Interesting article here about the pest species (red squirrels aren't good eating apparently)
Very interesting article though I'm surprised you managed to read to the end
I'll look forward to Muntjac roast in a few years time!
Re-establishing the natural balance - UK
- Thread starter Toddy
- Start date
Very interesting article though I'm surprised you managed to read to the end
I'll look forward to Muntjac roast in a few years time!
I'll try and find the article that analyses different species visual colour sensitivity; I do remember that rabbits can't see in the red spectrum and wondered if that is why foxes are relatively successful hunting them
. Also, deer can't see in the red spectrum so bright red camouflage clothing is safe for deer stalking!I also remember that pigeons see in the ultra-violet spectrum and can see the radiated glow of modern washing powders on the best camouflage clothing!
But, maybe this is off-topic; if I find it I'll start a new thread
The ONLY natural population of a country that needs controlling in size is the human one. Everything else can find its own levels.
Well, yes and no. We live on islands, and that creates it's own issues.
We've wiped out the bears, the wolves, the lynx, so there's only us to take care of deer numbers, and that's just one instance.
Before humanity spread so populously, the islands of the mediterranean and those of the atlantic and pacific had a much wider range of fauna.
We can't restore what has already been wiped out, and it's a valid point that we are animals, that we too are just doing exactly what any other animal would do to other species if the opportunity arose. Increasing population is normal....though we do seem to have worked out how to keep us all fed despite the wipe out of many edible species.
Clever things these apes.
M
We've wiped out the bears, the wolves, the lynx, so there's only us to take care of deer numbers, and that's just one instance.
Before humanity spread so populously, the islands of the mediterranean and those of the atlantic and pacific had a much wider range of fauna.
We can't restore what has already been wiped out, and it's a valid point that we are animals, that we too are just doing exactly what any other animal would do to other species if the opportunity arose. Increasing population is normal....though we do seem to have worked out how to keep us all fed despite the wipe out of many edible species.
Clever things these apes.
M
For now we have but not for the long term. I really hope the '60 harvests left' is just guesswork but soil depletion is a big problem. Getting all farms back to a sustainable management plan with organic status would put a lot of pressure on the amount of food the world currently produces. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...to-be-given-first-ever-targets-on-soil-health
There are obviously solutions that will help such as tackling food waste, eating less farmed meat and harvesting different foods (such as our wild venison/boar as opposed to eating more beef/lamb/pork). Personally I see the restoration of habitats and ecology as only offering a benefit to food production once you look past our current farming habits of monoculture and it goes without saying that protecting pollinators is protecting our food future.
I'm not disagreeing.
I am very aware though of just what lengths humanity has gone to over the millenia to acquire food.
There are too many mouths all round, and too many uncaring about where it all comes from.
M
I am very aware though of just what lengths humanity has gone to over the millenia to acquire food.
There are too many mouths all round, and too many uncaring about where it all comes from.
M
The phrase is "charismatic megafauna". Alas, almost all 7 billion of us will resist the steps necessary to restore ecologic systems. The best we can hope to do is to save whatever patches we are able to protect. Yes, sometimes those patches are too small to survive as systems. Perhaps those patches can help persuade another dozen people to help in restoring larger systems. Then they have three dozen kids and it's all for nought...
We are living during an extinction episode of similar magnitude to the Permian or T-K extinctions. Some genera will survive and diversify into new niches. My money is on pigeons, coyotes, cockroaches and carp.
I tip my hat to you in the Old World. You have achieved a balance with nature, although that may not be apparent to your perspective. So many generations in so small a space! An offhand comment in another thread regarding the silliness of survival fishing kits in your land suggested just walking to a pub. Don't worry about the squirrels. They'll be fine.
We are lucky in Europe that there are large areas, mainly in Eastern Europe, that are 'worthless" to do agriculture on without major physical changes (type draining wetlands). Also quite large areas used to belong to the aristocracy, kept as hunting parks/estates.
Britain has a few of these. These areas in UK are not big enough to have large animals ( Wolf, Bear, Visent) in, but perfect for smaller.
One European 'bonus' area is what got depopulated after the Chernobyl accident.
England would benefit from a more active attempts to recreate biospheres. The MOD could release former training grounds, and the surrounding country side could be incorporated, then it could be replanted with forests of the type that were there before Mankind cut them down. Oak, Beech and so on.
I believe you are correct, the vast majority do not care. It is a pity.
We need a new Back To Nature movement!
