4 Spelling, grammar and punctuation fixes
source | link

Yes, the UNESCO WHS classification would be an obstacle to MonbiotsMonbiot's rewilding proposals, as it focuses on the preservation of a farmed landscape. But that begs the question of whether radical rewilding, as envisioned by Monbiot, would be the right way to go.

No-one is going to deny that there is plenty of bad land management in the UK, particularly on some of the large shooting estates. And there is plenty of room for introducing better practice. But the experienced country folk thatwith whom I have discussed this with regard Monbiot's radical rewilding proposal as seriously misconceived.

First, we need a reality check. It's now understood that many areas of land, such as the Amazonian rainforest and Yellowstone that were once thoughthought to be "wild" were in fact carefully managed by the indigenous population. With the exception of a small corner of Poland, there is virtually no land in the whole of Europe that could truly be designated as wild - it is all managed to a greater or lesser degree. These are created landscapes - so exactly what point in their evolution are we supposed to revert to?

I don't know the detail of his Lake District proposals, but here in Dartmoor his proposals for the area have been met with derision by local conservationists.

For example he talks of the reintroduction of large predators in an area of just 365 square miles that couldn't possibly maintain a population in any natural way - the range would be orders of magnitude too small.

He proposes the abandonment of a farming system going back to the bronze age, in a way that would destroy the economy of many local communities. No-one believes that farming could be replaced by eco-tourism as he proposes, particularly as a return to gorse and scrub would destroy the amenity of the moor. Without managed grazing most of the moor would become impassible, the views would be lost and the unmatched bronze-age remains would be buried in scrub and destroyed. Also, a recent study on rewilding Dartmoor concluded that in all likelihood wild fires would sweep uncontrolled through the moor in times of drought.

Source: Landscapes without Livestock

I've followed the rewilding debate for some time, and it's striking that most of the proponents are idealistic urban greens, while most of the critics are the pragmatic people who actually work and manage the land. And Monbiot does himself few favours with his insulting implication that he is the only voice with the true interests of the countryside at heart - I know some of these farmers and conservationists and they love the land with a passion.

Monbiot has sparked a useful debate, but his proposals are unworkable and won't be implemented. What is actually needed is the careful and incremental introduction of better management practice to enrich the ecology of our National Parks while preserving their rich heritage of landscape and culture. And I can't see how the new UNESCO classification should hold this back in any way.

Yes, the UNESCO WHS classification would be an obstacle to Monbiots rewilding proposals, as it focuses on the preservation of a farmed landscape. But that begs the question of whether radical rewilding, as envisioned by Monbiot, would be the right way to go.

No-one is going to deny that there is plenty of bad land management in the UK, particularly on some of the large shooting estates. And there is plenty of room for introducing better practice. But the experienced country folk that I have discussed this with regard Monbiot's radical rewilding proposal as seriously misconceived.

First, we need a reality check. It's now understood that many areas of land, such as the Amazonian rainforest and Yellowstone that were once though to be "wild" were in fact carefully managed by the indigenous population. With the exception of a small corner of Poland there is virtually no land in the whole of Europe that could truly be designated as wild - it is all managed to a greater or lesser degree. These are created landscapes - so exactly what point in their evolution are we supposed to revert to?

I don't know the detail of his Lake District proposals, but here in Dartmoor his proposals for the area have been met with derision by local conservationists.

For example he talks of the reintroduction of large predators in an area of just 365 square miles that couldn't possibly maintain a population in any natural way - the range would be orders of magnitude too small.

He proposes the abandonment of a farming system going back to the bronze age, in a way that would destroy the economy of many local communities. No-one believes that farming could be replaced by eco-tourism as he proposes, particularly as a return to gorse and scrub would destroy the amenity of the moor. Without managed grazing most of the moor would become impassible, the views would be lost and the unmatched bronze-age remains would be buried in scrub and destroyed. Also, a recent study on rewilding Dartmoor concluded that in all likelihood wild fires would sweep uncontrolled through the moor in times of drought.

