What's happening on Dartmoor?

[Spotherisk]

With regard to commoning rights - think VERY carefully about what you wish for....

Yes, the system is in a bit of a mess. Yes, thought needs to go into where things go from here.
But those commoning rights and their place in a local community's culture are very old indeed, hundreds of years old at least.

There is a common close to me, on Dartmoor but surrounded by farmland, it’s a bit of an oddity. It does have commoners but is not large enough to support any stock. Nobody knows who owns it, a director of the Dartmoor NPA even asked me if I knew a couple of weeks back! In the summer nightjars nest there, their call is wonderful to hear.

 

[paddy555]

There is a common close to me, on Dartmoor but surrounded by farmland, it’s a bit of an oddity. It does have commoners but is not large enough to support any stock. Nobody knows who owns it, a director of the Dartmoor NPA even asked me if I knew a couple of weeks back! In the summer nightjars nest there, their call is wonderful to hear.

I often wondered who owned that bit. Obviously everyone else does as well

 

[Clodagh]

@Backtoblack people do roam on Dartmoor, above the fenced land.

 

[paddy555]

They are trying to massively limit or stop burning as part of rewilding, we will be back to wild fires that are out of control in no time


Its funny that rewilding will mean somewhere along the lines that grazing animals are introduced after removing, let me see, grazing animals!

that is exactly the problem with the burns. I cannot see it makes any difference if it is burnt in controlled burns or if it does it itself. The result is still the same. (other of course than the damage wild fires will do). Why don't rewilders see that.

The main problem seems to be that rewilders sit in their offices, towns etc and have no idea of the reality of rural areas or their problems. Then they come along and try and impose their ill thought ideas on the real world.
What seems a good idea on paper isn't in reality.

Once we have removed the "grazing animals" and replaced them with more "grazing animals" what happens then? do we introduce predators to control the new "grazing animals". Will the rewilded areas have to be fenced off from the public. Will it matter if the predator, presumably a wolf, eats a dog by mistake or attacks a child?
So it doesn't seem wolves will work too well so will the "predator" be the slaughterhouse?
Somewhat similar to the system we have ATM really.

 

[paddy555]

@Backtoblack people do roam on Dartmoor, above the fenced land.

soon won't be a problem though, the wolves will take care of that.

 

[Burnttoast]

Trees won't grow through established scrub, they need sun to grow, how are the seeds going to get there in the first place?

Of course they will, that's how woodland regenerates and it's been happening since the beginning of the Holocene. There are plenty of long-established woods with earthwork evidence of human activity on cleared land within them. At the Monks Wood experimental station in Cambs an arable field was let go in 1961 to see what would happen and that's now semi-mature woodland. There's a saying: 'the thorn is the nursemaid of the oak' - ie scrub protects saplings from browsing.

 

[palo1]

regarding hill farmng. I have a relative with a small hill farm in a national park. his sheep have access to moorland/common grazing. he has lived on gov subsidies all his life. the farm in itself is non viable. I know of many many othr farmers who also couldnt survive without subsidy. I ve always amintined that this is wrong. why should the tax payer supplement his life style, he loves his work and where he lives but if he was a bloke on a council estate living off the dole everyone would up in arms. he produces a few sheep a year and a bit of beef. the world can do without both. tbh im all for rewilding get rid of the money draining farmers and farms, it isnt as if theres public access to his land just a normal footpath through it. i dont eat lamb but used too and find the new zealand lamb to be chaeper and tender. i dont see why we should all have to contribute to a few peoples life styles without 100 % recreational acess to their fields for us to enjoy too. yet this doesnt happen. get rid of them re wild or let the land be public open space.

Not all farmers live off subsidies and not all farmers, even those receiving the sub' approve of it as a way of managing the land. I think the context of the sub is helpful too; the government through MAFF, then DEFRA have responded to policies around farming which they then TELL farmers how to claim the sub. A lot of the time this has worked to a degree both for farmers and for the government of the day and farming has been largely controlled through this means depending on what national objectives there have been. There are huge differences of opinion about various subsidy entitlements and requirements. Some farmers have been paid to stay off certain land but there has been a recognition that you cannot take away someone's livelihood and their home on a national policy without some recompense. That is why some farmers appear not to be 'farming'. Mostly the sub has benefitted larger farms and arable farmers but the vast majority of farmers have claimed a subsidy since the end of the 2nd WW when food production was the absolute urgent need. Both the population of the UK and farmers have been sold the lie that they are 'feeding the nation' whilst the government has supported a race to the bottom in relation to any kind of policy making around food. At the same time increasing legislation around animal welfare and farming practice have made it very difficult for UK farmers to compete and demonstrate the value of their work. Again, and with a further level of nonsense UK governments have allowed farming practices that are absolutely damaging to the environment but then again they have allowed housing on floodplains and all other manner of poor environmental decisions...

