Environment & Agriculture - P Woodworths Sept 15 article series

Jayzesake

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

When farming meets conservation

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/when-farming-meets-conservation-1.2366633#.VgaRgOLEsLU.twitter

Good article, with a lot of interesting and valid points made.

'"1logical apartheid” that rigidly divides landscapes into developed/productive areas and preserved/unproductive areas.'

But it also seems to ignore or downplay the essential fact that, while agricultural systems could and should be made far more wildlife-friendly, what wildlife really needs more than anything else are very large connected areas where all human extractive activities, including agriculture, don't take place at all.

Until we understand this most basic fact, and begin to take the serious steps that flow from that understanding, we will continue to see wildlife populations dwindle or collapse, as is presently the case every direction you care to look.

OpenYourEyes

Jayzesake wrote: »

Good article, with a lot of interesting and valid points made.

'"1logical apartheid” that rigidly divides landscapes into developed/productive areas and preserved/unproductive areas.'

But it also seems to ignore or downplay the essential fact that, while agricultural systems could and should be made far more wildlife-friendly, what wildlife really needs more than anything else are very large connected areas where all human extractive activities, including agriculture, don't take place at all.

Until we understand this most basic fact, and begin to take the serious steps that flow from that understanding, we will continue to see wildlife populations dwindle or collapse, as is presently the case every direction you care to look.

I think I fall more towards the 'land sharing' concept than the 'land sparing' one than you do, though they're not mutually exclusive, but I think the article doesn't go enough into the fact that the way CAP and agricultural policy are structured and carried out creates a lot more problems than anything to do with the nature directives, and the fact that the IFA and dept of Ag are going full steam ahead for a solely production-orientated view of agriculture. Most conservation NGO's fully accept the need for co-operation with farmers and stakeholders, so when these types of articles suggest otherwise it's a bit of a strawman argument. When it comes to the NPWS and their lack of consultation with stakeholders, I'd be looking up the ladder as to why thats not happening (i.e. people scared of losing votes).

I think one of the best features in recent issues of Birdwatch Irelands magazine 'Wings' is the piece where Alex Copland visits farms and farmers around the country to see the effort they're putting in to maintain wild areas and biodiversity on their farm. A common theme is that there isn't the same financial support or incentives to do that as there is for increasing production and output, unfortunately. Some of these farms have fantastic habitats and a great suite of species of conservation concern - if they were common throughout the country then it would reverse a lot of declines of typical farmland birds and non-farmland birds too.

Zoo4m8

I'd agree, Alex Coplands articles are a terrific addition to BWI mag, but unfortunately there is a particular type of ' conservationist ' that would ignore BWI and others who try to show that slowly but surely a significant section of the farming community are doing their bit.
I and others in this area have done a huge amount to make their farms more wildlife friendly, it's just something we don't shout about. I have a niece based in the Midlands , a Botanist and Enviormentalist she works at assisting farmers who want to preserve and enhance unproductive areas of their farms, I have visited some of her projects and even though I'm biased it's been an education..
It suits the agenda of the type of conservationist mentioned above to portray farmers as Enviormentalist thrashing morons and because these types are quite 'noisy' the usually disconnected general public start to accept what they are hearing and that is why IMO the articles like the one highlighted by OYE are so important.

Jayzesake

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

I think I fall more towards the 'land sharing' concept than the 'land sparing' one than you do, though they're not mutually exclusive

As I said above, agriculture could and should be far more wildlife-friendly than it presently is. But I think that there are very real limits to what can be achieved without large areas where ecosystems are as complete as possible, and natural processes are dominant - neither of which are possible where human interests are paramount (as is the case with farming), for a number of reasons.

Firstly, while a tiny minority of farmers like Zoo4m8 and his niece might go out of their way to make their land and agricultural practices as benign to wildlife as they can, for the vast majority the bottom line is to make as much as they reasonably can from the land. That includes pumping their land full of chemicals, removing hedgerows, allowing soil, the very basis of their livelihood, to wash away, and many other damaging practices. And as the CAP presently not only encourages them to behave this way, but penalises them financially if they don't (requiring removal of 'scrub' - i.e. regenerating natural habitat - as a condition for payments, for e.g.), this is not set to change.

Secondly, and more importantly, even the most wildlife-friendly farm will only accommodate wildlife that does not interfere with the interests of the farmer. That immediately rules out many important categories of species, and pushes many others to the margins. Everything which is inconvenient, or affects the farmer's livelihood, will be eradicated. Now, the essential point about this is that we know that, in ecological systems, everything is connected. So if you remove certain components from an ecosystem all others suffer also.

Only in large areas where human exploitative activities are not allowed can wildlife really flourish and not be continually degraded. The problem here in Ireland is that very few people have any idea what a real fully functioning natural ecosystem is, because nothing remotely fitting that description has existed here for hundreds of years, at least on land. So we look at those tattered remnants that have somehow managed to survive this obliteration of the natural world, and think 'that's what nature is'.

But even those remnants are declining rapidly. Yes, that can partly be blamed on the fact that agriculture has become so industrial, and the human presence and its effects so overwhelmingly dominant, but not only. It is also largely a result of the fact that the ecosystems within which these species evolved simply no longer exist here.

