Wild Nephin

recedite

cameramonkey wrote: »

Exposing the “Wild Nephin” Charade

http://tourismpurewalking.com/exposing-the-wild-nephin-charade/

There are 3 issues raised there in his photos.
1. Trail infrastructure; signage, steps, shelters/bothys and possibly boardwalks. IMO these are all good, and not incompatible with the concept of a wilderness area. National park areas will only ever survive if humans can visit them every now and again, and enjoy a sense of the wilderness there.
Maintaining dedicated and clearly defined pedestrian routes through a wild area does not destroy that wild area.

2. New fences. Well its not clear where exactly the fence is, but it is clearly a sheep fence, but not a deer fence. As mentioned earlier in this thread, it would be crucial to prevent farmers from grazing sheep in the wilderness area, if a native woodland type ecosystem is to develop. So if the fence is on the perimeter, I don't see a problem with it.

3. Ongoing felling operations and the replanting of lodgepole pine.
IMO if they are felling, they should replant with Scots pine and broadleaf trees. I would assume that the legal requirement to replant was only meant to apply to commercial forests that they manage, in order to ensure long term sustainability of the industry (ie not to a national park type area)
Also I don't think there would be any requirement to replant with this particular non-native species.

Jayzesake

magicbastarder wrote: »

there are lots of wider issues at play here - one being the (iirc) legal requirement for coillte to replant after harvesting, even if they wanted to allow natural regeneration after the harvest.

There may well be a legal requirement to replant exotic conifers at the site, but using the term 'rewilding' in the context of this type of action makes a mockery of the concept, to put it mildly. If that's rewilding, then most of the country is already rewilded: exotic tree plantations, fields containing a single species of grass, golf courses, etc. Words become meaningless.

recedite wrote: »

There are 3 issues raised there in his photos.
1. Trail infrastructure; signage, steps, shelters/bothys and possibly boardwalks. IMO these are all good, and not incompatible with the concept of a wilderness area. National park areas will only ever survive if humans can visit them every now and again, and enjoy a sense of the wilderness there.
Maintaining dedicated and clearly defined pedestrian routes through a wild area does not destroy that wild area.

I can't agree with this. We don't need steps, signage etc. to be able to visit or enjoy a wilderness area, at least not me. Everywhere we go we are surrounded by manmade stuff, or other indications of a human presence. It would be great to have somewhere where we can escape all that sometimes. That's my opinion anyway.

recedite

Jayzesake wrote: »

I can't agree with this. We don't need steps, signage etc. to be able to visit or enjoy a wilderness area, at least not me.

But how are you going to get in there, by helicopter?
Early man often followed the coast on foot, or traveled by boat, because it was easier than trying to get through forest. You would find it tough going, trying to scramble through a forest without any man made paths or infrastructure. If you let the public in, and there is a designated path, there is a certain "duty of care" in terms of health and safety too.

Jayzesake

recedite wrote: »

But how are you going to get in there, by helicopter?

Most people will drive to the entrance, and then use their feet to carry them around inside.

recedite wrote: »

Early man often followed the coast on foot, or traveled by boat, because it was easier than trying to get through forest. You would find it tough going, trying to scramble through a forest without any man made paths or infrastructure.

Why should everything always have to be made as easy as possible? It would be easier to climb Carrauntoohil if there were concrete steps and a handrail going all the way from the bottom to the top, but for most of us (me, anyway) that would very much detract from the reasons for climbing the mountain in the first place.

For those people who want easy, there are already National Parks, State Nature Reserves etc. with tarmac paths, steps, signs and so on. 'Wild' Nephin was supposed to be just that: wild. All of this paraphernalia and infrastucture makes it less so, and detracts from any possibility of a feeling of being in a genuine wilderness, and enjoying that type of experience.

The argument that people walking around a wilderness area without any kind of designated routes would overly damage or disturb wildlife, both fauna and flora, has more basis. Perhaps the best approach might be unpaved routes without steps or large flashy signs etc., and people could pick up a printed map of these at the entrance. Each particular route could be marked on the map with a certain colour, and on the ground with arrows in the same colour every 100 yards or whatever, discreetly marked on stones or low-down timber posts. Still a form of signage, yes, but it's all about finding the right balance.

recedite wrote: »

If you let the public in, and there is a designated path, there is a certain "duty of care" in terms of health and safety too.

