Rewilding Britian - increasing biodiversity

[Toddy]

It's not so much not liking the person presenting it, as his hypocrisy and the 'sound bite' manipulation that is shifting the blame from our historical land use/hunting to the folks trying to make a living in a challenging environment.

Now if he stuck to genuine re-wilding, as in removing introduced pest species that totally compromise the biodiversity (as SNH has done in removing hedgehogs from the outer islands where they were not native, and thus allowing threatened bird species to recover, and tied that in with the farming community leaving both set aside and changing the timing of their hay making to let the birds feed youngsters until they are flight able) of what is an island community cut off from the continent for thousands of years, and encouraged the native flora and fauna to thrive, that would help immensely.
Mink, signal crayfish, coypu (or did they clear those entirely from the Broads ?), etc.,
Re-build the food chains from the bottom up. Did you know that the use of Chromium in commercial dyes is causing feminisation of the invertebrates at the bottom end of the food chain in rivers ? and that feminisation is reducing populations by a worrying concentration ? That's just one instance. There are hundreds of others, but we are slowly dealing with the ramifications of, and the cleanups, the Industrial revolution and the realities of modern pollutants. The River Clyde is now clean flowing, not black, and it has salmon and sea trout in it again. One river out of our hundreds, but they are all cleaner than they were, and we are aware now, which can only be a good thing.

The whole biodiversity issue needs a multi pronged approach, not an imposed regulation from some 'think tank' or journalist with an access to an audience that doesn't see past the end of it's newspaper, but believes that his written blurb is the entirety of the solution to the problem.

The other issue, the land use, is something that he just doesn't seem to see in it's scope. People need to be able to use the land. Much of the land is simply not suitable for southern farming practices. Doesn't mean they're not tenable though.

Off to do some tidying up in the garden. Week before Christmas and it's gone from -4degC earlier in the week to +13degC here

M

 

[Dave]

So which camp are you in then Toddy?

Are you for re-wilding or against it? [Because these posts are getting so long its sometimes difficult to tell who stands where, even though, yes its a complicated multi pronged issue]

Just a simple for or against will suffice.


[BTW the term Re-wilding is not Monbiots, as he makes clear in his book, Feral....]

 

[Klenchblaize]

I wish to see the introduction of the American Wild Turkey please. If it's half as successful as Grey Squirrel I can see my Autumn woodland forays with a rifle going from gold standard to platinum.

K

 

[Toddy]

Yes or no ?

As the concept stands; No.

With a bit of forethought and real integration of habitats, native flora and fauna; Yes.

I am firmly in the Yes to biodiversity camp though. Very much in the 'we could all do a little and it would help a great deal', camp too.

M

 

[Dave]

I could ask, so no to what and yes to what?

But Im sure we've all got much better things to do......

Im gonna read a book this aft I think.....

Bysie bye.

 

[NoName]

yeah so important! good to start this thread, no nature, no biodiversity, to less nature no biodiversity. No nature and biodiversity... no bushcraft. The core of bushcraft is founded on nature, and human with their relation with nature or humans in balance with nature .
But one has to begin with the basis.....
so first the plants and trees, then the animals...
we always talk and discuss wolves and big mammals but that is totally not the core discussion. Without a complex natural system no owl can live for days, weeks or months... no healthy soil no mycorrhiza, no mycorrhiza no plants and trees, no plants no insects, no insects no birds etc.

but without Nature we are simply doomed. No health, no (clean) air, no clean drinking water or drinking water at all...no food...

Our governments are busy with climate conference...whell that is very good, buth if they are finally start taking action it might be 5 to twelve.. or too almost to late...

forget all your worries and let nature be number 1.

be happy be safe, simple living high thinking!

 

[British Red]

The daft thing about those in favour of large amounts of UK "wilding" is they don't say how they propose to achieve their goals. Will they pay those whose productive land is taken out of production? How will they make up the additional food deficit re-wilding will cause? Will they import more food using fossil fuels? How will this extra food be paid for? Given this island is already overcrowded, one must assume this "re-wilded" land will no longer be able to provide homes or employment - how will that be managed? Given there is less than an acre per person in the UK, how many peoples "acres" will be taken out of human use?

My suggestion is that those that want wild land save up, buy the land and go from there since, imo, there are more important matters for public money.

 

[Robson Valley]

Klenchblaize has a neat idea: turkey! There are several distinctly different-looking varieties across North America. If you noticed the Merriam's Turkey on the KettleRiverGuides home page, that was a 23lb Tom, dropped with a neck shot of 1 9/16oz #2 x 3" through an X-full custom choke machined by George Trulock. About 8AM up a mountainside at the end of April.

 

[NoName]

The daft thing about those in favour of large amounts of UK "wilding" is they don't say how they propose to achieve their goals. Will they pay those whose productive land is taken out of production? How will they make up the additional food deficit re-wilding will cause? Will they import more food using fossil fuels? How will this extra food be paid for? Given this island is already overcrowded, one must assume this "re-wilded" land will no longer be able to provide homes or employment - how will that be managed? Given there is less than an acre per person in the UK, how many peoples "acres" will be taken out of human use?

My suggestion is that those that want wild land save up, buy the land and go from there since, imo, there are more important matters for public money.

those are not legit facts

there is enough space

80% of Agricultural land use is for our meat craving and addiction from the last 100 years.
Even the grains, mais etc are all food for meat cows.
Also 60/70/80 % (80% in Holland) of meat prodcution is produced for export...

If we ate 80% less meat we still would be fine, even better. Meat eating and office jobs combination is proven cancer cause.

I dont say it is easy but it can be done.