To repeat, large areas where human activities are limited to non-damaging forms of recreation, and natural processes are allowed to dominate, both on land and at sea, are the most essential component of any real solution to the catastrophic collapse of remaining wildlife populations taking place in our lifetime.

Capercaillie

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

I think one of the best features in recent issues of Birdwatch Irelands magazine 'Wings' is the piece where Alex Copland visits farms and farmers around the country to see the effort they're putting in to maintain wild areas and biodiversity on their farm. A common theme is that there isn't the same financial support or incentives to do that as there is for increasing production and output, unfortunately. Some of these farms have fantastic habitats and a great suite of species of conservation concern - if they were common throughout the country then it would reverse a lot of declines of typical farmland birds and non-farmland birds too.

BWI managed my farm previously. I incorrectly assumed they would manage it (best practice) for wildlife. Unfortunately what happened was a total trainwreck. I would never let them manage it again.

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

But even those remnants are declining rapidly. Yes, that can partly be blamed on the fact that agriculture has become so industrial, and the human presence and its effects so overwhelmingly dominant, but not only. It is also largely a result of the fact that the ecosystems within which these species evolved simply no longer exist here.

.

Unfortunately nearly all the endangered birds in this Country (corncrake, lapwing, red grouse, partridge, dunlin, roseate tern, little tern) are incapable of existing without human assistance. If we had functioning ecosystems they would be able to survive on their own.

Jayzesake

Jayzesake wrote: »

Now, the essential point about this is that we know that, in ecological systems, everything is connected. So if you remove certain components from an ecosystem all others suffer also.

Here's an article about this:

http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/09/25/why-obscure-species-matter?cmpid=tpdaily-eml-2015-09-25

"Sometimes you can remove a species from a habitat and other species make up for the loss, allowing the ecosystem to go on as if nothing has changed. In other circumstances, you pull out that same species and the tower comes crashing down."

OpenYourEyes

Another article by Paddy Woodworth - quite a lenghty one - about the Burren farming scheme:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/burren-scheme-shows-benefits-of-farming-on-environment-1.2368664

I disagree with some of the framing in the article, but overall there are a lot of good points in it about the Burren Scheme, the potential benefits of other similar schemes, and the problems associated with schemes like GLAS and REPS.

Jayzesake

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Another article by Paddy Woodworth - quite a lenghty one - about the Burren farming scheme:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/burren-scheme-shows-benefits-of-farming-on-environment-1.2368664

I disagree with some of the framing in the article, but overall there are a lot of good points in it about the Burren Scheme, the potential benefits of other similar schemes, and the problems associated with schemes like GLAS and REPS.

Farmers in the Burren are being paid a premium to keep livestock as a way of preventing the encroachment of Hazel scrub, which threatens the unique flora of the area. Hence this is a highly exceptional case, in the sense that it can be argued that having farmers do what farmers generally do (i.e. have animals browse away all vegetation down to the ground) can be viewed as a conservation measure here. This is what could be described as a "win-win" situation. (Although it should also be noted that the Hazel scrub will, over time, develop into an incredibly rich habitat in its own right.)

The problem is that elsewhere, agriculture in general, and "scrub" removal in particular, is very definitely "win-lose", with the natural world being the absolute loser. Remember that "scrub" is nothing less than regenerating natural habitat: nature attempting to return where it had previously been pushed out. As I seem to recall from reading 'Our Once and Future Planet', which I found pretty unconvincing as a book, Paddy Woodworth likes to focus on this type of "win-win" example and to see these as models that could be applied on a larger scale elsewhere, and therein a solution to the disaster currently befalling the natural world.

But he ignores the fact that when human extractive systems such as agriculture and the natural world have to coexist, nature is almost unexceptionally a loser.

That is not to argue that farming should be done away with; we obviously have to produce food for ourselves, and Woodworth is doing us and nature a service by investigating such 'good news' stories from the farming world. The big danger however is in seeing this type of action as the solution, when in fact the most vital thing, as I said above, is to have large areas dedicated solely to natural ecosystems. Anything less is not going to make any real difference, other than to give ourselves the impression that something is being done.

OpenYourEyes

I think thats true with some ecosystems, but not with all. Extensive, rather than intensive, agriculture on a large scale has the potential to restore a lot of biodiversity and ecosystem services. For a large suite of species, abandonment is just as problematic as intensive agriculture. I realise you have an appreciation for the long game, and I think conservation plans should have an eye on the long term, but I think your vision is a bit too long term to be practical? We're living in a managed landscape, and one that has been managed for hundreds and thousands of years, and I think the baseline we're aiming for should reflect that.

In the conservation of a lot of birds in Ireland we have a big problem with mesopredator release, and more abandonment and shying away from active management of sites or landscapes won't help that, which in turn will prevent the recovery of a lot of species from ever getting off the ground.

Jayzesake

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

I think thats true with some ecosystems, but not with all. Extensive, rather than intensive, agriculture on a large scale has the potential to restore a lot of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

I wouldn't say we disagree here, OYE. I do think there's a lot of scope to improve farming practices in such a way that they are less damaging to wildlife. Moreover, there is strong evidence that small scale organic farming is more productive (although more labour intensive), acre per acre, than intensive chemical-based farming.

