D821
Member
The Spanish Mastiff are an example of this type of dog.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Should the UK engage in a selective programme of rewilding?
- Thread starter Iskra
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
GusB
Established Member
That does not surprise me. A friend of mine once had a llama on his small-holding and it was one of most aggressive creatures I've ever encountered!
I've seen them when walking in Bulgaria and they were quite scary. I stood next to a local and we threw stones in their general direction to discourage them.
Cambus731
Established Member
Yes, starting with Stevenage. Bulldoze the entire town and let nature take over.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
That's an honest and thoughtful response
Personally, my take is that, there are very few places that haven't been shaped in some way by man, whether deliberately (parks and farmland) or accidentally (climate change, plastics in oceans), so we may as well accept that the future of the World is for us to shape the environment and decide how we should do that responsibly. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing... There's not necessarily anything idyllic about untouched 'natural' environments: Consider for example that the 'natural' environment of the UK before humanity started fiddling with it was a countryside where - as far as we can tell - malaria was probably rampant. Or that some 'natural' environments - such as much of the Sahara desert or the deserts in Arabia - are unpleasant rocky places largely devoid of life.
In the context of rewilding, the responsible thing to aim for seems to me to be to create a landscape that:
- Supports a wide variety of different plant, animal, and insect species, ideally with some priority given to species that are historically native to the area.
- Is roughly in equilibrium: It may need us to do some work to keep it as it is, but that shouldn't be a huge amount of work.
- Doesn't have an adverse impact on neighbouring areas.
- Is pleasant and safe for people to visit and walk around.
- Can absorb rainwater etc., so won't cause flooding.
- Isn't contributing to climate change - and ideally absorbs at least some carbon.
- Allows some economic activity - for example, maybe: Producing some food, or supports some solar panels or wind turbines.
Last edited:
GusB
Established Member
In other words "we've messed it up so far, we may as well carry on destroying things".
What utter tripe! As someone posted above, one of the best things we can do to re-wild is to leave alone and let nature take its course. Things may not end up quite the same way as if we hadn't interfered in the first place, but I'd prefer that we didn't exhibit such a defeatist attitude.
Your philosophy toward the environment is in a very place to mine. I have no desire to control and command this planet. I would probably put my philosophy as broadly libertarian whilst I see yours as very authoritarian.That's an honest and thoughtful response
Personally, my take is that, there are very few places that haven't been shaped in some way by man, whether deliberately (parks and farmland) or accidentally (climate change, plastics in oceans), so we may as well accept that the future of the World is for us to shape the environment and decide how we should do that responsibly. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing... There's not necessarily anything idyllic about untouched 'natural' environments: Consider for example that the 'natural' environment of the UK before humanity started fiddling with it was a countryside where - as far as we can tell - malaria was probably rampant. Or that some 'natural' environments - such as much of the Sahara desert or the deserts in Arabia - are unpleasant rocky places largely devoid of life.
In the context of rewilding, the responsible thing to aim for seems to me to be to create a landscape that:
Luckily, it seems that we now do have enough understanding that we can rewild in a way that supports most of those objectives.
- Supports a wide variety of different plant, animal, and insect species, ideally with some priority given to species that are historically native to the area.
- Is roughly in equilibrium: It may need us to do some work to keep it as it is, but that shouldn't be a huge amount of work.
- Doesn't have an adverse impact on neighbouring areas.
- Is pleasant and safe for people to visit and walk around.
- Can absorb rainwater etc., so won't cause flooding.
- Isn't contributing to climate change - and ideally absorbs at least some carbon.
- Allows some economic activity - for example, maybe: Producing some food, or supports some solar panels or wind turbines.
The universe was a brutal place before humans evolved, is still a brutal place now and will be brutal after we've gone. I have no desire to create idyllic environments. I especially do not believe that 'wild' places should be pleasant and safe for people to visit and walk around. I am happy to make our urban environments pleasant and safe for people, but wild places should be just that - wild!
Does that mean I am totally against any human intervention in wild places? No. As you note there are very few untouched environments left and those that are still there are because they are very difficult places for humans to live - mainly deserts like the Sahara, Antarctica, mountain tops, etc. Everywhere else has been touched and often in ways that cause problems because we've introduced non-native species that can wreak havoc.
