Should beavers be brought back across England?

[AsleepInYorkshire]

Should beavers be brought back across England?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politi ... ss-england
Beavers were hunted and disappeared from Britain around 400 years ago.

AiY

[Leothebear]

Why not?
I'd also like wolves, bears and if poss, sabre toothed tigers to be part of our rural experience.

[JoyofBrex8889]

Rewilding seems to be a very good idea; I would be happy for beavers, wolves and bears to be reintroduced nationwide. I also support reforestation of Britains uplands as advocated by George Monbiot.

[UncleIan]

There are already 130,000 of them wild in the UK. Oh, we're not talking about the youngest section of the scout association. Right. As you were.

[AleisterCrowley]

Beavers yes, possibly wolves. Reforestation a definite good idea.
No bears though, please...

[bungeejumper]

Sun's out, nice evening, so let's head on down to my favourite fishing spot and.... hey, where did all that floodwater come from?

It's a nice idea, for wilderness areas at least. House owners on low-lying flood plains might want a bit more reassurance.

BJ

[sg31]

I'm not keen on messing with the existing order. We don't live in the country that existed 4/500 years ago, it's changed.

Bears are big dangerous animals. If I go for a walk in the forest I don't want to become lunch. I don't think sheep farmers would appreciate wolves.

I live in the Wyre Forest, I walk in the woods which surround my garden. I get deer in the garden, I'd rather not have bear searching through my rubbish bin. Ok I could shoot the bear but they will be protected and I don't possess a gun.

Just a few disjointed thoughts.

[bungeejumper]

We were out walking in southern France a few years back, and we stopped to chat to a farmer. "Watch out for the wolves," he said as we were setting off back across the heathland. Okay, there were at least 200 wolves known to be in that region, but I'd like to think he was joking. I'd also rather he hadn't said it.

BJ

[JoyofBrex8889]

I haved lived in places with wild bears living in the woods. My experience is they are rather shy and tend to avoid people if they can. Sure they could eat you but, really, give them a respectful distance, allow them room to back off and never corner them and you will be fine.

The experience of spotting a bear in the wild is pretty thrilling.

[JoyofBrex8889]

I'm not keen on messing with the existing order. We don't live in the country that existed 4/500 years ago, it's changed.

Bears are big dangerous animals. If I go for a walk in the forest I don't want to become lunch. I don't think sheep farmers would appreciate wolves.

I live in the Wyre Forest, I walk in the woods which surround my garden. I get deer in the garden, I'd rather not have bear searching through my rubbish bin. Ok I could shoot the bear but they will be protected and I don't possess a gun.

Just a few disjointed thoughts.

Just because something has changed for the worse to benefit a destructive industry doesn’t mean we should accept it. British people suffer from a nature deficit.

Sheep are not native to the UK: they are originally from the Middle East.

Sheep farming is only possible in the UK due to heavy subsidy.

Sheep farming promotes soil erosion and flooding by denuding upland areas.

Those upland areas would naturally form a climax community of temperate rainforest which would be a rare species rich habitat, absorb CO2, prevent erosion and provide timber, game and a healthier environment.

The savings from reduced flooding make cessation of subsidy for of uneconomic sheep farming and switching the funds to subsidising reforestation a great idea.

Using vast tracts of our small island for destructive sheep farming is not a sensible policy at all.

[ReformedCharacter]

Sheep are not native to the UK.

Can you identify any farm animal in the UK which is 'native'?

Sheep farming is only possible in the UK due to heavy subsidy.

When a diverse industry is distorted by subsidy it then becomes difficult to pick an individual aspect and say that it is economically unviable without subsidy. Besides, sheep farming isn't a single method, it varies very considerably (as do the sheep) from intensive high density production on 'high quality' grassland to low density hill farming.

Sheep farming promotes soil erosion and flooding by denuding upland areas.

