Personal wilderness gone

[BlueTrain]

I have seen several postings where people have had little adventures in some nearby patch of woods, one that was big enough to support a population of wild animals and large enough to afford some privacy from nearby habitations, at least when the leaves are on the trees. I had such a place near my home and there's even such a place directly behind the building where I work. My neighborhood wilderness, if we can call it that, was about a mile's walk from the house and featured a creek, a large man-made pond or lake, numerous wild animals, trees, bushes, insects galore in the summertime and lots of mud for most of the year. A week ago I made a visit and discovered that much of it is gone and the lake was being drained.

In theory, the draining of the lake is temporary so it could be dredged and a new spillway constructed. But the new spillway required removal of an acre of trees and the bulldozing of a lot of earth. All of this was hard on the fish, however, and I saw dozens of dead fish yesterday downstream from the dam, although I don't fish. The beaver will move on but they're always moving around (people really don't like the beaver because they cut down trees) as does everything else. In fact, I saw two deer on my trip there Saturday. In the meantime, it reminds us that in the case of small corners of the world that are mostly bypassed by the busy world, it can be here today and gone tomorrow.

 

[Qwerty]

It's funny, but in a past life I worked in Architecture. It was one (of many) of the reasons that I despised the job, turning green field sites into more concrete structures. Once you loose these little corners of wilderness, they almost never return. And what you get in return is often unpalatable. This goes as much for country houses and buildings as it does for sub/urban developments.

 

[Toddy]

You are so right Blue Train. In the UK we have miles and miles and miles of lanes. Everything from woodland pathways to backgarden access ways, and where nature is allowed to be, i.e. not blitzed into oblivion with shredders or poisoned to death with weedkillers, these are the most beautiful nature corridors. They join up an enormous network of little patches of woodlands, gardens, field edges, copses and 'waste' grounds.
I think we ought to cherish these little bits of havens, encourage them to spread out a bit more, make more connections, give wildlife routes to other areas, to encourage biodiversity to thrive.
They don't need much, just left in peace. Hopefully your little bit will recover and thrive again.

These are of one of the lanes that runs outside my garden fence.

atb,
Mary

 

[DR2501]

Unfortunately Toddy it won't happen - people respect money far more than they do nature so these havens will get smaller and smaller until there's nothing left.

 

[Toddy]

See the one I showed ? That's an old mineral railway line. The burn was known as the stinking myre for years because of the waste from the Victorian gasworks. The industry is all gone from there now, and trees that were hedgelines, are now 80' high and seeding prolifically The burn has newts, and water rats and ducks nesting too.
Doesn't need much, just left in peace and if folks wander through it and enjoy the peace, then they start to consider it worth keeping.

M

 

[British Red]

I often think the best thing any of us can do for nature is to buy a piece of land, build a high fence around it, and keep every human out of it - including ourselves.

 

[daveO]

How much do I need to buy Wales?

 

[British Red]

Don't offer a note - they may not be able to find enough change!

 

[daveO]

My piece of 'wilderness' near my house is the ragged remnants of an ancient beech wood leading into a more modern larch plantation, past some scrappy farmland with more reeds and bog than grass, through an area of young re-growth woodland and down past some useless land that has been designated as a 'local nature reserve', past an old industrial pond and back through the last scraps of birch on the edge of the new housing estate where I live.

The beech trees are slowly dying and collapsing as more kids start fires at their bases, the larch is seriously at risk from disease and is being assessed as we speak, the nature reserve has more diversity of lager can and fag packet than any other site in the country and the bat boxes have been shot to pieces by the local yoof.

and yet the areas that were cleared for housing and never built on are already being recolonised by trees and shrubs. If you look there's still plenty of wildlife around (except in the nature reserve strangely). I tramp through there every weekend and every time I see something new or surprising. No doubt more damage will be done and more litter will be spread around to decorate the place but nature will soon fill the gaps I'm sure. All I can do is manage my garden to help things along and maybe the odd bit of guerilla gardening. My advice is keep an eye on your area and enjoy it as wildlife re-colonises.

 

[British Red]

The beech trees are slowly dying and collapsing as more kids start fires at their bases, the larch is seriously at risk from disease and is being assessed as we speak, the nature reserve has more diversity of lager can and fag packet than any other site in the country and the bat boxes have been shot to pieces by the local yoof. .

This is why I am vehemently opposed to "rights of access" to land. Once you grant a right, you grant it to those who will abuse it. Look at what is already happening in Scotland with areas being removed from "right to roam" by byelaw. Its one of those naive, happy clappy ideas that actually destroys the very thing it exists to celebrate.

 

[daveO]

To be honest I think that if you removed the footpaths and told people to stay out you'd probably end up with more kids in there causing problems. There's no easy solution.

 

[boatman]

Right to roam is an excellent idea. If the lager can bonfire people are illegal now then making access legal won't make any difference, except that in popular areas that are apparently the ones most despoiled there will be more people about which tends to be a discouragement to wrong doing. Epping Forest was thronged at Bank Holidays when we lived there, about maximum fifty yards from the roads. Elsewhere it was as empty as it always was for us.

 

[British Red]

If the lager can bonfire people are illegal now then making access legal won't make any difference.

Except that it did, and areas in Scotland are now passing byelaws to remove it - because damage has provably and demonstrably risen since open access was introduced.

Still, don't let the facts get in the way of your argument.

 

[Toddy]

Do people not belong in 'nature' ?
I vehemently determine that they do.

It's our ill taught and seperated from nature nurturing that causes the individuals who despoil and wantonly destroy.