Single corn fields turned into nature site do make a difference

Also I we keep changing the climate, yeah then the whole middle east will be a dust bowl and will want to start to live here, then we have a space problem yeah, but the average families here are increasing. Like 2 children are normal thats ok.

 

[santaman2000]

I wish to see the introduction of the American Wild Turkey please. If it's half as successful as Grey Squirrel I can see my Autumn woodland forays with a rifle going from gold standard to platinum.

K

A rifle is overkill for a turkey. A 12 gauge with #2 or #4 shot is usually best.

 

[santaman2000]

Re-wilding, is just a phrase Dewi, used in response to the fact over 50% of earths wildlife has dissapeared, as a direct result of humans, in the last 40 years......

That's an unlikely statement. 50% of the world's wildlife hasn't even been discovered/classified yet. Insects make up more of said wildlife than all other species combined.

 

[NoName]

That's an unlikely statement. 50% of the world's wildlife hasn't even been discovered/classified yet. Insects make up more of said wildlife than all other species combined.

50% that was discoverd has disappaired
for some an inconvienent truth..for others...they do not want to know

 

[British Red]

those are not legit facts

there is enough space

Not in this country there isn't. There is much less than an acre per person to produce all our fuel, food, to live on, work on, produce clothing from and all the rest. We already import most of our food, most of our energy and most of our clothing materials. Those are facts. In order to combat things like climate change,we need to be importing less, not more. I'm sure land use can be improved, but is re-wilding more important than food production or energy production? Those are other uses land could be put to and things we need to improve.

 

[santaman2000]

50% that was discoverd has disappaired
for some an inconvienent truth..for others...they do not want to know

Still an unlikely statement.

 

[dewi]

Re-wilding, is just a phrase Dewi, used in response to the fact over 50% of earths wildlife has dissapeared, as a direct result of humans, in the last 40 years.

It means we need to do something to rewild the planet.

Thats the solution because thats the solution.

You obviously do not like the people who are presenting it. Thats clear.

And you disagree with some of their methods.

But in the end, you either re-wild the planet or you dont.

Its one camp or the other.

You've totally missed my point Dave... my point was that the issue is going to happen whether or not, in fact its pretty evident it is already happening with the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone, the beavers in Scotland etc... but it is either open for debate or we have to blindly follow singular opinions because they're in print.

I've made no secret that I think Monbiot is a prat... and I'm not too keen on Packham, but there are others with more sensible suggestions that are worth discussing.

So the question isn't whether you rewild the planet, it is how you go about it, whether suggested animals are suitable and whether it is right to meddle. More importantly, is it an open debate with the people this will directly effect? Or the usual route of someone writes a book, its read by some bats**t crazy politician who goes right ahead and uses that book like a manual... worth remembering that if it wasn't for the banking crisis, the environmental pushes based on the ramblings of some authors would have already become reality whether we liked it or not.

 

[dewi]

Meat eating and office jobs combination is proven cancer cause.

Nope, they changed their minds again today... was listening to them babble on about it on the radio for about an hour. Unless you've got research they haven't of course... then thats a whole other matter.

 

[dewi]

Still an unlikely statement.

And you'd be right... its more dodgy maths.

50% of Earth's wildlife in the last 40 years is how the Guardian reported it... the actual study itself says nothing of the sort.

The study covered vertebrates only, and investigated nearly 10,000 populations of 3000 species. Then the data was extrapolated to represent the other 42,000 vertebrates and given the name Living Planet Index or the catchier LPI for short.

So a detailed study of the 45,000 vertebrates hasn't been done, just 3000 of them which is 6.66% of the total.

Lets say they found that 50% of the 6.66% they studied have disappeared in the last 40 years, how can that be extrapolated without bias across the other 93.34%? And who chose which species to focus on?

 

[Goatboy]

So the serious "re-wilders" want to remove mankind from the environment? When he migrated there at the same time following the game species that they want to reintroduce? Surely mankind has as much right to be there?
Sorry just being flippant as some of the arguments don't really add up.
And though I found Henry David Thoreau's writing fun and informative he does egg the pudding a little on living out in the sticks, as evidenced by someone I have a bit more respect for...
In 1883, and again in 1893, John Muir visited Walden. He wrote, "No wonder Thoreau lived here two years. I could have enjoyed living here two hundred or two thousand. It is only about one and a half or two miles from Concord, a mere saunter, and how people should regard Thoreau as a hermit on account of his little delightful stay here I cannot guess."

Have a fun evening folks.

 

[Dave]

Right Dewi, so your'e all for re-wilding? Ok. And you think is already started and its going to continue. Good. I dont know if youre likely to be consulted, sorry. I would think the scientists will be the ones who get to decide what gets reintroduced and what doesnt.
Please dont ask me which scientists...

Goatboy, I must have missed the post you responded to? Rewilders want to get rid of mankind?

Santaman, As far as those statisitcs are concerned, regarding wildlife loss worldwide, its WWF's data, and it was reported all over the place. Just google '50% of Earth's wildlife lost in the last 40 years'

We should have made this a poll, eh?

 

[dewi]

Right Dewi, so your'e all for re-wilding? Ok. And you think is already started and its going to continue. Good. I dont know if youre likely to be consulted, sorry. I would think the scientists will be the ones who get to decide what gets reintroduced and what doesnt.

Again, missed my point... but seems like you're getting wound up by my posts, so whatever I say isn't going to make a lot of difference.

Never mind, we'll leave it to the scientists who are doing such a sterling job of interpreting data and the WWF who are saving the planet with their every press release.



Forget who it was who compared environmentalism to a religion... but blimey, they were right!