UKH

How much help would it be to try and alleviate a lot of the problems in this report would intensive program's worldwide to plant as many trees as possible over the coming years and keep out of these areas, meaning humans are not allowed so that we can let wildlife and nature be?

I mean making this the no 1 priority in a truly staggering set of programs that would be massive and like nothing ever done before.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/06/human-society-under-urg...

In reply to Pefa:

Yes, what would be radical would be a compulsory buy out of land from the big landowners in the Highlands and starting on a re afforestation programme. Natural woodland of oak, birch, rowan, alder and Scots pine. Remove 99% of the deer. In 70 years there would be a profound landcape change. And huge biodiversity gains. 

 In the Ariege, in the French Pyrenees, there was a huge depopulation of people in the 19th century. Now there are trees covering terraced fields. Nature quickly reasserts itself. As Oliver Rackham said "The enemy of conservation is tidiness". And it's us, people, who keep tidying the place up. 

In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

Forget the buy out

They have no right to ownership in the first place....give them a venison burger an send em politely packing.....

In reply to doz:

A bit like the clearances? 

In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

And few of those trees were planted, and in much of Britain no planting would be necessary if we were prepared to wait a little - see Craig Meagaidh 

In reply to Doug:

That's right Doug. It has been totally natural regeneration in the Ariege. Trees grow very easily, which does show how ferociously and how intensively we use land in the UK. 

At Range West in Pembroke, the place was totally off limits to the public. It was an army training area. The birdlife thrived far better than Range East which was open to climbers. The birds could adapt to shells and bullets three times a year but not the continual disturbance at weekends by increasing populations of climbers and the general public. 

In reply to Doug:

I think a more intensive deer cull might be required to let the trees really take over again. Other than that, I agree that nature will get on with it. Planting might speed things up though?

In reply to girlymonkey:

Anyone know how the millennium plantation near Gairloch is getting on? Haven't been up there for a while. Last time the trees were still all saplings

In reply to girlymonkey:

a few apex predators would do the job

In reply to LeeWood:

So would my dog! 

In reply to Alex@home:

Slowly!  Last went 4 years ago; the valley trees in the lee of Ghlas Leothaid are well established but more exposed areas are taking their time and still seem like saplings.   

In reply to girlymonkey:

Fenton the dog

In reply to Pefa:

I heard that trees block the new 5G signal that the man is looking to introduce in place of 4G.  Illuminati tug of war will ensue. Who will win? 

In reply to Pefa:

We need to plant more trees? Where have I heard that before? 

Eh .... 

Forestry Act 1919. 

In reply to Pefa:

And dare I mention ..

Entropy.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

It's got to be done worldwide though but of course why not start here in Scotland. Just guilt trip the Duke of Buccleuch and all the other major  land owners into giving it back to nature and then we can plant like hell and police it to keep all humans out. 

This is the most important issue mankind faces and we need to act fast. 

In reply to Jim Fraser:

You don’t need to plant trees. They grow wherever they’re not removed or prevented from growing.

In reply to Moley:

Yes think of the poor deprived shooters. Send them to America.

In reply to Jim 

I think that was more to do with having a ready supply of pit props for industrial scale trench warfare than any ecological concerns, hence the ecological deserts of spruce. 

In reply to Pefa:

Followed by multiple right to roam protests. 

In reply to Dax H:

No, we need to be authoritarian on this and all work together but be very severe in punishments. 

In reply to Pefa:

Which particular Scottish island would you propose as a Gulag?

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Why sacrifice an island? I'd just go for Glasgow. I've long been in favour of building a wall round it anyway to keep the Weegies inside at bank holidays to stop them trashing places like Glen Etive.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Anthrax. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Trees everywhere and no humans allowed in huge areas which would be out of bounds. Just forget about them, leave them be, sacrosanct sanctuaries left to go wild. Anyone caught there would be warned then jailed, kids would be educated to support these areas and why it's vital. 

In reply to Pefa:

......but the farms minister on radio 4 the other day said he was not one who would advocate removing stock from the hills to allow wilding to take place. Good grief, we need an election.

In reply to Phil1919:

Farmers can do that. 

Remove subsidy for all barren moorland. Introduce subsidy for cattle grazed semi forest, with a max and min tree density, plus rules on trees species. Bonus 10% if you have more than X number of species, or trees over a given age. 

It's what you might call market forces!! 

In reply to Pefa:

No reason they can't be used for walking, biking, orienteering.  The ground damage is minimal compared to that done by wild boar and forests cope with that. 

What should be banned is all foraging for firewood or fungi. 