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

For a large suite of species, abandonment is just as problematic as intensive agriculture. I realise you have an appreciation for the long game, and I think conservation plans should have an eye on the long term, but I think your vision is a bit too long term to be practical?

When land is abandoned, nature moves back in, pure and simple. Sure, certain species which have benefitted from human activities will lose out, but I'm not suggesting that all land should be dedicated wholly to natural processes; those latter species will still have plenty of farmland. But many other species will benefit.

Ecological succession isn't always as slow as people may think; a few decades can see woodland return. Admittedly associated species may take longer to arrive, but the end result is a wild and natural ecosystem, something we are sorely lacking on this island. As I'd guess you know, OYE, an ecosystem is constantly evolving anyway, so what's really most important here is that natural processes have begun, rather than always being in check.

But the other side of that is, regardless of time scale, we should be doing what has a chance of succeeding, in terms of arresting the biological declines all around us. I simply don't think anything else will work, and nor do those who would be far more knowledgable than me in the field of conservation biology.

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

We're living in a managed landscape, and one that has been managed for hundreds and thousands of years, and I think the baseline we're aiming for should reflect that.

I think the baseline we should be aiming for is one which gives species and ecosystems which have evolved over 100s of 1,000,000s of years a chance of continuing to exist. Everything else is secondary.

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

In the conservation of a lot of birds in Ireland we have a big problem with mesopredator release, and more abandonment and shying away from active management of sites or landscapes won't help that, which in turn will prevent the recovery of a lot of species from ever getting off the ground.

Mesopredator release is an effect of the removal of other trophic levels, specifically large predators. The latter won't be tolerated by agriculture - either the regular form or the rare more wildlife-friendly form. The only places where they can exist without risk of conflict are in wilderness areas: and that there in itself is one of the main reasons why nature needs large areas where ecosystems can exist undisturbed.

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

Farmers in the Burren are being paid a premium to keep livestock as a way of preventing the encroachment of Hazel scrub, which threatens the unique flora of the area. Hence this is a highly exceptional case, in the sense that it can be argued that having farmers do what farmers generally do (i.e. have animals browse away all vegetation down to the ground) can be viewed as a conservation measure here. This is what could be described as a "win-win" situation. (Although it should also be noted that the Hazel scrub will, over time, develop into an incredibly rich habitat in its own right.)

The problem is that elsewhere, agriculture in general, and "scrub" removal in particular, is very definitely "win-lose", with the natural world being the absolute loser. Remember that "scrub" is nothing less than regenerating natural habitat: nature attempting to return where it had previously been pushed out. As I seem to recall from reading 'Our Once and Future Planet', which I found pretty unconvincing as a book, Paddy Woodworth likes to focus on this type of "win-win" example and to see these as models that could be applied on a larger scale elsewhere, and therein a solution to the disaster currently befalling the natural world.

But he ignores the fact that when human extractive systems such as agriculture and the natural world have to coexist, nature is almost unexceptionally a loser.

That is not to argue that farming should be done away with; we obviously have to produce food for ourselves, and Woodworth is doing us and nature a service by investigating such 'good news' stories from the farming world. The big danger however is in seeing this type of action as the solution, when in fact the most vital thing, as I said above, is to have large areas dedicated solely to natural ecosystems. Anything less is not going to make any real difference, other than to give ourselves the impression that something is being done.

Completely agree. The Burren scheme is not really applicable to other agri-environmental schemes. In virtually all other scheme the emphasis is on reduced agricultural inputs.

Capercaillie

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

In the conservation of a lot of birds in Ireland we have a big problem with mesopredator release, and more abandonment and shying away from active management of sites or landscapes won't help that, which in turn will prevent the recovery of a lot of species from ever getting off the ground.

The refusal sometimes for intensive predator control by conservation groups is a huge problem especially with ground nesting birds like waders/corncrake. If a predator species is common/unthreatened there is no reason not to cull/translocate them. The BWI reserve at Annagh marsh is a good example. Even though there is a predator control fence, grass is left grow up under fence. This shorted the fence and foxes gained access and killed most of waders. The place is full of crows and they killed a lot of waders as well. Redshank,dunlin extinct from the site now! Phalaropes bred at the site this year but they were proably unsucessful as well due to predation.

Birdnuts

Capercaillie wrote: »

The refusal sometimes for intensive predator control by conservation groups is a huge problem especially with ground nesting birds like waders/corncrake. If a predator species is common/unthreatened there is no reason not to cull/translocate them.

It certainly is disappointing the the likes of BWI has refused to employ legitimate vermin control on its sites in the West and midlands. Especially given the success of the Boora model. I see myself the enormous benefits of fox/mink/crow control on Blessington GC land with an impressive increase in breeding wildfowl and wader numbers in recent years.

Capercaillie

Birdnuts wrote: »

It certainly is disappointing the the likes of BWI has refused to employ legitimate vermin control on its sites in the West and midlands. Especially given the success of the Boora model. I see myself the enormous benefits of fox/mink/crow control on Blessington GC land with an impressive increase in breeding wildfowl and wader numbers in recent years.

