Do we ignore animal cruelty to suit us?

steddyeddy

+ raise the worlds temperature by a few degrees and a lot of nationalities will have to wear scuba diving gear!

Zulu

Seachmall wrote: »

I find it somewhat frustrating that after 5 or 6 pages, with just as many posters, trying to explain the issues to you you've still either failed to grasp them or avoided them entirely.

Don't forget making assertions, then denying ever making the assertion, then declaring "scientific fact" without providing proof.

And you're happy with that, because you can't see it.

Ignorance is bliss.

Tipp Man

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Come on now where has your logic gone? Wild grasslands bounded by areas of forest is perfect for wildlife. We might have a few less rabbits in the long run though.

No it's not

I'm just wondering exactly what IRISH wild animals are suited to living in wild grasslands?? Or are you talking about letting the cows run wild??

Just because the environment would change and you may think it is more friendly to wildlife doesn't necessarily mean that it is ACTUALLY better for Irish wildlife.

As an example if the countryside was left to go wild (to grow forests!) then we would loose nearly all our hedges which currently support a huge range of animals, birds and insects. In the last 10-15 years in Ireland we have literally planted thousands upon thousands of miles of hedges. If forests took over then these hedges would disappear and where exactly would our hedge dwelling birds build their nests??

redzerologhlen

smash wrote: »

I'm starving.

Steak sounds nice;)

Tipp Man

smash wrote: »

I'm starving.

you need a good irish fillet or striploin to sort you out - bit of veg - bit of mash - sorted

ScumLord

Tipp Man wrote: »

As an example if the countryside was left to go wild (to grow forests!) then we would loose nearly all our hedges which currently support a huge range of animals, birds and insects.

Taking that to it's extreme it could go on to affect other countries due to the amount of migratory birds that come to Ireland to nest. They could either get wiped out or have a bumper year and go on to devastate the countries they migrate too.

steddyeddy

Tipp Man wrote: »

I'm just wondering exactly what IRISH wild animals are suited to living in wild grasslands?? Or are you talking about letting the cows run wild??

Just because the environment would change and you may think it is more friendly to wildlife doesn't necessarily mean that it is ACTUALLY better for Irish wildlife.

As an example if the countryside was left to go wild (to grow forests!) then we would loose nearly all our hedges which currently support a huge range of animals, birds and insects. In the last 10-15 years in Ireland we have literally planted thousands upon thousands of miles of hedges. If forests took over then these hedges would disappear and where exactly would our hedge dwelling birds build their nests??

Ireland really needs to increase its forested land.

Birdnuts

ScumLord wrote: »

or have a bumper year and go on to devastate the countries they migrate too.

- most migratory birds in this country feed on insects, something I'm sure African farmers appreciate when they arrive to spend the winter.

Tipp Man

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ireland really needs to increase its forested land.

I never said we didn't - but we are increasing it rapidly and continually

My point is relating to letting the country run wild as some posters seem to indicate.

steddyeddy

Tipp Man wrote: »

I never said we didn't - but we are increasing it rapidly and continually

My point is relating to letting the country run wild as some posters seem to indicate.

Sorry Tipp man I wasnt argueing with you I was just enlarging on your point well made!

redzerologhlen

It would be nice to see traditional hardwood forests instead of them spruce tree's that are planted in every wet bit of land in the country. You would find more life in a bag of salt and they are not the most pleasing on the eye.

steddyeddy

redzerologhlen wrote: »

It would be nice to see traditional hardwood forests instead of them spruce tree's that are planted in every wet bit of land in the country. You would find more life in a bag of salt and they are not the most pleasing on the eye.

Yes and the place mentioned in your location is of particlar importance to biodiversity!

redzerologhlen

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes and the place mentioned in your location is of particlar importance to biodiversity!

