Unsubscribed! What is the scaremongering about fir trees?? How the hell do trees effect salmon & trout?? How the hell does shooting pheasants that are bred to be shot , increasing the diversity? This is pure scaremongering on a massive scale!
Well for a start conifer trees make the water acidic. Guess what that effects? fish! It also destroys habitat for birds that nest in grassland. Spruce and fir are fast growing and can out grow other trees that need more time, like oak. It's not scare mongering it's what happens with poor interference.
@@lorrygeewhizzbang9521 So it’s 100% that the trees to be grown will be for, spruce & Fir then?? I’ve not heard anything that implies that the trees to be planted are those type. Why, after all the problems that plantations have caused over the years, would people looking to ‘re-wild’ parts of the countryside plant trees that are not indigenous to the U.K.? That’s not re-wilding, that’s ‘just’ planting random trees for the sake of planting trees. That is not the point behind rewilding. So I stand by the scaremongering statement. If people are told that is Firs, spruce etc being planted in big square plantations that have been created in the past of course it’s going to cause derision. If they had the facts then that would be different. Farmers who farm sheep have in the most part (not all granted) been making a loss over the last few years and it’s only been money from the EU keeping them going. I am positive that having 1000s of acres dedicated to sheep, is not by any stretch of the imagination, is a good use of precious land. Yes, we need as an island especially, what farmers produce. That’s not in question. But turning a couple of hundred acres of grazed land into a wilder, more diverse and let’s face interesting place amongst what is predominantly sheep grazing, cannot be a bad thing. I’m sure the person who sold this land had they’re reasons for selling. Conservation whichever way one looks at it or whatever one believes in regards to all the news on climate change etc, is very important. The U.K. is one of the least ecologically diverse countries in the world. That’s a disgrace. Especially as we are so good at preaching to every other f**ker about how they should preserve rainforests etc etc.
Really playing the ‘foreigners in our land’ card there😳 How are trees going to effect shooting? Why can’t it go hand in Hand? It could really help the conservation that you are involved in, to actually give the animals that need conserving a place to live. That would also surely mean there would be more game and more opportunity for food supply. The video just showed game birds being shot. That’s not conservation, that’s breeding birds on the land as it is in 1:20 many other places around the isles in order for people to pay to shoot what’s reared. What do you shoot with a shotgun that is a pest, a bird & endemic where you are? It’s a sport, which clearly does also involve culling & controlling, which is important👍 and also the sport is important too, in lots of ways for rural communities, Why wouldn’t rewilding be a good thing? Surely if done in collaboration with the shooting estates & community why couldn’t it work? Im sure
So rewilding and mono-culture plantations are two completely different things. So which is it that you are against? Anyone who supports rewilding would never support mono-culture plantations. This story needs a much better explanation of what is happening. If your land is being covered in timber plantations, then I'm sure rewilding organisations would help you to fight it. You need to look at the difference between the two and decide which you are against.
Haha, so shooting is for carbon sequestration and conservation? Well, nothing against shooting and fieldsports. But you can't be against reforestation in general and in times of climate change.
Rewilding is not what this is about, rewilding does not cause damage to biodiversity, I think this video should be fact checked by experts in biodiversity and wildlife, as well as climate justice, and corrected. None of these impacts would be a consequence of proper, well planned conservation project, which rewilding is. Planting trees for greenwashing is not a form of rewilding at all. Please review this video and correct the terms used, please, please.
Thanks for this. I think terms such as 'rewilding' and 'sustainable' have two problems. Overuse has blurred their meaning, and they are best used in context - sustainable for what? what is rewilded? / Charlie
I agree, this is not an issue about rewilding which is about restoring nature and biodiversity. Judging by the description of what is happening to the land, it is getting covered in mono-culture plantations which do not create any balance of nature or a place for wildlife to thrive. So please get your facts right. Is it a rewilding plan that you are fighting against or a dead zone of mono-culture plantations? They are two very different things.
Plating trees is a good thing but not on this scale. As soon as these trees die and rot, get cut down or get burt they release all the carbon they once absorbed. It doesnt do a whole lot of good for the environment.
The right type of trees need to be planted (native or orchard) in the right place, for the right reason (windbreaks, game cover livestock shelter etc).
Quote: “Shooting aids conservation” how does that work in respect to illegal raptor persecution, you know that thing which the Field Sports Channel refuses to acknowledge or report on?
The 'carbon credits' are also pointless, the loss of farming land will mean loss of local produce with the need for the use of shipping and aviation to bring food from abroad to replace what we could have grown. It's not actually benefiting anyone. For local, buy local.
