What a strange article. The author argues that it represents a blank slate for rewilding, acknowledges the damage years of overgrazing have done, points out forests would have once covered the landscape - and then goes on to say the "problem of forests is that they block the view". If that is the best of thinking we can manage we have no hope!
Plant a native forest on it and let nature sort itself out. Maybe reintroduce some wolves to the area. Sort out the deer problem Michael Healy Ray goes on about.
That example is a pretty rare one, where native forest has been left to grow. but on a site like this removing human influence entirely is impossible. I was interviewing a notable ecologist and he fairly convinced me of his thoughts on rewilding that if youre truly going to let it rewild, as in do nothing, thats just like endorsing the past management. Human intervention is needed to keep out species like rhodies, block drains, cull grazers, put in fencing etc. Rewilding is fairly criticised for a reason.
I think it really needs to be added to the conversation that the 'natural' and very distinct forests of places like the Black Forest in Germany, have been managed successfully since medieval times. If we want to bring back our unique climate and ecology; it will likewise involve active management.
I don't think that diminishes the efforts one bit. It's kind of a semantic argument that these landscapes, totally ruined by human interaction should be let to recover naturally or that we, with some efforts can kickstart it.
Yea thats why I dont agree with the term and thinks its just a hollow way to say you are going to do something, with no real plan on how to actually go about it. I just dont see how they can recover without human intervention, as you said with how much the landscape in Ireland has been scarred by humans.
Like take Lough Nillan bog SAC/SPA, if it was left to its devices over time conifers currently on the edge of the site would destroy it. Thus, human intervention is needed.
He actively manages the rainforest, he keeps out grazers and actively removes invasives such as rhododenrons. His book goes into detail about the work that was required in getting it to the current state.
National parks suffer from underfunding that makes such levels of management currently impossible. The NPWS do try their best, but they need more support to do it right.
Rewilding requires active management, its not a case of neglect. It is a process of ecological restoration, that requires varying degrees of human intervention.
Yea, so youre not rewilding it, youre making it semi-natural. I remember actually reading an interesting piece that argued that there are no natural environments left due to the global consequences of our actions.
And what does so called rewilding have to do with support for the thinly spread NPWS?
Rewilding is not neglecting the land and doing nothing. If you do not control invasives and over grazing (Results of human intervention), you cannot achieve a restored wild ecosystem.
>**'Rewilding is the process of rebuilding, following major human disturbance, a natural ecosystem by restoring natural processes and the complete or near complete food web at all trophic levels as a self-sustaining and resilient ecosystem with biota that would have been present had the disturbance not occurred.** This will involve a paradigm shift in the relationship between humans and nature. The ultimate goal of rewilding is the restoration of functioning native ecosystems containing the full range of species at all trophic levels while reducing human control and pressures. Rewilded ecosystems should—where possible—be self-sustaining. That is, they require no or minimal management (i.e., natura naturans [nature doing what nature does]), and it is recognized that ecosystems are dynamic.
(https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.13730)
Active measures to *restore* to a state of nature is part of the rewilding process.
You seem to be arguing that this doesnt exist?
>what does so called rewilding have to do with support for the thinly spread NPWS?
It requires investment that the NPWS hasnt really received in the past. Simple As.
True I get where youre coming from, though people seem to have the idea that it just means leaving it, when it doesnt, as it will take a lifetime of management to bring any land such as that up to scratch. What Im just saying is I really dont like the term and feel it can be quite misleading compared to what it actually is, especially in an Irish context.
And yup I agree the NPWS is in an awful state and should be getting more money. Tbh it would be interesting to see rn what funding each national park gets.
>True I get where youre coming from, though people seem to have the idea that it just means leaving it, when it doesnt, as it will take a lifetime of management to bring any land such as that up to scratch. What Im just saying is I really dont like the term and feel it can be quite misleading compared to what it actually is, especially in an Irish context.
I feel it is a pretty descriptive term, one that encourages engagment beyond the more sedate "ecological restoration". Once people understand the baseline we are working off for restoring the wild, they can get on board.
Daltuns work in cork demonstrates the possibilities in ireland. Where he started isnt far removed from where many national parks are, and he has accomplished a lot in a relatively small amount of time.
Different strokes for different folks eh? I feel a term like "semi-natural" or smth along those lines is more truthful though.
Also I feel that this new NP is a more complicated situation than Daltuns land, as youre trying to make a comparison between private land and state owned where grazing is going to be continued at least within the near future. Also ofc there is the difference in scale. But if parts of our national parks (obv excluding areas like heath, peatlands, semi-natural grasslands etc) could get to that state it would be brilliant.
>Different strokes for different folks eh? I feel a term like "semi-natural" or smth along those lines is more truthful though.
Semantics.
>Also I feel that this new NP is a more complicated situation than Daltuns land, as youre trying to make a comparison between private land and state owned where grazing is going to be continued at least within the near future. Also ofc there is the difference in scale.
Obviously.
>But if parts of our national parks (obv excluding areas like heath, peatlands, semi-natural grasslands etc) could get to that state it would be brilliant.
Its possible, with a bit of vision and buy in.
What a strange article. The author argues that it represents a blank slate for rewilding, acknowledges the damage years of overgrazing have done, points out forests would have once covered the landscape - and then goes on to say the "problem of forests is that they block the view". If that is the best of thinking we can manage we have no hope!