Sure who knows it better then me!! This place is brimming with wildlife, Its like a massive nature reserve in all honesty, not a day goes by that I dont see a fox, hare badger, phesant or a pine martin and there is lord only knows how many wild goats here. A scheme started there a few years ago promoting grazing of cattle on the burren to stop it being completly taken over by scrub and hazel. There is plenty of room for wildlife without the whole country going wild but the most lifeless places I have ever seen is those spruce forests. They are completly void of any form of life.

steddyeddy

redzerologhlen wrote: »

Sure who knows it better then me!! This place is brimming with wildlife, Its like a massive nature reserve in all honesty, not a day goes by that I dont see a fox, hare badger, phesant or a pine martin and there is lord only knows how many wild goats here. A scheme started there a few years ago promoting grazing of cattle on the burren to stop it being completly taken over by scrub and hazel. There is plenty of room for wildlife without the whole country going wild but the most lifeless places I have ever seen is those spruce forests. They are completly void of any form of life.

Fantastic part of the world! I didnt doubt you would know about it! The locals are rightfully proud of it!

redzerologhlen

steddyeddy wrote: »

Fantastic part of the world! I didnt doubt you would know about it! The locals are rightfully proud of it!

And here's a short clip for anyone interested to show just that

http://www.burrenlife.com/dvd-preview.php

Cú Giobach

Seachmall wrote: »

I find it somewhat frustrating that after 5 or 6 pages, with just as many posters, trying to explain the issues to you you've still either failed to grasp them or avoided them entirely.

And you're happy with that, because you can't see it.

Seachmall all you have been saying is that forests might not grow. I dissagre.

Tipp Man wrote: »

I never said we didn't - but we are increasing it rapidly and continually
My point is relating to letting the country run wild as some posters seem to indicate.

I did not advocate letting the country run wild, I said the result of it running wild would be forest, with the resultant eco-systems, since that is different to what is here today, of course things would change.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Cu giobach some species of animal are incredible adapted to a particular habitat. Wipe out their habitat and you could endanger them. If you wipe out a carnivore say the herbivores increase in numbers, as a result vegetation will decrease and as a result insects which feed on the plants will decrease in numbers and thats were things will seriously start to effect us.

Which is why I wouldn't advocate the changes being discussed.

ScumLord wrote: »

I could go on all day on the possibility's of what might happen whereas you seem absolutely certain only one thing can happen.

I never said only one thing would happen, I talked about one thing that would happen if we stopped farming the land, that is that forests would grow and we would eventually have the resultant eco-systems that such forests have, naturally that is different to what we have today.

Seachmall

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Seachmall all you have been saying is that forests might not grow. I dissagre.

Actually I've been saying the changes made cannot be simply undone, and small changes can have drastic consequences.

How we got fixated on the example of forestry I don't know, but it was just an example of the original point.

Cú Giobach

Seachmall wrote: »

Actually I've been saying the changes made cannot be simply undone, and small changes can have drastic consequences.

How we got fixated on the example of forestry I don't know, but it was just an example of the original point.

Not simply undone, but nature would eventually undo the works of man cover them up in new soil and bury them.
Its been forestry from the start because of my comment that untended land here would revert to forest. Side tracked because of people thinking I would like to see that and for the sake of the rest of the population and the animals that already live here I wouldn't.

On a side note, because my favourite landscape is wild forest next to a river or lake near the coast and I don't have much time for people in general or give a sh*t about modern economies, a wild forested almost uninhabited island the size of Ireland would be heaven to me and a place I would happily live out the rest of my days.

ScumLord

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I never said only one thing would happen, I talked about one thing that would happen if we stopped farming the land, that is that forests would grow and we would eventually have the resultant eco-systems that such forests have, naturally that is different to what we have today.

I'd agree to the point of saying forests may grow but the wildlife might not make it with it. You just cannot say for sure what would happen if the entire island changed, it could essentially be a natural disaster as far as the local biodiversity is concerned because they can't adapt as quickly as humans can. Fair enough natural disasters lead to things like the human species but have also lead to extinctions and I don't think anyone could guarantee there wouldn't be extinctions should the island of Ireland just give back all the land to nature.

Cú Giobach

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd agree to the point of saying forests may grow but the wildlife might not make it with it. You just cannot say for sure what would happen if the entire island changed, it could essentially be a natural disaster as far as the local biodiversity is concerned because they can't adapt as quickly as humans can. Fair enough natural disasters lead to things like the human species but have also lead to extinctions and I don't think anyone could guarantee there wouldn't be extinctions should the island of Ireland just give back all the land to nature.

