Rewilding, Historic Irish Fauna, George Monbiot etc.

Jayzesake

Capercaillie wrote: »

Perhaps Irish wolves were like these wolves. Gone forever now though:(

If wolves are ever re-introduced here, it wouldn't matter too much that they would differ genetically from the original population resident here, any more than that the WT Eagles brought in from Norway are slightly different from the previous Irish population.

(Although obviously if a remnant of an original population still existed, it would be better to maintain that distinct genetic group, rather than reintroducing from afar.)

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

If wolves are ever re-introduced here, it wouldn't matter too much that they would differ slightly genetically from the original population resident here, any more than that the WT Eagles brought in from Norway are slightly different from the previous Irish population.

(Although obviously if a remnant of an original population still existed, it would be better to maintain that distinct genetic group, rather than reintroducing from afar.)

It could have even been a subspecies or even a full distinct species. We will never know. Valid point though.

OpenYourEyes

Mod Note: Split from 'Nature in the News' thread

Jayzesake

recedite wrote: »

Here's a link to the deer paper.

Considering its genetic and geographic isolation within Ireland (McDevitt et al., 2009a,b; Carden et al., 2011), the protection of Ireland’s only ancient population of red deer, located in Killarney National Park and immediate surrounding lands should be a conservation priority and it should be given special significance within an Irish context.

NPWS take note.

Jayzesake

Leading scientist warns against planned cull of native Kerry Red deer

Research completed and published in 2012 by Dr. Ruth Carden, an associate of the National Museum of Ireland and the Wild Deer Association of Ireland, highlighted that the native Co Kerry Red deer herd suffered from low genetic diversity. Dr Ruth Carden outlined in the findings of a four-year research programme by scientists, “The Killarney National Park (KNP) herd needed to number between 600 - 1,000 animals to be sustainable. Otherwise the herd’s health was at risk from diseases and weakening associated with in-breeding.” A recent statement from NPWS stated they “believe that Red deer currently number 550 in KNP” despite confirming they had not undertaken a census of deer numbers.

Research has shown the herd has only two genetic types in KNP - east and west of Lough Leane, with higher genetic diversity in the west relative to east.

No management or census of the KNP Red deer herd has taken place since 2009 due to government cut backs in the National Parks and Wildlife service. Up to this point the herd was managed as one management unit and based on research, NPWS need to consider managing KNP as two populations and need to promote higher genetic diversity and gene flow.

Further genetic study is required with more samples to determine the fine-scale genetic structure of the Red deer herd within KNP, this could be done by collecting tissue samples of culled deer but also and importantly non-invasively without killing Red deer by collecting fresh deer defecated pellets.

Dr Carden said, “If NPWS cull Red deer in the Muckross and Knockreer areas as they have stated, then they essentially reduce numbers further in an area which has lower genetic diversity and may not be the appropriate action to take given the whole of KNP Red deer herd only consist of two genetic signatures. NPWS need to adapt and change the way they manage the Red deer within KNP and devise new management units and plans.”

Damien Hannigan, Director of the Wild Deer Association of Ireland said, “Red deer in Co Kerry are our last native deer herd and have been in continuous existence for over 6,000 years. They are an important part of our heritage and should not be culled in the manner NPWS propose to do so, to ensure a healthy and sustainable herd remains for future generations.”

To quote the Reverend John Hervey Ashworth in regards to shooting native Irish red deer back in 1851. “I cannot imagine anything so unpatriotic as the destroying of these fine animals.”

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1011322128890428

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

Leading scientist warns against planned cull of native Kerry Red deer



https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1011322128890428

Can't understands why they don't just cull sika heavily in the area?

Jayzesake

Capercaillie wrote: »

Can't understands why they don't just cull sika heavily in the area?

That would make the most sense.

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

That would make the most sense.

Sense not common in this Country though!

recedite

Capercaillie wrote: »

Can't understands why they don't just cull sika heavily in the area?

Reds are easier to hunt, and the carcass is bigger and worth more cash. Healy-Rae and his backers don't get involved in the finer aspects of deer DNA.

Jayzesake

Golden Eagles Struggle to Cope with the Conditions

It is very difficult to gauge the future trajectory of this small breeding population. Our oldest pair, now over 14 years old, may only have 3-5 years of chick rearing potential left before their breeding attempts begin to wane. We really need other pairs to come on stream quickly and start producing young consistently. We have always felt that 3-5 young a year would be required just to guarantee a small population, regardless of the need for gradual expansion outside of Donegal. To date our annual productivity has ranged from 0-3 birds annually. It is not enough.