We have to decide whether we want to make every last place risk-free and sterile, or have different degrees of wildness, with the associated varying degrees of risk, at different sites. There is no reason why there couldn't be a sign at the entrance warning that 'This is a wild area, with only limited signage etc., and those entering do so at their own risk', or something along those lines.

Jayzesake

cameramonkey wrote: »

Exposing the “Wild Nephin” Charade

http://tourismpurewalking.com/exposing-the-wild-nephin-charade/

This comment at the bottom sums it up for me:

henneke andreae said on March 24, 2015 at 16:51:

i just did research and wrote up about this Irish rewilding project for my studies. I was happy to see some place being dedicated to rewilding, as so much is going on on the continent and Ireland seems to be lagging behind once more.
So disappointed to see this now.

Jayzesake

Birdnuts wrote: »

Coillte are looking for public comments on their "future" plans atm( runs till the end of this month) so give them a piece of your mind. I know I will on a whole range of issues when it comes to their managment of our state forests.

Any chance of a link or something, Birdnuts?

Thanks

magicbastarder

the argument 'we don't need steps or signage' may be okay for the sort of person who doesn't actually need or benefit from it; but if steps and signage can be used to improve access and education for the sort of people who might visit a site like this and not have the knowledge to appreciate what is available to see, without impacting on any rewilding, i can see much more benefit than harm.

Jayzesake

magicbastarder wrote: »

the argument 'we don't need steps or signage' may be okay for the sort of person who doesn't actually need or benefit from it; but if steps and signage can be used to improve access and education for the sort of people who might visit a site like this and not have the knowledge to appreciate what is available to see, without impacting on any rewilding, i can see much more benefit than harm.

At the end of the day, there's not much point in getting too worked up over whether steps etc. will 'impact on any rewilding' or not, since what is happening there would appear to be anything but rewilding anyway.

Keplar240B

Re : walkways

Should we destroy everything man-made in the re-wilding zone?
Ditches, boreens, Ruins, walls, ringforts etc?

A few maintained walks thru the area will have minimal impact and will help nature providing creatures with corridors to move, bridges to cross streams and verges where wild flowers can grow etc. Without paths and little bridges or stepping stones to cross streams very difficult for many ordinary people to enter area
I am not talking about a spiders web of tarmacked forest roads that you find in coillte forest plantations just the bare minimal required so that ordinary folk can take a walk in forest area without bringing a machete or a canoe.


Its the last thing we should be worried about even if you believe in the "rewild" ethos. I think the idea of re-wilding concept can be taken too far. They should expand national park and commit to replacing plantation forests with native forestry.

The forestry management is far the most important aspect.

Eddie B

Agree with most here! Why worry about a couple a bridges, steps and a little lodge! It's all the f***in tree stumps that's the eyesore up there! It's a bloody disgrace!

Jayzesake

Keplar240B wrote: »

Re : walkways

Should we destroy everything man-made in the re-wilding zone?
Ditches, boreens, Ruins, walls, ringforts etc?

There is no reason to remove any of that in a rewilded area; none of it impacts negatively on the ecology of the place, nor does it make it feel any less wild to the visitor.

Birdnuts

Jayzesake wrote: »

Any chance of a link or something, Birdnuts?

Thanks

http://www.coillte.ie/aboutcoillte/about_coillte/coillte_consultation/coillte_current_consultations/

tisgrand

Perhaps it is not the npws's intention to replace a plantation of foreign conifers with a forest of native trees. I'm not too familiar with the area but maybe their goal is to clear much of it and allow it to become a landscape of bog land and scrub with alder, birch and sallow naturally reclaiming it as they do. There are many such landscapes around the country after clear felling of spruce, albeit on a smaller scale. It is a considerably more diverse habitat in itself than a spruce wood and far more likely than a Caledonian forest full of wolves and boar as idyllic as that sounds!

recedite

I see the Wild Nephin map is now out, for those who want to explore the park.

theCzar

Hi all!

I found this thread while doing some research on the wilderness project for desk study paper. It's a couple of years on now since and I am trying to conduct a "vox pop" on what worked, what could have been done better and what improvements could be made to improve Wild Nephin from both an ecological and local economic perspective.

