Good point about the farmers, you never see a farmer in a crap car! Theyve got nice 4x4 SUVs or expensive Land Rovers or Range Rovers, and the wife has a nice BMW or the like. I could be slightly off here but Im sure I was told you only need a few chickens and a small area of land to put them on to declare yourself as running a functional small holding and receive farming subsidiaries??
In fairness, I doubt the upland sheep farmers are doing that well if they can't sell their wool. I think a growing view is that we should stop farming sheep up there, because the environmental impact is negative, and it is essentially a product that nobody wants - we no longer use the wool and the public don't eat as much lamb as previously.
Part of the critique of this programme was that the portrayal of the Yorkshire Moors was misleading as the bucolic impression being given bears no relation to modern farming of the uplands, but we are too sentimental and weak to admit that and instead you get all this stuff about heritage and tradition, but the farmers themselves are having to do b & b and clay pigeons and everything except farming to make a living. Particularly true in Wales as well, but culturally they can't cope with the idea that hill farmers are wasting their time and our subsidy money.
It's not that simple in some ways because running a smaller-yield organic farm is probably quite beneficial for nature, and things like Ring Ouzels and Choughs are probably dependent on grazing taking place in some of their current breeding areas. If a farmer could make it work selling really high quality organic lamb you might be able to keep some of the heritage alive and some of the rare breeds and all that good stuff, but the current situation doesn't seem to benefit anyone.
Good points well put Simon and others, and a good subject to raise in the first place!
I havent seen the programme but I intend to watch it to see what rubbish they come out with and the important stuff that gets masked over, as does probably many illegal or poorly monitored practices and goings-on in the Yorkshires, Derbyshire, and to keep it balanced and fair - probably many other counties too!
An online article suggested that a Grouse shoot for a party of 6 people over a 3 day period can generate £35,000 but a quick calculation that Simon has already done, puts it in perspective that would render £35k on the low side. Thats for the shoot alone. Youre right - I bet the program didnt mention that scale of money involved, and while it is generating that kind of sum... nothing will be done in the way of legislation. Especially when you take into account that some of the very people that the legislative process would have to be run by actually enjoy this activity, same goes for other methods of hunting.
Looks like the program didnt mention illegal Raptor persecution that comes with Grouse shooting, but instead as John says ... a one sided view is depicted whereby Raptors are the ones portrayed as being responsible. It also probably fails to mention the recent new case of the illegal entrapment and killing of a Goshawk on Howl Moor in Goathland, N.Yorks where it mentions there is footage of the crime but North Yorkshire Police are appealing for information. So just to clarify... they have footage of someone illegally trapping and killing a Goshawk, in one of these beautiful rural areas advertised as close knit communities where everybody knows everybody, and everyone knows when someone goes for a pee behind closed doors, but they dont know who it is? I read a comment online and that landowners almost always know who is on their land at any one time as theyve either paid to be on the land or its the gamekeeper doing whatever hes doing.
Good point about the farmers, you never see a farmer in a crap car! Theyve got nice 4x4 SUVs or expensive Land Rovers or Range Rovers, and the wife has a nice BMW or the like. I could be slightly off here but Im sure I was told you only need a few chickens and a small area of land to put them on to declare yourself as running a functional small holding and receive farming subsidiaries??
As for Rewilding (and Reintroductions) Im all for it! - Beavers in Devon- proven to be effective help against flooding and enrich the ecosystem as they do in North America. - Eurasian Lynx to be reintroduced in Kielder Forest, Northumberland will mainly act as a natural predator for controlling Rabbit and other rodent populations (yes I know they take birds as well). - Pine Martins in Gloucestershire, Red Squirrel populations positively thrive where these Mustelids are present. - Wisent (European Bison) has a few individuals in the New Forest since 2012 and now a new project for Blean Woods in Kent is in action. Active grazers and bark eaters that can improve forest health and encourage new growth thats good for a wealth of species. - Wild Boar has divided opinion but its omnivorous nature and gastric biology enables it to be one of a few large mammals to eat poisonous fallen acorns that can build up and be fatal to Cattle, Horses and Ponies (good eg New Forest Pony) and certain Deer can be affected too - White-tailed Eagles in the Isle of Wight - Great Bustard in Wiltshire - White Storks at Knepp - Cirl Buntings in Devon and Cornwall - and lets include the Lammergeiers in the Alps and Pyrenees
All good in my view, all we need now is the Brown Bear and the Eurasian Wolf to be brought back and keep a check on illegal activities of many a gamekeeper!
Yes you might be onto something there, I think class war could be said to have failed after the last election, so something else must be worth a go.
in fact joking aside, I attended a seminar at work the other day that was talking about diversity and the countryside. The advice from the academic world is very much that people's wellbeing is enhanced by engaging with the outdoors and ethnic minorities in the UK should be directly encouraged to do that, including support to help them overcome barriers such as the sense of not belonging in that environment.
In fact the current cost of the NHS addressing endemically poor mental and physical health in less advantaged parts of the community is very high and this is potentially quite a cheap approach to attack it, in terms of providing information, transport options and guidance from hosts such as rangers.
The most practical avenue to go down is perhaps to keep stressing the costs to lowland communities from running the uplands for shooting, in terms of the flooding impacts and wildfires, which the stupid programme obviously didn't mention at all, despite showing some guys wondering about with a massive flamethrower in the name of management.
In terms of John's original post, it is absurd to be watching a programme called 'a wild year' and watch people setting fire to plants and animals as if this is a perfectly sensible and useful thing to do. Perhaps in some way this absurdity will be obvious to all or most viewers, but who knows.