In reply to Pefa:

Bring back "Plant a Tree in 73"!  We did but I found out a decade or so later that the school had ripped up what we did then for new development

Perhaps we could reintroduce it with the idea being the 23rd of every month being a day to volunteer to plant trees   "Tree on Twenty Three"

In reply to pasbury:

I was thinking of the the families that live and work there, may have lived there for generations.

But hey, let's just pack them off to an anthrax island, who cares about a few kids.

In reply to Pefa:

Why waste money jailing the bastards?. String them up from the trees to send out a clear message.

In reply to wercat:

Twenty-tree

In reply to pasbury:

I imagine in many areas planting will certainly speed things up. Also the early stages of growth from seedling to sapling must be particularly vulnerable to competition, grazing and damage and bypassing that in the first instance should help ( appreciate that may be covered by " prevented from growing". 

In reply to pasbury:

Agreed, they soon seed and do fine on their own, the problem is animals eating the young saplings. It won't happen without a big reduction in (any sheep farming obviously) deer, rabbits, hares for starters. So first remove large numbers of them where present - or fencing.

In reply to summo:

....but the politicians have to remove the subsidies, introduce the subsidies, and make the special rules and give the bonus's.......my point was that the Conservative minister isn't likely to do so. 

In reply to Phil1919:

But realistically the green party have a few reasonably ideas, many which are just unfeasible to all but a hardened vegan, they aren't going to gain many more seats and couldn't be trusted with more economic control than the tea bar fund. 

Those with wealth, the Emma Thompson, Vivienne Westwood, Russell brand and no doubt many more who at least look like they support the greens should use their party donations to buy influence with a party that could at least manage an economy.

They should use the same tactics for rewilding, that a large corporation would for influencing government policy. Work the party politically behind the scenes. 

There are plenty wealthly people out there to get on side, like the owner of the Glen Feshie. 

In reply to Moley:

A merging of personal aspirations might work.  Instead of step counters one could have personal planting counters as a means of getting fit.  Mass participation in fitness and tree planting, marathons even

In reply to Pefa:

What about Paul Lister?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/08/wolves-scotland-reintro...

Anyway, in the meantime, support land buy outs when the opportunity arises, like the Woodland Trust's recent purchase of Beinn Shieldaig.

I would agree we need much more rewilding and trees but I think closing off to people counter-productive. Access (which can be limited / restricted, e.g. Yosemite has permits) and experience of the wilderness would encourage a more protective perspective. If you can't see it, feel it, 'taste it', would the value of it be appreciated? 

In reply to Flinticus:

Reading the Paul Lister is interesting, but I can't equate the aims from earlier in this thread with what he is proposing. Namely a fenced off 50,000 acres and 10,000 visitors a year, not can I imaging that model being duplicated all over the highlands.

Much as I would like to carry on this thread I'm out most of the day now.

In reply to summo:

Why ban fungi foraging?

In reply to summo:

We are miles apart as usual.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Bbecause it's part of the forest habit and diversity. It's as valuable as insects or birds and most people will just take far more than they should. Folk are selfish. 

In reply to summo:

It seems to work perfectly well in Germany...

In reply to John Ww:

And in the nordics, but some how the UK sees people clearing the forest of all fungi in bin bags. Think it is because it's trendy eating in some restaurants, also being trendy to forage in general, plus the population to forested area ratio. 

In reply to Pefa:

I've read about there being one drawback to tree planting, being that snow doesn't settle on trees like it does on flat ground, with settled snow being able to reflect heat back from the earth towards helping it to keep cool(er).  What I read didn't go into any figures unfortunately, about by how much X amount of land mass of settled snow helps towards keeping the earth cooler, compared to the amount an acre of land of planted trees (or however much) does by removing carbon dioxide from the air. 

I guess it's plausible that mass planting of trees would do enough to counteract any lack of snow cover on ground which won't support trees.

In reply to Pefa:

Bit like the way the highlands were in the 19th century. Why not advocate scattering a few man traps around as well?

Government subsidies could easily help change the landscape as Summo suggested although care would need to be taken not to reduce employment in those areas. I also wonder how much of the Highlands could be reforested. Certainly only up to a certain altitude and with the right ground.

Of course what the world needs to do now is stop cutting down forests. Any initiatives started now to plant trees won't show much return for maybe two decades and what could be done in Britain would easily be wiped out by deforestation in the tropics both in terms of carbon capture and biodiversity.

In reply to Removed User:

'Sucking bogs' are my ideal solution for catching fly tippers in the nature reserves in Sheffield, to secure people at waist height. If it could be raining on them until they're found so much the better.

In reply to Removed User:

Tree cover is pretty thin and more dwarfed right up to 900-1000m in the nordics. 