Hill farming practices play a significant role in supporting surrounding flora and fauna in the uplands. Through grazing, sheep and cattle maintain a variety of tall grasses and short vegetation. This in turn supports local wildlife, as the short vegetation provides breeding and nesting grounds for many species of waders, including the lapwing, redshank, and golden plover. The taller grasses are an important part of the Curlew habitat, which is another species of wader.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_farming


I don't disagree that modern agriculture is harmful but I disagree with such a sweeping statement that suggests that all sheep farming is bad. We all need to eat and in many of the less productive grasslands in the UK sheep are a very useful way of converting low quality forage into high quality food for human consumption.

RC

[sunnyjoe]

Sun's out, nice evening, so let's head on down to my favourite fishing spot and.... hey, where did all that floodwater come from?

It's a nice idea, for wilderness areas at least. House owners on low-lying flood plains might want a bit more reassurance.

BJ

As I understand it, beaver lodges improve flood protection

[bungeejumper]

As I understand it, beaver lodges improve flood protection

No expert here, but AIUI that's true on the whole. Beaver dams raise the water level, which encourages plant growth, which stabilises the bank and slows the rate of erosion. But people who live along the banks of slow-flowing rivers (such as Tewkesbury or the flood-prone Somerset levels) might not be so keen to see water levels rising.

We could try to argue that people should never have been allowed to live there in the first place, but that wouldn't achieve very much except to raise the debating temperature, and it's hot enough outside already. Plenty of other upland places where beavers would do a great job, though.

BJ

[JoyofBrex8889]

What a lame defence of sheep farming: we all have to eat? Is that it?

Lamb forms 1.18% of the calories consumed in the UK.
For this we are supposed to set aside 4,000,000 hectares of land, and untold public treasure as subsidy?

Source: https://www.monbiot.com/2017/01/11/explanation-of-the-figures-in-grim-reaping/

Your argument assumes that the food value of temperate rainforest products will be nil, which is unlikely. As any biologist understands, climax communities capture energy far more effectively than preceding bare grassland, and their food webs reflect that increased primary productivity. How much wild venison and boar are we missing out on because the sheep are taking up space? How much valuable timber is never grown because the sheep ate the saplings?

Sheep farming in the UK is a piddling industry with negligible food benefits and significant environmental detriments. It wastes a scarce resource, land, with negative economic return. It should be replaced with a solution that restores our forests.

[ReformedCharacter]

What a lame defence of sheep farming: we all have to eat? Is that it?

Yes, and in some places producing sheep is environmentally sound and an efficient way of producing food.

Lamb forms 1.18% of the calories consumed in the UK.
For this we are supposed to set aside 4,000,000 hectares of land, and untold public treasure as subsidy?

Can you give a figure - perhaps per head of sheep - of this subsidy? Most of the sheep farmers where I live make very little from them and farm them because they've been driven out of the dairy industry.

Most of the land (3,100,000 Ha, according to your article) is in Scotland. Most of that land is of low quality for grazing animals, assuming that you accept that food needs to be produced and that there is demand for meat, what would you suggest as an alternative? I don't eat meat myself. Do you eat meat? Where does it come from?

How much wild venison and boar are we missing out on because the sheep are taking up space? How much timber is never grown because the sheep ate the saplings?

Boar aren't native any more and haven't been for some centuries and they are difficult to 'farm' (assuming again that you value meat as a food) and less efficient as food converters than modern pigs. There are too many deer (apparently) and therefore I assume there is insufficient demand to kill and eat them, although it would be a good idea if they were. The idea of feeding a substantial number of people on wild boar is a bit of a joke. Trees? Well, we have fences and how about looking at the subsidies paid for producing Ha's of monocrop conifers?

RC

[scotia]

getting back to beavers - they were officially re-introduced in small numbers (on-trial) in Scotland at Knapdale forest - and even that small band has certainly changed the geography! A Forestry road is now well under water. But unofficially, a much larger colony has been introduced on the Tay system, and it has spread to the Forth. A recent survey detected 72 beaver lodges and 86 dams, with around 430 beavers. Not everybody is happy with the trees cut down around the river banks and their dams flooding valuable farming land. At their current rate of expansion, I wouldn't be surprised if they arrived in England, whether or not they were welcome.