This is the 3rd programme in a series, they have shown 'Pembrokeshire Coast' and 'The Fens' previously. All of them are effectively glossy adverts for traditional holiday areas in the UK, i.e. Gower Peninsula, Norfolk Broads, Yorkshire Dales. When I saw the North Yorkshire one was on I knew that we would get a sturdy bloke in tweeds involved at some point, spouting the usual rubbish about how they are 'stewards' of this 'wonderful wild landscape', that is actually a man-made combination of burnt heather and overgrazed monoculture in the main. Tangential point, but BBC reported this week that a wool fleece is currently worth 3 pence on the open market and farmers are burning them instead. Stewards indeed.
But yes John I agree, how can you 'report' on the North York Moors and not focus on the fact that the only reason the grouse are there is for people to shoot them? Getting taken by a Peregrine might be a better way to go! And well done for finding a Peregrine nest up there. Still, those chicks will probably get taken for falconry thanks to one of Natural England's latest decisions to allow wild birds to be taken for the benefit of that hobby, sorry, 'glorious part of our national heritage'.
To the point about the income from wildlife and outdoor enthusiasts; I think it is dwarfed by the income from shooting. If you get charged 100 quid a brace for shooting grouse and you shoot 100 birds in a day then you just dropped 5k per man, there is no amount of walkers and cyclists will compete with that. Many of them are day visitors that don't spend money while they're there beyond a few quid for a car park or tea and sandwiches. Not to be sniffed at but the economics are what is driving the arrogant criminality today, with no end in sight unless there is legislation.
I feel for the BBC in that they have a responsibility to reflect the variety of views and practices around the place, but it is frustrating that if you watch a spread of their programming you get wildly mixed messages. Springwatch will tell you about the fact there are raptors on the moors and isn't it lovely, and they try to cover the controversial topics, but you never get a solution presented. Meanwhile Countrywhile would cover the same area and tell you the farmers are struggling and someone from the NFU will tell you that they need the Govt to sort it out. Then you get the glossy tourist stuff that tries to sell the tradition and drive tourism to the UK, which airbrushes everything and effectively tells the viewer that their rose-tinted view of the world is fine and you can still get a cream tea from a nice little shop in the Dales.
I think it would do some good if National Parks actually meant something, i.e. the land belonged to the people and anyone operating within them had to follow some rules. People think that 'National Park' means something and in other countries it does, but not in the UK, here it is just a marketing device. But that would require the Govt to spend public money on a national resource, when we are currently in an era of outsourcing and privatising. But imagine if you could go up on the moors and they'd been rewilded, sheep gone, trees, birds, butterflies, lynx...nice thought i reckon. The project in the Caledonian Forest is one to watch, could be the template.
Simon,
In the current climate, perhaps the best way to attack grouse (or any game) shooting would be to point out that it is not a diverse activity. If anybody in conservation with a voice would care to highlight that it is an elitist, white, male passtime then they might have more chance of winning the argument as things stand. Of course, the shooting fraternity might well turn round and say that the same applies to birdwatching and the like!! Still, it might be worth a shot, so to speak.
This is the 3rd programme in a series, they have shown 'Pembrokeshire Coast' and 'The Fens' previously. All of them are effectively glossy adverts for traditional holiday areas in the UK, i.e. Gower Peninsula, Norfolk Broads, Yorkshire Dales. When I saw the North Yorkshire one was on I knew that we would get a sturdy bloke in tweeds involved at some point, spouting the usual rubbish about how they are 'stewards' of this 'wonderful wild landscape', that is actually a man-made combination of burnt heather and overgrazed monoculture in the main. Tangential point, but BBC reported this week that a wool fleece is currently worth 3 pence on the open market and farmers are burning them instead. Stewards indeed.
But yes John I agree, how can you 'report' on the North York Moors and not focus on the fact that the only reason the grouse are there is for people to shoot them? Getting taken by a Peregrine might be a better way to go! And well done for finding a Peregrine nest up there. Still, those chicks will probably get taken for falconry thanks to one of Natural England's latest decisions to allow wild birds to be taken for the benefit of that hobby, sorry, 'glorious part of our national heritage'.
To the point about the income from wildlife and outdoor enthusiasts; I think it is dwarfed by the income from shooting. If you get charged 100 quid a brace for shooting grouse and you shoot 100 birds in a day then you just dropped 5k per man, there is no amount of walkers and cyclists will compete with that. Many of them are day visitors that don't spend money while they're there beyond a few quid for a car park or tea and sandwiches. Not to be sniffed at but the economics are what is driving the arrogant criminality today, with no end in sight unless there is legislation.
I feel for the BBC in that they have a responsibility to reflect the variety of views and practices around the place, but it is frustrating that if you watch a spread of their programming you get wildly mixed messages. Springwatch will tell you about the fact there are raptors on the moors and isn't it lovely, and they try to cover the controversial topics, but you never get a solution presented. Meanwhile Countrywhile would cover the same area and tell you the farmers are struggling and someone from the NFU will tell you that they need the Govt to sort it out. Then you get the glossy tourist stuff that tries to sell the tradition and drive tourism to the UK, which airbrushes everything and effectively tells the viewer that their rose-tinted view of the world is fine and you can still get a cream tea from a nice little shop in the Dales.
I think it would do some good if National Parks actually meant something, i.e. the land belonged to the people and anyone operating within them had to follow some rules. People think that 'National Park' means something and in other countries it does, but not in the UK, here it is just a marketing device. But that would require the Govt to spend public money on a national resource, when we are currently in an era of outsourcing and privatising. But imagine if you could go up on the moors and they'd been rewilded, sheep gone, trees, birds, butterflies, lynx...nice thought i reckon. The project in the Caledonian Forest is one to watch, could be the template.