Objective 1 - broadly agree.
Objective 2 - nice, but not a given.
Objective 3 - a great objective to totally stymie any proposal (not just re-wilding). This isn't to say that we simply accept any negative externalities of re-wilding but we have to accept there may be some and some things we can't fully mitigate.
Objective 4 - strongly disagree with this (see above)
Objective 5 - almost certain to happen anyway, but isn't why I want re-wilding.
Objective 6 - almost certain to happen anyway, but isn't why I want re-wilding.
Objective 7 - Solar panels and wind turbines aren't wild, therefore you're not rewilding. If it creates some economic benefits, then great, but isn't why I want re-wilding.
For me, re-wilding has one objective - to return the biodiversity of an area back to something close to what it was pre-civilisation.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Not at all.
I live not too far from Erith marshes - an absolutely beautiful area that has been - effectively rewilded and is now home to numerous species of birds, insects and plants. It's possibly one of the nicest places in London (picture attached). Did it happen because we decided to abandon it to nature? Absolutely not: It happened because wildlife experts (in other words, human beings) figured out what things we needed to plant and what modifications we needed to make to the area to make it happen.
I can think of a few other places nearby that we have effectively abandoned to nature (I assume, because noone has the money to manage them). In those places, the trees are basically being killed off by ivy and russian vine, and they are no longer particularly pleasant (albeit maybe, not as bad as concrete) and - so far as I can tell - don't have anything like the same degree of biodiversity.
Just leaving it to nature and doing nothing is not likely to lead to good results: It's simply abrogating our responsibility to look after the world and the environment, and leaving everything to chance instead. You may note that the video/original post that started off this thread did not suggest just leaving things to nature: It advocated actually taking human-designed action to rewild moorland in a way that should create a wonderfully diverse, pleasant, and sustainable area of countryside.
(Picture of a location in Erith marshes)
Attachments
Last edited:
Northumbriana
Member
Bring back forests, wolves, bears and bison and enjoy the show.
How about Kielder Forest as a place to try out 'the lynx effect'?
Ah, but there were no humans here before the humans arrived!
Northumbriana
Member
Totally. I want to be surrounded by trees and all kinds of wild animals.
Wynd
Member
Lynx would be a welcome addition, in my opinion, if for no other reason than to keep the roe deer population down. There are now literally millions of them in Scotland with a massive number of them calling Aberdeenshire home.
Seeing some of the local glens and hills go from brown to green is also welcome. The more trees the better.
From an economic perspective, there needs to be a lot of development towards things that provide jobs and sustainable communities in our rural areas. The current model is facing reform, which is possibly overdue. That being said, there will be a place for sport and hunting for a long while yet.
Seeing some of the local glens and hills go from brown to green is also welcome. The more trees the better.
From an economic perspective, there needs to be a lot of development towards things that provide jobs and sustainable communities in our rural areas. The current model is facing reform, which is possibly overdue. That being said, there will be a place for sport and hunting for a long while yet.
Progress in restoring Atlantic rainforest, a globally threatened habitat.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...es-and-isle-of-man?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
North Wales Wildlife Trust is currently raising funds for Bryn Ifan via the Big Green Give....
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...es-and-isle-of-man?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
North Wales Wildlife Trust is currently raising funds for Bryn Ifan via the Big Green Give....
Not literally millions, though far too many, with damaging environmental consequences. According to the John Muir Trust:
Wynd
Member
Nearly a million deer, going by that website. So, maybe not millions plural, but nearly 1 for every 5 citizens is quite a thing.
In a deer V citizens standoff, that could get interesting.
In a deer V citizens standoff, that could get interesting.
Things have been getting a bit feisty recently with respect to deer control on John Muir Trust land, in particular on the Quinag estate.
www.johnmuirtrust.org
Assynt deer dispute: The myths and the facts
Statement from the John Muir Trust to dispel some of the myths surrounding its decision to increase deer culls in Assynt following fierce opposition from a vocal minority demanding the status quo for sports shooting estates.
www.johnmuirtrust.org
3141
Established Member
Some animals are very adaptable. The urban fox is a good example. You can reintroduce wolves, bears and lynx into rural Aberdeenshire and tell them to keep the roe deer under control, but what happens when they decide life is easier in more urban areas and that they'd like a more varied diet including farm animals?
