Have some of that Chris Packham

Cowabunga said:

60 years ago the priority was very much slanted to food production at whatever cost it took to feed our population from our own resources. There were grants for farm amalgamations, mass drainage, training for improving ground and productivity and schemes to reduce rabbits badgers, foxes and birds or prey. Trapping of birds and animals was encouraged and widespread.

And yet, we are told there was more biodiversity and more birds. Those idiot 'conservationists' or 'greens' of today just cannot accept that unless those animals at the top of the food chain are kept to manageable numbers, they decimate the animals and birds that they prey upon. It has to be 'the farmer's are the buggers at fault!'

As you say in your first sentence, hedges are NOT natural features of the countryside. They were physically erected, not so long ago actually, to improve the management of farm livestock. To improve productivity and provide shelter when necessary.
While I'm not against hedges, there are parts of the country that have at least twice the length of hedges required for efficient production with modern machinery and often where there is no longer any grazing livestock present. There is as much shelter in a twenty acre field as there is in a five acre field. The both generally have four hedges boxing them in.
Over this side of the country, hedges only make up a tiny proportion of wooded and 'waste' areas and where farmers were sensible enough to make use of the grants of the 50's to late 70's to amalgamate field, they are generally now at a sensible size of between 5 and 25 acres, depending on topography and land use, which is acceptable to everyone. Where they are smaller, it become uneconomical to farm in many cases and the temptation then is to develop them into caravan sites or just build houses on them if in a suitable location.

We are extremely fortunate that it is farmers that decide what to do with their land rather than some Council committee made up of semi-educated idiots like some mentioned in these types of topics on TFF, otherwise the place would be a complete shambles. Where farmers are totally prevented from managing their land you get dozens of birds of prey following tractors rather than songbirds and animal life dominated by aggressive predators like badgers, foxes who decimate the biodiversity so sought after by the soppy do-gooders, who then project the blame back to farmers who are doing exactly what they are told and getting the very results that they were warned would happen by those farmers.

Click to expand...

The only thing wrong with this statement is the word "decimate". Annihilate is a lot closer.

Fallowfield, have a look at the Songbird Survival website, you'll maybe take more notice of them. I left the RSPB as I didn't like their policy which was very similar to your view on predators. I got a snotty reply telling me exactly what you say now but even they have changed their view and no longer look at predators through rose tinted glasses. Ironically they get a lot of stick and no doubt cancelled memberships from people, who dare I say it, see what they want to see rather than acknowledging that too many predators will eat too many prey.

^^^^^

Said it before..... Raptors cash cows for RSPB, Badgers for the RSPCA.

toquark said:

Fallowfield is a troll. He clearly has no interest in the forum save winding people on it up by posting comments designed to do just that. Fair enough, and if you want to take him on fine, but I've come to the conclusion I'm not going to waste any more time replying to his blinkered rubbish - he's not interested and frankly neither am I.

Click to expand...

I have just worked out how to use the "ignore" function!!!

MrNoo said:

I have just worked out how to use the "ignore" function!!!

Click to expand...

If everyone did he would end up posting to himself
From what I can see he/she has never started a thread,that tells me a lot.

I’d like to think I both know a bit about the wildlife on my farm and have a vested interest in doing so. I don’t know a farmer who thinks otherwise of the top of my head.

I’ve grown up here and have 40plus years of the wildlife watching to know what is happening and why. I don’t need a survey or an expert to tell me. I see it with my own two eyes.

All raptors and corvids are up in numbers, and not a small increase either.

When I was a kid we had one badger set on 300 acres, I’ve now got 7 sets and counting.


Back in the 80’s dad did tip out some hedges as he was actively encouraged to do by the govt of the day. Since then we’ve planted more hedges than we ripped out, along with new ponds new copses new wetlands etc.

Grey partridge used to thrive here, not anymore.

Rarely see a hedgehog

Seen dozens of bee and wasp nests ripped out of the ground this summer.

Skylarks are just about hanging on. Other ground nesting birds struggling.

We’ve proactively worked with the RSPB as we have a rare bird on the farm, cirl buntings. Now 18 active next sights compared to 1 15 years ago. They themselves will admit in private they manage the countryside and it needs managing to balance the apex preditors.

They do so on many of their reserves.