There are now subsidies or one-off payments to farmers to leave the land as well as take stock off it or other things. There are a VAST number of schemes and grants in addition to the basic subsidy. In our case, my OH has long felt, alongside many of his neighbours, that the subsidy is a travesty and it doesn't pay enough for the trouble of administering it. So we don't farm under any grant, scheme or subsidy and OH continues to work and pay his taxes as do I. We do have common grazing, where that land is identified as a conservation area, and we are aware of the ecology of that land. We graze ponies (only a few currently but it is still a herd) and sheep at low stocking density. The hill has been very understocked actually for years and the rewilding that has happened has been sitka spruce from the neighbouring forestry and gorse. The harvesting and drying of bracken for animal bedding is a very skilled job (done wrong you can end up killing your stock) but one of the graziers does that and that helps to keep the bracken down so heather and other things can survive. That grazier gets a small sub from doing this but it's not possible on really rocky or difficult ground as it knackers tractors! That sub really does not pay at all in fact but bracken harvesting is an old practice which we all know helps to maintain areas where heather and grass have a chance against bracken and gorse. I would say we generally support re-wilding to a degree but it has to be done appropriately. I don't appreciate the growth of sitka over valuable ground nesting bird terrain but we are very happy to see the huge number of red kites which have returned here since the 90's.

Farmers are not all the same, the conditions of farming vary enormously so making blanket statements about farmers or farming is a bit nonsensical tbh. Rewilding and nature recovery are the same; every situation is very different. NE at the very least should be identifying why they want stock off the moor, whether they are aiming to improve carbon capture (if so, what is the starting point and what are they going to achieve) or biodiversity; again if that is the objective, what species and habitats exist currently and what EXACTLY do they think their plan is going to achieve within 5, 10 and 20 years as those are reasonable time scales for those things.

@Goldenstar has said that Dartmoor is a good place to start with change - I wonder why Dartmoor specifically? I am interested to know because anywhere could be a place to start; why not other places like Knepp, for example - large estates and land where it is utterly knackered in terms of productivity and biodiversity; surely that would bring greater benefits all round?

 

[Burnttoast]

The main problem seems to be that rewilders sit in their offices, towns etc and have no idea of the reality of rural areas or their problems. Then they come along and try and impose their ill thought ideas on the real world.

The people running rewilding projects in the E of England are country people - farmers, landowners, land managers, motp who see the denuded state of the environment every day. Who are these town-based rewilders? I don't know any around here except people in Norwich doing no-mow May. What people ought to be worrying about is off-setting companies outbidding locals for farms in upland/remote areas and filling that land with spruce. Why is that not more widely complained about?

 

[Clodagh]

What people ought to be worrying about is off-setting companies outbidding locals for farms in upland/remote areas and filling that land with spruce. Why is that not more widely complained about?

Because capitalism is king. I agree it’s an absolute travesty.

 

[palo1]

soon won't be a problem though, the wolves will take care of that.

And in the Netherlands and Germany wolves are now a small but increasing problem to rural populations. I cannot imagine the freedom loving peoples of the UK tolerating that. Nor those people who already cannot control their dogs in the countryside...But wolves are extremely unlikely to be reintroduced here, as are lynx really. I think those things are a bit of a distraction from the real issues tbh. It does feel as if those people with an ideology about rural management want to impose that ideology on a very, very different reality. I get that rewilding ideas are inspiring, as are examples of rewilding in certain places such as Knepp but not all places are in the same situation and the results of applying that methodology more widely are not known. Statements and tropes around 'dying' ecosystems such as the Cambrian mountains are really, really unhelpful; not least because that is such a negative image of where people actually live. It has a similar impact on communities to the negative stereotypes and statements about neglected/impoverished urban areas where the idea of 'failure' only acts divisively and negatively without recognising the reality of actual communities and their situations. It also sets up absolute resistance and distrust because those big statements fail to actually recognise the life and the health of the ecosystem - even where that can be improved/revitalised. It seems like utter madness, intellectual frivolity and ideology gone mad to think that suddenly, through 'rewilding' (which is just one idea) we have the solution to really complex and varied situations.

 

[Clodagh]

My OH is on a lot of French sites and there’s horrible footage of wolves killing dogs. I don’t think anyone really thinks wolves are viable… do they?