I'm not impressed by the argument about these species having continued to exist in most other countries in Europe. Most other countries are much less densely populated than the UK. Reintroducing potentially dangerous species as a kind of nostalgic apology for having exterminated them centuries ago, into a environment that is now very different, does not seem a good idea.
I'm not impressed by the argument about these species having continued to exist in most other countries in Europe. Most other countries are much less densely populated than the UK. Reintroducing potentially dangerous species as a kind of nostalgic apology for having exterminated them centuries ago, into a environment that is now very different, does not seem a good idea.
Farmers get guard dogs/donkeys/llamas and accept that some of their flocks will be lost to predators.
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 7,862
Eat more venison. Make it cheaper so that more people can afford it.
It can be quite tasty, and has been reported to have less fat, and be healthier than other "red" meats.
Scotland, particularly North of Edinburgh and Glasgow, is one of the most sparsely populated areas of Europe.
Slovenia - 40 wolves, 1000 bears, 20 lynx - Land area: 20,271 km/2, Population density: 103 people per km/2
Albania - 250 wolves, 200 bears, 40 lynx - Land area: 29,000 km/2, Population density: 105 people per km/2
Slovakia - 350 wolves, 800 bears, 1000 lynx - Land area: 49,000 km/2, Population density: 114 people per km/2
Croatia - 200 wolves, 900 bears, 60 lynx - Land area: 56,000 km/2, Population density: 73 people per km/2
----------
Scotland - 0 wolves, 0 bears, 0 lynx - Land area: 79,000 km/2, Population density: 67 people per km/2
The main blocker to rewilding efforts in the UK are huge numbers of sheep. Sheep that crop the highlands and destroy potential habitats and biodiversity. The UK has 20M-30M sheep depending on the time of year, couldn’t we have a few million less sheep and a few hundred wolves, bears, lynx? Hill sheep farming is of dubious economic benefit and poor from an animal welfare stand point. 1/20 adult sheep die every year from poor treatment, exposure, malnutrition, dehydration. That’s before they are slaughtered, 1/3 are slaughtered every year. 1/4 lambs die before they get to 3 months old when they will go to market.
As far as possible livestock predation goes 10,000-20,000 sheep are killed by dogs every year. It’s hard to imagine any re-introduced predator killing anywhere near that many.
Last edited:
Wynd
Member
Far, Far too much logic for a topic as emotive and charged as Scottish Land reform.
Next you'll be saying we should start rebuilding the thousands upon thousand of lost rural communities and making use of the derelict housing that litters the land.
Don't you know some people have taxes they need to dodge?! How else are they going to do it but run massive deserted estates that rack up huge losses every year so they can offset these against the profitable parts of their business empires?
Have a heart, won't you! Think of the rich, they need help too you know!
Last edited:
Great thread. As a massive fan of rewilding, I agree with a lot of what's been said.
The UK is so nature-depleted that we've effectively forgotten what healthy ecosystems look like. It's a classic trope in conservation that each generation tries to return the land to how it looked in their childhood, not realising that the land during their childhood was already deeply damaged.
So a core aim of rewilding is to move away from the ideology of strict management plans which demand, for example, that a particular nature reserve must be kept in a particular state of arrested development, which happens to be good for one particular rare species.
Instead, we step back and allow natural processes to take place, with a degree of openness and humility as to exactly how these changes will unfold. The Knepp estate in Sussex is a great example of this. They left a chunk of unproductive farmland barren for a couple of years, opened up the field boundaries and allowed herds of grazers and browsers to roam free across the land. Within a few years, these fields changed in richly diverse ways, and it became a nationally important site for such rare and threatened species as turtle doves (traditionally assumed to prefer arable farmland), nightingales (traditionally assumed to prefer dense woodland), purple emperor butterflies (requiring sallow thickets), and many more. None of this was expected.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Another aspect of rewilding is to bring back the human connection with nature. In our atomised urban existence it's easy to forget that we are part of the ecosystem.