[UncleIan]

getting back to beavers - they were officially re-introduced in small numbers (on-trial) in Scotland at Knapdale forest - and even that small band has certainly changed the geography! A Forestry road is now well under water. But unofficially, a much larger colony has been introduced on the Tay system, and it has spread to the Forth. A recent survey detected 72 beaver lodges and 86 dams, with around 430 beavers. Not everybody is happy with the trees cut down around the river banks and their dams flooding valuable farming land. At their current rate of expansion, I wouldn't be surprised if they arrived in England, whether or not they were welcome.

Apparently there's some fenced in on a river in western devon already, there's some wild ones too, ironically on the River Otter. They are being monitored but the experts don't really know where they came from.

May need more people on Beaver Patrol.

[UncleEbenezer]

Apparently there's some fenced in on a river in western devon already, there's some wild ones too, ironically on the River Otter. They are being monitored but the experts don't really know where they came from.

May need more people on Beaver Patrol.

Speaking as someone who is currently buying a house on a river in West Devon, I shall welcome my new neighbours.

[JoyofBrex8889]

Yes, and in some places producing sheep is environmentally sound and an efficient way of producing food.

I am sure that may be true. Perhaps in their native Mesopotamia. I challenge you to prove it to be the case in Britain.

Lamb forms 1.18% of the calories consumed in the UK.
For this we are supposed to set aside 4,000,000 hectares of land, and untold public treasure as subsidy?

Can you give a figure - perhaps per head of sheep - of this subsidy?

Of course, I am not making this up.

Here I quote Monbiot: "I’ve used Wales as my case study. Here, according to the 2010 figures, the average subsidy for sheep farms on the hills is £53,000. Average net farm income is £33,000(7). The contribution the farmer makes to his income by keeping animals, in other words, is minus £20,000".

He draws his figures from the University of Aberystwyth: source: https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/media/0910Iy_11d.pdf

Most of the sheep farmers where I live make very little from them and farm them because they've been driven out of the dairy industry.

So you agree that sheep farming is unprofitable and uneconomic in the UK despite huge subsidy. You make my own argument for me. Given the above figures, why do you think they correctly claim poverty? Could it be that sheep farming is simply a total loss-maker?

Most of the land (3,100,000 Ha, according to your article) is in Scotland. Most of that land is of low quality for grazing animals,

Let us start with your assumption: Why do you think the uplands are so infertile and low quality? Could it be that sheep farming clearing out the tree cove, preventing sapling regrowth and allowing unrestricted soil erosion over a period of hundreds of years has wrecked the soil?

...assuming that you accept that food needs to be produced and that there is demand for meat, what would you suggest as an alternative? I don't eat meat myself. Do you eat meat? Where does it come from?

I eat meat. Food needs to be produced. I suggest we give up on the 1% of calories we get from sheep, and maybe eat a little less meat, or if we can reforest, maybe encourage a little extra consumption of wild venison and boar which would flourish if given a chance.

How much wild venison and boar are we missing out on because the sheep are taking up space? How much timber is never grown because the sheep ate the saplings?

Boar aren't native any more

Wrong. Wild boar are native to Britain. If you want to see just how well boar do in the British environment you may visit the Forest of Dean where they have been reintroduced to part of their original range. They are thriving, and providing the locals with good hunting.

...and haven't been for some centuries and they are difficult to 'farm' (assuming again that you value meat as a food) and less efficient as food converters than modern pigs.

Not proposing we farm them. We simply let the upland forests regrow and the boar and deer will come, and may be harvested from the wild. Thats how it works in the Forest of Dean, (and in the rest of Europe too)

There are too many deer (apparently) and therefore I assume there is insufficient demand to kill and eat them, although it would be a good idea if they were.

Thats why reintroducing a few wolves would be good.

The idea of feeding a substantial number of people on wild boar is a bit of a joke.

Would that be more, or less of a joke than feeding them on lamb? 1.18% of calories is negligible, and easily made up by marginal shifts in consumption elsewhere.