Source: Landscapes without Livestock

I've followed the rewilding debate for some time, and it's striking that most of the proponents are idealistic urban greens, while most of the critics are the pragmatic people who actually work and manage the land. And Monbiot does himself few favours with his insulting implication that he is the only voice with the true interests of the countryside at heart - I know some of these farmers and conservationists and they love the land with a passion.

Monbiot has sparked a useful debate, but his proposals are unworkable and won't be implemented. What is actually needed is the careful and incremental introduction of better management practice to enrich the ecology of our National Parks while preserving their rich heritage of landscape and culture. And I can't see how the new UNESCO classification should hold this back in any way.

Yes, the UNESCO WHS classification would be an obstacle to Monbiot's rewilding proposals, as it focuses on the preservation of a farmed landscape. But that begs the question of whether radical rewilding, as envisioned by Monbiot, would be the right way to go.

No-one is going to deny that there is plenty of bad land management in the UK, particularly on some of the large shooting estates. And there is plenty of room for introducing better practice. But the experienced country folk with whom I have discussed this regard Monbiot's radical rewilding proposal as seriously misconceived.

First, we need a reality check. It's now understood that many areas of land, such as the Amazonian rainforest and Yellowstone that were once thought to be "wild" were in fact carefully managed by the indigenous population. With the exception of a small corner of Poland, there is virtually no land in the whole of Europe that could truly be designated as wild - it is all managed to a greater or lesser degree. These are created landscapes - so exactly what point in their evolution are we supposed to revert to?

I don't know the detail of his Lake District proposals, but here in Dartmoor his proposals for the area have been met with derision by local conservationists.

For example he talks of the reintroduction of large predators in an area of just 365 square miles that couldn't possibly maintain a population in any natural way - the range would be orders of magnitude too small.

He proposes the abandonment of a farming system going back to the bronze age, in a way that would destroy the economy of many local communities. No-one believes that farming could be replaced by eco-tourism as he proposes, particularly as a return to gorse and scrub would destroy the amenity of the moor. Without managed grazing most of the moor would become impassible, the views would be lost and the unmatched bronze-age remains would be buried in scrub and destroyed. Also, a recent study on rewilding Dartmoor concluded that in all likelihood wild fires would sweep uncontrolled through the moor in times of drought.

Source: Landscapes without Livestock

I've followed the rewilding debate for some time, and it's striking that most of the proponents are idealistic urban greens, while most of the critics are the pragmatic people who actually work and manage the land. And Monbiot does himself few favours with his insulting implication that he is the only voice with the true interests of the countryside at heart - I know some of these farmers and conservationists and they love the land with a passion.

Monbiot has sparked a useful debate, but his proposals are unworkable and won't be implemented. What is actually needed is the careful and incremental introduction of better management practice to enrich the ecology of our National Parks while preserving their rich heritage of landscape and culture. And I can't see how the new UNESCO classification should hold this back in any way.

3 deleted 3 characters in body
source | link

Yes, the UNESCO WHS classification would be an obstacle to Monbiots rewilding proposals, as it focuses on the preservation of a farmed landscape. But that begs the question of whether radical rewilding, as envisioned myby Monbiot, would be the right way to go.

No-one is going to deny that there is plenty of bad land management in the UK, particularly on some of the large shooting estates. And there is plenty of room for introducing better practice. But the experienced country folk that I have discussed this with regard Monbiot's radical rewilding proposal as seriously misconceived.

First, we need a reality check. It's now understood that many areas of land, such as the Amazonian rainforest and Yellowstone that were once though to be "wild" were in fact carefully managed by the indigenous population. With the exception of a small corner of Poland there is virtually no land in the whole of Europe that could truly be designated as wild - it is all managed to a greater or lesser degree. These are created landscapes - so exactly what point in their evolution are we supposed to revert to?

I don't know the detail of his Lake District proposals, but here in Dartmoor his proposals for the area have been met with derision by local conservationists.

For example he talks of the reintroduction of large predators in an area of just 365 square miles that couldn't possibly maintain a population in any natural way - the range would be orders of magnitude too small.