So what can be done to secure the viability of Donegal’s eagles? Whilst a deteriorating weather pattern may be an increasingly limiting factor, our focus is most prominently on the habitat condition of the Donegal uplands. The Golden Eagle Trust feel that the conditions of the Donegal Mountains can be improved, if there are appropriate management tools in place. It is human actions that have shaped the limited capacity of our hills and we also have the same ability to improve the Hills of Donegal.

And therefore, we have come to the opinion that it is primarily the Department of Agriculture, who hold the key to improving the lot of the Upland eagles. Farm policies regarding upland vegetation is the key ingredient. Ultimately it is the farmers who do most active upland management. Unfortunately there is no exemplary demonstration site in Donegal to either explore how best to manage ‘farmed Uplands’ or actively manage particular upland habitats. There is a lot of damaged habit and some stable habitats, but there is very little habitat reflecting the true potential of Irish Upland wildlife.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=994453460612567&id=144404808950774

The Golden Eagle Trust is making it very clear here that they see the dire ecological state of Donegal's uplands - due to farming practices - as the main reason for the eagles' lack of breeding success. This appears to very much tie in with Monbiot's message r.e. the desert-like conditions in the U.K. uplands, although on the other hand the G.E.T. doesn't state exactly how these areas should be improved for eagles - for e.g. whether more native woodland cover would help.

But generally speaking, increased richness of habitat, and the resulting increased biodiversity, benefits most species, apart from perhaps a very few that have managed to gain from a more artificial environment.

Jayzesake

Rewilding Week: George Monbiot on the future of rewilding

http://geographical.co.uk/nature/wildlife/item/1419-george-monbiot-on-the-future-of-rewilding

Keplar240B

Jayzesake wrote: »

Rewilding Week: George Monbiot on the future of rewilding

http://geographical.co.uk/nature/wildlife/item/1419-george-monbiot-on-the-future-of-rewilding

George Monbiot wrote: »

In Britain, the lowlands are largely bare and the uplands are even barer. In fact, almost nowhere in Britain are there trees above 200 metres, which is exactly where you would expect the trees to be because that’s where the farmland is of very low quality.

Trees could grow almost across the entire land surface of Great Britain yet our uplands look like arctic tundra.There’s hardly anywhere in Britain that is too high for trees. The likelihood is, after the last ice age there would have been pretty much continuous temperate rainforest from John o’Groats to Land’s End. That bareness is entirely an artifact of human intervention, of cutting and burning and grazing. In the rest of Europe, it’s just as you would expect – lowlands are largely bare from farming while the uplands are forested because that’s where the farmland is of low quality..

Assuming Ireland uplands are same as Uks

So Irelands mountain ranges could be covered in trees or where
and the reason they are not is sheep farming.

Others say its too rocky, poor soil, windy and cold.

What type of trees?

Again He keeps saying all Britain is temperate rainforest climate when its not only western regions

Jayzesake

Keplar240B wrote: »

Assuming Ireland uplands are same as Uks

So Irelands mountain ranges could be covered in trees or where
and the reason they are not is sheep farming.

Others say its too rocky, poor soil, windy and cold.

What type of trees?

Again He keeps saying all Britain is temperate rainforest climate when its not only western regions

I don't think there's any doubt that most of Ireland would be covered with trees were it not for human activity over millennia. It's true that in Europe the treeline is generally much higher than our mountain tops, at least in those places I'd be more familiar with.

"Too rocky, poor soil, windy and cold" - untrue, the trees would certainly grow more slowly in exposed locations, but that difference would be negligible in ecological time (as opposed to human time). The species composition and other characteristics such as height would vary according a variety of environmental factors.

Keplar240B

Jayzesake wrote: »

I don't think there's any doubt that most of Ireland would be covered with trees were it not for human activity over millennia. It's true that in Europe the treeline is generally much higher than our mountain tops, at least in those places I'd be more familiar with.