Cut less of some trees, more of others.

Building out of wood is a great carbon sink, compared to bricks and concrete alternatives. 

In reply to Timmd:

Very interesting point but I would counter it by asking how much snow we get and whether it would be significant and will we be getting even less as the plant boils more from our pollution? 

In reply to jethro kiernan:

You should visit Canada or Alaska. You can drive for a day and see nothing but one kind of pine tree. Billions and billions and billions. I'd imagine a replanted Scotland would be more like that if left to its own devices rather than the parsely wood idyll some might be imagining. Of course active management could avoid this if the money were available.

In reply to Removed User:

Setting an example for other countries to follow in the name of saving all life from extinction especially all the life that is not human. That is sort of my thrust with the 'keep the humans out' rule as nowhere is free from us. There will be tons of places all of us can still visit but let's give the tree species and systems, wee animals and birds a few massive areas that are completely human free. Helping all the species and giving fresher air for the planet. Might be an argument that species in these protected areas could end up too friendly toward humans in the future(I don't know) but you could fix that easily. 

Any livelihoods or homes affected get relocated and new jobs or given a job protecting this area and a home on the periphery.

These would be no go areas like any military land. No Humans allowed and they would be massive. Protected from intruders like nuclear sites. 

Politically the Greens in Germany I believe do very well due to the proportional voting system and act more as a huge lobbying influence rather than the party in power. I could be wrong on that but perhaps something similar would get these critical issues pushed to the top section of priorities. 

Anyone with huge land masses inherited for whatever reason..... Hand it over. 

We seem to be blindly stumbling into catastrophe and I think it's time for drastic measures to deal with a drastic situation. 

In reply to LeeWood:

And sadly the apex predator would soon do for them.

jk

In reply to Pefa:

I agree about the seriousness and urgency of things, but given human nature, I think giving the owners of large tracts of inherited land financial incentives to re-wild their land could be a more digestible approach. I'm commenting on whether it's right or fair, it's more that humans are humans. 

In reply to Pefa:

Why? It's deer/sheep that keep trees down, not people. Frankly most unmanaged woodland is impenetrable enough that where we don't cut paths we will stay away anyway. The odd determined individual does no harm.

Not that it's going to happen. Most of our 'available' land is on valuable shooting estates and many of them still come with a nice ermine cloak.

jk

In reply to Timmd:

I shouldn't have wrote "we seem to", I should have wrote "we are". 

Human nature Tim is beautiful caring, sharing, helpful, kind, respectful to nature and to each other. It is ego and economic systems that are not. We are so far removed from our true nature by our egos and thereby removed from fully respecting nature and our surroundings. 

You cannot undo that overnight but life for hundreds of thousands of species or perhaps us as well can't wait that long. So in this situation we need to do what is drastic but relatively reasonable under the given critical nature of our trajectory and how to counter it. 

To do this we need land, we need it fast and huge areas of it and we also need full control over it to properly plan for the future. 

In reply to jkarran:

I seen a wee lassie hauling on a small planted tree in a built up area as her mother checked out her phone about a year ago. 

Spot on, so is it big profits for a few and now not just to hell with the many people but to hell with the environment and all these threatened species as well just to keep the Princes, Dukes and Lords happy? 

If anyone has a better solution it would be interesting to hear. 

In reply to jkarran:

All we have to do is remove a few access bridges and a few strategic boulders on roads  and dig them up  in places to allow some regrowth  and you will cut down the access massively. It’s an alien concept in the uk where your never more than half a mile from a managed footpath or national trust car park it seams. If you want to go play fair enough it’s just going to involve a long walk-in and no firetracks.

In reply to Pefa: Without going off on a philosophical tangent, human nature has light and dark in it, and we can be self interested like any other animal,  that's what I mean by humans being humans. One has got to allow for that to bring people along I think (I might not be right of course, but the ones who spoil things are always selfish etc). 

More productively (than my online pondering), I'm going to go and look into planting some trees.

In reply to Timmd:

Proportionally not many people are egoless but many are. Many of us strive for this and many have vague ideas about it and others are fully immersed in the illusion/ego. 

I don't see it as a balancing of light and dark tbh as both are dualistic, our true nature is above that. 

In reply to jkarran:

Why? Given the right economic circumstances and perhaps a certain amount of legislation there's no reason why the estates wouldn't change. Simply legislate on the amount of tree cover a piece of agriculture land should have and provide subsidies for planting. Many estates are shooting estates because that's what makes the most money (or loses the least) in the past they had cows on them and in the future it could be something different if the economic circumstances were to change.