 

[palo1]

Of course they will, that's how woodland regenerates and it's been happening since the beginning of the Holocene. There are plenty of long-established woods with earthwork evidence of human activity on cleared land within them. At the Monks Wood experimental station in Cambs an arable field was let go in 1961 to see what would happen and that's now semi-mature woodland. There's a saying: 'the thorn is the nursemaid of the oak' - ie scrub protects saplings from browsing.

Well, these are ideas and your words are taken from some of the well known writing on the subject. In our situation, the thorn is the nursemaid of nothing; in fact blackthorn and hawthorn are lucky to survive and not much will live on, in or under them either. Birch struggles too but will colonise higher ground to a degree but not at altitude much higher than 1000-1200 foot in our experience. In over 20 years of very reduced grazing on our hill nothing other than Sitka spruce has thrived - the forestry company are supposed to deal with that as it is not 'allowed' to colonise our hill due to it's environmentally sensitve designation but they have never done anything about it. Instead it harbours increasing numbers of deer and foxes; deer which knacker any young other trees and foxes which predate on ground nesting birds for which our common ground is a haven.

I look at places like Knepp and they are wonderful; really inspiring but when I talk to my OH he says that when places like Knepp are more common people will not pay to go there, and the tourism value of rewilding will be hugely diminished at the same time as the appeal of buying/harvesting such free range meat. He is right about that; the proliferation of glamping sites has seen that micro industry go from thriving to stagnant here even though it is fairly low impact and supportive of small scale, nature friendly sorts of visiting/tourism. Rewilding may well be helpful for nature but it completely neglects to identify how you replace people, food production and culture - all of which do have value. Even George Monbiot, who is probably the best known proponent of rewilding accepts that. What do people plan to do with farmers, farming infrastructure, culture and communities in the wake of large scale rewilding?

For some people, the current drive toward rewilding feels akin to the Highland clearances and that has long been lamented as a disgrace from a number of angles though I know that is old history now. Even so, history provides us with lessons and examples that we should be able to learn from.

 

[paddy555]

My OH is on a lot of French sites and there’s horrible footage of wolves killing dogs. I don’t think anyone really thinks wolves are viable… do they?

Not really sure on that one. Wolves or tourists???? Decisions, decisions! I do like large fluffy dogs.

 

[palo1]

Not really sure on that one. Wolves or tourists???? Decisions, decisions! I do like large fluffy dogs.

I would definitely rather see wolves - generally less destructive and fewer problems with poor parking!! Might require more people to improve their domestic dog training too...

 

[paddy555]

Of course they will, that's how woodland regenerates and it's been happening since the beginning of the Holocene. There are plenty of long-established woods with earthwork evidence of human activity on cleared land within them. At the Monks Wood experimental station in Cambs an arable field was let go in 1961 to see what would happen and that's now semi-mature woodland. There's a saying: 'the thorn is the nursemaid of the oak' - ie scrub protects saplings from browsing.

. Who are these town-based rewilders?

in all honesty anyone who really thinks that trees are going to take over on Dartmoor and smother the gorse.

I do appreciate that people may not be familiar with gorse. Imagine 2 acres, totally thick with gorse that is old, very well established and totally dense. Around 6 foot high or more. There is no way that a human or animal can get through it or even into it. It is a total canopy, very very thick, very little light gets through,
Are trees really going to take over that?

some of those areas of gorse have now been there for many years due to the lack of burning. Surely if it was possible for trees to take over we would see trees growing out of the gorse?

 

[Burnttoast]

Well, these are ideas and your words are taken from some of the well known writing on the subject. In our situation, the thorn is the nursemaid of nothing; in fact blackthorn and hawthorn are lucky to survive and not much will live on, in or under them either. Birch struggles too but will colonise higher ground to a degree but not at altitude much higher than 1000-1200 foot in our experience. In over 20 years of very reduced grazing on our hill nothing other than Sitka spruce has thrived - the forestry company are supposed to deal with that as it is not 'allowed' to colonise our hill due to it's environmentally sensitve designation but they have never done anything about it. Instead it harbours increasing numbers of deer and foxes; deer which knacker any young other trees and foxes which predate on ground nesting birds for which our common ground is a haven.

I look at places like Knepp and they are wonderful; really inspiring but when I talk to my OH he says that when places like Knepp are more common people will not pay to go there, and the tourism value of rewilding will be hugely diminished at the same time as the appeal of buying/harvesting such free range meat. He is right about that; the proliferation of glamping sites has seen that micro industry go from thriving to stagnant here even though it is fairly low impact and supportive of small scale, nature friendly sorts of visiting/tourism. Rewilding may well be helpful for nature but it completely neglects to identify how you replace people, food production and culture - all of which do have value. Even George Monbiot, who is probably the best known proponent of rewilding accepts that. What do people plan to do with farmers, farming infrastructure, culture and communities in the wake of large scale rewilding?