Britain has a few of these. These areas in UK are not big enough to have large animals ( Wolf, Bear, Visent) in, but perfect for smaller.
One European 'bonus' area is what got depopulated after the Chernobyl accident.
England would benefit from a more active attempts to recreate biospheres. The MOD could release former training grounds, and the surrounding country side could be incorporated, then it could be replanted with forests of the type that were there before Mankind cut them down. Oak, Beech and so on.
I believe you are correct, the vast majority do not care. It is a pity.
We need a new Back To Nature movement!
Being a big government organisation it pays close attention to sites of scientific interest…. at least one or two exercises were delayed/ stopped for baby bird season….
For those who ever got posted to NI, Ballykinler and Magilligan great land to explore, not really ideal though for trees though…...
Those areas ( Scotland?) how did they look like a couple of thousand years ago? Pollen analysis of soils will show.
If forests grew there in the past, it is possible to restore those areas too.
But it costs money and effort......... Lots and lots of both.
No state is interested in spending money on major projects like this.
Look on Ashdown forest. I doubt it looked like this before humans 'fixed it'.
In Sweden, marginal agricultural lands have been planted with Pine trees ( Pine plantations, for wood and pulp) since around 100 years.
You get horrible, 'semi sterile', boring, mono culture\ forests not fit for human enjoyment.
Similar to a natural meadow to a field of wheat.
If forests grew there in the past, it is possible to restore those areas too.
But it costs money and effort......... Lots and lots of both.
No state is interested in spending money on major projects like this.
Look on Ashdown forest. I doubt it looked like this before humans 'fixed it'.
In Sweden, marginal agricultural lands have been planted with Pine trees ( Pine plantations, for wood and pulp) since around 100 years.
You get horrible, 'semi sterile', boring, mono culture\ forests not fit for human enjoyment.
Similar to a natural meadow to a field of wheat.
Former training sites? Why wait? Eglin Air Force Base here manages it's current training reservation area (roughly 50 - 60 miles long by 25 - 30 miles wide for multiple purposes:
-Active bombing training and new weapons testing
-Ground training for the Rangers and the Special forces
-Timber harvesting to clear newer plants to make room for reforestation in native trees (and to provide funds for conservation)
-Recreational use by assigned personnel as well as the local civilian population. (to include hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, camping, boating/canoeing, foraging, firewood cutting, horseback riding, etc.
-And yes, restoring the parts of the reservation to it's natural state.
Not trying to wander off topic; just pointing out that it can be done even while the land is indeed in use.
I think the US sites are larger than the British areas. Britain is crowded!
Similar population density as Germany?
To restore an area to former flora is easy, just takes some money. To restore the fauna must be difficult, so many variables, plus the reluctance of the population to some species!
I recall the negative feelings people had when they started breeding in the 1980’s.
Went from a couple of wolves in the late 70’s to todays about 400.
I hope the reintro to UK is successful!
Similar population density as Germany?
To restore an area to former flora is easy, just takes some money. To restore the fauna must be difficult, so many variables, plus the reluctance of the population to some species!
I recall the negative feelings people had when they started breeding in the 1980’s.
Went from a couple of wolves in the late 70’s to todays about 400.
I hope the reintro to UK is successful!
Last edited:
You referenced the UK MOD training areas. Population density on the training areas (here) is absolute zero apart from personnel training or others with the proper recreation permits. I presume the UK (and Germany) also keep unauthorized people off training areas? (thus resulting in low population densities)
I do not know if civilians are allowed on MOD training areas in UK. I guess they are? Except when exercises are on?
If yes, then those areas must be heaven for ramblers and bushcrafters!
But to recreate a ‘pre human’ nature demands that the humans are very careful there, specially when the plantations are young!
If yes, then those areas must be heaven for ramblers and bushcrafters!
But to recreate a ‘pre human’ nature demands that the humans are very careful there, specially when the plantations are young!
I think in order to bring back the balance in nature, we have to look at both what has happened and what is happening, by that I mean we have to look at the mistakes we have made, the introduction of fauna, rhododendrons, japanese knot weed, and other evasive strains, we need to look at the extensive chemical use by farmers and the damage to the waterways etc, and we also have to look at why we are determined to get rid of species on the basis they are costing us money, there are areas that we should be nurturing and evaluating the benefits of, bee keeping, organic farming and livestock rearing by natural means,(without the big price hikes), we are destroying our natural wetlands and flood plains,by building houses on them, yes building on them, we need to do something about the erosion on the east coast, there are lots we can do, down here in Cornwall you can see daily the trees being removed, probably unlawfully in order to clear the land to bring the price of the land up, and eventually it will be used for housing. We need to look at the extent of the damage done by the removal of hedgerows to accommodate these massive farms, and areas covered by solar panels, we also need to understand that with the removal of flood plains and wetlands we will see more floods, as the land is taken the area for natural water drainage is gone.
