Nature in the News

New Home

https://news.sky.com/story/giant-panda-chuang-chuang-dies-suddenly-at-thai-zoo-11812766

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

3 billion fewer birds in the US and Canada today compared to 1970 -

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49744435

New Home

Once again,

magicbastarder

This is astounding and utterly utterly disgraceful.

https://twitter.com/collieennis/status/1175396828369567744

New Home

And it's not as if they can claim they didn't know what they were doing..... :mad: :mad: :mad:

Birdnuts

State sponsored vandelism of our natural heritage has a long and ugly history in this country

Benny mcc

Why did they dig it up? Is there planing for something?

New Home

I honestly don't know, but probably because it now looks "neat and tidy and clean".

magicbastarder

it's all over the news today at least; carried in the journal, on the irish times, and we had nova on the radio earlier which mentioned it on the news.

Benny mcc

Well if they would (after a lot of agro) reinstate the wet land it would bounce back in no time. I dug out a wet area on my land to form 5 good size ponds one of which is 60 ft × 60 ft. Dug it in early spring and by late spring early summer frogs and all sorts of water insects had moved in and now it's cleared and growing bull rush and has duck landing at night .

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Benny mcc wrote: »

Well if they would (after a lot of agro) reinstate the wet land it would bounce back in no time. I dug out a wet area on my land to form 5 good size ponds one of which is 60 ft × 60 ft. Dug it in early spring and by late spring early summer frogs and all sorts of water insects had moved in and now it's cleared and growing bull rush and has duck landing at night .

Benny, it would re-wild but it would not 'bounce back'. Some of the species lost will not easily recover or just repopulate the area because someone digs a few holes and fills them with water.

Benny mcc

Moses Faithful Slime wrote: »

Benny, it would re-wild but it would not 'bounce back'. Some of the species lost will not easily recover or just repopulate the area because someone digs a few holes and fills them with water.

You don't fill them with water you need to dig where the water is all ready. They will repopulate. If you build it they will come. People often need to find the negative but it's done now so find the positive! Don't dwell on the wrong someone did out of ignorance or pure stupidity, fight to have it put back in any way you can . We had nothing here only a wet area of land but when we created a habitat they all just showed up.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Benny mcc wrote: »

You don't fill them with water you need to dig where the water is all ready. They will repopulate. If you build it they will come. People often need to find the negative but it's done now so find the positive! Don't dwell on the wrong someone did out of ignorance or pure stupidity, fight to have it put back in any way you can . We had nothing here only a wet area of land but when we created a habitat they all just showed up.

I know how to build a wetland, I have done so over many hectares in my time. The point is, there was irrevocable damage done here and there were particular species that may never return. Don't underestimate the loss here. Another wetland can certainly be created but it will not be what was there before , by a long chalk.

Alun

Didn't I read somewhere though that the area wasn't actually 'built' as a wetland area in the first place, it was just a dumping site for silt from other ponds, possibly from building the ponds in the park itself and had been largely ignored until the various species were discovered there relatively recently?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Alun wrote: »

Didn't I read somewhere though that the area wasn't actually 'built' as a wetland area in the first place, it was just a dumping site for silt from other ponds, possibly from building the ponds in the park itself and had been largely ignored until the various species were discovered there relatively recently?

Absolutely. It was little known and unusual in it's wealth of species.

Benny mcc

I still didn't get the point of dwelling on it as tragic as it may be. Still fight for it and move forward. What's done is done

New Home

That, to me, is like saying "Oh well, another species became extinct/the Exxon Valdez II happened again. So be it, let's not dwell on it, and move on." This is irreparable damage, what I don't understand is how you can be so flippant about it - maybe you aren't being flippant, in which case I apologise, but that's how it sounds to me.

magicbastarder

Alun wrote: »

Didn't I read somewhere though that the area wasn't actually 'built' as a wetland area in the first place, it was just a dumping site for silt from other ponds, possibly from building the ponds in the park itself and had been largely ignored until the various species were discovered there relatively recently?

have you seen the latest video? they didn't just fill in the pond, they actually created a spoil heap about 4 foot high. and it's full of rubbish:

https://twitter.com/collieennis/status/1175826504770576385

collie is booked in for morning ireland tomorrow to talk about this.

re the 'it'll bounce back' - great, you built a pond and you're seeing new life on it. you've mentioned three specific species that have appeared, and a general reference to water insects. that's welcome, don't get me wrong, but that does not mean you've got a diverse habitat (yet). some species may take many years to reappear.

Alun

magicbastarder wrote: »

have you seen the latest video? they didn't just fill in the pond, they actually created a spoil heap about 4 foot high. and it's full of rubbish

I was referring to how the wetland area came into being in the first place not recent events. It was a pond some time ago but was filled in with silt resulting in what was there until very recently. That's what's been levelled and dumped on top of.

There's still a pond to the north of that area that's survived relatively intact.

Benny mcc

New Home wrote: »

That, to me, is like saying "Oh well, another species became extinct/the Exxon Valdez II happened again. So be it, let's not dwell on it, and move on." This is irreparable damage, what I don't understand is how you can be so flippant about it - maybe you aren't being flippant, in which case I apologise, but that's how it sounds to me.

Not being flippant at all. Just saying it's done gone but not irreparable. It won't be the same again but could be put back some how. Maybe not as great as was and maybe better . Just saying they can stand crying over it or deep breath and fight on. I do see it as a great shame too.

New Home

Benny mcc wrote: »

Not being flippant at all. Just saying it's done gone but not irreparable. It won't be the same again but could be put back some how. Maybe not as great as was and maybe better . Just saying they can stand crying over it or deep breath and fight on. I do see it as a great shame too.

Austria!

Benny mcc wrote: »

I still didn't get the point of dwelling on it as tragic as it may be. Still fight for it and move forward. What's done is done

Word of advice, if anyone ever asks you to perform a eulogy: decline.

magicbastarder

it's interesting timing too, in that the wetlands beside the NCT centre in ballymun are also in danger of being destroyed; for pipelines for the treatment plant planned for clonshaugh.

standard institutional reaction here, really; they're not in 'productive' use so have no financial value to worry about - no one to buy off - so they're the low hanging fruit when it comes to 'what land will we pick on to disrupt when we need to get something done'.

Benny mcc

Austria! wrote: »

Word of advice, if anyone ever asks you to perform a eulogy: decline.

Well ok so. I'll look on in wait for this to fix it's self. Good luck with that

bernard0368

Its a disgrace the council should be held to task (unlikely) Can only imagine that the woodlands in Rathcool will be next on their radar.

magicbastarder

to summarise (in spirit, not in letter), SDCC's official response was essentially 'yeah we did it. whatcha gonna do about it?'

bernard0368

@magicbastardar certainly reads like that.
Frogs and newts are protected under the wildlife act and a European directive if I remember rightly.
As the eels are on the endangered list surely there must be some protection afforded to them?
Surely then this would fall into Npws's remittance to prosecute, or is that wishful thinking?

bkrangle

On the Tallaght wetlands front this is an odd, and worrying, development

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2019/09/24/all-a-blur/

magicbastarder

they don't mention a source for the claim made, which would give the claim a little more gravitas.

bkrangle

magicbastarder wrote: »

they don't mention a source for the claim made, which would give the claim a little more gravitas.

There's no source quoted but I checked google maps myself and the area is blurred out which seems odd