Forum home› Wildlife gardening
This Forum will close on Wednesday 27 March, 2024. Please refer to the announcement on the Discussions page for further detail.

National parks - disastrous for wildlife

«13

Posts

  • BlueBirderBlueBirder Posts: 212
    These parks were not designated with wildlife at the fore. Unfortunately they've become synonymous with the 'wild' for many people in the UK, which contributes to the shifting baseline of what is biologically diverse. Overgrazing, deforestation and drainage have all contributed to our uplands being completely degraded (and I say this as someone who grew up on an upland hill farm with sheep!). Sadly a lot of people don't realise this, and feel that these are our wild spaces and shouldn't be changed from the way they are now.
  • PosyPosy Posts: 3,601
    Well, there may be problems but national parks at least acknowledge that green spaces are good things and that people, as well as wildlife, need them. We need to be educated to use them well and many areas could be more friendly to wildlife but the alternative in many countries is just to build anything anywhere.
  • LoxleyLoxley Posts: 5,698
    Agree with BlueBirder, they weren't created for biodoversity as such, it's more about preserving the distinctiveness of the landscape for human visitors. Overgrazed uplands look beautiful to us, but are biodiversity deserts. Managed for biodiversity, the South Downs or the Yorkshire Dales might look a lot different... covered in trees and scrub essentially!
    "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour". 
  • FireFire Posts: 19,096
    Posy said:
     at least acknowledge that green spaces are good things for... wildlife.

    That's the point. Not really. Between the sheep, the grouse rearing, the full on house building and the visitors, it really doesn't stand a chance.

    These parks were not designated with wildlife.
    I agree. But ecologists have been banging on this door for decades. We now know how to effectively design wildlife landscapes as whole systems not just individual species. We have a lot of global learning behind this and we remain at a standstill.



  • FireFire Posts: 19,096
    edited April 2022
    Yes, our whole valuing of biodiverse systems needs to change. People still oo and ahhh over an empty green field because it's green - as if that is inherently useful.

    We don't the time that the public think we have. So many species are red-listed, so many habitats nearly gone.

    People see this and think "isn't it a wonderful view" - not "total treeless, scalped, wildlife desert".



  • steephillsteephill Posts: 2,841
    My literal next door "neighbour" is the South Downs National Park which is described as a working landscape although the apt expression "sheepwrecked" could be used to describe parts of it. Although only 4% of it is chalk grasslands that is what many people think of as the entire South Downs landscape. The park contains a very wide variety of habitats but currently only 25% of it is managed for nature. Renaturing plans hope to increase this in future.
    However 117,000 people live and work within it and a further 2 million live within 5km of its boundary so it will never become a truly wild place again.
    I take heart in knowing that we now have beavers and otters within a couple of miles of us. Our local natural history societies and wildlife trusts are very active in raising awareness of and protecting the nature around us so I have a more positive view for the future even here in the crowded South East of England.


  • seacrowsseacrows Posts: 234
    I grew up on the edge of Sheffield. As a tiny child my grandparents would take me to wonderful wildlife-full places. Looking back, these places were nearly all ear marked for building on, as they were contributing no 'production'. As a schoolchild I was very much aware that the green 'moors'  were a landscape maintained to look picturesque. And now? I read about the decisions various trusts and land owners make and I'm confused.

    One example, taking the sheep off high level peat based land. When the bracken starts taking over, deciding to burn strips in an every other year pattern. Now fire is a publicised hazard, they are using tractors with a rake-type attachment (probably got a proper name). In the meantime the locals are jumping and and down shouting PUT THE F#*+! SHEEP BACK.

    When did common sense stop being common?
  • BlueBirderBlueBirder Posts: 212
    @seacrowsThe sheep aren't great for uplands. In fact they're pretty disastrous. They cause practically irreparable changes to the vegetation structure, vegetation types and the structure of the soil. They also change the nutrient levels of the soil through their waste. They are farmed at much higher densities than natural herbivores would occur (in the presence of predators).

    Not saying burning is good either! But neither sheep nor burning is the answer for wildlife. For wildlife, native upland trees and shrubs are the way forward (in most cases). 
  • FireFire Posts: 19,096
    We don't need burning or sheep.
Sign In or Register to comment.