proposed beaver release in West Wales.

wanton dwarf said:

Of course there is risk of loss of life.

You will have at least one dam which will hold back many thousands of tonnes of water, beaver dams break and when they break they carry all the detritus which constitutes their work down stream not only causing flooding but also potential damage to infrastructure such as pipes and bridges.


Not gonna happen unless the environmentalists want a civil war.

Click to expand...

Except it is already, look at the direction BPS is heading. NVZ's are expanding to name two. I would suggest to you that you are either incredibly sheltered or blind to the facts. The Monbiots et al have a lot more power than any group of farmers, and lets face it, they probably have a point to a certain extent.

Are you really suggesting that the protection of the environment is not important? I would suggest that even being a farmer I would value the environment much higher than agriculture in terms of importance.

Eurasian beavers do not build anywhere near as substantial dams as the American variety. The area of woodland is flat in a valley bottom over 100m wide, which the beavers will not have access to the entirely of.

Have you read my previous explanations?

I'm a fairly strict business minded farmer, but even I see that farming must improve it's environmental credentials, if only for the sakes of keeping our consumers on side.

Agrispeed said:

Except it is already, look at the direction BPS is heading. NVZ's are expanding to name two. I would suggest to you that you are either incredibly sheltered or blind to the facts. The Monbiots et al have a lot more power than any group of farmers, and lets face it, they probably have a point to a certain extent.

Are you really suggesting that the protection of the environment is not important? I would suggest that even being a farmer I would value the environment much higher than agriculture in terms of importance.

Eurasian beavers do not build anywhere near as substantial dams as the American variety. The area of woodland is flat in a valley bottom over 100m wide, which the beavers will not have access to the entirely of.

Have you read my previous explanations?

I'm a fairly strict business minded farmer, but even I see that farming must improve it's environmental credentials, if only for the sakes of keeping our consumers on side.

Click to expand...

What a load of rubbish.

Monbiot is a self confessed reporter of junk science.

Within the last year he admitted to reporting the usage of water by cattle using blatently biased "science" which he didn't even bother to research - his words not mine.

He quoted usage of water by cattle based on a scientific white paper which used the rainfall of a farm in the Amazon as hter basis for water used per head by cattle - a blantantly idiotic biased load of garbage - he just reported the crap and didn't even research it.

Monbiot is a lazy over paid journalist who in this one case alone was over 10,000,000% over the "true" figures he used later to admit his "mistakes".

The problem is IMHO that rather than challenge their false dogma some have just capitulated ...

I'm not gonna roll over just some lunatic environmentalist who can't even be bothered to research the truth says jump.

Protection of the environment not important ? So tell me when the RSPB flooded Somerset farmland for wetland birds & the EA failed to maintain pumping stations & used Hydrogen Peroxide yearly to control flooding pollution & 20,000 hectares flooded with every living thing dead - does this constitute "Protecting the environment".

"Reconnecting Rivers with the Flood Plain" ... initiative created by the EU, EA, River authorities to flood land on purpose.

When I get a letter from Natural England about Nitrate use on a SSSI catchment area do you think they have researched IF farmers are actually polluting the area ? Well I'll tell you for a fact in their own documents circa 2012 they admit they NEVER have.

What I see is wreckless incompetance with the need to employ a bunch of very expensive unproductive people.

suffolksmallholder said:

I've got a friend who makes beaver fur hats, she'll be pleased because there will be be more beaver fur with which to make hats
SS

Click to expand...

The value of its fur will inevitably fall.

These must be some monster type beaver you have over there, making monster dams that somehow overwhelm the rivers.
C'mon guys its not like it's a big deal, these beavers are pretty smart creatures and the structures they create are not that intrusive.

Agrispeed said:

I'm a fairly strict business minded farmer, but even I see that farming must improve it's environmental credentials, if only for the sakes of keeping our consumers on side.

Click to expand...

I admire your sentiments and bravery in taking on the beavers, will watch with interest and hope they turn out well for all.

