Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
islandgun

environmentalist's

Recommended Posts

Am i getting this right at last. we have the E.A and the likes of avery and monbiot [ alleged ecologist's]  telling all and sundry that we shouldn't clean our rivers because that will harm nature, we should be vegans because cattle are causing the planet to flood whilst agricultural land should be planted to trees also to save the planet and nature, We wont be allowed fossil fuels and the mass production of electric cars is the only way forward..  What is it going to take for those with common sense and practical experience to oust these fools, how many people will have to drown or loose their homes and livelihoods, how many habitats will be destroyed and how dependant on foreign aid will Britain become ...😠

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's getting worse, we need government to tell them to shut up. 

A shift change in teaching and education of environmental issues. Years ago these people were known as weirdos to be ignored and avoided. I still feel that way about them. But they think they're right and will shout it like a zealot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello, i heard on TV a lady EA expert saying dredging does not help flooding??? remember in Somerset a few years back, ? after much deliberation they did the dredging and it looks like it has worked as you do not hear of much flooding now, and it does not take long for the ecology to return, no cattle and covered in forests sounds like a million years ago,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following storm Desmond five or so years ago, amongst many other areas, the football pitch in my hometown was flooded, as was the cricket pitch, a recreation area called the Butts ( named thus because of it's history of archery being practised there, in the days when it was mandatory ) and a children's play area. It was claimed that all the ground flooded where public had access, was deemed toxic, and it had to be removed and disposed of. It was fenced off as a precaution, but the cricket pitch wasn't for some reason, nor the Butts. The children play area was, possibly because it is on the same field as the football pitch.  The football pitch at great expense was dug up, replaced and resown, but the cricket pitch wasn't, nor was the childrens play area or the Butts, for whatever reason. This is the first time this had happened, despite the same fields being flooded many times in the past. 

My first recollection of the town being flooded was back in 1967, this was during the time we were all being told at school, to prepare for another ice age. I recall as a youth, on many of the farms I played on, that dykes and becks, streams and land drains were cleared, and in one notable instance, the river Eden itself where it runs through the town. Dredging has been stopped for many years now, and the flooding has increased in regularity. Whether there is a connection I have no idea, but many locals are in agreement that there is. All that rain landing on the Fells washes all manner of things down hill, into the valleys, and common sense says it ends up settling somewhere. 

Storm Desmond was the first time any of the flooded land was treated as toxic waste. It will be interesting to see if it is insisted upon that the football pitch etc etc are dug up again this year. 

I recall that during that same storm, some local lads were so annoyed with the water repeatedly flooding their village of Glenridding, they took it upon themselves to totally ignore the protestations of EA employees and dredge the beck bottom. The village didn't flood again during that storm as far as I know. 

 

Edited by Scully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allowing the man made side streams, dykes and rivers of East Anglia to silt up and consequently shallow, would put the fens back to the times before Vermuyden....likewise any natural river where the depth was compromised through lack of dredging would increase the chance of flooding

The shallower the river = less/slower run off capacity = increased risk of flooding

The deeper the river = more run off capacity/faster = decreased risk of flooding

As I understand it.......the government in the past encouraged landowners (by paying subsidies) to dig drainage ditches on the moors, so more sheep could graze!.....result!.....more uncontrolled run off and regular flooding in the valley communities below.........now the protectionist/antis are using this to lobby to get driven grouse shooting banned, blaming this flooding on grouse keepers, who they claim breed more grouse on drained moors!

Edited by panoma1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Scully said:

Following storm Desmond five or so years ago, amongst many other areas, the football pitch in my hometown was flooded, as was the cricket pitch, a recreation area called the Butts ( named thus because of it's history of archery being practised there, in the days when it was mandatory ) and a children's play area. It was claimed that all the ground flooded where public had access, was deemed toxic, and it had to be removed and disposed of. It was fenced off as a precaution, but the cricket pitch wasn't for some reason, nor the Butts. The children play area was, possibly because it is on the same field as the football pitch.  The football pitch at great expense was dug up, replaced and resown, but the cricket pitch wasn't, nor was the childrens play area or the Butts, for whatever reason. This is the first time this had happened, despite the same fields being flooded many times in the past. 

