"Re-wilding" - newsnight tonight

[outdoorpaddy]

Hello folks, just thought i'd give a quick heads up about whats being talked about on newsnight right now on BBC2.
They're talking about leaving parts of the countryside to become wild again and reintroducing species.
Just wondering what peoples thoughts on this would be, personally as a first year forestry student this is a particularly interesting topic.
cheers

paddy

 

[Elen Sentier]

Without knowing any of the details ... been watching I Claudius, now Hubby is watching Bomber Command ... I like the general principle however I very much doubt it's been properly thought through. Will keep an eye open to see what transpires, thanks for the heads-up.

 

[British Red]

It would be a great idea if we weren't already over populated and unable to feed ourselves. I love the thought of substantial areas of wild land - but I love being able to eat more. Its one of those ideas that needs to be balanced against all the other pressures - food security, fuel use to import food, biodiversity, leisure, housing and all the rest. Good idea in isolation - but things are connected.

 

[outdoorpaddy]

I agree, I think its a great idea, I would love for species to be re-introduced and areas left to become forest again - but it simply isnt feasible, at least not on the proposed scale. With growing population and more stress on agriculture and food production, it simply cant happen. Perhaps 100 years ago when the population was smaller but not now.
The programme should be on BBC iplayer at some point for anyone wanting to see it.
cheers

paddy

 

[Elen Sentier]

we'll look on iPlayer tomorrow. Too many damn people as it is, don't want any more! We need the population of 100 years ago :aargh4: :tapedshut

 

[outdoorpaddy]

Haha, right on, absolutely agree. Not much you can do about population expansion though, one of many problems we will have to address in the next half century or so

 

[petrochemicals]

I think its a no brainer. There are large areas of land in this country that have little or no agrigultural value anymore, that have been altered by man in the past. The hills and moors where deforested and now are very low yield grass land and dead vast heather areas, that farmers hate and try to burn. You can still find the charred remains of trees in the hills of Wales. Before we tell the Amazon about unsustainable soils and deforestation we should sort ours out. Reforest it and you would oncemore have vast habitats for wildlife !

For example scotland:

www.treesforlife.org.uk/forest/humanimpacts/deforestation.html

think of the value of what has been left behind before saying we need the land for farming, Irish paddy could grow food far easier with all the land in ireland (no offence meant)

 

[CBJ]

Thanks for the heads up I will go and have a watch.

atb

Craig

 

[John Fenna]

we'll look on iPlayer tomorrow. Too many damn people as it is, don't want any more! We need the population of 100 years ago :aargh4: :tapedshut

Wrong Elen - we need the population of 1,000 years ago!
As long as me and my friends are in that number I would be happy

 

[treadlightly]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll watch that.

 

[boatman]

Wrong Elen - we need the population of 1,000 years ago!
As long as me and my friends are in that number I would be happy

That is of course the problem, anybody suggesting a cull or the like does not volunteer to start with themselves.

 

[boatman]

I am puzzled because there is a movement to bring neglected woodland into production, there was a TV series on this recently. Surely these neglected woods are re-wilding? Thus we can see what happens and the wildlife benefits etc. giving us a basis for estimating what would happen with larger areas. Perhaps the woods should be left alone for a start along with those bits of field running "wild".

 

[Stringmaker]

It may just be coincidence, but George Monbiot has just published this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Feral-Searc...UTF8&qid=1369818367&sr=1-1&keywords=rewilding

The review of it I read was very complimentary but also viewed it as "aspirational science fiction" or something like that. In other words it is way too late to work as we have massively over populated. He hates the process of sheep farming; calling it a subsidised monoculture which has destroyed any biodiversity in the uplands.

Personally I don't normally have much time for his views but I may just read this.

 

[treadlightly]

I am puzzled because there is a movement to bring neglected woodland into production, there was a TV series on this recently. Surely these neglected woods are re-wilding? Thus we can see what happens and the wildlife benefits etc. giving us a basis for estimating what would happen with larger areas. Perhaps the woods should be left alone for a start along with those bits of field running "wild".