The Boleybrack model is also a good example Red Grouse numbers up from 4 pairs to 86 pairs. An integrated approach with habitat management and predator control.

Great when you go to Boora to see all the raptors present as well.

Foxes breeding directly beside BWI corncrake reserve. They were notified but refused to even check. I got the foxes removed in the end.

Birdnuts

Capercaillie wrote: »

The Boleybrack model is also a good example Red Grouse numbers up from 4 pairs to 86 pairs. An integrated approach with habitat management and predator control.

Great when you go to Boora to see all the raptors present as well.

Foxes breeding directly beside BWI corncrake reserve. They were notified but refused to even check. I got the foxes removed in the end.

Boleybrack is a very impressive operation by all accounts too. The gamekeeper there on the money explaining why the control of foxes/crows is important in the absence/scarcity of top predators like the wolf and eagle spp to control these "meso" predators.

OpenYourEyes

Jayzesake wrote: »

I wouldn't say we disagree here, OYE. I do think there's a lot of scope to improve farming practices in such a way that they are less damaging to wildlife. Moreover, there is strong evidence that small scale organic farming is more productive (although more labour intensive), acre per acre, than intensive chemical-based farming.

Organic farming isn't necessarily as good is it might appear for biodiversity though - in general I think the evidence suggests high nature value farms and farms parttaking in targeted schemes are the best, though I'm open to correction?

Jayzesake wrote: »

When land is abandoned, nature moves back in, pure and simple. Sure, certain species which have benefitted from human activities will lose out, but I'm not suggesting that all land should be dedicated wholly to natural processes; those latter species will still have plenty of farmland. But many other species will benefit.

Yeah thats pure and simple - but it seems like you want 'nature, where theres no human influence' whereas I want 'nature, including breeding curlews, great numbers and diversity of BOPs, more breeding farmland passerines etc' - your view seems completely untargeted in terms of species recoveries etc? I don't think that's a useful way to go about things. Obviously areas like intact raised bog etc shouldnt have any extraction going on, but in general around 65% of Ireland is farmland, so to increase biodiversity in Ireland that's what you have to target.

Jayzesake wrote: »

I think the baseline we should be aiming for is one which gives species and ecosystems which have evolved over 100s of 1,000,000s of years a chance of continuing to exist. Everything else is secondary.

I think, given that humans have been here so long and had such an influence, and that Ireland has essentially had a managed landscape for hundreds of years, that a more recent baseline than 1,000,000s of years is needed. Roughly speaking, something 200-1000 years depending on the area and/or species. Obviously if theres a specific plant or animal thats associated with 10,000 years ago or more that we can give a helping hand that won't cause any major problems, then thats something that can be looked at, but in general I think what's needed is to rewind the clock - not to jump back in a time machine! I think engaging people and telling them what we can do to get back the wildlife their parents and grandparents enjoyed and experienced is a lot more achievable, practical and desirable than saying we want to turn large parts of Ireland to what it was when humans first landed here!

Jayzesake wrote: »

Mesopredator release is an effect of the removal of other trophic levels, specifically large predators. The latter won't be tolerated by agriculture - either the regular form or the rare more wildlife-friendly form. The only places where they can exist without risk of conflict are in wilderness areas: and that there in itself is one of the main reasons why nature needs large areas where ecosystems can exist undisturbed.

Theres no reason we can't have an intact assemblage of avian predators, and the closer we get to that the better the chance that some of the holes left by not having wolves etc. will be plugged by those birds of prey. Not perfect, but I don't see any possible way we'll ever get wild wolves in Ireland - I'd love to see them, but its not going to happen, so I think rather than striving towards a goal that we're never going to reach, lets turn our attention elsewhere.

Jayzesake

Capercaillie wrote: »

The refusal sometimes for intensive predator control by conservation groups is a huge problem especially with ground nesting birds like waders/corncrake. If a predator species is common/unthreatened there is no reason not to cull/translocate them. The BWI reserve at Annagh marsh is a good example. Even though there is a predator control fence, grass is left grow up under fence. This shorted the fence and foxes gained access and killed most of waders. The place is full of crows and they killed a lot of waders as well. Redshank,dunlin extinct from the site now! Phalaropes bred at the site this year but they were proably unsucessful as well due to predation.

Culling, whether of smaller predators or herbivores, is absotutely vital where entire trophic levels have been removed by human activites. But it can never adequately replace all of the key functions provided by large predators. As Capercaillie mentioned earlier on, many native species require - and will indefinitely continue to require - human assistance to survive (if they survive at all) unless natural balance returns in the form of functioning ecosystems replete with all trophic levels over large areas.

Zoo4m8

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Another article by Paddy Woodworth - quite a lenghty one - about the Burren farming scheme:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/burren-scheme-shows-benefits-of-farming-on-environment-1.2368664

I disagree with some of the framing in the article, but overall there are a lot of good points in it about the Burren Scheme, the potential benefits of other similar schemes, and the problems associated with schemes like GLAS and REPS.

