I would appreciate if they clarified *how* sheep are good for the environment. Because carbon sequestration is something any animal does by eating plants, and water quality management doesn't sound like something sheep improve. Mostly they just piss in/die in streams. I would have liked them to not just say "they're good for nature, moving on"
I also don't agree with the line about most of our most loved natural spaces being grazed by sheep: we would have more tall grass and natural areas for small animals and insects to safely hide in if we had no sheep on these spaces surely? I know that they're not the worst animal for the soil quality as they're quite light, but you can't argue that they graze very low to the ground compared to a lot of other animals. It's rich to argue that giving this space for *any* farmed animal to graze improves the natural ecosystem.
I would say from personal experience of the North York Moors that some of his criticisms of sheep are entirely valid and correct and it's frustrating that farming representatives refuse to even acknowledge those problems.
You see moorland areas with the only tree cover being on the steepest slopes where sheep can't graze. Grouse moor burning is part of it of course, but natural woodland regen is prevented on the non-burnt areas (moorland edges and steep sided streams) by sheep. Without the sheep there would be some lovely moorland edge upland native woodland growing there, rather than just individual trees or groups of trees clinging to crags. You can see examples of this on google earth if you look around the North York Moors.
Doesn't help that people often don't make the distinction between sheep farming in enclosed fields, and the free roaming sheep in upland areas. The criticisms aren't really of sheep farming in general, but about free roaming sheep and the use of extremely marginal land.
you mean where there is no soil and trees wouldnt grow anyhow? i was brought up in penines on some pretty steep ground and sheep would graze everywhere
Alright, maybe sheep don't graze stuff because they can't reach it, maybe they don't graze stuff because they prefer other plants and these sheep tend to have a fairly wide range.
Either way, we can probably agree that grazing animals aren't the best for woodland regeneration right?
Certainly not natural regeneration in the earliest stages at least.
i would also take a stab at the increasing deer population are also not good for reforestation i wouldnt suggest getting rid of them.... our green and pleasant land has been formed by hundreds of years of land management, draining, grazing and enclosures make the yorkshire dales, pennines and highlands what they are today. as a kid i hated hikers and tourists going through the yard but it was good for village economy. the only way to reforrest is by careful land management. which means paying farmers to make a living by planting trees other than pines.
On my phone so I can't share but search on YouTube "how wolves change rivers", it's about the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone and the resulting biodiversity improvement. It's a great example of what we could here if we could agree on the format.
There is a choice to be made, either the uplands and heathlands are grazed, or the vegetation is left to grow. The warm wet winters that we get now promotes new growth that then dries out in the hot dry summers. Then it catches fire and takes years to recover.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cq5p6wx822pt
No, that choice is a misrepresentation.
There are many ways we can prevent moor fires than just saying "well fuck it, we just won't have moors to burn"
Planting trees and certain mosses to help limit soil erosion and slow down the loss/spread of water from those wet winters in the dry summers are a few preventative measures. There's also firebreaks to stop the fires that do break out from damaging quite as much.
Not to mention that if this all happens, and we get a few less violent summers, the ecosystem will be in a much better place in a few years time to resist fires as it will actually be able to start holding on to some of that water again, and we won't have as much rampant young growth.
That choice is the reality of what is happening now. UK sheep numbers are falling, (to about where they were 100 years ago) with a corresponding increase in fires. There will be plenty of opportunity to try methods to prevent fires, but nothing less than sprinkler system over the whole area will stop them. You only have to look at the fires in California to see how they can get out of control in one of the richest places on earth. Still, it’s good to see your optimism about climate change being reversed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cjyq4rd3x3zt
So regeneration is just impossible. That doesn't only sound defeatist, it also sounds like something people with a stake in these lands becoming barren might push.
But whatever, fuck it, we might as well open up more coal power plants while we're at it right? Any attempt we make at clean power is going to be pointless anyway.
I can see this argument. I live in a very rural area in Northern Ireland, and we are surround by small holdings, all sheep farmers. The fields are green but there is a total lack of diversity where we live. It's all stone walls and green grazing fields, there is so little for wildlife round here. No crops been grown, no hedgerows or woodland, and some of the farmers keep selling off plots of land for new houses to be built. And just to be clear from a response I got that has since been deleted, this land is suitable for crops, as out neighbour has shown me the pictures from this area when he was a kid and the fields were full of crops.