Considering the land grab in Holland, and the purchase of farms by the Gates foundation, how do we know the planting of monocrop conifers in Wales and Scotland, and the high rate of building on the best farm land in England, is not an extension of the policy of removing land from food production to force people to turn to "fake food" for the benefit of the investors in this laboratory produced food industry/
The WEF at work. Carbon offsets should come in the form of these companies practicing better environmental policies within their companies not these bs copouts.
Better get our fighting heads on and the sporting groups had better join together and create a war cabinet because its going to get worst now Packham is in the RSPCA🤬
Why not start a charity which will help young future farmers with financing such as a deposit, or adjust the price per acre where land has increased in price due to these outsiders buying up productive farms, to keep the land in the hands of those who will husband it in a regenerative way?
Thanks for this. Allowing land to revert to European scrub woodland is good for some nature, bad for others. In our managed environment, it creates wildfire problems, as shown by the catastrophic fires on RSPB and National Trust-managed uplands. The problem in this case is the word 'rewilding' which can come with the sacking of local gamekeepers and the removal of tenant farmers. Gamekeepers and some farmers have a positive effect on biodiversity, so rewilding, in those cases can be said to be bad for nature. I hope this makes it clearer. / Charlie
I can’t get my head around the wilful destruction of our country by the very people that are put in place to look after it , we need more country sports enthusiasts in the government to get the point across, plus farmers like Gareth in government where they can have a bigger impact, these videos are great at getting the message out , but only to us, we already know the benefits of shooting and fishing, ie land management/ conservation water management etc , it’s the office wallers that look at concrete all day need to know what damage they’re doing
Farming and farmers AND land management feeds the people trees do not feed the people, so why is the government willing to destroy the land like this. This is what I do not understand.
Destroy the land? Are you serious? Of course we need to produce food and farmers should be able to earn a fair living. But intensive, nature-unfriendly farming is precisely what is destroying our land.
Unsubscribed!
What is the scaremongering about fir trees??
How the hell do trees effect salmon & trout??
How the hell does shooting pheasants that are bred to be shot , increasing the diversity?
This is pure scaremongering on a massive scale!
Well for a start conifer trees make the water acidic. Guess what that effects? fish! It also destroys habitat for birds that nest in grassland. Spruce and fir are fast growing and can out grow other trees that need more time, like oak. It's not scare mongering it's what happens with poor interference.
@@lorrygeewhizzbang9521 So it’s 100% that the trees to be grown will be for, spruce & Fir then?? I’ve not heard anything that implies that the trees to be planted are those type.
Why, after all the problems that plantations have caused over the years, would people looking to ‘re-wild’ parts of the countryside plant trees that are not indigenous to the U.K.? That’s not re-wilding, that’s ‘just’ planting random trees for the sake of planting trees.
That is not the point behind rewilding. So I stand by the scaremongering statement. If people are told that is Firs, spruce etc being planted in big square plantations that have been created in the past of course it’s going to cause derision.
If they had the facts then that would be different. Farmers who farm sheep have in the most part (not all granted) been making a loss over the last few years and it’s only been money from the EU keeping them going.
I am positive that having 1000s of acres dedicated to sheep, is not by any stretch of the imagination, is a good use of precious land. Yes, we need as an island especially, what farmers produce. That’s not in question. But turning a couple of hundred acres of grazed land into a wilder, more diverse and let’s face interesting place amongst what is predominantly sheep grazing, cannot be a bad thing.
I’m sure the person who sold this land had they’re reasons for selling.
Conservation whichever way one looks at it or whatever one believes in regards to all the news on climate change etc, is very important. The U.K. is one of the least ecologically diverse countries in the world. That’s a disgrace. Especially as we are so good at preaching to every other f**ker about how they should preserve rainforests etc etc.
Really playing the ‘foreigners in our land’ card there😳
How are trees going to effect shooting? Why can’t it go hand in Hand?
It could really help the conservation that you are involved in, to actually give the animals that need conserving a place to live.
That would also surely mean there would be more game and more opportunity for food supply.
The video just showed game birds being shot. That’s not conservation, that’s breeding birds on the land as it is in 1:20 many other places around the isles in order for people to pay to shoot what’s reared. What do you shoot with a shotgun that is a pest, a bird & endemic where you are?
It’s a sport, which clearly does also involve culling & controlling, which is important👍 and also the sport is important too, in lots of ways for rural communities,
Why wouldn’t rewilding be a good thing? Surely if done in collaboration with the shooting estates & community why couldn’t it work?