Trees for Life do brilliant work in the Scottish Highlands, and a few years back they had the Human Wolf project. As an experimental way to prevent deer over-browsing the regenerating Caledonian forest, they had the idea to send out small packs of 'human wolves' into the forest at night, to track the deer and keep them on the move. Whether this had much material impact on deer browsing pressure isn't certain, but what it did do is give the participants a different perspective on the forest. To act like a wolf, you need to think very differently from someone who is trekking along a well-marked trail in the daylight. It's these experiences that recreate our connection with the natural world around us, and mean we care about it enough to protect and conserve it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
In any case, climate change means habitats will be changing whether we like it or not.
But there's no point in denying that rewilding schemes may well cause the occasional adverse impact too. Rewilding won't get far without support from the community, so it's best to recognise any particular issues and deal with them in a sensible way. For example, beavers are hugely beneficial keystone species who will do a huge amount to prevent flooding and enhance wetland ecology. But sometimes they might try to fell a tree you really don't want to be felled. So put in place some simple mitigation measures and put chicken wire around the base of important trees that are assessed to be at risk. And if the beavers are really not in the right place (e.g. flooding high value farmland), then trap them and move them somewhere they'll be more welcome.
That said, neither lynx or wolves are a danger to humans, despite the fairy-tale reputation.
The UK is so nature-depleted that we've effectively forgotten what healthy ecosystems look like. It's a classic trope in conservation that each generation tries to return the land to how it looked in their childhood, not realising that the land during their childhood was already deeply damaged.
So a core aim of rewilding is to move away from the ideology of strict management plans which demand, for example, that a particular nature reserve must be kept in a particular state of arrested development, which happens to be good for one particular rare species.
Instead, we step back and allow natural processes to take place, with a degree of openness and humility as to exactly how these changes will unfold. The Knepp estate in Sussex is a great example of this. They left a chunk of unproductive farmland barren for a couple of years, opened up the field boundaries and allowed herds of grazers and browsers to roam free across the land. Within a few years, these fields changed in richly diverse ways, and it became a nationally important site for such rare and threatened species as turtle doves (traditionally assumed to prefer arable farmland), nightingales (traditionally assumed to prefer dense woodland), purple emperor butterflies (requiring sallow thickets), and many more. None of this was expected.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Another aspect of rewilding is to bring back the human connection with nature. In our atomised urban existence it's easy to forget that we are part of the ecosystem.
Trees for Life do brilliant work in the Scottish Highlands, and a few years back they had the Human Wolf project. As an experimental way to prevent deer over-browsing the regenerating Caledonian forest, they had the idea to send out small packs of 'human wolves' into the forest at night, to track the deer and keep them on the move. Whether this had much material impact on deer browsing pressure isn't certain, but what it did do is give the participants a different perspective on the forest. To act like a wolf, you need to think very differently from someone who is trekking along a well-marked trail in the daylight. It's these experiences that recreate our connection with the natural world around us, and mean we care about it enough to protect and conserve it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
These are an interesting set of objectives. Here's my response:That's an honest and thoughtful response
Personally, my take is that, there are very few places that haven't been shaped in some way by man, whether deliberately (parks and farmland) or accidentally (climate change, plastics in oceans), so we may as well accept that the future of the World is for us to shape the environment and decide how we should do that responsibly. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing... There's not necessarily anything idyllic about untouched 'natural' environments: Consider for example that the 'natural' environment of the UK before humanity started fiddling with it was a countryside where - as far as we can tell - malaria was probably rampant. Or that some 'natural' environments - such as much of the Sahara desert or the deserts in Arabia - are unpleasant rocky places largely devoid of life.
In the context of rewilding, the responsible thing to aim for seems to me to be to create a landscape that:
Luckily, it seems that we now do have enough understanding that we can rewild in a way that supports most of those objectives.
- Supports a wide variety of different plant, animal, and insect species, ideally with some priority given to species that are historically native to the area.
- Is roughly in equilibrium: It may need us to do some work to keep it as it is, but that shouldn't be a huge amount of work.
- Doesn't have an adverse impact on neighbouring areas.
- Is pleasant and safe for people to visit and walk around.
- Can absorb rainwater etc., so won't cause flooding.
- Isn't contributing to climate change - and ideally absorbs at least some carbon.
