|
|
|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
|
|
|
|
 |
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46235
Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Mistress Rose
Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15985
|
|
|
|
|
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
|
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
|
|
|
|
|
Mistress Rose
Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15985
|
|
|
|
|
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
|
|
|
|
|
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamH
Joined: 23 May 2015
Posts: 523
|
|
|
|
|
Ty Gwyn
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4613
Location: Lampeter
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 22, 15 12:53 pm Post subject: |
 
|
Interesting post Tav,which highlights to me that the Dartmoor commoners do not have the same rules as similar commons in Wales.
Many commons in Wales farmers have to remove their stock from the common for a short period,
Brought up on a farm ajoining a common,we like other ajoining farmers were only allowed to turn to the common a certain number of stock pertaining to the acreage of inbye land owned,
In other words,the common was not to be used to increase your acreage,but to release land for fodder conservation.
The trouble with Monbiot is he does`nt understand how cattle have evolved over the years,the Devon cattle of old have been improved similar to other breeds,and today`s cattle look nothing like the old cattle,but the majority reading his articles would be has ignorant as him about these things.
On the higher reaches of Dartmoor i would say Galloway cattle are more suitable on the rough herbage,but managed similar to i mentioned earlier,
But they would be much better of with Welsh Glamorgan ewes,lol. |
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 15 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
| Tavascarow wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
The fatal flaw in his rewilding plans is that you can't have an undistrubed wildnerness and then ship in tens of thousands of people to look at it without it being disturbed. Much of the uplands is already supported by tourism, people visit the landscape for it's current beauty - where in the analysis is there any evidence that more people would visit to see a landscape without those views? Personally I think you'd struggle to keep the same numbers, never mind increase them. |
I agree there is nothing more destructive than human footfall but with regards to Dartmoor most visitors rarely stray out of eye shot of their vehicle.
The vast majority of the moor is only visited by the intrepid & serious & they tend to be very environmentally concious.
Managing the movement of human visitors is probably far easier than managing livestock on an open site like the moors.
You only need to put a car park & an ice cream van where they can do least damage, & not where they can, & your problems solved.
Over grazing by livestock is easily solved to. But it needs commitment from all parties.
George Mombiot isn't saying anything new or controversial.
There has been talk about limiting the numbers of stock on Dartmoor for years but so far it's all talk.
One way of doing that would be a return to the native & less hardy breeds as I said earlier. |
So what form does this ecotourism take? If you are correct people will flock to buy an ice cream at the side of the road through the forest. I don't think that is very accurate. When I think of my own experience of travelling across the moors, the one place I don't stop to appreciate the view is at the side of a wood. I appreciate that I'm not you're average punter but c'mon, I'm not that different.
As I said above, Monbiot seems to be blaming subsidies for the present situation (ie too many sheep), what is not clear is how the area based payments are in any way responsible for this. Under the present system you can do *anything* with the land and get the payments, it doesn't matter if you have one sheep or one thousand. This is a cause of undergrazing, not over grazing. As Ty suggests, this may be more of a local bylaw problem than a national subsidy one. |
|
|
|
|
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
|
|
|
|
|
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 15 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
| Rob R wrote: |
| Tavascarow wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
The fatal flaw in his rewilding plans is that you can't have an undistrubed wildnerness and then ship in tens of thousands of people to look at it without it being disturbed. Much of the uplands is already supported by tourism, people visit the landscape for it's current beauty - where in the analysis is there any evidence that more people would visit to see a landscape without those views? Personally I think you'd struggle to keep the same numbers, never mind increase them. |
I agree there is nothing more destructive than human footfall but with regards to Dartmoor most visitors rarely stray out of eye shot of their vehicle.
The vast majority of the moor is only visited by the intrepid & serious & they tend to be very environmentally concious.
Managing the movement of human visitors is probably far easier than managing livestock on an open site like the moors.
You only need to put a car park & an ice cream van where they can do least damage, & not where they can, & your problems solved.
Over grazing by livestock is easily solved to. But it needs commitment from all parties.
George Mombiot isn't saying anything new or controversial.
There has been talk about limiting the numbers of stock on Dartmoor for years but so far it's all talk.
One way of doing that would be a return to the native & less hardy breeds as I said earlier. |
So what form does this ecotourism take? If you are correct people will flock to buy an ice cream at the side of the road through the forest. I don't think that is very accurate. When I think of my own experience of travelling across the moors, the one place I don't stop to appreciate the view is at the side of a wood. I appreciate that I'm not you're average punter but c'mon, I'm not that different.
As I said above, Monbiot seems to be blaming subsidies for the present situation (ie too many sheep), what is not clear is how the area based payments are in any way responsible for this. Under the present system you can do *anything* with the land and get the payments, it doesn't matter if you have one sheep or one thousand. This is a cause of undergrazing, not over grazing. As Ty suggests, this may be more of a local bylaw problem than a national subsidy one. |
With regards to Dartmoor you put a few picnic tables in a picturesque spot within easy walking distance of the carpark & with a few 'wild' ponies that like to scrounge tit bits & everyone's delighted.