Most of the time, woods are managed for our benefit, not the wood's or the wildlife in it. Left to its own devices the wood becomes wilder and more species rich.

 

[Goatboy]

That is of course the problem, anybody suggesting a cull or the like does not volunteer to start with themselves.

Oh contraire Boatman. I've been an advocate of population control all my life. (And at this point a lot of folks take a step back thinking I'm some eugenics nutter - I'm not.) But everyone seems to breed with no thought to sustainability, whether on a large or small scale. Too many can't afford it, or really want to put in the work a child needs. I've taken myself out of the breeding pool ( I think it has to be voluntary or folk think you're a Nazi) because there are too many folk, I don't think my genetic line should continue, and fiscally and mentally I don't know how it would work out.

Yet governments consistently encourage marriage and kids with tax and other financial breaks. Kids are a drain on the worlds resource and their carbon footprint is outstanding. Folk who either stay single or don't have kids don't get these breaks and contribute the same or more. We're not tying to rebuild after a war anymore, we're in an economic hole with dwindling resources and a growing population isn't helping. Lets look after the kids we have properly and adopt the unwanted ones. We don't need all these "little miracles" every five minutes.

 

[Stringmaker]

Without wishing to derail the OP, it is a question of balance and the fact that we have allowed things to go badly wrong.

We need to sustain ourselves as a population, to replace those of us who stop work, become ill or die. Where it is all out of kilter is the proportions; the total population versus the working age population (and those who actually are in work) is too large for a modern economy to support. The days of full employment are over; period.

The establishment message is that we have a housing crisis; the unpalatable flip side to that is that we have an over-population crisis too.

 

[Elen Sentier]

Wrong Elen - we need the population of 1,000 years ago!
As long as me and my friends are in that number I would be happy

I'll run with that John

 

[Elen Sentier]

That is of course the problem, anybody suggesting a cull or the like does not volunteer to start with themselves.

I don't mind volunteering to start with me ... just don't think I'll be that fortunate! And anyway, the planet has to do it to get it right not us idiot humans!

 

[Elen Sentier]

Oh contraire Boatman. I've been an advocate of population control all my life. (And at this point a lot of folks take a step back thinking I'm some eugenics nutter - I'm not.) But everyone seems to breed with no thought to sustainability, whether on a large or small scale. Too many can't afford it, or really want to put in the work a child needs. I've taken myself out of the breeding pool ( I think it has to be voluntary or folk think you're a Nazi) because there are too many folk, I don't think my genetic line should continue, and fiscally and mentally I don't know how it would work out.

Yet governments consistently encourage marriage and kids with tax and other financial breaks. Kids are a drain on the worlds resource and their carbon footprint is outstanding. Folk who either stay single or don't have kids don't get these breaks and contribute the same or more. We're not tying to rebuild after a war anymore, we're in an economic hole with dwindling resources and a growing population isn't helping. Lets look after the kids we have properly and adopt the unwanted ones. We don't need all these "little miracles" every five minutes.

+1 to that. We took ourselves out of the breeding pool too ...

 

[Goatboy]

I agree Stringmaker.

One way to look at population dynamics is the Japanese model, where land use is critical and they have the most aged population in the world. Now older folk are being tempted out of retirement with job shares (often in jobs no-one really wants to do) and good working practices. It allows their population to be productive and happy. (I know simple things don't make the whole difference you have to have things like a work ethos in your population anyway). But they are turning around a top heavy population remarkably well.


On the wild lands, I'm all for it. The ground is remarkably resilient. Fence it off to keep out the TGB's like sheep and deer and you'll be amazed at what comes up. Also large tracts of FC land were badly bought with no proper access for harvesting thought of and I'm sorry to say that the average FC forester is more akin to a wildlife/theme park manager today. So there's a lot of land there. And we need feral land to act as reservoirs of flora and fauna for the "productive" bits to work.