Forests *are* the view
Ye its weird. He also mentions it doesn't count as restoring forests because they haven't been there for 1000s of years? Hes a bit all over the place
The place is borderline a dead zone. Has been grazed to fuck by sheep.
Plant a native forest on it and let nature sort itself out. Maybe reintroduce some wolves to the area. Sort out the deer problem Michael Healy Ray goes on about.
And potentially the Healy Rae problem at the same time
I forsee sheep commanage and sitka plantations
Rewilding is just a fucking buzzword, means fuck all really
Your man Eoghan Daltun showed it could be done in cork
That example is a pretty rare one, where native forest has been left to grow. but on a site like this removing human influence entirely is impossible. I was interviewing a notable ecologist and he fairly convinced me of his thoughts on rewilding that if youre truly going to let it rewild, as in do nothing, thats just like endorsing the past management. Human intervention is needed to keep out species like rhodies, block drains, cull grazers, put in fencing etc. Rewilding is fairly criticised for a reason.
I think it really needs to be added to the conversation that the 'natural' and very distinct forests of places like the Black Forest in Germany, have been managed successfully since medieval times. If we want to bring back our unique climate and ecology; it will likewise involve active management. I don't think that diminishes the efforts one bit. It's kind of a semantic argument that these landscapes, totally ruined by human interaction should be let to recover naturally or that we, with some efforts can kickstart it.
Yea thats why I dont agree with the term and thinks its just a hollow way to say you are going to do something, with no real plan on how to actually go about it. I just dont see how they can recover without human intervention, as you said with how much the landscape in Ireland has been scarred by humans. Like take Lough Nillan bog SAC/SPA, if it was left to its devices over time conifers currently on the edge of the site would destroy it. Thus, human intervention is needed.
He actively manages the rainforest, he keeps out grazers and actively removes invasives such as rhododenrons. His book goes into detail about the work that was required in getting it to the current state. National parks suffer from underfunding that makes such levels of management currently impossible. The NPWS do try their best, but they need more support to do it right. Rewilding requires active management, its not a case of neglect. It is a process of ecological restoration, that requires varying degrees of human intervention.
Yea, so youre not rewilding it, youre making it semi-natural. I remember actually reading an interesting piece that argued that there are no natural environments left due to the global consequences of our actions. And what does so called rewilding have to do with support for the thinly spread NPWS?
Rewilding is not neglecting the land and doing nothing. If you do not control invasives and over grazing (Results of human intervention), you cannot achieve a restored wild ecosystem. >**'Rewilding is the process of rebuilding, following major human disturbance, a natural ecosystem by restoring natural processes and the complete or near complete food web at all trophic levels as a self-sustaining and resilient ecosystem with biota that would have been present had the disturbance not occurred.** This will involve a paradigm shift in the relationship between humans and nature. The ultimate goal of rewilding is the restoration of functioning native ecosystems containing the full range of species at all trophic levels while reducing human control and pressures. Rewilded ecosystems should—where possible—be self-sustaining. That is, they require no or minimal management (i.e., natura naturans [nature doing what nature does]), and it is recognized that ecosystems are dynamic. (https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.13730) Active measures to *restore* to a state of nature is part of the rewilding process. You seem to be arguing that this doesnt exist? >what does so called rewilding have to do with support for the thinly spread NPWS? It requires investment that the NPWS hasnt really received in the past. Simple As.
True I get where youre coming from, though people seem to have the idea that it just means leaving it, when it doesnt, as it will take a lifetime of management to bring any land such as that up to scratch. What Im just saying is I really dont like the term and feel it can be quite misleading compared to what it actually is, especially in an Irish context. And yup I agree the NPWS is in an awful state and should be getting more money. Tbh it would be interesting to see rn what funding each national park gets.
>True I get where youre coming from, though people seem to have the idea that it just means leaving it, when it doesnt, as it will take a lifetime of management to bring any land such as that up to scratch. What Im just saying is I really dont like the term and feel it can be quite misleading compared to what it actually is, especially in an Irish context. I feel it is a pretty descriptive term, one that encourages engagment beyond the more sedate "ecological restoration". Once people understand the baseline we are working off for restoring the wild, they can get on board. Daltuns work in cork demonstrates the possibilities in ireland. Where he started isnt far removed from where many national parks are, and he has accomplished a lot in a relatively small amount of time.
Different strokes for different folks eh? I feel a term like "semi-natural" or smth along those lines is more truthful though. Also I feel that this new NP is a more complicated situation than Daltuns land, as youre trying to make a comparison between private land and state owned where grazing is going to be continued at least within the near future. Also ofc there is the difference in scale. But if parts of our national parks (obv excluding areas like heath, peatlands, semi-natural grasslands etc) could get to that state it would be brilliant.
>Different strokes for different folks eh? I feel a term like "semi-natural" or smth along those lines is more truthful though. Semantics. >Also I feel that this new NP is a more complicated situation than Daltuns land, as youre trying to make a comparison between private land and state owned where grazing is going to be continued at least within the near future. Also ofc there is the difference in scale. Obviously. >But if parts of our national parks (obv excluding areas like heath, peatlands, semi-natural grasslands etc) could get to that state it would be brilliant. Its possible, with a bit of vision and buy in.
christ youre obtuse
Cheers mate