Im sure
So rewilding and mono-culture plantations are two completely different things. So which is it that you are against? Anyone who supports rewilding would never support mono-culture plantations. This story needs a much better explanation of what is happening. If your land is being covered in timber plantations, then I'm sure rewilding organisations would help you to fight it. You need to look at the difference between the two and decide which you are against.
Haha, so shooting is for carbon sequestration and conservation?
Well, nothing against shooting and fieldsports. But you can't be against reforestation in general and in times of climate change.
It is not proper rewilding for a start, and so called rewilding is just creating theme parks that are doomed to fail.
Government corruption at it's best!!!!
Rewilding is not what this is about, rewilding does not cause damage to biodiversity, I think this video should be fact checked by experts in biodiversity and wildlife, as well as climate justice, and corrected. None of these impacts would be a consequence of proper, well planned conservation project, which rewilding is. Planting trees for greenwashing is not a form of rewilding at all. Please review this video and correct the terms used, please, please.
Thanks for this. I think terms such as 'rewilding' and 'sustainable' have two problems. Overuse has blurred their meaning, and they are best used in context - sustainable for what? what is rewilded? / Charlie
I agree, this is not an issue about rewilding which is about restoring nature and biodiversity. Judging by the description of what is happening to the land, it is getting covered in mono-culture plantations which do not create any balance of nature or a place for wildlife to thrive. So please get your facts right. Is it a rewilding plan that you are fighting against or a dead zone of mono-culture plantations? They are two very different things.
Plating trees is a good thing but not on this scale. As soon as these trees die and rot, get cut down or get burt they release all the carbon they once absorbed. It doesnt do a whole lot of good for the environment.
The right type of trees need to be planted (native or orchard) in the right place, for the right reason (windbreaks, game cover livestock shelter etc).
Quote: “Shooting aids conservation” how does that work in respect to illegal raptor persecution, you know that thing which the Field Sports Channel refuses to acknowledge or report on?
The 'carbon credits' are also pointless, the loss of farming land will mean loss of local produce with the need for the use of shipping and aviation to bring food from abroad to replace what we could have grown. It's not actually benefiting anyone. For local, buy local.
Considering the land grab in Holland, and the purchase of farms by the Gates foundation, how do we know the planting of monocrop conifers in Wales and Scotland, and the high rate of building on the best farm land in England, is not an extension of the policy of removing land from food production to force people to turn to "fake food" for the benefit of the investors in this laboratory produced food industry/
Wyn Jones is right. Better communication, is needed. Between government an farmers.
Perhaps they should rewild it with salmon and sea trout.
Great idea, pity the welsh government are stupid and can’t work out things like that for themselves 👍👍🤠
Theres a much better idea create a park for hunters to shoot hunters,that would be a big help to the enviroment.
julie james does not have a clue about how many jobs are provided by field sports
The WEF at work. Carbon offsets should come in the form of these companies practicing better environmental policies within their companies not these bs copouts.
Better get our fighting heads on and the sporting groups had better join together and create a war cabinet because its going to get worst now Packham is in the RSPCA🤬
Why not start a charity which will help young future farmers with financing such as a deposit, or adjust the price per acre where land has increased in price due to these outsiders buying up productive farms, to keep the land in the hands of those who will husband it in a regenerative way?
Someone make this make sense...how exaclty is rewilding bad for nature? that's like saying that rain is bad for rivers.
Thanks for this. Allowing land to revert to European scrub woodland is good for some nature, bad for others. In our managed environment, it creates wildfire problems, as shown by the catastrophic fires on RSPB and National Trust-managed uplands. The problem in this case is the word 'rewilding' which can come with the sacking of local gamekeepers and the removal of tenant farmers. Gamekeepers and some farmers have a positive effect on biodiversity, so rewilding, in those cases can be said to be bad for nature. I hope this makes it clearer. / Charlie
I can’t get my head around the wilful destruction of our country by the very people that are put in place to look after it , we need more country sports enthusiasts in the government to get the point across, plus farmers like Gareth in government where they can have a bigger impact, these videos are great at getting the message out , but only to us, we already know the benefits of shooting and fishing, ie land management/ conservation water management etc , it’s the office wallers that look at concrete all day need to know what damage they’re doing
Change the government next election, they just think of the back handlers In Brown envelops!!
And balanced???? 😳😳
Farming and farmers AND land management feeds the people trees do not feed the people, so why is the government willing to destroy the land like this. This is what I do not understand.
Destroy the land? Are you serious? Of course we need to produce food and farmers should be able to earn a fair living. But intensive, nature-unfriendly farming is precisely what is destroying our land.
Well ofcourse it’s only part and parcel under a capitalist system.
What is your alternative? Socialism/Communism denies basic human nature.
A second amendment sounds good about now I think…