The other thing that annoys me is some of the surveys and miss information bandied about saying how low such and such a population is.

Case in point. Last winter I attended a farm walk jointly organised by the RSPB and Game Conservany Trust.

The GCT guy said there is a web site on Natural England that people look at were sightings of birds and mammals are logged, in not in the office right now so don’t have the link.

He said govt and other bodies used this information but it is wholly unsatisfactory to do so.

He then showed us an example of harvest mice distribution in the area we were stood in, there was nothing showing. So ergo no field mice here so a big problem for the mice and the officials looking at said info will state mice numbers have crashed and are extinct in this area.

He then showed us what a nest looked like, most of us present went, well of course that’s a nest we see them all the time.

He then dispatched us out of the barn we were in for the presentation and told us to search the hedgerow of the next door field for nests. 20 mins later we had found about 30 nests. Hardy extinct locally as some would like you to believe

He logged those on the website so at least there is a recording of those for people to see.

His point was there is a lot of guff spouted by some selectively picking the stats they want to hear that suit their agenda. Speak to those out in the countryside and you get a very different picture and one that is probably more correct.

Typed on my phone sat in a tractor watching hares play so apologies if poor spelling or grammar

Fallowfield said:

I've no idea on the second. On the first maybe it was because too many hedges were being removed.

In any event I'm not sure why you're all getting so upset about Packham's comment 'why do we persist with the removal of hedges from our countryside?'. It's evident from the comments on here that farmers love hedges, wouldn't ever dream of removing them, and are never so happy as when they get the chance to plant a new one.

Click to expand...

You have no idea and yet you set out to argue the point.

I am in no way upset about Packhams comment - in common with other posters I recognise it for the absolute twaddle it is.

Packham is no friend of people who live in the countryside , .....other than to those who dont belong in the countryside,
its wrong that the BBC give him airtime with his lies and BS , people need scientific facts not his made up BS.

Has anyone tweeted Chris Packham to suggest he or his team look at TFF, to learn about farming from real farmers. I am not on social media.
I did contact his managing agents to suggest Packham or his team look at TFF, but surprise surprise no reply

Probably sensibly these folks never engage in reasoned discussion on Twitter or anywhere. They only engage with like minded known twits.

Cowabunga said:

60 years ago the priority was very much slanted to food production at whatever cost it took to feed our population from our own resources. There were grants for farm amalgamations, mass drainage, training for improving ground and productivity and schemes to reduce rabbits badgers, foxes and birds or prey. Trapping of birds and animals was encouraged and widespread.

And yet, we are told there was more biodiversity and more birds. Those idiot 'conservationists' or 'greens' of today just cannot accept that unless those animals at the top of the food chain are kept to manageable numbers, they decimate the animals and birds that they prey upon. It has to be 'the farmer's are the buggers at fault!'

As you say in your first sentence, hedges are NOT natural features of the countryside. They were physically erected, not so long ago actually, to improve the management of farm livestock. To improve productivity and provide shelter when necessary.
While I'm not against hedges, there are parts of the country that have at least twice the length of hedges required for efficient production with modern machinery and often where there is no longer any grazing livestock present. There is as much shelter in a twenty acre field as there is in a five acre field. The both generally have four hedges boxing them in.
Over this side of the country, hedges only make up a tiny proportion of wooded and 'waste' areas and where farmers were sensible enough to make use of the grants of the 50's to late 70's to amalgamate field, they are generally now at a sensible size of between 5 and 25 acres, depending on topography and land use, which is acceptable to everyone. Where they are smaller, it become uneconomical to farm in many cases and the temptation then is to develop them into caravan sites or just build houses on them if in a suitable location.

We are extremely fortunate that it is farmers that decide what to do with their land rather than some Council committee made up of semi-educated idiots like some mentioned in these types of topics on TFF, otherwise the place would be a complete shambles. Where farmers are totally prevented from managing their land you get dozens of birds of prey following tractors rather than songbirds and animal life dominated by aggressive predators like badgers, foxes who decimate the biodiversity so sought after by the soppy do-gooders, who then project the blame back to farmers who are doing exactly what they are told and getting the very results that they were warned would happen by those farmers.

Click to expand...

One of the wisest posts on here!