"Too rocky, poor soil, windy and cold" - untrue, the trees would certainly grow more slowly in exposed locations, but that difference would be negligible in ecological time (as opposed to human time). The species composition and other characteristics such as height would vary according a variety of environmental factors.

so even we stopped uplands sheep farming and replanted the forests it would take ages for them to grow back in the uplands?

recedite

If you were replanting trees, you would probably include a lot of birch saplings which are fast growing but don't live all that long. These pioneer species would help to give shelter from the wind to the oaks without creating too much shade. The falling leaves would build up a deep leaf litter after a few years which would improve the soil and help regulate the water content.
Larch and pine would also be good in the mix.

After a very long period of time it would be mostly oak, with a few tall pine which would be good for nests and the like.

Jayzesake

Keplar240B wrote: »

so even we stopped uplands sheep farming and replanted the forests it would take ages for them to grow back in the uplands?

First off, a lot of areas wouldn't need to be replanted at all, as wild trees would self-seed themselves in. This would not only be far cheaper, but the end result would be far preferable to planting, as the trees would be wild, and therefore much more varied genetically and shape-wise, and better adapted to local conditions.

Where there are no surviving mature trees to act as seed sources, planting would be necessary, preferably using seed from nearby wild sources. But in terms of speed of growth, you would be surprised at just how rapidly the successional process can move. Five years can easily see grassland turn to 'scrub' (a derogatory term for regenerating woodland) without any intervention necessary; another five years can see it become young woodland etc., etc.

The rate of transformation will vary from place to place, but what is being created is something magical and important, and it's the most amazing thing to see it happen. Unfortunately, while the trees themselves can come rapidly, most of the associated organisms that make up an ecosystem (a woodland is much more than just trees) generally follow much more slowly. Which is why the sooner such a process is allowed to start the better.

magicbastarder

one interesting issue to deal with is when you're replanting uplands, and apply for forestry service approval, you need water testing done on the runoff from your site.
if the water is too acid, you don't get approval; even if you're planting birch, which creates leaf litter with an alkalising effect...

Woodville56

In praise of trees and rewilding:

http://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/magazine/20-amazing-things-that-trees-do-for-us

Jayzesake

Keplar240B wrote: »

He says the whole of Britain is temperate rain-forest I always thought and the maps show this that's it Ireland + parts of western Britain most maps show this is the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperate_rainforest




He mentioned Ireland but did not elaborate regarding upland lack of forests?

There's a new book out on this subject, though I haven't seen it myself:

http://sandstonepress.com/books/the-rainforests-of-britain-and-ireland

Keplar240B

Interesting seeing all this flooding and yet no one talking about growing and planting more trees as a solution instead of "flood defenses".

We live in a temperate rain forest without hardly any forest, heavy flooding is to be expected.

OpenYourEyes

Trees, floodplains (i.e. ag land that we agree/pay to let flood in winter), restored peatlands, and not letting people build unnecessarily on land that has a history of flooding every single year - problem sorted! Havn't heard even one of those solutions being mentioned by any politician though.

Michael Fitzmaurice even 'liked' a post on facebook that ridiculed the idea of 'flooding' the bogs!

Jayzesake

Keplar240B wrote: »

Interesting seeing all this flooding and yet no one talking about growing and planting more trees as a solution instead of "flood defenses".

We live in a temperate rain forest without hardly any forest, heavy flooding is to be expected.

It’s as if it had come to remind us of what’s at stake. While the climate negotiations in Paris trudge their dreary road, Storm Desmond takes a great boot to our backsides. Yet still we fail to make the connection. The news records the spectacle and ignores the implications.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/07/hide-evidence-storm-desmond-floods-paris-talks

For me the most important benefits of restoring some of our lost forests would be ecological, given the habitat they would provide for so many species. But it beggars belief that the powers that be cannot join the dots on the connections with climate change, flooding, etc. As Keplar says, in none of the news reports on Storm Desmond and the resultant flooding are the reasons behind these increased problems ever explored or even raised as an issue.

Jayzesake

Keplar240B wrote: »

Interesting seeing all this flooding and yet no one talking about growing and planting more trees as a solution instead of "flood defenses".

We live in a temperate rain forest without hardly any forest, heavy flooding is to be expected.

Flooding, trees and rewilding

There are two principal reasons for freshwater flooding. The first, obviously, is heavy rainfall. Second, perhaps less obviously, is the way in which land and rivers respond to this rainfall. We believe that the restoration of some of Britain’s missing ecosystems could play a major role in the prevention and mitigation of the kind of floods now blighting Cumbria and parts of Scotland.

http://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/magazine/flooding-trees-and-rewilding

Jayzesake

Walk on the Wild Side

Rewilding, hillwalking and the extraordinary history of these islands.