But farming is hugely cleaner/more 'environmental' than it was 20 yrs ago. In W Wales in the last 20 yrs, sheep numbers have halved, fertiliser/lime usage & tillage to mention a couple, are much reduced. Many hillsides have gone to gorse and scrub.

The main change I see is more badgers & raptors and less hares & ground nesting birds. Hardly the farmers' fault. And yet we're blamed for declining diversity.

It would be good to know what the environmentalists' vision is for land use and farming ?

endeavour said:

Agrispeed
Have you any reference points on my question I acknowledge it may take time but hard facts are the requirement not assumption or hearsay . Thanks in anticipation.
Re your remarks Nvz this on its own can not stop major effluent problems and may increase environmental damage as large farms require more acres to conserve and this will mean increased diesel useage carting to home farm every perceived pluses have a negative.

Click to expand...

I agree about NVZ rules, but it is a good example of forced legislation without any real consultation, I'm somewhat of cynic as most NVZs seem to be downstream of sewage treatment plants, However, it is true that agriculture does have it's part to play in pollution.

I don't have references at the moment (this is more my business partner's pet project) but I will answer your questions as well as I can.

Firstly, I'm not going to benefit in any way, I am a contract farmer, and this does not include the woodland. The farm will also not benefit, apart from some fencing. The beavers are paid for and managed through a charitable group which is funded through donations, this will pay for the fencing and purchase of the animals. Any sales if they breed will also be through this, if anything the farm may benefit from alleviating some flooding downstream from the woods.

It is true that there is significant pollution after sustained rainfall. However, what we have identified from the auto sampling (we are partnered with a university and a research insitiute) is that we are seeing quite moderate pollution from short periods of rain. This may be due to the small size and comparatively steep topography of the catchment area, and a relatively short stretch of 'river' to the sampling area (which is at the exit of the enclosure. We are currently seeing fairly dramatic water flow spikes around an hour after rainfall. If we can slow this to two or maybe three hours the risk of flooding will be greatly reduced. We're not planning on holding vast amounts of water for any length of time.

We are more focused on slowing down flow rather than pollution, but as our catchment is such further from the sea, and passes through scientifically important wetlands, we will probably see much more of a benefit from holding pollution, and also quite surprising amounts of silt, which of course can cause even more problems when there is a restriction downstream in a built up area.

I will have a look at what I can find tomorrow if I have time.

I would say that the welsh project is a good example of environmentalists vs farmers, rather than the two co-operating. I would probably not be hugely supporting of it. However, I do think it's important that we don't write of all such projects, as when done well, in symbiosis with farming they can work well.

wanton dwarf said:

What a load of rubbish.

Monbiot is a self confessed reporter of junk science.
.

Click to expand...

Does this matter?

He, and the 'green' lobby have power and a real appetite to change things (for the better or worse). If we, as agriculture refuse to do anything we will simply be ignored and pushed aside. If we show that we are making improvements and are forwards looking and willing to adapt farming practises, we can get more co-operation and leniency from both the government and from the publics perception.

Farmers have the biggest weapon at their disposal for the improvement of the environment, (and moving away from beavers) it may not cost anything for us to improve out green credentials. Even if you don't believe in the environmentalism, you must surely agree that agriculture should be sustainable?

Woolly said:

I admire your sentiments and bravery in taking on the beavers and hope they turn out well for all.

But farming is hugely cleaner/more 'environmental' than it was 20 yrs ago.

The main change I see is more badgers & raptors and less hares & ground nesting birds. Hardly the farmers' fault. And yet we're blamed for declining diversity.

It would be good to know what the environmentalists' vision is for land use?

Click to expand...

Thanks.

I completely agree, farming has improved, although there is much we could still do, especially now we can reliably measure more things - soil carbon probably being the most interesting at the moment. It would be nice for farming to get more recognition too, if we can show we are sequestering carbon, that would really show a measurable benefit, and something we can shout about a bit more.