I'm sorry I didn't get the IT this morning, too engrossed watching the sun rise over the Welsh Mountains, trying to get a decent photo I let the time run away I'd forgotten he'd have another article , I like his open minded , glass half full writing, really refreshing..
Driving past Mothmans ( late lamented IMO from this forum) wildlife friendly farm today it emphasised for me what a large percentage of farms now have installed or are installing wildlife friendly methods and habitats.. And I passed a tillage farm that now has wildlife margins left round the crops, there is a GLAS payment for this but nice to see it being implemented.
I met two farmers by chance last week who are making changes to their lands, one in Clare and one in Wicklow. The Wicklow man had dug a lake last year and when I asked him if he missed the payments he would have received he said " not at all, the money is spent overnight but the lake will be here forever!"
Despite what some would like us to think there is real movement out there, and I at least look forward to seeing more and more articles like Paddy Woodworths and those in the BWI mag..and to having enough years left to do all I want to do as well!

Dair76

Ladies and gents, I really enjoy reading this thread - there is great debate, but it's always civil and amicable. Kudos!

Just wondering if someone could point me towards some useful blogs, websites, journals etc etc that I should be following?

OpenYourEyes

Jayzesake wrote: »

Culling, whether of smaller predators or herbivores, is absotutely vital where entire trophic levels have been removed by human activites. But it can never adequately replace all of the key functions provided by large predators. As Capercaillie mentioned earlier on, many native species require - and will indefinitely continue to require - human assistance to survive (if they survive at all) unless natural balance returns in the form of functioning ecosystems replete with all trophic levels over large areas.

I agree with this to a large extent, but essentially what you're heading towards is the fact that we need a large carnivorous mammal in Ireland - and that simply isn't going to happen. it might help sort out the foxes and badgers and corvids, but it'll create way too many problems in a place with so many farms and people, so it's simply not a viable option. There's a human element that you have to consider. We're a tiny country, with even tinier areas that have any sort of rewilding potential, so our chances of reintroducing Lynx or Wolves or anything like that is even smaller than it is in Britain.

With that in mind, you can tackle the mesopredator problem by more large BOPs which will help plug some of that gap from lack of predatory mammals, and then by being careful with things like plantation forestry which are a complete and utter nightmare in terms of housing foxes/crows etc.

Jayzesake

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Organic farming isn't necessarily as good is it might appear for biodiversity though - in general I think the evidence suggests high nature value farms and farms parttaking in targeted schemes are the best, though I'm open to correction?

Organic means without chemicals; how can chemical farming be better for biodiversity than non-chemical farming? The only way that case can be argued, as it often is, is by saying that chemical-based intensive farming produces more food per acre, thereby leaving more land solely for wildlife. However it seems that the opposite is probably true.

Have a read of this: http://www.monbiot.com/2008/06/10/small-is-bountiful/

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Yeah thats pure and simple - but it seems like you want 'nature, where theres no human influence' whereas I want 'nature, including breeding curlews, great numbers and diversity of BOPs, more breeding farmland passerines etc' - your view seems completely untargeted in terms of species recoveries etc? I don't think that's a useful way to go about things. Obviously areas like intact raised bog etc shouldnt have any extraction going on, but in general around 65% of Ireland is farmland, so to increase biodiversity in Ireland that's what you have to target.

What I want, is for ecosystems to work, as that is the only way the majority of species will survive in the long term. The approach you describe, of targetting such-and-such a species here and there, is useful only as an emergency measure: in the long term it will fail, because it doesn't take account the fact that everything in nature is connected. If ecosystems have been torn to shreds, much of what survives is doomed, even if that takes centuries to play out.

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

I think, given that humans have been here so long and had such an influence, and that Ireland has essentially had a managed landscape for hundreds of years, that a more recent baseline than 1,000,000s of years is needed. Roughly speaking, something 200-1000 years depending on the area and/or species. Obviously if theres a specific plant or animal thats associated with 10,000 years ago or more that we can give a helping hand that won't cause any major problems, then thats something that can be looked at, but in general I think what's needed is to rewind the clock - not to jump back in a time machine! I think engaging people and telling them what we can do to get back the wildlife their parents and grandparents enjoyed and experienced is a lot more achievable, practical and desirable than saying we want to turn large parts of Ireland to what it was when humans first landed here!

It's quite clear that we can't go back to any time in the past, even if we wanted to: species have gone extinct, the climate has changed, etc., etc. But I would say that to think in terms of an arbitrary baseline, whether 100, 1,000 or 10,000 years ago, is to miss the point anyway. What nature requires is the maximising the degree of natural processes, as only in that way will ecosystems, and the species within them, be resiliant and survive. We need to go forward, not backwards.

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Theres no reason we can't have an intact assemblage of avian predators, and the closer we get to that the better the chance that some of the holes left by not having wolves etc. will be plugged by those birds of prey. Not perfect, but I don't see any possible way we'll ever get wild wolves in Ireland - I'd love to see them, but its not going to happen, so I think rather than striving towards a goal that we're never going to reach, lets turn our attention elsewhere.

Having all of the native BOP return would be fantastic, and thanks to those pushing for that, great strides are being made in that direction.