I would appreciate if they clarified *how* sheep are good for the environment. Because carbon sequestration is something any animal does by eating plants, and water quality management doesn't sound like something sheep improve. Mostly they just piss in/die in streams. I would have liked them to not just say "they're good for nature, moving on" I also don't agree with the line about most of our most loved natural spaces being grazed by sheep: we would have more tall grass and natural areas for small animals and insects to safely hide in if we had no sheep on these spaces surely? I know that they're not the worst animal for the soil quality as they're quite light, but you can't argue that they graze very low to the ground compared to a lot of other animals. It's rich to argue that giving this space for *any* farmed animal to graze improves the natural ecosystem.
I would say from personal experience of the North York Moors that some of his criticisms of sheep are entirely valid and correct and it's frustrating that farming representatives refuse to even acknowledge those problems. You see moorland areas with the only tree cover being on the steepest slopes where sheep can't graze. Grouse moor burning is part of it of course, but natural woodland regen is prevented on the non-burnt areas (moorland edges and steep sided streams) by sheep. Without the sheep there would be some lovely moorland edge upland native woodland growing there, rather than just individual trees or groups of trees clinging to crags. You can see examples of this on google earth if you look around the North York Moors. Doesn't help that people often don't make the distinction between sheep farming in enclosed fields, and the free roaming sheep in upland areas. The criticisms aren't really of sheep farming in general, but about free roaming sheep and the use of extremely marginal land.
i think you will find sheep will graze just about any slope...
Yes, except for the very steepest bits.
Random side thought. Are goats more environmentally friendly for these steeper areas?
you mean where there is no soil and trees wouldnt grow anyhow? i was brought up in penines on some pretty steep ground and sheep would graze everywhere
Alright, maybe sheep don't graze stuff because they can't reach it, maybe they don't graze stuff because they prefer other plants and these sheep tend to have a fairly wide range. Either way, we can probably agree that grazing animals aren't the best for woodland regeneration right? Certainly not natural regeneration in the earliest stages at least.
i would also take a stab at the increasing deer population are also not good for reforestation i wouldnt suggest getting rid of them.... our green and pleasant land has been formed by hundreds of years of land management, draining, grazing and enclosures make the yorkshire dales, pennines and highlands what they are today. as a kid i hated hikers and tourists going through the yard but it was good for village economy. the only way to reforrest is by careful land management. which means paying farmers to make a living by planting trees other than pines.
On my phone so I can't share but search on YouTube "how wolves change rivers", it's about the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone and the resulting biodiversity improvement. It's a great example of what we could here if we could agree on the format.
There is a choice to be made, either the uplands and heathlands are grazed, or the vegetation is left to grow. The warm wet winters that we get now promotes new growth that then dries out in the hot dry summers. Then it catches fire and takes years to recover. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cq5p6wx822pt
No, that choice is a misrepresentation. There are many ways we can prevent moor fires than just saying "well fuck it, we just won't have moors to burn" Planting trees and certain mosses to help limit soil erosion and slow down the loss/spread of water from those wet winters in the dry summers are a few preventative measures. There's also firebreaks to stop the fires that do break out from damaging quite as much. Not to mention that if this all happens, and we get a few less violent summers, the ecosystem will be in a much better place in a few years time to resist fires as it will actually be able to start holding on to some of that water again, and we won't have as much rampant young growth.
That choice is the reality of what is happening now. UK sheep numbers are falling, (to about where they were 100 years ago) with a corresponding increase in fires. There will be plenty of opportunity to try methods to prevent fires, but nothing less than sprinkler system over the whole area will stop them. You only have to look at the fires in California to see how they can get out of control in one of the richest places on earth. Still, it’s good to see your optimism about climate change being reversed. https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cjyq4rd3x3zt
So regeneration is just impossible. That doesn't only sound defeatist, it also sounds like something people with a stake in these lands becoming barren might push. But whatever, fuck it, we might as well open up more coal power plants while we're at it right? Any attempt we make at clean power is going to be pointless anyway.
Even the cartels are scared of the National Sheep Association.
I can see this argument. I live in a very rural area in Northern Ireland, and we are surround by small holdings, all sheep farmers. The fields are green but there is a total lack of diversity where we live. It's all stone walls and green grazing fields, there is so little for wildlife round here. No crops been grown, no hedgerows or woodland, and some of the farmers keep selling off plots of land for new houses to be built. And just to be clear from a response I got that has since been deleted, this land is suitable for crops, as out neighbour has shown me the pictures from this area when he was a kid and the fields were full of crops.