And the true benefits of stopping sheep farming are not dietary. They are in the rare species that would be revived, in the lower insurance premiums in towns that would no longer be flooded, in the soils that would begin to be regenerated and the carbon dioxide that would be absorbed in growing timber. And in the delight of a generation of kids with a reborn British temperate rainforest to explore, filled with thrilling wildlife and adventure.

[ReformedCharacter]

I am sure that may be true. Perhaps in their native Mesopotamia. I challenge you to prove it to be the case in Britain.

I've already posted a link to an article on Wikipedia explaining how grazing systems can benefit birds and insects. I believe this to be true.

Agricultural use, burning, and grazing by both livestock and wild life such as deer, helps to sustain the upland grasslands, moorland and bogs. If these ecosystems were not maintained they would be colonized by trees and scrub.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_farming

Closer to home, sheep are taken to Bardsey Island each year - by boat - not for the cheap grazing but because they benefit the habitat and rare plants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardsey_Island

Permananent pasture is revered amongst conservationists because of the rich diversity of plants and insects that it supports and it is grazed, often by sheep.

Here, according to the 2010 figures, the average subsidy for sheep farms on the hills is £53,000. Average net farm income is £33,000(7). The contribution the farmer makes to his income by keeping animals, in other words, is minus £20,000".

I'm not sure about your interpretation of the figures, looks to me like subsidy £53,000 but net farm income (presumably after tax), is £33,000. So, your conclusion 'minus £20,000' seems confused.

I looked to find the source given by Monbiot at the University of Aberystwyth but the page appears to have been removed.

I said that there doesn't seem to be a lot of money in keeping sheep which isn't the same as 'uneconomic'. People have to earn a living and sometimes work that is unprofitable is better than no work at all.

Let us start with your assumption: Why do you think the uplands are so infertile and low quality? Could it be that sheep farming clearing out the tree cove, preventing sapling regrowth and allowing unrestricted soil erosion over a period of hundreds of years has wrecked the soil?

Changed it yes, 'wrecked it', I don't think so. Perhaps you can point me to some reputable research.

I don't think I described the uplands as infertile or low quality, I do say that they are not suited to intensive farming and that as land for grazing animals it is much poorer than land in Kent, for example. That is one of the reasons that the uplands are suited to low input farming systems, which I suspect Monbiot rightly approves of.

The land is poorer than Kent for grazing because of soil type, climate and terrain. Of course grazing affects this, that is sometimes the point (see above)

I eat meat. Food needs to be produced. I suggest we give up on the 1% of calories we get from sheep, and maybe eat a little less meat, or if we can reforest, maybe encourage a little extra consumption of wild venison and boar which would flourish if given a chance.

I don't disagree with changing dietary habits, we are going to have to do that whether we like it or not. But there are far more harmful and generally unpleasant forms of farming in the UK that have a far worse environmental impact than low input sheep farming much as you would like to turn the clock back to the pre-agricultural era. Intensive pig production, for example.

Wrong. Wild boar are native to Britain. If you want to see just how well boar do in the British environment you may visit the Forest of Dean where they have been reintroduced to part of their original range. They are thriving, and providing the locals with good hunting.

Re-introduction does not make them 'native', or at least not as I understand it. They'll be genetically different anyway. Not that I have any objections to it.

You damn sheep for not being native, what about cattle, chickens and pigs? The intensive production of those animals does far more harm than upland sheep farming. I think you are wrong to criticise all sheep farming as a bad thing, they can fill an ecological niche just as well as the 'wild boar' in the Forest of Dean. It is intensive farming and the economic system that supports it that is the problem. And of course consumers. If we don't farm sheep in the UK then are you going to stop people eating it? Or import more of it, with all the attendant environmental and welfare consequences?

And in the delight of a generation of kids with a reborn British temperate rainforest to explore, filled with thrilling wildlife and adventure.

Sweet and nostalgic, but there are far bigger problems facing 'a generation of kids' than sheep farming.

RC