He proposes the abandonment of a farming system going back to the bronze age, in a way that would destroy the economy of many local communities. No-one believes that farming could be replaced by eco-tourism as he proposes, particularly as a return to gorse and scrub would destroy the amenity of the moor. Without managed grazing most of the moor would become impassible, the views would be lost and the unmatched bronze-age remains would be buried in scrub and destroyed. FinallyAlso, a recent study on rewilding Dartmoor concluded that in all likelihood wild fires would sweep uncontrolled through the moor in times of drought.

Source: Landscapes without Livestock

I've followed the rewilding debate for some time, and it's striking that most of the proponents are idealistic urban greens, while most of the critics are the pragmatic people who actually work and manage the land. And Monbiot does himself few favours with his insulting implication that he is the only voice with the true interests of the countryside at heart - I know some of these farmers and conservationists and they love the land with a passion.

Monbiot has sparked a useful debate, but his proposals are unworkable and won't be implemented. What is actually needed is the careful and incremental introduction of better management practice to enrich the ecology of our National Parks while preserving their rich heritage of landscape and culture. And I can't see how the new UNESCO classification should hold this back in any way.

Yes, the UNESCO WHS classification would be an obstacle to Monbiots rewilding proposals, as it focuses on the preservation of a farmed landscape. But that begs the question of whether radical rewilding, as envisioned my Monbiot, would be the right way to go.

No-one is going to deny that there is plenty of bad land management in the UK, particularly on some of the large shooting estates. And there is plenty of room for introducing better practice. But the experienced country folk that I have discussed this with regard Monbiot's radical rewilding proposal as seriously misconceived.

First, we need a reality check. It's now understood that many areas of land, such as the Amazonian rainforest and Yellowstone that were once though to be "wild" were in fact carefully managed by the indigenous population. With the exception of a small corner of Poland there is virtually no land in the whole of Europe that could truly be designated as wild - it is all managed to a greater or lesser degree. These are created landscapes - so exactly what point in their evolution are we supposed to revert to?

I don't know the detail of his Lake District proposals, but here in Dartmoor his proposals for the area have been met with derision by local conservationists.

For example he talks of the reintroduction of large predators in an area of just 365 square miles that couldn't possibly maintain a population in any natural way - the range would be orders of magnitude too small.

He proposes the abandonment of a farming system going back to the bronze age, in a way that would destroy the economy of many local communities. No-one believes that farming could be replaced by eco-tourism as he proposes, particularly as a return to gorse and scrub would destroy the amenity of the moor. Without managed grazing most of the moor would become impassible, the views would be lost and the unmatched bronze-age remains would be buried in scrub and destroyed. Finally, a recent study on rewilding Dartmoor concluded that in all likelihood wild fires would sweep uncontrolled through the moor in times of drought.

Source: Landscapes without Livestock

I've followed the rewilding debate for some time, and it's striking that most of the proponents are idealistic urban greens, while most of the critics are the pragmatic people who actually work and manage the land. And Monbiot does himself few favours with his insulting implication that he is the only voice with the true interests of the countryside at heart - I know some of these farmers and conservationists and they love the land with a passion.

Monbiot has sparked a useful debate, but his proposals are unworkable and won't be implemented. What is actually needed is the careful and incremental introduction of better management practice to enrich the ecology of our National Parks while preserving their rich heritage of landscape and culture. And I can't see how the new UNESCO classification should hold this back in any way.

Yes, the UNESCO WHS classification would be an obstacle to Monbiots rewilding proposals, as it focuses on the preservation of a farmed landscape. But that begs the question of whether radical rewilding, as envisioned by Monbiot, would be the right way to go.

No-one is going to deny that there is plenty of bad land management in the UK, particularly on some of the large shooting estates. And there is plenty of room for introducing better practice. But the experienced country folk that I have discussed this with regard Monbiot's radical rewilding proposal as seriously misconceived.

First, we need a reality check. It's now understood that many areas of land, such as the Amazonian rainforest and Yellowstone that were once though to be "wild" were in fact carefully managed by the indigenous population. With the exception of a small corner of Poland there is virtually no land in the whole of Europe that could truly be designated as wild - it is all managed to a greater or lesser degree. These are created landscapes - so exactly what point in their evolution are we supposed to revert to?

