It's difficult for me to even express myself effectively on this because so much of it is tied up in political grandstanding (from both sides), and half the time any complaints (per Lesley Riddoch, a staunch nationalist and left winger), it's simply an attack against the land owning class, and quite frankly it all just irritates me beyond belief because nobody, as far as I'm concerned, even comes close to getting it right.
- Landowners are not all bad. Someone needs to own the land, the general population don't have the money, and community groups rarely have the funds or knowhow to deal with these things. There are success stories, like Eigg, but the average Scottish estate is significantly bigger and thus a lot more effort. That said, there are many terrible landowners; the offshore, the corporations and those like the South Chesthill (Glen Lyon) who simply hate anyone who dares access their land. The issue is toothless legislation created by spineless politicians scared to upset their friends, or the flip side those who simply attack the estates because they see them as the enemy (and as a result are quite happy to see foreign owned companies destroying their land with various so called 'green' energy projects).
- Managed upland grouse shooting estates are, despite my above comments, terrible. The burning of heather is not healthy for the planet, and the completely artificial environment is created to maximise grouse as a crop despite what they say. Stop the burning and yes, grouse numbers will reduce, but they will still survive, and other wildlife will thrive. Raptors are perennially persecuted on these estates and it's no surprise that most disappear over them. But then sheep farmers complain and like to shoot them too; look at fat F
k Blackford on Skye who pretends to be a poor wee crofter, wanting to protect his lambs, when the reality is that he is a bloodthirsty millionaire banker who made his money in London and just wants to shoot things, as long as it's not his lambs.
- It's absolutely correct to say that plantation forests were planted between the 50's and 80's as tax breaks, but for very good reason. During WW2 we were at the mercy of the German Atlantic fleet who sank numerous merchant ships bringing us crucial supplies, including wood, required for the war effort. Tax breaks, like many, were offered to drive behaviour that was beneficial to the nation. At the time this benefit was seen as providing building materials and giving us self sufficiency. They're hateful things because almost all were planted using quick growing non-native species on land that was biologically sensitive, and in CO2 terms actually caused harm by disrupting peat. Also, as many were planted privately the experience of competent foresters was not open to those who owned the estates and thus many of these areas are not healthy. When politicians talk of planting more trees they do so without any understanding of how trees are grown. We're losing native trees hand over fist thanks to numerous diseases which have come from other countries. Importing more trees to plant is simply not the answer but those wanting sound bites for the news don't care about this. And most native species are either slow growing (like Oak and Scots Pine), or worthless but quick growing (like Rowan and Birch); therefore most planting is done with more non-native species like Douglas Fir and Sitka. That and lots of tree planting projects using subsidies now do so on prime farm land because it's easier to plant on than remote upland. Again, this is the wrong approach. We should not be covering prime farm land with solar panels, wind turbines, or trees. Upland areas should be restored first and foremost, but only after we've reduced the deer population otherwise you need hundreds of miles of deer fence to protect the newly planted trees.
- Lots of those estates pushing restoration projects do so because it allows them to stick massive deer fences around their land to make access to the general public more difficult. It's the same with the re-introduction of wolves; it puts off visitors unless in an organised party who can be charged money (also, see South Chesthill).
- Lots of those who say we need more trees and support for wildlife are quite happy to destroy these same environments with micro hydro schemes, wind turbines and the necessary infrastructure to sell this energy south. These things are industrialising rural and highland areas for the benefit of foreign investors and is simply vandalism.
- Deer. Antlered vermin. They're beautiful as individuals, and majestic, and nice to see. However, there are quite simply too many (target stalking volumes are dictated not by the estates or ghillies, but NatureScot who are a bunch of townie donkeys led by the SNP who wouldn't know nature if it came and bit them on the arse). We stuck a deer fence around the croft six years ago and without any additional planting we now have several hundred saplings up to 7ft tall across the place. Deer destroy so much. Reduce the deer population as they have in Rothiemurchus by c90% and watch native flora and other, smaller fauna, recover quickly, even without further intervention.
Land use in Scotland is a complicated thing and many people involved in both sides have vested interests that they are trying to serve; the worst landowners simply want to stop people accessing their land and the left simply hate anyone having anything. I would like to see a stop put to heather burning by the grouse estates and make them deal with that hand. Reduce the deer population drastically and sell the meat (most venison sold in this country is farmed, which is utterly mental). Stop destroying wild areas with thousands of tons of concrete in wind and hydro schemes which simply destroy ecosystems and ruin what I want to protect. It's ironic that certain groups talk of culling the relatively small wild goat populations because of the damage they cause (while not making anyone money) while being quite happy with large sheep populations (which obviously make money) and even larger and more destructive red deer populations (again, money makers). Sadly these vested interests are rarely in the interest of those who actually just love being in the outdoors and exploring our wonderful wildenress and wild areas.