- Allows some economic activity - for example, maybe: Producing some food, or supports some solar panels or wind turbines.
Yes, enhancing biodiversity is a core aim of rewilding. But "some priority given to species that are historically native" is not strong enough. Invasive non-native species are one of the major threats to biodiversity across the globe. Thankfully, we're more aware of this than we were a few decades ago, but we still do things like importing tree planting stock from mega-nurseries in the Netherlands, rather than using locally grown stock that's better suited to local soils and climates, maintains greater genetic diversity and doesn't run the risk of importing new diseases into the country.
No, there's no need to try to maintain static conditions. Ecology is moving away from the idea that natural habitats tend successively towards a 'climax state' such as mature oakwoods stretching from Land's End to John O'Groats. Indeed experiences in rewilding have shown that natural environments are shaped by dynamic processes which result in diverse, patchy environments, where succession is constantly countered by the disturbance caused by large fauna. So it's no surprise that's it's normally the habitat edges, like hedgerows or woodland glades, that are the richest environments.
In any case, climate change means habitats will be changing whether we like it or not.
This one needs a bit of unpacking. First of all, it's important to recognise that existing land uses often have severe adverse impacts on neighbouring areas. Modern farming techniques are likely to involve drainage that exacerbates flash flooding, fertilisers that damage watercourses through eutrophication, pesticides that kill bees or leave toxins to bioaccumulate in animals higher up the food chain, loss of topsoil, excessive carbon emissions, and so on. Rewilding will remove these adverse impacts and replace them with positive ones, benefiting pollinators and fixing carbon.
But there's no point in denying that rewilding schemes may well cause the occasional adverse impact too. Rewilding won't get far without support from the community, so it's best to recognise any particular issues and deal with them in a sensible way. For example, beavers are hugely beneficial keystone species who will do a huge amount to prevent flooding and enhance wetland ecology. But sometimes they might try to fell a tree you really don't want to be felled. So put in place some simple mitigation measures and put chicken wire around the base of important trees that are assessed to be at risk. And if the beavers are really not in the right place (e.g. flooding high value farmland), then trap them and move them somewhere they'll be more welcome.
As I mentioned above, I think human reconnection with nature is a vital part of rewilding. But this reconnection doesn't necessarily have to mean 'pleasant and safe' places. I'm a climber. I don't do it because it's pleasant and safe. I do it because it makes me feel alive. The state of nature in the UK is more depleted than almost any other country in the world, and genuine nature is what we need, not more choreographed parkland.
That said, neither lynx or wolves are a danger to humans, despite the fairy-tale reputation.
This is a key benefit of rewilding. Tree roots improve soil permeability, rewetted bogs hold water in the hills, and natural flood management measures basically try to emulate what beavers will do for us for free.
Another key benefit of rewilding. We should be protecting the ancient woodlands and peatbogs that already exist, and enabling the degraded ones to return to healthier conditions.
This is interesting. To start with, I don't believe we should be demanding every scrap of land must 'pay its way'. Economics is not the only source of inherent value. But dig deeper and you find that rewilding is much more economically sustainable than the typical alternatives. Tourists paying to experience rewilded landscapes and glimpse big fauna will generate far greater income than unprofitable Scottish deer estates or subsidy-dependent upland sheep farming. The same can be true even in the lowlands. Knepp was never profitable as a farm, but became so when they chose to reinvent themselves as a rewilding project.
Last edited:
weepingwillowb
Member
What annoys me is when a churchyard or cemetery tapes off an area, then puts up a sign telling people not to enter the area as it's a conservation area and is being re-wilded. What's actually going on is that the church or council sees a way of saving money by not having to cut the grass and not needing to keep areas around graves tidy. Gives genuine re-wilding a bad name.
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 7,862
Yes. Reverse the "clearances". Evict the lairds and return the land to the descendants of those who were evicted.............
PsychoMouse
Member
I don't have much of an opinion on re-wilding but I've never wanted to see anything more than a pack of rabid guard llamas.
Wynd
Member
Seems a little harsh to reverse private property rights, don’t you think?
Why did you put Clearences in quotation? It’s not as if they didn’t happen….
Why did you put Clearences in quotation? It’s not as if they didn’t happen….
- Status