I don't know the detail of his Lake District proposals, but here in Dartmoor his proposals for the area have been met with derision by local conservationists.

For example he talks of the reintroduction of large predators in an area of just 365 square miles that couldn't possibly maintain a population in any natural way - the range would be orders of magnitude too small.

He proposes the abandonment of a farming system going back to the bronze age, in a way that would destroy the economy of many local communities. No-one believes that farming could be replaced by eco-tourism as he proposes, particularly as a return to gorse and scrub would destroy the amenity of the moor. Without managed grazing most of the moor would become impassible, the views would be lost and the unmatched bronze-age remains would be buried in scrub and destroyed. Also, a recent study on rewilding Dartmoor concluded that in all likelihood wild fires would sweep uncontrolled through the moor in times of drought.

Source: Landscapes without Livestock

I've followed the rewilding debate for some time, and it's striking that most of the proponents are idealistic urban greens, while most of the critics are the pragmatic people who actually work and manage the land. And Monbiot does himself few favours with his insulting implication that he is the only voice with the true interests of the countryside at heart - I know some of these farmers and conservationists and they love the land with a passion.

Monbiot has sparked a useful debate, but his proposals are unworkable and won't be implemented. What is actually needed is the careful and incremental introduction of better management practice to enrich the ecology of our National Parks while preserving their rich heritage of landscape and culture. And I can't see how the new UNESCO classification should hold this back in any way.

2 edited body
source | link

Yes, the UNESCO WHS classification would be an obstacle to Monbiots rewilding proposals, as it focuses on the preservation of a farmed landscape. But that begs the question of whether radical rewilding, as envisioned my Monbiot, would be the right way to go.

No-one is going to deny that there is plenty of bad land management in the UK, particularly on some of the large shooting estates. And there is plenty of room for introducing better practice. But the experienced country folk that I have discussed this with regard Monbiot's radical rewilding proposal as seriously misconceived.

First, we need a reality check. It's now understood that many areas of land, such as the Amazonian rainforest and Yellowstone that were once though to be "wild" were in fact carefully managed by the indigenous population. With the exception of a small corner of Poland there is virtually no land in the whole of Europe that could truly be designated as wild - it is all managed to a greater or lesser degree. These are created landscapes - so exactly what point in their evolution are we supposed to revert to?

I don't know the detail of his Lake District proposals, but here in Dartmoor his proposals for the area have been met with derision by local conservationists.

For example he talks of the reintroduction of large predators in an area of just 365 square miles that couldn't possibly maintain a population in any natural way - the range would be orders of magnitude too small.

He proposes the abandonment of a farming system going back to the bronze age, in a way that would destroy the economy of many local communities. No-one believes that farming could be replaced by eco-tourism as he proposes, particularly as a return to gorse and scrub would destroy the amenity of the moor. Without managed grazing most of the moor would become impassible, the views would be lost and the unmatched bronze-age remains would be buried in scrub and destroyed. Finally, a recent study on rewilding Dartmoor concluded that in all likelihood wild fires would sweep uncontrolled through the moor in times of drought.

Source: Landscapes without WildstockLivestock

I've followed the rewilding debate for some time, and it's striking that most of the proponents are idealistic urban greens, while most of the critics are the pragmatic people who actually work and manage the land. And Monbiot does himself few favours with his insulting implication that he is the only voice with the true interests of the countryside at heart - I know some of these farmers and conservationists and they love the land with a passion.

Monbiot has sparked a useful debate, but his proposals are unworkable and won't be implemented. What is actually needed is the careful and incremental introduction of better management practice to enrich the ecology of our National Parks while preserving their rich heritage of landscape and culture. And I can't see how the new UNESCO classification should hold this back in any way.

Yes, the UNESCO WHS classification would be an obstacle to Monbiots rewilding proposals, as it focuses on the preservation of a farmed landscape. But that begs the question of whether radical rewilding, as envisioned my Monbiot, would be the right way to go.

No-one is going to deny that there is plenty of bad land management in the UK, particularly on some of the large shooting estates. And there is plenty of room for introducing better practice. But the experienced country folk that I have discussed this with regard Monbiot's radical rewilding proposal as seriously misconceived.

