Where's my forest gone? To the Grouse...that's where....

[Cloverleaf]

Plenty..

These would take it up a notch..
"Tauros are classified as domestic cattle, but have no equivalent breed. They have been ‘back-bred’ by scientists in the Netherlands to be as similar as possible to the ancient aurochs – the wild ancestor of all domestic cattle, which for millennia played a vital role in shaping landscapes and enhancing biodiversity across Europe, including Scotland.

Trees for Life is carrying out assessments at its 4,000-hectare Dundreggan estate near Loch Ness, for what would be the UK’s first introduction of a herd of tauros – effectively reintroducing the aurochs, four centuries after its extinction.

European research shows that tauros, being bigger and more active than other cattle, help create richer habitats through their powerful grazing impacts, sheer size, and behaviour. Bulls can reach up to 180cm and cows 150cm at the shoulder. At Dundreggan, their role in ecological restoration would be scientifically studied."
( https://treesforlife.org.uk/rewildi...ing-species-programme-for-scottish-highlands/ )

I like the idea of some of these things. I sometimes have concern that what once worked in the bigger picture of a wider ecosystem now won't, but we won't find out unless we try. I'd rather see this trial and assessment than Arla's Bovaer one which has made buying dairy products recently significantly more challenging, not to mention expensive as it now has to be organic only to guarantee avoidance of it.

 

[highlandsflyer]

The approach to these 'problems' needs to be tailored to the individual cases. The one size fits all approach rarely solves problems long term. Blanket afforestation, even with 'native' species, is unlikely to prove popular. After all, we are used to the status quo now, and the shooters are not the sole beneficiaries.


The wide open vistas are something to be cherished.

 

[Cloverleaf]

The approach to these 'problems' needs to be tailored to the individual cases. The one size fits all approach rarely solves problems long term. Blanket afforestation, even with 'native' species, is unlikely to prove popular. After all, we are used to the status quo now, and the shooters are not the sole beneficiaries.
View attachment 1019612

The wide open vistas are something to be cherished.

Definitely. For a start there aren't enough native nurseries to support the number of trees that would be required to reforest huge swathes of land, but heather uplands are also species diverse when not artificially managed to maximise grouse numbers (alongside predator persecution). I love being able to cover huge distances in the hills which is in part thanks to the lack of native forest. Where re-planting has occurred it makes life a lot more difficult, and of course the wide range vistas that people have come to associate with Scotland. Are they what was here 500 years ago? No. But they've been here for longer than any of us currently alive have been around for and are themselves something quite special in their own way. I said earlier that I don't have an issue with grouse shooting, and I don't. What I do have an issue with is the destruction of our landscape in the name of it; you can still shoot grouse on unmanaged land and without them being driven, it's just a lot, lot harder.

 

[LeeDevelopment]

Ah Monsieur Cloverleaf, you need to write an article on this for a paper like The Guardian, your view is superb.

 

[Tootyred]

We all get too wound up in the minutiae of human existence. Frankly the bigger picture is the planet doesn't care and has had many many varying surfaces over its life.

So asking if there should be 1 tree or 1000, is basically irrelevant. The planet will be here long after the parasites running it at present are long long gone.

And frankly, if you care about "the planet" the quicker we go, the better for it and long term for the other millions of species of life we "share" the world with.

So, rev up those 5l petrol engines, burn as much fuel as you can, dig up the trees and keep breeding. .....as your actually your helping improve the eventual environment by removing the problem.

Us.

 

[Scott-S]

We all get too wound up in the minutiae of human existence. Frankly the bigger picture is the planet doesn't care and has had many many varying surfaces over its life.

So asking if there should be 1 tree or 1000, is basically irrelevant. The planet will be here long after the parasites running it at present are long long gone.

And frankly, if you care about "the planet" the quicker we go, the better for it and long term for the other millions of species of life we "share" the world with.

So, rev up those 5l petrol engines, burn as much fuel as you can, dig up the trees and keep breeding. .....as your actually your helping improve the eventual environment by removing the problem.

Us.

Harsh but realistic viewpoint, we are always the main problem

 

[bikeworkshop]

Sadly humanity's effect will probably take out 99% of species. That's a lot of evolution.
Luckily for the rats and cockroaches, who will be riding all those Raleigh Mustangs way into the future!

 

[wynne]

I turned up to a tree-planting session for a local community-owned woodland. There were more volunteers to plant the trees than there were saplings. Heartening but also depressing.

If we are to address climate change, associated flooding etc, then big things need to change. I'm vegan and have been for a long time. I don't expect this to be a popular view and I'm not trying to troll anyone, but a significant move away from meat and dairy production would massively reduce the production of gases that contribute to warming, would allow the possibility to improve biodiversity and reduce flooding risk. There are lots of figures bandied around, but one often quoted is that livestock produces about 18% of calories but uses up 83% of farmland. There are more efficient ways for humans to get a calorie-rich, balanced diet - getting our calories through meat and dairy is not efficient or particularly healthy.

I understand how you feel @Tootyred (and i have had periods of life when i shared your view) but it ignores the efforts of all the people who have and are striving to protect resources we all use and love.

Humans are obviously a big part of the problem, but we can modify our behaviours.

 

[highlandsflyer]

We all get too wound up in the minutiae of human existence. Frankly the bigger picture is the planet doesn't care and has had many many varying surfaces over its life.

So asking if there should be 1 tree or 1000, is basically irrelevant. The planet will be here long after the parasites running it at present are long long gone.

And frankly, if you care about "the planet" the quicker we go, the better for it and long term for the other millions of species of life we "share" the world with.

So, rev up those 5l petrol engines, burn as much fuel as you can, dig up the trees and keep breeding. .....as your actually your helping improve the eventual environment by removing the problem.

Us.

Should one cancel dinner arrangements?

Seriously though, there is plenty to be considered in the short term, reaping immediate benefits, that might also make things better for the long term. We can look to the next few hundred years at least, no?

My preference, for the grouse moors I know well, is to replace the leisure shooting with other pursuits. Allowing the trees to return 'organically' would involve a lot of managing deer and such, initially, so we are looking at a large amount of intervention. Jobs, in other words. Allaying fears of job losses in the estates will certainly help transition to conservation.