Note also that in mainland Europe a lot of shooting is done in forests.

In reply to Pefa: I think you're more high minded than me, I'm probably more 'Some people are shits*, and one needs to find ways of stopping them from spoiling any progress'. 

* In practical terms at least.

Have a good day, I'm off. 

In reply to Removed User:

The Canadian examples of the miles and miles of the same tree would not be the same in Scotland. If left alone, you would get climatic climax vegetation and local differences according to soil moisture and micro climates e.g. alder near water. 

So the west coast would naturally have oak and as you went east it would change to Scots Pine and birch. The natural treeline can be seen in the dwarf pine at 600 m plus in various locations in the northern Cairngorms. 

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Farm land was being destroyed by the lack of shelter and even today in parts of the UK the lack of shelter from wind and absence of the controls on drainage that might otherwise be afforded by the presence of trees continues to be a problem. If I look at the ancient acts of the Scottish Parliament then I find that the very first unrepealed Act of 1424 is an environmental one and throughout those records there are environmental acts of parliament concerning matters such as drainage, protection of species and coastal erosion. What that tells us is that even 600 years ago, when the human population was far smaller, and their impact even less, there were governments deeply concerned about environmental protection.

In reply to Pefa:

Act, at 7th June 1535

Of planting of woods, forests and orchards

Item, for policy to be had within the realm in the planting of woods, making of hedges, orchards, yards and sawing of broom, it is statute and ordained by the king's grace and his three estates of parliament that the acts made thereupon of before by King James II and our sovereign lord's other progenitors be observed and kept and put to sharp execution in all points, with this addition: that every man spiritual and temporal within this realm having a hundred pound land of new extent per year, and may spend so much, where there are no woods or forests, he should plant woods and forests and makes hedges and enclosures for himself extending to three acres of land, and above or under as his heritage is more or less in places most suitable; and that they cause every tenant of their lands that has the same in tack and assedation to plant upon their dwelling-site yearly for every merk land one tree, each lord of a hundred pound land under the pain of £10 and less or more after the rate and quantity of their lands;† and that inquisition be made yearly hereupon as the king's grace shall think most expedient; and that every man begin and cause planting to be made the next season hereafter following under the pains foresaid, to be raised and brought in to the king's grace's use by the sheriff of the shire, or whoever it pleases his grace to direct his commission to in that part, and that trial be taken yearly of the breakers of this statute by every sheriff in his own shire† yearly at his head court after Easter.

======================

So, ladies and gentlemen, we can see that this has been a matter of concern in public policy for some time.

In reply to Pefa:

I'm all in favour of re-wilding but as Timmd says it needs to be done by making it attractive to the land owners rather than taking the land from them.  I have a real problem with the idea of seizing land. It would start with the landed gentry then move to farmers they maybe to you and me. I have worked bloody hard to own my own quite small and modest house with a nice little garden I can sit in to watch my pond. I will go down fighting before I let anyone take it from me. 

In reply to Pefa:

A couple of interesting articles about Scottish forestry: 

https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-management/managin...

https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-forestry-strategy-20192029/page...

Apparently forest only covered 5% of Scotland at the turn of the 20th century but this figure rose to 19% over the next century and will rise to 24% by 2032. Given Nicola's sudden realisation that we have climate emergency you might have been hoping that the Scottish Government would have been a bit more pro active than planning a further 5% and not giving tax cuts to air travel.

In reply to Timmd:

I’m not sure we really should be giving the rich more tax breaks, this is a major problem for the world , the rich landowners are the reason we have so little woodland in the uk because of land clearance for sheep farming back in the day then grouse and game shooting, they are already the biggest recipients of EU grants, enough!

In reply to summo:

But are the fungi not just the fruiting bodies? does harvesting them actually cause any damage?

I appreciate your point on selfish folk taking everything - but in a suffciently large forest that probably ceases to be a problem.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Any links? Not that I like grouse moor owners, I just doubt your CAP data. 

The eu publish a table of which country claims what. The French farmers are close to the top on euros per hectare, as the scheme is very much engineered in their favour. The UK is way down the list. 

In reply to Dr.S at work:

It aids them spreading and other animals feed on them. Granted the animals that might live off them aren't poster worthy for fundraising, but not all wildlife is cute, small and furry. 

In reply to jethro kiernan:

In terms of fairness I agree with you, I just have in the back of my mind them not voting for anybody who might take land from them, or aim to rewild their land without something in it for them, if they currently make a living from deer hunting. Or they could oppose any attempts to get them to rewild their land, or vote out anybody who tries to push them into it.  I do agree with you in principle though. Absolutely I do. Maybe I've become cynical, if you read Private Eye, money and self interest seem to be behind everything. 