First, we need a reality check. It's now understood that many areas of land, such as the Amazonian rainforest and Yellowstone that were once though to be "wild" were in fact carefully managed by the indigenous population. With the exception of a small corner of Poland there is virtually no land in the whole of Europe that could truly be designated as wild - it is all managed to a greater or lesser degree. These are created landscapes - so exactly what point in their evolution are we supposed to revert to?

I don't know the detail of his Lake District proposals, but here in Dartmoor his proposals for the area have been met with derision by local conservationists.

For example he talks of the reintroduction of large predators in an area of just 365 square miles that couldn't possibly maintain a population in any natural way - the range would be orders of magnitude too small.

He proposes the abandonment of a farming system going back to the bronze age, in a way that would destroy the economy of many local communities. No-one believes that farming could be replaced by eco-tourism as he proposes, particularly as a return to gorse and scrub would destroy the amenity of the moor. Without managed grazing most of the moor would become impassible, the views would be lost and the unmatched bronze-age remains would be buried in scrub and destroyed. Finally, a recent study on rewilding Dartmoor concluded that in all likelihood wild fires would sweep uncontrolled through the moor in times of drought.

Source: Landscapes without Wildstock

I've followed the rewilding debate for some time, and it's striking that most of the proponents are idealistic urban greens, while most of the critics are the pragmatic people who actually work and manage the land. And Monbiot does himself few favours with his insulting implication that he is the only voice with the true interests of the countryside at heart - I know some of these farmers and conservationists and they love the land with a passion.

Monbiot has sparked a useful debate, but his proposals are unworkable and won't be implemented. What is actually needed is the careful and incremental introduction of better management practice to enrich the ecology of our National Parks while preserving their rich heritage of landscape and culture. And I can't see how the new UNESCO classification should hold this back in any way.

Yes, the UNESCO WHS classification would be an obstacle to Monbiots rewilding proposals, as it focuses on the preservation of a farmed landscape. But that begs the question of whether radical rewilding, as envisioned my Monbiot, would be the right way to go.

No-one is going to deny that there is plenty of bad land management in the UK, particularly on some of the large shooting estates. And there is plenty of room for introducing better practice. But the experienced country folk that I have discussed this with regard Monbiot's radical rewilding proposal as seriously misconceived.

First, we need a reality check. It's now understood that many areas of land, such as the Amazonian rainforest and Yellowstone that were once though to be "wild" were in fact carefully managed by the indigenous population. With the exception of a small corner of Poland there is virtually no land in the whole of Europe that could truly be designated as wild - it is all managed to a greater or lesser degree. These are created landscapes - so exactly what point in their evolution are we supposed to revert to?

I don't know the detail of his Lake District proposals, but here in Dartmoor his proposals for the area have been met with derision by local conservationists.

For example he talks of the reintroduction of large predators in an area of just 365 square miles that couldn't possibly maintain a population in any natural way - the range would be orders of magnitude too small.

He proposes the abandonment of a farming system going back to the bronze age, in a way that would destroy the economy of many local communities. No-one believes that farming could be replaced by eco-tourism as he proposes, particularly as a return to gorse and scrub would destroy the amenity of the moor. Without managed grazing most of the moor would become impassible, the views would be lost and the unmatched bronze-age remains would be buried in scrub and destroyed. Finally, a recent study on rewilding Dartmoor concluded that in all likelihood wild fires would sweep uncontrolled through the moor in times of drought.

Source: Landscapes without Livestock

I've followed the rewilding debate for some time, and it's striking that most of the proponents are idealistic urban greens, while most of the critics are the pragmatic people who actually work and manage the land. And Monbiot does himself few favours with his insulting implication that he is the only voice with the true interests of the countryside at heart - I know some of these farmers and conservationists and they love the land with a passion.

Monbiot has sparked a useful debate, but his proposals are unworkable and won't be implemented. What is actually needed is the careful and incremental introduction of better management practice to enrich the ecology of our National Parks while preserving their rich heritage of landscape and culture. And I can't see how the new UNESCO classification should hold this back in any way.

1
source | link