For some people, the current drive toward rewilding feels akin to the Highland clearances and that has long been lamented as a disgrace from a number of angles though I know that is old history now. Even so, history provides us with lessons and examples that we should be able to learn from.

My words are not just 'taken from well-known writing on the subject'. It's what has happened in the past. I've surveyed those earthworks in woodlands with students. I've been to Monks Wood. I may be just a townie compared to you but I have plenty of historical perspective in lowland England at the least. If trees can't grow when they are the climax vegetation in the majority of environments maybe we should reflect on why that is.

 

[Burnttoast]

Because capitalism is king. I agree it’s an absolute travesty.

And yet incredibly rarely complained about. It appears that more people vocally object to the reintroduction of space for native species than about this.

 

[Goldenstar]

Of course they will, that's how woodland regenerates and it's been happening since the beginning of the Holocene. There are plenty of long-established woods with earthwork evidence of human activity on cleared land within them. At the Monks Wood experimental station in Cambs an arable field was let go in 1961 to see what would happen and that's now semi-mature woodland. There's a saying: 'the thorn is the nursemaid of the oak' - ie scrub protects saplings from browsing.

I like that quote .

Any one interested in reforestation should look at wanted going on in Greenland

 

[Goldenstar]

My OH is on a lot of French sites and there’s horrible footage of wolves killing dogs. I don’t think anyone really thinks wolves are viable… do they?

No I don’t , this is too small an island with too many people it would horrid for the wolves for a start .

 

[palo1]

My words are not just 'taken from well-known writing on the subject'. It's what has happened in the past. I've surveyed those earthworks in woodlands with students. I've been to Monks Wood. I may be just a townie compared to you but I have plenty of historical perspective in lowland England at the least. If trees can't grow when they are the climax vegetation in the vast majority of environments maybe we should reflect on why that is.

I wasn't trying to be unpleasant or offensive but I am familiar with ideas about trees/rewilding etc and the phrase 'the thorn is the nursemaid of the oak' is a well known expression used by writers on the subject (Oliver Dowding, Alan Watson Featherstone et al). It may be true too in certain situations if not in mine. We do need to learn from history but we need to see all the lessons rather than just those we want to. I agree that we need to understand why trees won't grow in places too; I absolutely support the use of trees to help nature and ecosystems wherever that can work. I have supported Trees for Life probably longer than George Monbiot!! I don't want to identify anyone as a 'townie' as I think that can be quite insulting so I apologise if that is how you took my post. It's just that some of the 'recipes' for repair and improvement feel so single-packaged, un-nuanced that I, at least, can't help wondering what situations people are in to think them and promote them as the only way forward. Again, I am sorry if you found my tone unfriendly.

 

[palo1]

And yet incredibly rarely complained about. It appears that more people vocally object to the reintroduction of space for native species than about this.

Not I!! I have been waiting for the News at Ten to announce The End of Capitalism since it was the Nine O'Clock News!! Lol. But culture is a steamroller and most people are utterly flattened by capitalism and it's seductive messaging. Don't get me started...

 

[cobgoblin]

We conducted an experiment on a quarter acre of our garden some years ago. The ground was bare earth when we moved in , so we left it to see what happened.

At first we got ground cover plants , wild strawberries, birds foot trefoil, bugles, pimpernel etc. Then taller species plus silver birch saplings. A few brambles moved in ,but only at the edge. Most of the silver birch disappeared as other deciduous trees moved in. There is gorse only a few metres away from area but I don't remember it ever really establishing itself. The area is now covered by large trees that we have to thin out, there is virtually nothing growing on the floor. This process took about 12 to 15 yrs or maybe less. BUT we are on fertile ,deep clay soil. There are many varieties of trees in close proximity for seeding. The area was well sheltered by surrounding woodland.
I wouldn't expect this to happen on a moor where the soil is poor and possibly thin due to bedrock. I suspect it would remain a mess of thorny scrub.

 

[palo1]

We conducted an experiment on a quarter acre of our garden some years ago. The ground was bare earth when we moved in , so we left it to see what happened.

