Land Sparing

What do you think of this idea Guys I originaly posted it under 13 Spot Ladybird, but I think it's more suited to conservation, and invironment


WS

Thats difficult WS. Keeping big reserves doesn't help with feeding people but it does save animal species. Doing the combined approach is ok if it is fair on all but I wonder how much land is actually given back/saved for the animals and how much does the farmer take? is it as long as the farmer saves one bush he is doing the right thing by the animals?
We do need to consider living more in harmony with the land and animals but the balance has to be right and what may be right somewhere may not be right somewhere else.....if I am making any sense.

littlewid-x-

My concern is that they said the study was of 600 species of Birds, and Trees. There is no mention of ground based Animals. We have seen in India, the effect of creating pockets of reserves, with no connecting corridor, on the Tiger population. The gene pool was constrained to those few Tigers in each reserve, which brought on inter breeding. They then have to move Tigers between reserves. The effect would be the same here, for Hedgehogs, Badgers, Weasels, Stoats, and other ground based Animals. How would they pass between the pockets of reserves if they were spread widely apart, and keep the gene pool of each species as varied as it is now. At least with land sharing there is that corridor around the edges of fields that Animals can navigate through to different areas

WS

Missed commenting on this yesterday WS - a big catch up after being away for a few days.

A really difficult one this and not quite so black and white I think. I'm all for land share or land spare if it works, but I am not sure it can be defined so easily. Watching Countryfile sometimes it all looks so easy to set aside areas for wildlife, and some farmers do but then what about the ones who don't? We need nature reserves as well as less intensive farming surely.

I totally agree with your last para Littlewid.

Lai

No problem Lai. I know you've been away, and you cant catch up on everything at once.
I agree with LW,s comment as well. What suits one Country does'nt suit another, that can change even from area to area. As I said my one worry is that the study did not cover ground dwelling animals, and the effect on them. We do need more reserves as you say, but I think we still need to keep the sharing option, to allow animals to move around. The other concern is as the author says himself with reserves, is how long they remain, before they are whittled away like our green belt, especialy with the government seemingly intent on introducing the new planning laws

WS

Sadly true WS in all cases. Green belt isn't safe for long. I would land share happily and you are right about the land dwelling animals - it's all too apparent with hares, we used to have plenty around and now we haven't seen any for ages, and that's not due to our Penny.

Lai

I wonder if the ground based animals haven't been given much thought is because a lot of people/farmers see them as a pest, they don't want these animals on their land supposedly ruining crops or as in the case of the badgers being accused of passing on infection. I may be wrong here but I get the feeling that farmers and farming is big business and it's the pounds that count, farmers today do not seem to be the land loving animal loving people you know or expect them to be. I get the feeling that they have a love of the countryside and the animals in it if it's going to be of profit to them.
Thats just a thought from me and it may be totally wrong, I hope it is anyway.

littlewid-x-