If you have the time to post below (or PM me) with your opinion, I will really appreciate it.

Capercaillie

theCzar wrote: »

Hi all!

I found this thread while doing some research on the wilderness project for desk study paper. It's a couple of years on now since and I am trying to conduct a "vox pop" on what worked, what could have been done better and what improvements could be made to improve Wild Nephin from both an ecological and local economic perspective.

If you have the time to post below (or PM me) with your opinion, I will really appreciate it.

A sign was put up, that's about it.

Birdnuts

Well Coillte are still planting their invasive spruce monocultures in the area and Bord na Mona have plans to sterilize vast areas nearby under giant wind farms - not exactly a recipe for a "wilderness" experience:(

stevespring

It was a kite flying/PR exercise for the leads of the two main organisations involved. Once they (quickly) lost interest and the funding wasnt there, the project fell by the wayside.

megadodge

Just decided to bump this thread because I happened to visit the Nephin Wild area last Monday. I hadn't been there for quite a few years and to put it mildly I was utterly stunned with what I saw. Forget about conifers, walkways etc. if something is not done very soon the only thing on display will be f*cking rhododendrons! They're absolutely rampant!

I approached from the south (Newport/Lough Feeagh) and it was that area on the south of the wild area that is utterly infested. There are large swathes completely smothering out everything.

Leaving aside the whys and whataboutery of the project and 'wilding' without human interference, I cannot believe this has been allowed to happen to such a huge extent. The only reason rhododendron is there in the first place is because of human interference!

TopTec

Whenever I take my family, friends and visitors from the UK on the Ballycastle - Mullranny trip, that is what everybody talks about, the bloody rhododendrons... such an eyesore.


TT

recedite

Nature doesn't like a vacuum. There is more to "rewilding" than just ceasing Coillte forestry operations in the area.
It should have been planted with Oak and Scots Pine IMO, and managed until they got established.

Birdnuts

megadodge wrote: »

Just decided to bump this thread because I happened to visit the Nephin Wild area last Monday. I hadn't been there for quite a few years and to put it mildly I was utterly stunned with what I saw. Forget about conifers, walkways etc. if something is not done very soon the only thing on display will be f*cking rhododendrons! They're absolutely rampant!

I approached from the south (Newport/Lough Feeagh) and it was that area on the south of the wild area that is utterly infested. There are large swathes completely smothering out everything.

Leaving aside the whys and whataboutery of the project and 'wilding' without human interference, I cannot believe this has been allowed to happen to such a huge extent. The only reason rhododendron is there in the first place is because of human interference!

Its just another example of this states neglect/contempt for our natural heritage - made more galling when you see how much resources are given to the likes of the OPW and Waterways Ireland to butcher natural vegitation along our rivers and canals:mad:

Connacht

Yes, as I said ever since 2009 when the 'project' was first mooted in-house, it's a complete farce, with nothing whatsoever being done about invasive rhodo, etc. A few years back, the CEO of Coillte even farcically and cynically tweeted out about the rhodo problem and what would have to be done to manage it. Just words, of course, and nothing whatsoever has been or (almost certainly) ever will be done about it.
And by the way, since the area was handed over to NPWS a while ago and Coillte wiped its hands of it, nothing has been done either, nor will it. Also, conifers continue to be felled.
It should be noted that three token gestures of ultra small plantings of native tees have happened, again (IMHO) just for optics.

Birdnuts

Connacht wrote: »

Yes, as I said ever since 2009 when the 'project' was first mooted in-house, it's a complete farce, with nothing whatsoever being done about invasive rhodo, etc. A few years back, the CEO of Coillte even farcically and cynically tweeted out about the rhodo problem and what would have to be done to manage it. Just words, of course, and nothing whatsoever has been or (almost certainly) ever will be done about it.
And by the way, since the area was handed over to NPWS a while ago and Coillte wiped its hands of it, nothing has been done either, nor will it. Also, conifers continue to be felled.
It should be noted that three token gestures of ultra small plantings of native tees have happened, again (IMHO) just for optics.

Well that would suprise no-one who has had dealings in such areas with Coillte over the years - BNM not much better eitheir, only interested in Greenwashing for cynical corporate PR purposes.