The main problem with farming is PR and farming vs the environment - we're never going to win that argument. Academic, extremist environmentalists drive me nuts - we have ejected more than a few from here!

Agrispeed said:

Does this matter?

He, and the 'green' lobby have power and a real appetite to change things (for the better or worse). If we, as agriculture refuse to do anything we will simply be ignored and pushed aside. If we show that we are making improvements and are forwards looking and willing to adapt farming practises, we can get more co-operation and leniency from both the government and from the publics perception.

Farmers have the biggest weapon at their disposal for the improvement of the environment, (and moving away from beavers) it may not cost anything for us to improve out green credentials. Even if you don't believe in the environmentalism, you must surely agree that agriculture should be sustainable?

Click to expand...

The fact is that "Environmental Policy" has taken the production of materials from the UK 1000s of miles away to China using power which is far more polluting than the UK - never mind the envrionmental cost of the ships & fuel to ship it.

"Environmentalists" have exported pollution on a massive scale to the East, not only destroying UK jobs, but also destroying vast tracts of land, rivers & seas all across China.

If you mean sustainable by having a mixed farm - No.

wanton dwarf said:

If you mean sustainable by having a mixed farm - No.

Click to expand...

Sustainable in the sense that you left it in no worse condition than you found it.

I completely agree - If we can work with environmentalists then we can be both productive and sustainable.

Environmental policy has suffered from lack of input from farmers. I like to think that agriculture has become much more aware of sustainability in the last 5 or so years, and hopefully moving forwards we can become more sustainable and recognised for the importance that it has.

However, there is no real place for farms to focus entirely on production - We overproduce as it is, and we need to look at the other benefits from agriculture apart from food supply. (Food shortages and famines are, in my opinion almost exclusively a logistics problem)

Agrispeed said:

I completely agree, farming has improved, although there is much we could still do, especially now we can reliably measure more things - soil carbon probably being the most interesting at the moment. It would be nice for farming to get more recognition too, if we can show we are sequestering carbon, that would really show a measurable benefit, and something we can shout about a bit more.

The main problem with farming is PR and farming vs the environment - we're never going to win that argument. Academic, extremist environmentalists drive me nuts - we have ejected more than a few from here!

Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the trouble to respond to folks comments.

Yes C sequestering is a good news story we should be making more of. Let's hope it features more prominently in emerging post Brexit agri policy.

Yes PR is farmers' Achilles heel. Public perception is of rich farmers who drive monster machines often with less than due consideration of other road users, seen as symbols of industrial farming and destroyers of the environment. Interesting that the tractor on the Waitrose carrier bag is a 1950's DB not a 300hp Fendt.

I suspect that the heyday of the big machine may be passing, as we move to smaller, more intelligent robotic machines - already happening in horticulture.

Roger Perry said:

These must be some monster type beaver you have over there, making monster dams that somehow overwhelm the rivers.
C'mon guys its not like it's a big deal, these beavers are pretty smart creatures and the structures they create are not that intrusive.

Click to expand...

Roger, you forget, we are a small island and the laws here make it impossible to resolve a problem if it occurs.
In the States if you have a beaver problem you can blow up the dams and shoot them. Doing that here would result in jail, for a long time.

Roger Perry said:

These must be some monster type beaver you have over there, making monster dams that somehow overwhelm the rivers.
C'mon guys its not like it's a big deal, these beavers are pretty smart creatures and the structures they create are not that intrusive.

Click to expand...

Having seen the film Grey Owl which romanticized the figure Archibald Belaney (and read a couple of his books), I'm sure you are correct. He used the beaver as a prime example when he was trying to show the link in their habitat & wilderness destruction. Showing the human ability to destroy habitat and their ability to create one. His lecture tours were an important part of the US national parks foundations.
I'd love to see them in their native habitat and I'm sure any farmer with a working beaver site here in the UK would be able to earm a little income from their activities. So not all doom & gloom!
SS

Old Boar said:

We could always release Wild Boar, it would take care of the beavers and the badgers....