Picturesque & environmentally sensitive/valuable are very different things as you know.
The vast majority would rather cut off their right arms than trek ten or fifteen miles across bog & tor to see some rare plant or animal.
Unfortunately sheep, cattle & horses aren't so bothered.
With regards to subsidy the present system is probably better for limiting stock numbers than the old which just encouraged farmers to keep more.
But like all these things they (IMHO) appear to benefit those that need it the least most, & vice versa.
It does strike me as odd how agriculture gets so much support now when other industry is left to flounder & I can only assume it's because those with the real power in the land are also the largest land owners & benefit the most.
If that money was spent in the rural communities & conservation I think it would probably have better results. |
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 15 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
| Tavascarow wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| Tavascarow wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
The fatal flaw in his rewilding plans is that you can't have an undistrubed wildnerness and then ship in tens of thousands of people to look at it without it being disturbed. Much of the uplands is already supported by tourism, people visit the landscape for it's current beauty - where in the analysis is there any evidence that more people would visit to see a landscape without those views? Personally I think you'd struggle to keep the same numbers, never mind increase them. |
I agree there is nothing more destructive than human footfall but with regards to Dartmoor most visitors rarely stray out of eye shot of their vehicle.
The vast majority of the moor is only visited by the intrepid & serious & they tend to be very environmentally concious.
Managing the movement of human visitors is probably far easier than managing livestock on an open site like the moors.
You only need to put a car park & an ice cream van where they can do least damage, & not where they can, & your problems solved.
Over grazing by livestock is easily solved to. But it needs commitment from all parties.
George Mombiot isn't saying anything new or controversial.
There has been talk about limiting the numbers of stock on Dartmoor for years but so far it's all talk.
One way of doing that would be a return to the native & less hardy breeds as I said earlier. |
So what form does this ecotourism take? If you are correct people will flock to buy an ice cream at the side of the road through the forest. I don't think that is very accurate. When I think of my own experience of travelling across the moors, the one place I don't stop to appreciate the view is at the side of a wood. I appreciate that I'm not you're average punter but c'mon, I'm not that different.
As I said above, Monbiot seems to be blaming subsidies for the present situation (ie too many sheep), what is not clear is how the area based payments are in any way responsible for this. Under the present system you can do *anything* with the land and get the payments, it doesn't matter if you have one sheep or one thousand. This is a cause of undergrazing, not over grazing. As Ty suggests, this may be more of a local bylaw problem than a national subsidy one. |
With regards to Dartmoor you put a few picnic tables in a picturesque spot within easy walking distance of the carpark & with a few 'wild' ponies that like to scrounge tit bits & everyone's delighted.
Picturesque & environmentally sensitive/valuable are very different things as you know.
The vast majority would rather cut off their right arms than trek ten or fifteen miles across bog & tor to see some rare plant or animal.
Unfortunately sheep, cattle & horses aren't so bothered.
With regards to subsidy the present system is probably better for limiting stock numbers than the old which just encouraged farmers to keep more.
But like all these things they (IMHO) appear to benefit those that need it the least most, & vice versa.
It does strike me as odd how agriculture gets so much support now when other industry is left to flounder & I can only assume it's because those with the real power in the land are also the largest land owners & benefit the most.
If that money was spent in the rural communities & conservation I think it would probably have better results. |
I do think we need to eliminate subsidies and let people fund the kind of farming they want to see, but while there is potential for things to be much better, it could also be much worse. Fortunately, as I said before, they are shifting us gradually away from pillar one to pillar two payments, with more money moving over to environment & rural community projects. I still think that the way the funding is delivered is missing the mark though and as such we'd do better with headage payments returned, in terms of promoting rural employment, than a lick of paint for the village hall.
As you know I am a huge advocate of rotational grazing and I think farmers should be encouraged to manage land in such a way that the intensity and frequency of grazing can be closely controlled so that grazing is limited to less than one week in a year, but a crude measure such as reducing numbers is not the solution where overall numbers are not the problem. |
|
|
|
|
Mistress Rose
Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15985
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 15 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
The rules on commons about removing animals for a certain length of time each year are not so much to do with the environment as a man made law to ensure the ownership and other details. Each area of common land has its own rules. Some will allow pannage, some estovers, some grazing etc.
In general the animals that were bred for the area are the most suitable, so Dartmoors on Dartmoor, Downs sheep on the downs etc. Yes they do change over time, but not always in a bad way.
Graham, I think the deforestation of the moors was a mixture of man and climate. They are generally unsuitable for arable farming now except in certain pockets, and trees are very variable in their growth. Wistmans wood is said to be growing taller now than in the past, but the trees would be useless for any job for man, and not much good for anything except a substrate on which lichen grows, which may be edible by some animals. The rocks are as good for nesting as the trees. In some places planted trees have done quite well, and there are some conifer plantations, but as you know we have very few natural conifers in the UK, so the woodland cover in the past was probably just hanging on by a thread, and the climate change may well have done for it anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|
View Latest Posts