George Monbiot, interviewed by Dan Bailey for UKHillwalking.com, 11th December 2015

Re-wilding seems to be moving up the agenda of the large conservation organisations, and gaining a space in the public discourse. Do you see grounds for optimism?

It certainly is. Before Feral was published, I visited all the principal conservation groups, and received responses that varied from mild interest to outright rejection. The change over the past three years has been astonishing. Rewilding appears to have moved from the fringe of the mainstream, and I’m delighted to see how these groups have begun to pick it up and engage with it. There’s still a long way to go, and plenty of daft practices still in play, but change among the conservation groups is certainly happening, albeit slowly. We will see rewilding in this country. The question is how far and how fast it will go.

http://www.monbiot.com/2015/12/17/walk-on-the-wild-side/

Keplar240B

Jayzesake wrote: »

Walk on the Wild Side

Rewilding, hillwalking and the extraordinary history of these islands.

George Monbiot, interviewed by Dan Bailey for UKHillwalking.com, 11th December 2015




http://www.monbiot.com/2015/12/17/walk-on-the-wild-side/

"The other great benefit of allowing trees to return to the hills is the restoration of watersheds. In one study in Wales, the soil beneath woodland was found to absorb water at 67 times the rate of the soil beneath sheep pasture. The rain flashes off sheep pasture as if it were concrete, instantly causing floods downstream. Trees hold back the water and release it gradually, smoothing out the cycle of flood and drought".

Keplar240B

From 2014 Irish examiner, very similar to what Monbiot is saying but in an irish context, no brainer

Pay upland farmers forestry grants instead of the EU and exchequer-funded payments they get now, suggests environmentalist Tony Lowes.

The trees they plant on the high ground would hold water at source, which would greatly alleviate river flooding, says Friends of the Irish Environment spokesman Lowes.

“Research has shown that water sinks into the soil under native broadleaf trees at 67 times the rate at which it sinks into the soil under grass. This is due to the roots of the tree transforming the ground into a spongy reservoir which will absorb water and release it slowly.”

He claims that the upland forestry, including existing scrub, would provide essential wildlife corridors and amenities for recreational users, as well as count for Ireland’s carbon credits — and alleviate flooding, without having to resort to limited but expensive, engineering solutions.


.................
What has happened is subsidy rules have enforced mass clearance of vegetation from the hills, and this isn’t good for anyone.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/farming/profile/how-forestry-grants-could-reduce-river-floods-258568.html

Jayzesake

Keplar240B wrote: »

From 2014 Irish examiner, very similar to what Monbiot is saying but in an irish context, no brainer
http://www.irishexaminer.com/farming/profile/how-forestry-grants-could-reduce-river-floods-258568.html

Excellent suggestions, though the risk in this country is that rather than allowing the formation of actual woodland ecosystems/habitat, we'd just get more commercial plantations. ("Sure... aren't they trees?")

Jayzesake

UK flooding: How a town in Yorkshire worked with nature to stay dry

Pickering pulled off protection by embracing the very opposite of what passes for conventional wisdom

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-flooding-how-a-yorkshire-flood-blackspot-worked-with-nature-to-stay-dry-a6794286.html

recedite

Heres some pictures of the "bund" and other measures at Pickering.

The fallen logs across the streams are interesting, they would cause water to spill out onto the (higher altitude) floodplains during heavy rain. In a woodland/forest situation, these occur quite commonly in nature ie they won't necessarily have to be built by people, or maintained.

The reservoir formed by the bund is similar in a way to some of the reservoirs we have already built in Ireland for other reasons. At Glenasmole there are two "bunds" built primarily to supply Dublin with drinking water, but which also reduce flash flooding in the Dodder (automatically).

Then there is the infamous Parteen Weir on the Shannon which is primarily an overspill for a hydroelectric plant. ESB often release water from it at times of maximum rainfall, ie at just the wrong moment, which causes extensive flooding downstream. From their point of view, its in their interests to keep the water level behind the weir topped up as high a possible. If they released some water before the storm, in the event of a rainy weather forecast, they could protect the areas downstream. But if the rain was less than expected, they might have wasted some hydro generation capacity.

I think what the people of Pickering showed more than anything was that "joined up thinking" is more important than massive funding.