But there are a few things to be said here with regard to large mammalian predators. Firstly, wolves aren't the only large predator species that could be re-introduced, and certainly wouldn't be the first choice. Lynx would be a better candidate, at least in the short term: there is no record of their ever having attacked humans, they are shy and secretive, are amazing looking, and would be very beneficial in helping control an exploding deer population. I wouldn't be surprised if they are brought in within a decade in Scotland, the country with which Ireland probably shares most in terms of ecology. Now I know that even mentioning such a possibility will almost certainly open a whole can of worms here, but so be it.

Consider:

Conservation biologists are unanimous in saying that large predators are utterly essential to healthy ecosystems.

Without healthy ecosystems, species populations will continue to decline.

The whole of Europe, apart from the U.K. and Ireland, is seeing large predators become a part of the ecological equation once again.

Why is it so outlandish to even consider such a thing happening here?


With that folks, I'm away to bed. Good night.

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

Organic means without chemicals; how can chemical farming be better for biodiversity than non-chemical farming? The only way that case can be argued, as it often is, is by saying that chemical-based intensive farming produces more food per acre, thereby leaving more land solely for wildlife. However it seems that the opposite is probably true.

.

I use round-up and fertilisers to try and create optimal habitat for corncrake. Without them the farm would be attractive to corncrake!

OpenYourEyes

Jayzesake wrote: »

Organic means without chemicals; how can chemical farming be better for biodiversity than non-chemical farming? The only way that case can be argued, as it often is, is by saying that chemical-based intensive farming produces more food per acre, thereby leaving more land solely for wildlife. However it seems that the opposite is probably true.

Have a read of this: http://www.monbiot.com/2008/06/10/small-is-bountiful/

I agree with Monbiot on some stuff, but not on others. As Capercaillie suggested, use of chemicals can be used to target some dominant and/or pest/weed species, with resulting benefits for biodiversity. When I made that comment I was half-remembering a college assignment I did on the subject - a quick google scholar search and I found this paper. Worth reading the abstract http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320704003246

Jayzesake wrote: »

What I want, is for ecosystems to work, as that is the only way the majority of species will survive in the long term. The approach you describe, of targetting such-and-such a species here and there, is useful only as an emergency measure: in the long term it will fail, because it doesn't take account the fact that everything in nature is connected. If ecosystems have been torn to shreds, much of what survives is doomed, even if that takes centuries to play out.

I agree that an ecosystem approach is necessary, and often when I argue for species conservation I do so in the knowledge/hope that the ecosystem will be repaired to some extent for that to happen. People are more interested in supporting the conservation of a charasmatic species than habitat, which tends to lack 'charisma'. But I've said it elsewhere - managing areas for Red Grouse and Grey Partridge etc creates the conditions for biodiversity at every level to flourish, if its done right.

Jayzesake wrote: »

It's quite clear that we can't go back to any time in the past, even if we wanted to: species have gone extinct, the climate has changed, etc., etc. But I would say that to think in terms of an arbitrary baseline, whether 100, 1,000 or 10,000 years ago, is to miss the point anyway. What nature requires is the maximising the degree of natural processes, as only in that way will ecosystems, and the species within them, be resiliant and survive. We need to go forward, not backwards.

But surely, as humans and with our need to categorise things etc we inherently use some variation of a historic baseline when imagining what we want for the future? "Lets block the drains on that bog and get more deer grazing the nearby moorland, and it'll be closer to what it was like in the 1800's" - that type of thing. Again I'm skeptical that without any more tangible targets than "let nature take over again" that we'll achieve as much as we could?

Jayzesake wrote: »

Having all of the native BOP return would be fantastic, and thanks to those pushing for that, great strides are being made in that direction.

But there are a few things to be said here with regard to large mammalian predators. Firstly, wolves aren't the only large predator species that could be re-introduced, and certainly wouldn't be the first choice. Lynx would be a better candidate, at least in the short term: there is no record of their ever having attacked humans, they are shy and secretive, are amazing looking, and would be very beneficial in helping control an exploding deer population. I wouldn't be surprised if they are brought in within a decade in Scotland, the country with which Ireland probably shares most in terms of ecology. Now I know that even mentioning such a possibility will almost certainly open a whole can of worms here, but so be it.

Don't forget those studies on Lynx's are likely to have been done in areas with much more suitable habitat than we'd be able to offer in Ireland in the near future! And there's also the concept of 'perceived conflict', which is where much of the wildlife conflict relating to predatory species comes from - including with the White-tailed Eagles in Ireland. Just because Lynx wouldn't attack people or livestock doesn't mean everyone will believe that unfortunately.

Jayzesake wrote: »

With that folks, I'm away to bed. Good night.

Hope I'm not coming across argumentative, I've enjoyed the discussion!

Jayzesake

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

I agree with Monbiot on some stuff, but not on others. As Capercaillie suggested, use of chemicals can be used to target some dominant and/or pest/weed species, with resulting benefits for biodiversity. When I made that comment I was half-remembering a college assignment I did on the subject - a quick google scholar search and I found this paper. Worth reading the abstract http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320704003246

I don't always agree with Monbiot either, but he does have have a formidable ability to frequently spot the obvious when others cannot. I am not against using chemicals per se, although I do think in an ideal world it would be better not to use them. But the world is far from ideal, and in some situations their use is necessary; for e.g., like Capercaillie I also use glyphosate to treat R. ponticum stumps when removing infestations, as otherwise it just resprouts and it's all a waste of time.

