Rewilding the Highlands vs right to roam

jonthefish":2sirmt1p said:
Lister and Alladale aside, there's no inevitable conflict between rewilding and right to roam. I agree with sentiments re toff landlords but at present we have a right to roam through a denuded, degraded and depopulated landscape run for deer, sheep and very few folk. Rewilding could ultimately increase the productivity of the landscape (think forests and smallholdings) and if we could get rid of our stupid feudal system of land ownership could help support more people in the glens. So for me it is yes to both rewilding and a right to roam. And more folk in more productive land.
Rewilding is an attempt to create a mythical landscape, not what was there.

Those hills were hooching with people at the same time as the animals. The hills were not wild, there was agriculture and pastoral activity, and humans kept the predators strictly in check. The wild animals weren't cuddly ornaments for the visiting wealthy to ooh and ah over.

Let me give an example.

Last Sunday Jamie and I were at Forsinard at the RSPB tower looking at the vast expanses of empty land. It couldn't get emptier. No signs of human habitation except at the very small village. At the top of a nearby hill is the remains of a decent sized fort with a good view over the landscape.



A fort takes a lot of human resources to build, and you don't build one unless there's something worth guarding. If you take the manning of a Roman fortlet as an example (purely because that's on record) you'd have about of 30-40 men at arms. They would have families. This fort is 400 metres from the local ground level and no easy approach so it's not some casual defence system like a village wall.

There also was a community in the area which created the wealth required to build a fort, supply it, and be the reason for its building. There are the remains of several hut circles next to Forsinard station, about 4 km from the fort. Suddenly that 'wild' land has a population of at least a few hundred just in its immediate vicinity and probably much much more.

You'll find remains of similar communities all over the desert that the Highlands have become, and no great distance between any of them. Duns, brochs, hut circles etc abound except where "Improvements' have ploughed them under or used the stone for dykes. I've dragged poor Jamie over all sorts of godawful country to see the remains, so he can back me up about the density of them.

That is what the landscape would have been like back then - people. Before that there was 2-3,000 feet of ice over it.

Supporting 'rewilding' is sharpening up the thin end of the wedge for the landowners to exclude non-paying users of the land and continue the effects of the Clearances.
 
No doubt that exclusive model of 'rewilding' exists but the science and philosophy behind rewilding is simply about allowing nature to function as it should. There is no logical reason for a functioning ecosystem to be devoid of people and every reason to suppose that the more productive ecosystem resulting from not running the land for deer, sheep and tax-break forestry could and should support more people.

I suspect that epicyclo and I agree more than he suspects. I'm just back from working in Glen Kinglass and only one bloke lives there! It is utterly mad and the ruins of villages are testament to the productive potential. But it isn't wolves, bears or forest that keep people off the land, it is the model of land ownership.
If you think the only way to 'rewild' is to throw up fences and keep even more folk out then that would indeed be the thin end of the wedge and I'd be the first to oppose it. But if more folk are to live in the landscape it needs to be productive once again. People and wildlife can coexist perfectly happily given the chance. I think the argument can become too polarised if folk, perhaps understandably, assume that 'wild' means 'no people'. It doesn't need to unless (like some landowners) you want it to.
 
My grandfather took me out to the 'wilds' as a kid, and explained to me that these areas were once populated. He felt measures should be taken to repopulate them. Back then that may have proven difficult, but in this age of eco living and working remotely via the internet, something could be done.

I am not sure people want the Highlands to be covered in forest again, nor filled with animals that might prove slightly more deadly than the likes of an adder.

Filled with people enjoying life in the beautiful rural landscape, however, I am sure we could all get behind.
 
"Filled with people enjoying life in the beautiful rural landscape, however, I am sure we could all get behind."

Absolutely and well said.
My sympathy for forest comes from seeing it properly used and utilised and I don't think that necessarily contradicts the concept of rewilding. I spend time in Norway, as my missus is Norwegian. They use their local forests to build houses, warm their hearths, hunt food and create local products for sale. And their glens, which have just as poor soil as ours, have more people and more wildlife in them than ours do. To some extent, the two support one another.

Anyway, I don't want to be argumentative as I think most of us would like to see some kind of change in the landscape. Hope I can meet you guys for a bike ride some time!
 
Re:

I am all for forests! We need to make sure they don't impinge on the visual amenity though. We need to control how they present, in terms of tailing them off towards roads and rights of way/trails to make sure the beautiful Scotland we see in all the wonderful pictures on Retrobike and elsewhere does not become limited to coastal and drone views.

Mind you, perhaps a few well placed trees would obscure the fecking wind turbines!
 
jonthefish":95vd9i9h said:
...Anyway, I don't want to be argumentative as I think most of us would like to see some kind of change in the landscape...
I regard landscape as ever evolving - which historically it is.

Right now all we need to do is get rid of an invasive species. The Clearance landlord. The rest will happen.
 
The landlords of old have long since had their impact exceeded by utility companies. I have no idea how we are to do it, but we need to push for control of the land for all of us.
 
highlandsflyer":34nqf1vl said:
The landlords of old have long since had their impact exceeded by utility companies....
They all have the Clearance mentality. Add the RSPB to that too...
 
Back
Top