At first we got ground cover plants , wild strawberries, birds foot trefoil, bugles, pimpernel etc. Then taller species plus silver birch saplings. A few brambles moved in ,but only at the edge. Most of the silver birch disappeared as other deciduous trees moved in. There is gorse only a few metres away from area but I don't remember it ever really establishing itself. The area is now covered by large trees that we have to thin out, there is virtually nothing growing on the floor. This process took about 12 to 15 yrs or maybe less. BUT we are on fertile ,deep clay soil. There are many varieties of trees in close proximity for seeding. The area was well sheltered by surrounding woodland.
I wouldn't expect this to happen on a moor where the soil is poor and possibly thin due to bedrock. I suspect it would remain a mess of thorny scrub.

More likely monoculture gorse and/or bracken I think on hills above a certain elevation. Gorse and bracken do support life of course but it's not the kind of diversity that I think is needed and would likely be less productive than the current mix of grazing animals, gorse, bracken, heather and grassland. Unless deer numbers are controlled too, young trees are very likely to be decimated before they have a chance to get going.

 

[stangs]

Re using goats to help manage gorse: [1] and [2].

not sure what you mean. Anton is giving his opinion based on his view of hill farming on the moor.

My problem is just with the

"they hired an ecologist to report on the area in question. He found that the damage was little to do with over-grazing, but a result of historic factors and a changing environmental."

not having a reference. I don't have an issue with anything else.

I've never heard of rewilding people suggesting goats. The point of large herbivores in rewilding is to act as proxies for their wild ancestors, which means cattle and ponies (alongside deer). Sheep and goats as I understand it are to be avoided.

Perhaps we have different understandings of rewilding? I appreciate that rewilding in the fauna sense doesn't involve sheep and goats because they still have wild counterparts (e.g., Iberian ibexes in the work they're doing on the Iberian Peninsula), none of which existed in the UK anyway. However, the very foundation of rewilding is promoting biodiversity, restoring land and species populations, and achieving said objectives with natural and minimally-intrusive methods. Conservation grazing with sheep and goats may not be ideal for those who want a restoration of habitats from thousands of years ago, but they still occupy their own niche and so are a valuable tool where constraints caused by human society means grazing cattle and ponies isn't sustainable.

Maybe it's the circles I'm in. Despite knowing primarily urban folk (those wicked beasts that mostly have absolutely no control over what NE does), I don't know anyone who's advocating against conservation/sustainable grazing, or saying we should make all of Britain a forest. People just want cattle and ponies, and sometimes bison in woodland, to be used where possible. And for the existence of field upon field of rye grass monocultures to die out already.

 

[cobgoblin]

I think we can all do without the bison.

 

[palo1]

I think we can all do without the bison.

I am really interested to know how on earth they are going to be managed especially in that location. I really understand the value of this project in terms of species protection and I hope that it is successful and really informative. However it is a very, very small space for bison and people when they will inevitably mix. I think £1.5 million could have been spent on other things but all the same it is interesting and not proposed on a massive scale.

 

[stangs]

I think we can all do without the bison.

Even if you think they're not necessary ecologically - though they're currently studying whether the ones in Kent have a different effect on the land to cattle - they're moneymakers. Plus, they're the best compromise between the school of thought that says make Britain wild again, and the one that advocates for just managing land naturally, unless you'd rather bears get re-introduced.

However it is a very, very small space for bison and people when they will inevitably mix.

This country is so paranoid about Health & Safety that I presume extensive planning on this was already carried out before the bison moved in.

 

[Caol Ila]

Not really sure on that one. Wolves or tourists???? Decisions, decisions! I do like large fluffy dogs.

When irresponsible 'wild' camping became a problem during lockdown, I suggested that bears should be reintroduced. As anyone who has ever camped in bear country will know, they would quickly solve that issue.

 

[palo1]

Even if you think they're not necessary ecologically - though they're currently studying whether the ones in Kent have a different effect on the land to cattle - they're moneymakers. Plus, they're the best compromise between the school of thought that says make Britain wild again, and the one that advocates for just managing land naturally, unless you'd rather bears get re-introduced.


This country is so paranoid about Health & Safety that I presume extensive planning on this was already carried out before the bison moved in.

Yes. My OH commented on just how interesting it will be when a bison calves; he said 'She could be quite saucy' (as in dangerously protective). I think managing public interest and sense of entitlement in that location will be quite challenging but I definitely wish the bison well.

If the bison thrive and breed well I imagine there is a management plan for reducing herd numbers (presumably to ship them to 'somewhere else'). Does anyone know if bison are to be 'rolled out' by the government more widely lol?!

 

[cobgoblin]

The bison in kent are fenced off with massive fences. I believe they are in an area that used to be a public space, which has essentially now been turned into a sort of private farm in the name of ecology.
They are busily debarking trees.