What I was questioning rather was how the massive use of chemicals - pesticides etc. - in farming can be better for biodiversity than an approach that avoids them. Think of colony collapse syndrome in bees: studies of dead bees found a cocktail of 40 (if memory serves) potentially toxic manmade chemicals present. The paper you cite really seems to say little more than that studies are inconclusive on the subject.

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

I agree that an ecosystem approach is necessary, and often when I argue for species conservation I do so in the knowledge/hope that the ecosystem will be repaired to some extent for that to happen. People are more interested in supporting the conservation of a charasmatic species than habitat, which tends to lack 'charisma'. But I've said it elsewhere - managing areas for Red Grouse and Grey Partridge etc creates the conditions for biodiversity at every level to flourish, if its done right.

I think it's fair to say that such an approach is failing drastically to arrest the decline of living systems and the species they contain: the evidence for that is all around us. That blatant failure constitutes a large part of the motivation behind the new approach which is generally being referred to as Rewilding. Like any other concept, that term carries varying interpretations, and is wide open to abuse, as we see in the so-called 'Wild Nephin' situation here in Ireland. But to my mind it is best summed up as 'Cores, Corridors, and Carnivores', which also happen to be the primary elements held by conservation biologists to be key to conserving wild nature over the long term.

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

But surely, as humans and with our need to categorise things etc we inherently use some variation of a historic baseline when imagining what we want for the future? "Lets block the drains on that bog and get more deer grazing the nearby moorland, and it'll be closer to what it was like in the 1800's" - that type of thing. Again I'm skeptical that without any more tangible targets than "let nature take over again" that we'll achieve as much as we could?

There is nothing wrong with looking to the past as a reference point in going forward: on the contrary it is essential, since the condition of the natural world has continually worsened almost everywhere, so the past does serve as a guide to how things could be were they to improve. However trying to establish an actual baseline is problematic and ultimately pointless for plenty of reasons.

For a start, which baseline do you choose? As Monbiot rightly points out, conservation bodies in this part of the world generally choose a baseline of extreme biological depletion which came into existence a couple of centuries ago, and absurdly end up devoting much of their energy to actually preventing natural processes from returning in order to preserve that state of impoverishment.

Imagine if conservationists in South America or elsewhere in the tropics decided in the future that their mission was to prevent rainforest from naturally returning to areas where it had been cleared, because a particular flower or bird had taken up residence on the cattle ranches that replaced the forest. That would rightly be seen as absurd; but that exactly describes a common situation here, and many (most?) conservationists don't even question it. That way of thinking completely misses the big picture, which is that only vibrant functioning self-created ecosystems, with a full complement of trophic levels, and over large areas, can protect species diversity in the long term. (Although there is no reason why other areas still given over to farming can't do so in ways that conserve species that have taken advantage of that particular niche.)

Rather than thinking in terms of baselines, we need to be focusing on allowing functioning ecosystems to rebuild themselves, which may require a little help in the form of reintroducing lost native species, or removing invasive exotics. But otherwise we should be taking the brakes off nature, not holding it back.

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Don't forget those studies on Lynx's are likely to have been done in areas with much more suitable habitat than we'd be able to offer in Ireland in the near future! And there's also the concept of 'perceived conflict', which is where much of the wildlife conflict relating to predatory species comes from - including with the White-tailed Eagles in Ireland. Just because Lynx wouldn't attack people or livestock doesn't mean everyone will believe that unfortunately.

I totally accept that this is not an easy subject in Ireland. As you say, one only has to look at the killing of reintroduced BOP to see the problems in this regard. But if we are serious in our desire to see the natural world return to a state of robust health, we can't ignore the evidence that conservation biology is very clearly providing, in terms of what is necessary to achieve that state of health, regardless of the potential difficulties ahead.

And as I said above, right now throughout continental Europe large native carnivores are being allowed to return naturally: not just Lynx, but Wolves, Bears and a whole suite of other smaller species. Even in the U.K., a strong movement is now pushing for such rewilding to take place there: look at the massive gains that Trees for Life in Scotland have achieved in the space of just a couple of decades. See http://treesforlife.org.uk/ and http://www.lynxuk.org/ and http://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/

Why should only Ireland remain in a state of biological depletion?

Is that what we as conservationists want?

Or is it rather a question of a lack of courage or vision?

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Hope I'm not coming across argumentative, I've enjoyed the discussion!

Hey, ditto!