I think a lot can be done without excessive monetary cost, we simply need to leave things alone, nature will reinvent itself if given the chance, and species will survive without our help or interference.
I think a lot can be done without excessive monetary cost, we simply need to leave things alone, nature will reinvent itself if given the chance, and species will survive without our help or interference.
The problem is that the population is growing. More roads, food, houses, drinking water, sewage cleaning, plus the rest, needed.
I'm pretty sure the best MOD sites are off limits to most people. Salisbury Plain MOD area is apparently an amazing place for rare insects and plants though. Untouched by agricultural intensification and just enough disturbance to keep the habitats vibrant.
less than 10% of the land is built on, so there is still plenty of land available for diversity, and food growth, etc luckily we have large swathes of land totally unsuitable for building on, if only it was managed right, I have been into forests, woods etc which are totally dangerous and neglected and nobody seems bothered about it. (except people on Forums like this, who are interested in maintaining natures habitats)
You must realize that landscapes change with the passage of time.
These things are communities of plants and animals which modify their environment to the extent that they open niche opportunities for newcomers.
These events are called the seral stages of succession. They happen everywhere and Britain is no special case at all. UK is ordinary = maybe different
communities but the seral stages of your succession exist for your climate and soils and you cannot improve upon it.
You won't see the climax stage of succession ever again. Nobody allows succession to happen. It won't happen. It's a pseudo garden.
Every footprint has crushed the forest soil. My place, your place, no difference at all except my place is far bigger than yours.
That allows us to do experiments on a massive scale with the same disappointing conclusions. 100,000ha of this. 100,000ha of that.
Here in British Columbia, alone. We have a plot of 18,000,000 ha beetle-killed pine and fire scar to mess with.
Every step you take in the forest or out on the grassland is crushing the existing biogeoclimatic zone community.
You have crushed the air from the soil and degraded it's water holding capacity. Don't look up.
Read about the mycorhizzal symbiotic community with your vegetation, in the soils. You kill them? There's no recovery.
Monocultural tree plantations as fiber crops in Scandinavia and in Canada proved that point decades ago.
These things are communities of plants and animals which modify their environment to the extent that they open niche opportunities for newcomers.
These events are called the seral stages of succession. They happen everywhere and Britain is no special case at all. UK is ordinary = maybe different
communities but the seral stages of your succession exist for your climate and soils and you cannot improve upon it.
You won't see the climax stage of succession ever again. Nobody allows succession to happen. It won't happen. It's a pseudo garden.
Every footprint has crushed the forest soil. My place, your place, no difference at all except my place is far bigger than yours.
That allows us to do experiments on a massive scale with the same disappointing conclusions. 100,000ha of this. 100,000ha of that.
Here in British Columbia, alone. We have a plot of 18,000,000 ha beetle-killed pine and fire scar to mess with.
Every step you take in the forest or out on the grassland is crushing the existing biogeoclimatic zone community.
You have crushed the air from the soil and degraded it's water holding capacity. Don't look up.
Read about the mycorhizzal symbiotic community with your vegetation, in the soils. You kill them? There's no recovery.
Monocultural tree plantations as fiber crops in Scandinavia and in Canada proved that point decades ago.
Let me see if I understand this:
-Somehow removing hedgerows that were artificially planted by humans is detrimental to the natural environment?
-Farming intensively (which increases yield per acre thus reducing the amount of total land needed to be taken out of nature) is detrimental to the natural environment?
-Organic farming which needs a larger tract of land to produce the same crop yield as conventional farming is somehow good for the natural environment?
-A landowner removing his own trees from his own property(basically harvesting his own timber crop) is illegal?
-Somehow removing hedgerows that were artificially planted by humans is detrimental to the natural environment?
-Farming intensively (which increases yield per acre thus reducing the amount of total land needed to be taken out of nature) is detrimental to the natural environment?
-Organic farming which needs a larger tract of land to produce the same crop yield as conventional farming is somehow good for the natural environment?
-A landowner removing his own trees from his own property(basically harvesting his own timber crop) is illegal?