MrNoo said:

You are just a troll, farmers are some of the most knowledgable about their surrounds, much more so than some clipboard warrior fresh out of collage.

Click to expand...

I think another name for “trolls”
would be “pond life” especially if they are supposedly so close to nature.

Cowabunga said:

Those idiot 'conservationists' or 'greens' of today just cannot accept that unless those animals at the top of the food chain are kept to manageable numbers, they decimate the animals and birds that they prey upon. It has to be 'the farmer's are the buggers at fault!'

Click to expand...

##

Sorry, but that's not how eco systems work.

Apex predators don't threaten the existence of species they prey on.

It would be an evolutionary dead end if it did work like that. Both the apex predator and its prey would be wiped out.

The primary threats to wildlife are loss of habitat and lack of food, not natural predation.

Cowabunga said:

We are extremely fortunate that it is farmers that decide what to do with their land rather than some Council committee made up of semi-educated idiots like some mentioned in these types of topics on TFF, otherwise the place would be a complete shambles.

Click to expand...

###

You decide what you do with your land within a framework of legislation, regulation and subsidies, and subject to the overriding imperative to have to make a profit to survive.

We can only speculate as to the state the environment would be in without the restrictions imposed by legislation and regulations, and the financial support available to encourage eco friendly management.

Just imagine if there were no restrictions on the use of herbicides and insecticides. Or run off. Or disposal of carcasses. Or removal of hedges. No SSIS to bother with. No restriction of what wildlife you could kill. Imagine what it would be like if you had free rein, governed only by the need to make a profit to survive.

I, for one, am glad that the semi educated idiots have some measure of influence and control.

stroller said:

@Fallowfield did you post on the guardian website as steb1 or something, you have a similar .....style ?

Click to expand...

No.

I can’t decide if you suffer from naivety or arrogance, ALL the “problems” you attribute to farming are due to the intensification of agriculture, this ALL came about because we didn’t have enough food - hence rationing! ALL the intensification was led/pushed by government etc, until then farmers/landowners were generally left to get on with it and wildlife was just fine! Maybe you should consider studying some modern history so that you can put some context to your observations and opinions. Where you aware that anyone who failed to intensify and meet government targets could have their land confiscated and give to some one else purely because they refused to plough up their meadows and grow crops???

Fallowfield said:

##

Sorry, but that's not how eco systems work.

Apex predators don't threaten the existence of species they prey on.

It would be an evolutionary dead end if it did work like that. Both the apex predator and its prey would be wiped out.

The primary threats to wildlife are loss of habitat and lack of food, not natural predation.

Click to expand...

Well actually they take the easiest prey first and when they're extinct they move on to the next easiest to catch.

And omnivore predators can survive on acorns,blackberries,chestnuts and farmed crops such as oats and maize.

SLA said:

I can’t decide if you suffer from naivety or arrogance, ALL the “problems” you attribute to farming are due to the intensification of agriculture, this ALL came about because we didn’t have enough food - hence rationing! ALL the intensification was led/pushed by government etc, until then farmers/landowners were generally left to get on with it and wildlife was just fine! Maybe you should consider studying some modern history so that you can put some context to your observations and opinions. Where you aware that anyone who failed to intensify and meet government targets could have their land confiscated and give to some one else purely because they refused to plough up their meadows and grow crops???

Click to expand...

Yes I'm aware that the Battle of the Atlantic still dictates agricultural policy.

Perhaps it's time that agricultural policy was changed and new goals were chosen.

C.J said:

Well actually they take the easiest prey first and when they're extinct they move on to the next easiest to catch.

Click to expand...

###

And how have you arrived at that conclusion?

Fallowfield said:

##

Sorry, but that's not how eco systems work.

Apex predators don't threaten the existence of species they prey on.

It would be an evolutionary dead end if it did work like that. Both the apex predator and its prey would be wiped out.

The primary threats to wildlife are loss of habitat and lack of food, not natural predation.

Click to expand...

That is how ecosystems work, especially when some idiot maintains the apex predators at artificially high numbers or the apex predator has alternative food sources.

The natural population dynamics would involve peaks and troughs as plentiful prey causes an increase in predator population which causes the prey to decrease which causes a reduction in predator numbers which causes the prey species to increase - eg lynx and snowshoe hare it it only works with specialist predators.