OpenYourEyes

'Official ‘greenspeak’ masks poor show on environment' (todays article in the series)

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/official-greenspeak-masks-poor-show-on-environment-1.2370195

Capercaillie

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

'Official ‘greenspeak’ masks poor show on environment' (todays article in the series)

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/official-greenspeak-masks-poor-show-on-environment-1.2370195

He makes a cogent case for the current IFA position: our grass-based dairy and beef production is already among the most carbon-efficient in Europe. If we reduced production, he says, it would simply shift to less carbon-efficient countries to meet market demand. Our farmers would suffer huge losses, and climate would suffer more damage, not less. Our national interest would be damaged, with no gain to the global environment.
Blaming agriculture
He says, with some justice, that “people who are up in arms about climate change sometimes seem to blame agriculture for everything”. He believes that most farmers want to practise conservation, in the sense of passing on their land in better condition, in every sense, than they found it. But he points out that sustainability must include economic and social well-being, as well as environmental considerations.
Kingston argues that the emissions targets agreed by the Government put an undue burden on farmers, and that his sector is given no credit for the significant amount of carbon sequestered on agricultural land.
The counter-argument is that our relative carbon efficiency does not make our substantial agri-emissions cause any less climate change. A responsible government would not be making an exceptional case for derogation for agriculture, but would be working hard internationally to build institutions that prevent the problem being shifted elsewhere.

That's the greatest propaganda there in the bold type. By Ireland producing beef/dairy in an "eco-friendly" way it stops Countries like Brazil cutting down rainforest to producing beef in a more unsustainable way. They will produce beef in Brazil eitherways

Jayzesake

Jayzesake wrote: »

Lynx would be a better candidate, at least in the short term: there is no record of their ever having attacked humans, they are shy and secretive, are amazing looking, and would be very beneficial in helping control an exploding deer population. I wouldn't be surprised if they are brought in within a decade in Scotland, the country with which Ireland probably shares most in terms of ecology. Now I know that even mentioning such a possibility will almost certainly open a whole can of worms here, but so be it.

Lynx to be reintroduced into wild in Britain after a 1,300-year absence

"Dr Paul O’Donoghue, who advises the trust, told The Sunday Times: “The lynx is one of the most enigmatic, beautiful cats on the planet. The British countryside is dying, and lynx will bring it back to life.”"

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/lynx-to-be-reintroduced-into-the-wild-in-britain-after-a-1300-year-absence-10094682.html

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

Lynx to be reintroduced into wild in Britain after a 1,300-year absence

"Dr Paul O’Donoghue, who advises the trust, told The Sunday Times: “The lynx is one of the most enigmatic, beautiful cats on the planet. The British countryside is dying, and lynx will bring it back to life.”"

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/lynx-to-be-reintroduced-into-the-wild-in-britain-after-a-1300-year-absence-10094682.html

European Lynx prey mostly on young roe deer. They would also prey on muntjac deer which are present in huge numbers in UK. Those species not present in Ireland although deer hunters have been presumed to have released muntjac for sporting reasons in a number of locations in Ireland. Would Sika deer be suitable for Lynx?

On a separate issue a new thinking by some conservation groups is to abandon conservation methods for species like waders since they are doomed to extinction. Instead we should focus our resources on species which due to climate change will start breeding in UK/Ireland.

OpenYourEyes

To the best of my knowledge that Lynx project/trust is going to start by looking into the whole thing to start with - they havn't applied for or got the go ahead for anything yet.

Jayzesake

Capercaillie wrote: »

Would Sika deer be suitable for Lynx?

I'd imagine Lynx would impact on Sika populations by taking young and sick animals.

Jayzesake

Jayzesake wrote: »

To repeat, large areas where human activities are limited to non-damaging forms of recreation, and natural processes are allowed to dominate, both on land and at sea, are the most essential component of any real solution to the catastrophic collapse of remaining wildlife populations taking place in our lifetime.

New Zealand to create giant marine sanctuary

Waters north of New Zealand will become one of the world's largest ocean sanctuaries, covering an area roughly the size of France, with a full ban on fishing and mining

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/11898970/New-Zealand-to-create-giant-marine-sanctuary.html

Jayzesake

Dair76 wrote: »

Ladies and gents, I really enjoy reading this thread - there is great debate, but it's always civil and amicable. Kudos!

Just wondering if someone could point me towards some useful blogs, websites, journals etc etc that I should be following?

Sorry for not responding earlier Dair76. On the subject of Rewilding, I would suggest starting with the following:

http://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/

http://treesforlife.org.uk/

http://www.rewildingeurope.com/

http://rewilding.org/rewildit/

Jayzesake

Ecological restoration must be a priority for the planet

Another IT article by Paddy Woodworth, this time reporting from a Manchester conference

"Ecological restoration has become a global buzzword. The phrase’s feelgood resonance, its promise that humanity might actually make things better instead of worse in the habitats that sustain us, is comforting at a time of great environmental anxiety.

But many contributors to the conference noted that, in the absence of internationally accepted definitions and standards for the science and practice of restoration, there is a real danger that it could join phrases such as “sustainable development” and “ecofriendly” as a politically convenient cover for continued overexploitation of Earth’s resources."


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/ecological-restoration-must-be-a-priority-for-the-planet-1.2376165

OpenYourEyes

An editorial responding to Paddy Woodworths recent series:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/the-need-to-reconcile-an-expanding-agricultural-sector-and-tackling-climate-change-1.2381121

Jayzesake

Capercaillie wrote: »

Would Sika deer be suitable for Lynx?

Seems Lynx are even capable of taking Reed Deer and Reindeer hinds and calves.

http://www.scotlandbigpicture.com/Index/lynx-essay?utm_content=buffer339d4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer