Natural England pulling up trees

[Perkins]

A friend of mine works for a large shooting estate, who own large areas of moorland. They are paid by Natural England in the region of £10,000 per year to maintain this moorland, part of which involves pulling up self-seeded trees, including Holly, Oak and Birch. They have been pulling up thousands of them recently and burning them.

 

My view is that the moorland is simply de-forested land, and obviously would support a massively greater wildlife population than the current green-desert of heather which supports nothing but a few game birds. Especially when there are traps set everywhere to catch so-called vermin like stoats, foxes and weasels.

 

The ecological imbalance is ridiculous. 20,000 pheasants a year are released and then fed grain, while the balooning populations of animals that take advantage of all this meat are controlled using traps, poison and guns.

 

With eco-awareness suposedly at an all time high, I can't believe that a government funded body is paying people to pull up native trees to maintain what is an un-natural eco-system, just to prop up a rich mans business and a rich mans hobby.

 

I'm writing to Natural England to discover the thinking behind this absurd situation.

[Paul Barton]

I don't know very much about ecology, but where I live (Malvern Hills) the conservators are felling alot of native trees on the hillsides. I couldn't work out why so I asked one of them whilst out walking the other day. Apparently the trees cause too much shade for certain ground flora to thrive which in turn attracts certain bird species.

 

Maybe it's the same idea where you are?

[jpbeaver]

Shoots bring in a lot of money to rural areas. Apart from chomping on pheasant and grouse fox and weasels etc kill a lot of other wildlife. It's not quite as black and white as you make out.

[Sam Thompson]

It's not really that simple. The grain they put down will feed hundreds of other things too. The game cover they plant will shelter 1000's of songbirds and insects. By controlling the predators they will increase the population of Lapwings, sedge warblers and Windchats because their breeding grounds will not be covered as heavily by things that eat them. If its heather moorland Black grouse, Capercaillie, hen harriers, buzzards, eagles etc. will all benefit from a managed and "sheltered" environment.

 

 

My view is that the moorland is simply de-forested land, and obviously would support a massively greater wildlife population than the current green-desert of heather which supports nothing but a few game birds.

 

Not spent much time in the hills have you?

Edited April 23, 2011 by Sam Thompson

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I am certain that on delving deeper with natural England you will find adequate answers, IF they bother to reply, they have a rather selective hearing.

 

if its a query such as this one, or why they may be neglecting to acknowledge detrimental activities within their jurisdiction (SSSI) then that selective hearing will kick in!

 

This organisation is GOD, and plays god and is omnipotent, YOU and me are sheep.

 

let me know how you get on in getting an answer to this query, i would be very interested.

[janey]

Ecology isn't my feild, but as I understand it, heath and moorland is a very rare habitat in this country and to maintain the areas we do have, we have to intervene to stop the natural regen' that would ultimately return it to woodland without the large native browsers that used to exist.

 

While I certainly don't agree with the trapping of predator species, moorland provides excellent habitat for a multitude of native, and often uncommon, species of invertebrates, reptiles, plants and so on. If the only way we can keep such habitat is by the rearing and hunting of game birds, then that has to be a good thing, surely? It's got to be better than another golf course or housing estate.

[Chris Sheppard]

My thinking is that surely if the land is reverting back to self sown woodland then that is what it is tryign to do naturally - surely any intervention is not natural?

[janey]

My thinking is that surely if the land is reverting back to self sown woodland then that is what it is tryign to do naturally - surely any intervention is not natural?

 

No, it's not natural at all. But neither is our presence in the landscape in such huge (and unsustainable?) numbers. We have destoyed so much of our natural habitat, that a helping hand to preserve the little we have left if not only justified, but a moral obligaton.

 

IMO

[RobArb]

some of the moorland places i've been to and seen are absolutely gorgeous places when all the heather blooms its bright purple colours in contrast with the deep green grasses!

 

and not a tree in sight:biggrin:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

some of the moorland places i've been to and seen are absolutely gorgeous places when all the heather blooms its bright purple colours in contrast with the deep green grasses!

 

and not a tree in sight:biggrin:

 

 

nobody is mentioning it is also fantastic reptilian habitat too? many an adder would be found basking in the spaces between