Click to expand...

Often wondered why wild boar is not used for badger control in the UK. Is it a legal reason.

renewablejohn said:

Often wondered why wild boar is not used for badger control in the UK. Is it a legal reason.

Click to expand...

Maybe an issue of collateral damage,?

Exfarmer said:

You are correct in all you assert. However the nature of trees in river valleys will certainly have changed, and until they revert to the willows and Alders they were we are going to see some denudation.
Remember beavers fell trees for 2 reasons , firstly dam building, but also to proveide winter food. They eat the smaller twigs after felling the tree

Click to expand...

All true, yet the new beavers will not be brought to every stretch of every river. The denudation you write of will look pretty bleak to most of us until a natural balance is returned to, but it will be a natural balance not the synthetic one presently imposed.

My guess is that there will be the 'coppice' effect, by that I mean that there will be the pretty brutal-looking appearance after the cut that takes the stools down to the ground; everything looks 'awful' for a season and then the growth takes place of the plants that we had all forgotten about, and things continue to look up from there.

I meant to add that we are a very short-termed breed in our view of things, with many - if not most - people only considering what they see at any given moment, and certainly not what will be over decades and centuries, let alone the millennia which nature moves through...

Danllan said:

I meant to add that we are a very short-termed breed in our view of things, with many - if not most - people only considering what they see at any given moment, and certainly not what will be over decades and centuries, let alone the millennia which nature moves through...

Click to expand...

If the country really WANTS to re-wild then the occupiers should be compensated and removed from the land and it should be left ENTIRELY alone for a century or two. Nature will do all that is necessary itself in that timescale.

holwellcourtfarm said:

If the country really WANTS to re-wild then the occupiers should be compensated and removed from the land and it should be left ENTIRELY alone for a century or two. Nature will do all that is necessary itself in that timescale.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it is never that simple. I think there should be genuinely wild areas, as opposed to 'managed' wilderness. This would mean the absence of 'landowners' per se, with the ownership going to the nation state. For myself, I would like to see a genuinely wild zone or centre to our national parks, with 'managed' wilderness around that as a buffer before a wholly farmed landscape. If fair prices were paid and re-location assisted when necessary to decent alternative farms and, most importantly, this was done as a long-term plan (over generations) so that nobody is evicted in an eco-fascistic rush that the like of Monbiot seem to advocate, I can see us as a nation with genuine wilderness grading to managed countryside as I described, with no bad feelings on any side. Wishful thinking for now, but not so hard really....

With the deer population we have today, surely very little genuine wild re stocking of woodlands will take place, unless it is managed.
True eventually everything would re balance in a totally natural world . But how long would this take 500 years?

Danllan said:

Yes, but it is never that simple. I think there should be genuinely wild areas, as opposed to 'managed' wilderness. This would mean the absence of 'landowners' per se, with the ownership going to the nation state. For myself, I would like to see a genuinely wild zone or centre to our national parks, with 'managed' wilderness around that as a buffer before a wholly farmed landscape. If fair prices were paid and re-location assisted when necessary to decent alternative farms and, most importantly, this was done as a long-term plan (over generations) so that nobody is evicted in an eco-fascistic rush that the like of Monbiot seem to advocate, I can see us as a nation with genuine wilderness grading to managed countryside as I described, with no bad feelings on any side. Wishful thinking for now, but not so hard really....

Click to expand...

I agree if folk want wilderness,go out and buy the ground,also buy the buffer,I'm damn sure I would never voluntarily "manage" a buffer area after my experiences with our beloved SSSI.The fair prices and relocation fees would need to be tax exempt too or the bloody politicos would claim a heap of it back to pay for more "schemes" and jobs for the boys.
I don't see too much of an issue as long as purchase was not compulsory,after all the forestry industry has managed to buy a wee bit of ground over the years,and around here still is,two farms locally in the last 12 months have gone that way.As a farmer I'm not ecstatic about it but they had the money and I didn't so fair play.