In reply to summo:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/27/...

money tends to go to money 

In reply to Moley:

Don’t you worry, plenty of people from towns and cities (undoubtedly with shiny new Hunter wellies) will be out soon to show those who’ve lived & worked in the countryside their entire lives how to look after the land properly. 

In reply to Fozzy:

Ooh, I think the general licences fiasco is a start!

In reply to Moley:

“But surely they can go out and just shoo the pigeons away, can’t they? Now, let’s get Cwith a sainthood..” 

In reply to Dax H:

Yes the landowners must be fully on board and amenable to what is going to happen to the land and places they know and love so much as they would be very concerned I imagine. They would also need to be some financial package/job for them and any other local workers as I pointed out. I suggest matters are so grim that everyone needs to work together and be entirety reasonable and fair with each other.

This should be way beyond all petty party politics. 

Archetypes and legends of the English man's home is his castle and recurring themes are ingrained in the British psyche which why there is such a huge percentage of home ownership in the UK. No one would want to take anyone's ordinary properties and farms from them. That could never work in the UK. 

In reply to Removed UserJim and Eric:

5% is basically just lip service isn't it?but I think she has stopped the air travel tax cuts. 

It's not enough, the whole world needs radical measures and a mind shift in everyone away from everything that destroys the environment. Hopefully the new generations will take over and have the courage to be as radical as the situation requires. 

In reply to Fozzy:

How about letting mother nature take care of it? + Tree planting on a scale that is mind blowing, all over the world. 

In reply to jethro kiernan:

That doesn't show that they receive the most CAP in the eu. Only that they own a lot of land and CAP rewards ownership not food  production. What does matter is how much per hectare they get for doing nothing beneficial at all, in many cases it's even damaging. 

I don't really care on their status etc..  there are small family farms carrying out very bad practices and billionaires making a positive improvement to the habit they own. 

Your class war isn't necessarily the same as your environmental one. 

In reply to Pefa:

Because if you want to eat, “letting Mother Nature take care of it” isn’t an option any more. 

In reply to Fozzy:

It's perfect if you are in a primitive Amazon tribe, but useless if you need your tea to appear in a Glasgow supermarket. 

In reply to summo:

I'm not talking about converting farmland here I'm talking about wilder lands. 

In reply to Dax H:

I dont think you are the problem. Its the land grabbing developers, apparent resistance to using brownfield sites, new roads, new housing on greenfield site which are popping up everywhere etc. See the pristine woodland levelled for 100s houses just outside Doncaster on the M18.

It needs to stop. Now. When concrete covers the land, it will never be returned.

You can do your bit though. Plant shrubs, a tree, leave a small area of garden to overgrow.

In reply to Pefa:

One mans wild is another's summer grazing! There are places in the nordics where farms are split high and low, moving cattle upto 800m for a couple of months summer grazing, whilst they take hay in the valley. 

In reply to summo:

Came as a surprise to me that we consume about 100 million cups per day and 96% are from tea bags.

Many of the popular makes contain plastic in the tea bag - makes it stick together. That is a lot of plastic being chucked away into the environment each day.

On positive note some makes are non plastic and some say they will change.

Besides, loose leaf tea tastes better - so why not all change - very simple thing to do.

In reply to summo:

As used to happen in Scotland. Any place with Laoch [?] in its name had an association with calfs for example, the ruined shielings found in remote corries housed the women and children who tended to the cattle during their summer grazing.

In reply to Moley:

Tea bags. We just compost the paper based bags. As you probably know, tea or coffee doesn't need to go in landfill or incinerator waste. 

In reply to Removed User:

When skiing off hills in the Nordics you need to look for the deepest snow, you don't want your skis to run under that top strand on the wire fence! 

In reply to Pefa:

I see nothing in the impending catastrophe changing that, our parliamentary system is designed to resist the democratic redistribution of power and wealth which in this instance means the continued existence of barren sporting estates. It's taken the two world wars to overcome that institutional inertia previously. Ecosystem failure is insidious, it does not provide that same moment of unifying cataclysm a war does.

jk

In reply to Removed User:

Because a shooting estate is the ultimate money can only just buy bauble, it doesn't come with trees and the people that own these lands have a brake hand on any legislation effecting them.

But not here. This isn't rational and it isn't about shooting, it's heritage and prestige.

jk

In reply to summo:

Ours all go into the compost as well; till now I find we have been chucking plastic into the compost, then onto the veg garden, which is less than 10m from the stream....etc.

I use loose leaf but wife has T bags, shall now be looking out the plastic free brands. Just a little thing to do that is no effort.