cover is an excellent way of reducing the visual impact of the vehicle they've parked ( and which they'll often vehemently whinge about if asked to pay for parking)
"non- native" ...Ffs! Ever heard of immigrants ? All bad eh?
"plantations" Mere linguistic landscaping. Presumably oaks aren't managed in 'plantations'....
and 'plantations are the familiar haunt of many vacationing people, not because they're a detraction from the landscape, but they are the (chosen) landscape. Ever heard of CenterParcs? Imagine how even more crowded somewhere like Betws y Coed would look without all those blocks of non native lifeless plantations..
and tell me, Mr Guardian 'journalist', when was the last time you 'enhanced' a landscape?
"richer wildlife"- I guess to someone like you, that probably means wolves and beavers- those non natives which you so disparage..Do you consider 'richer wildlife' in your home area? Do you contribute to it, do you modify your privileged life in any way? Yet you think that you're qualified to spout such nonsense to the well meaning Guardian readers ? Maybe, as they say about the Daily Mail, you're just peddling such nonsense to meet a demand.
That government goals are not met is hardly unique to the subject of rural employment.
"Modern mechanised forestry is not a big employer" Go Einstein, Yay!! But it is an employer nonetheless, and a land use that permits all sorts of spin-offs in non forestry employment- forest holidays, and a host of related leisure activities.
This man sounds like the sort of person who feels so strongly about jobs and the loss of the small independent retailer that every time they go to the automatic checkout at their nearest Tesco Megastore, they cover themselves with the glorious knowledge that they're doing their bit once a month by buying an artisan loaf from the farmer's market.
and finally - he mentions Glen Feshie. Beautiful as it is, do he never wonder why it is that a non native billionaire is needed to engage in a spot of eco -philanthropy? Go on, join the dots- give it a try ...You might see the landscape in an entirely different manner.
From that Guardian article:
"Trees aren’t intrinsically good. Covering another 8% of Scotland with lifeless industrial blocks of non-native plantations won’t meet government goals of enhanced landscapes, richer wildlife or more jobs. Modern mechanised forestry is not a big employer"
"lifeless"?
"industrial"?- ah yes, in the countryside we should all chew rushes, or look like something out of country life. P1ss off, it aint the Cotswolds (or Glenfeshie...).
"blocks"- Gormless twit. Why does he think trees grown for a commercial return are grown in close proximity? I'm not going to tell him. as he could learn that himself , if he chose..
I'd imagine that people like this twunt are blind to their own impact on the landscape when visiting remote places. The sort that pontificate about woodland glades in an abstract sense, when actually a dense 'block' of tree cover is an excellent way of reducing the visual impact of the vehicle they've parked ( and which they'll often vehemently whinge about if asked to pay for parking)
"non- native" ...Ffs! Ever heard of immigrants ? All bad eh?
"plantations" Mere linguistic landscaping. Presumably oaks aren't managed in 'plantations'....
and 'plantations are the familiar haunt of many vacationing people, not because they're a detraction from the landscape, but they are the (chosen) landscape. Ever heard of CenterParcs? Imagine how even more crowded somewhere like Betws y Coed would look without all those blocks of non native lifeless plantations..
and tell me, Mr Guardian 'journalist', when was the last time you 'enhanced' a landscape?
"richer wildlife"- I guess to someone like you, that probably means wolves and beavers- those non natives which you so disparage..Do you consider 'richer wildlife' in your home area? Do you contribute to it, do you modify your privileged life in any way? Yet you think that you're qualified to spout such nonsense to the well meaning Guardian readers ? Maybe, as they say about the Daily Mail, you're just peddling such nonsense to meet a demand.
That government goals are not met is hardly unique to the subject of rural employment.
"Modern mechanised forestry is not a big employer" Go Einstein, Yay!! But it is an employer nonetheless, and a land use that permits all sorts of spin-offs in non forestry employment- forest holidays, and a host of related leisure activities.
This man sounds like the sort of person who feels so strongly about jobs and the loss of the small independent retailer that every time they go to the automatic checkout at their nearest Tesco Megastore, they cover themselves with the glorious knowledge that they're doing their bit once a month by buying an artisan loaf from the farmer's market.
and finally - he mentions Glen Feshie. Beautiful as it is, do he never wonder why it is that a non native billionaire is needed to engage in a spot of eco -philanthropy? Go on, join the dots- give it a try ...You might see the landscape in an entirely different manner.
2
10
In reply to llechwedd:
Glen Feshie has a long and complicated history and although under the current owner its finally improving, it was under poor management (from a conservation perspective) for decades despite being in a National Nature Reserve as previous owners preferred to run it as a deer forest with extremely high deer numbers, kept high by winter feeding. The former NCC and more recently SNH tried many times over a period of many years to get the management changed but without any real success. I used to use Glen Feshie as a case study with students as an example of how the Wildlife & Countryside Act often didn't work.
Glen Feshie has a long and complicated history and although under the current owner its finally improving, it was under poor management (from a conservation perspective) for decades despite being in a National Nature Reserve as previous owners preferred to run it as a deer forest with extremely high deer numbers, kept high by winter feeding. The former NCC and more recently SNH tried many times over a period of many years to get the management changed but without any real success. I used to use Glen Feshie as a case study with students as an example of how the Wildlife & Countryside Act often didn't work.
3
In reply to llechwedd:
Taynuillt? is that you, or has someone been cut and pasting your post in the Graun?
Taynuillt? is that you, or has someone been cut and pasting your post in the Graun?
1
In reply to toad:
I had a rant on here , then, on reflection, toned it down a bit for the delicate Guardian readers.
I thought my Welsh moniker would be seen as inappropriately non native, given the cyber-Brigadoon audience.
I had a rant on here , then, on reflection, toned it down a bit for the delicate Guardian readers.
I thought my Welsh moniker would be seen as inappropriately non native, given the cyber-Brigadoon audience.
2
1
In reply to llechwedd:
And there I was, 'listening to' your input. Then this rant (as you admit) where you largely attack the messenger and draw inferences from the medium. You accuse him of ignorance but you base most of an attack on the journalist from such a position yourself (unless you have complied a dossier on him: if so, my mistake). You also pedantically pick over and misanalyse individual words: he uses 'block' as a descriptive, yet you assume he doesn't know why they are in grown in close proximity? Again, he uses 'plantations', which is accurate, and you infer he would not apply such a term to oaks. And on you go, undermining your own standing.
An increase in contributions like this on UKC are the reason why I, for one, have cut down my time on the site. Sometimes the less you know of people, the better.
And there I was, 'listening to' your input. Then this rant (as you admit) where you largely attack the messenger and draw inferences from the medium. You accuse him of ignorance but you base most of an attack on the journalist from such a position yourself (unless you have complied a dossier on him: if so, my mistake). You also pedantically pick over and misanalyse individual words: he uses 'block' as a descriptive, yet you assume he doesn't know why they are in grown in close proximity? Again, he uses 'plantations', which is accurate, and you infer he would not apply such a term to oaks. And on you go, undermining your own standing.
An increase in contributions like this on UKC are the reason why I, for one, have cut down my time on the site. Sometimes the less you know of people, the better.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...