Only wildlife that could live in the various environments left would survive and thrive, that is what is meant by "resultant eco-systems".
You seem to forgetting one little thing, the major deforestation here was from the 17th century on, not millennia ago, what we have today is the difficult environment, our native species evolved on a mainly forested island.

ScumLord

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Only wildlife that could live in the various environments left would survive and thrive, that is what is meant by "resultant eco-systems".
You seem to forgetting one little thing, the major deforestation here was in the 17th century not millennia ago, what we have today is the difficult environment, our native species evolved on a mainly forested island.

True, I just don't believe you can go from current state to forest easily or without a serious shock to local biodiversity. It could be done in a managed way much quicker and populated and managed by us to ensure the forest wins out.

Cú Giobach

ScumLord wrote: »

True, I just don't believe you can go from current state to forest easily or without a serious shock to local biodiversity. It could be done in a managed way much quicker and populated and managed by us to ensure the forest wins out.

Surely the quicker it is done the bigger the shock.
Look as I said numerous times I wouldn't like to see this, therefore I have never pondered how to do it.
Think about it, since the current state of affairs is the exception in the history of the island and our native species evolved in mainly forested land, finding themselves back in a forested land could well be a shock to them, but not quite in the way you imagine.

Cú Giobach

I'm just interested, Cú Giobach, what your position is on biodiversity? Do you just want to see an end to grassland or do you want people to literally just leave nature alone altogether? Would you see the halt of conservation work and loss of many of our already small number of native species as a necessary evil for a return to a more forested world?

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You seem to forgetting one little thing, the major deforestation here was from the 17th century on, not millennia ago, what we have today is the difficult environment, our native species evolved on a mainly forested island.

I'm pretty sure the last glacial period counts as a difficult environment.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

our native species evolved in mainly forested land

I know you've said that you're just discussing the subject and you haven't actually figured out a perfect scenario or anything, so sorry if I'm nitpicking but it's almost impossible that the wildlife in Ireland would just go back to the way they were 1000 years ago if we left nature alone. There are new, invasive species that they need to be protected from, there are new, non-invasive species that have become important parts of the ecosystem which wouldn't have been there 1000 years ago. The climate and other abiotic factors have changed. There is no rewind button, just the hope that our play button becomes more eco-friendly over time.

Cú Giobach

true-or-false wrote: »

I'm just interested, Cú Giobach, what your position is on biodiversity?

I love it.

Do you just want to see an end to grassland or do you want people to literally just leave nature alone altogether?

Neither.

Would you see the halt of conservation work and loss of many of our already small number of native species as a necessary evil for a return to a more forested world?

No.

I'm pretty sure the last glacial period counts as a difficult environment.

Which is why the animals and plants we have here didn't arrive till the climate changed. (I edited out "island" and replaced it with land in my posts after the one you quoted (I missed that one), because I knew someone would mention that).

I know you've said that you're just discussing the subject and you haven't actually figured out a perfect scenario or anything, so sorry if I'm nitpicking but it's almost impossible that the wildlife in Ireland would just go back to the way they were 1000 years ago if we left nature alone.

So? I never said it would.

There are new, invasive species that they need to be protected from, there are new, non-invasive species that have become important parts of the ecosystem which wouldn't have been there 1000 years ago. The climate and other abiotic factors have changed. There is no rewind button, just the hope that our play button becomes more eco-friendly over time.

Yep. True.

Worztron

The Five Freedoms:

1. freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition
2. freedom from discomfort
3. freedom from pain, injury and disease
4. freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour
5. freedom from fear and distress

There is no way that poor wild goat has all of these freedoms met.

barry711

KeithAFC wrote: »

Of course people do. People seem to think slaughter houses are nice places and the animals are killed in a humane way. A lot of them aren't.

Have you been in many? Do you or have you worked in one before?

I've a good mate who worked in one for years and said its a very clean, mechanical, humane method of killing the animals.