If we don't encourage the connections, the interaction, the appreciation, then 'nature' is of no value and vandalism wins.

Right to roam is a brilliant thing; that it's not UK wide is a travesty. Otherwise you're complicit in the statement that English and Welsh can't be trusted to appreciate their land the way other northern Europeans do theirs.

Yes there are issues with sheer pressure of numbers in beauty spots within twenty minutes travelling of major conurbations in Scotland. That's a social issue the nation must deal with; but, tell me....do you know of 'any' site in the UK where there are 100,000 visitors on a weekend and 'no' toilet provision and 'no' extra litter clearing, in place ?
The problems are very much worse than they ought to be simply because no provision was made. The UK has a culture of littering; it's a UK attitude that needs to change.

To refuse access to everyone on the basis of anti social behaviour of a few, is not a long term strategy for influencing a seachange in folks to value the natural world.

Anyway; the right of responsible access is enshrined in our laws but then, being somewhere just for a walk was always considered a valid reason here, not an excuse.

Shall we return the conversation to the restoration of the habitats ? There was a recent survey done on the old graving docks in Glasgow. These have lain derelict for years now, and are to be demolished and the land used again. The survey was an astonishing insight into the sheer range of flora, fungi, insects and fauna of an inner city wasteland site.

I know also of an ongoing project that seeks to encourage the native flora and fauna to spread out from the gills, the deep, steep sided valleys of the burns and rivelets of the upper Clyde, and recolonise the river banks and field edges. Part of the whole endeavour was the development of the Clyde River Walkway that runs from Lanark all the way down to the Clyde Estuary.
Most folks were delighted at the whole thing only one man took 'affirmative action' agin it. An incomer who objected to people walking along the river side on his land, so he destroyed a entire woodland site.Spiteful, miserable wee soul that he has.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/TOFF+...ndowner+loves+his+trees+so+much...-a060705444
http://www.scotsman.com/news/landowner-ends-threat-to-bulldoze-woodland-1-523490

Character? aye. and yes, that is Scottish sarcasm.

M

 

[Uilleachan]

This is why I am vehemently opposed to "rights of access" to land. Once you grant a right, you grant it to those who will abuse it. Look at what is already happening in Scotland with areas being removed from "right to roam" by byelaw. Its one of those naive, happy clappy ideas that actually destroys the very thing it exists to celebrate.

We've had the right to roam, for a century in scotland, all that happened was they entrenched it in law, by way of removing many previously held rights.

Truth is in Scotland we have areas the size of small EU nation states with nobody living in, no lanes no people, a fair few thousand square miles. Trouble is we have an infestation of red deer that need drastically reduced to promote regen, and the saving of our cars

I'm totally in favor of our right to roam

 

[rik_uk3]

We moved house a couple of years ago and are moving again in a few weeks (children have flown the nest etc) so this move means I loose access to a good stream but gain access to hills and a lot of woodland literally from the end of my bit of land, just over the fence (and a garden big enough for a polytunnel ).

Land access changes all the time, sadly all too often in the UK as we are such a tiny island with so many people on it.

 

[boatman]

I have read several accounts of Scottish mountaineers and the like and some of their early activities as detailed in some of their biographies appeared to be less than socially responsible. Fifty plus years ago friday night buses out of Glasgow and other cities with army surplus clad passengers intent on a weekend of different activities, climbing, poaching, lighting fires, drinking etc. So one wonders what is so different today except for access to motor cars.

 

[daveO]

So one wonders what is so different today

Well now they call it "bushcraft" apparantly

 

[BlueTrain]

Goodness! I hadn't expected the range of responses here on this topic. I must say up front that referring to it as "personal wilderness" was a bit selfish. Some of it is "common property," but most of it is described as "flood plain," which it isn't. It's just that part of the land along the creek that's less than suitable for building. The neighborhood is on rolling land cut up by creekbeds and hollows. There are enough of these undeveloped parcels of land around this end of the county to support a lot of wildlife. Most of them are connected, too, most of them being long and narrow (because they run along the creeks) together with several parks, although "park" doesn't give the right picture of what they are. Some have athletic fields, some have lakes and some are just woods. But not everyone appreciates the wildlife by any means.

There are lots of deer hit by cars, the beaver cut down people's trees and bushes, the raccoons get into things and the Canada geese make an awful mess wherever they are.

One occasionally hears complaints about urban sprawl, which I take to mean sub-urban sprawl but when someone builds on a vacant lot in the city instead, which is called "in-filling," people complain about that, too. However, if left unattended, any space will eventually and sometimes rapidly return to a natural area with the "climax species" finally taking over. In the eastern US and in northern Europe, that would be a tree of one sort or another. It will even happen to a lot in town if the owner doesn't keep things cut back.

But tell me; if we aren't part of nature, then where do we belong? Land access is a different issue, however, and I don't think the subject has every come up in this country, although beach access is a hot topic in certain places.

 

[Haggis]

My "Personal Wilderness" is Wolf Cairn Moor; my own 100 acres bordered on 3 sides by many thousands of acres of State land. Here I can, and do, hunt white tail deer and black bear, I trap foxes, coyotes, fisher, and pine marten. I can hike in summer, snowshoe in winter, build lean-to's, fire pits, camp sites, and quite simply "do" as I please. To the South, the nearest road is 4 miles, to the East, 5 miles, and to the North, a bit more. There are three public lakes within a 20 minute walk to the West. Here we see eagles, wolves, the occasional moose, and all manner of smaller creatures. I've lived many places where I have had "out the backdoor" access to wilderness, but none with so much to offer, and so few neighbors, as Wold Cairn Moor.