My first recollection of the town being flooded was back in 1967, this was during the time we were all being told at school, to prepare for another ice age. I recall as a youth, on many of the farms I played on, that dykes and becks, streams and land drains were cleared, and in one notable instance, the river Eden itself where it runs through the town. Dredging has been stopped for many years now, and the flooding has increased in regularity. Whether there is a connection I have no idea, but many locals are in agreement that there is. All that rain landing on the Fells washes all manner of things down hill, into the valleys, and common sense says it ends up settling somewhere. 

Storm Desmond was the first time any of the flooded land was treated as toxic waste. It will be interesting to see if it is insisted upon that the football pitch etc etc are dug up again this year. 

I recall that during that same storm, some local lads were so annoyed with the water repeatedly flooding their village of Glenridding, they took it upon themselves to totally ignore the protestations of EA employees and dredge the beck bottom. The village didn't flood again during that storm as far as I know. 

 

It would be interesting to see if the pitch is resurfaced again, please keep us posted, I take it the dredged part of the Beck is now completely devoid of all life..😉

 

29 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Allowing the man made side streams, dykes and rivers of East Anglia to silt up and consequently shallow, would put the fens back to the times before Vermuyden....likewise any natural river where the depth was compromised through lack of dredging would increase the chance of flooding

The shallower the river = less/slower run off capacity = increased risk of flooding

The deeper the river = more run off capacity/faster = decreased risk of flooding

As I understand it.......the government in the past encouraged landowners (by paying subsidies) to fill in drainage ditches on the moors, so more sheep could graze result......more uncontrolled run off and regular flooding in the valley communities below.........now the protectionist/antis are using this to lobby to get driven grouse shooting banned, blaming this flooding on grouse keepers, who they claim breed more grouse on drained moors!

Who will they blame for the uncontrollable wild fires that will happen when the moors are re-wilded/un-managed

Edited by islandgun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Allowing the man made side streams, dykes and rivers of East Anglia to silt up and consequently shallow, would put the fens back to the times before Vermuyden....likewise any natural river where the depth was compromised through lack of dredging would increase the chance of flooding

The shallower the river = less/slower run off capacity = increased risk of flooding

The deeper the river = more run off capacity/faster = decreased risk of flooding

As I understand it.......the government in the past encouraged landowners (by paying subsidies) to fill in drainage ditches on the moors, so more sheep could graze result......more uncontrolled run off and regular flooding in the valley communities below.........now the protectionist/antis are using this to lobby to get driven grouse shooting banned, blaming this flooding on grouse keepers, who they claim breed more grouse on drained moors!

The real trouble was (if I understand the papers correctly) is that the government encouraged the draining of moors which brought about many of our current problems because of rapid drainage from the moors. This meant that there was also a large vegetation load which increased the risk and intensity of fires. The elephant in the room is that the antis won't accept that the moors that were managed for grouse were not extensively drained (which meant that when there was a lot of rain the moor got very soggy and drained slowly, reducing the risk of flooding) but the fact that grouse moors are ecologically good, species rich environments, which reduce the risk of flooding must be lied about because of their strange beliefs.

 

David.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, islandgun said:

It would be interesting to see if the pitch is resurfaced again, please keep us posted, I take it the dredged part of the Beck is now completely devoid of all life..😉

 

Who will they blame for the uncontrollable wild fires that will happen when the moors are re-wilded/un-managed

They won’t give a flying **** they will have achieved their aim....to stop “the toffs” shooting grouse!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Kalahari said:

The real trouble was (if I understand the papers correctly) is that the government encouraged the draining of moors which brought about many of our current problems because of rapid drainage from the moors. This meant that there was also a large vegetation load which increased the risk and intensity of fires. The elephant in the room is that the antis won't accept that the moors that were managed for grouse were not extensively drained (which meant that when there was a lot of rain the moor got very soggy and drained slowly, reducing the risk of flooding) but the fact that grouse moors are ecologically good, species rich environments, which reduce the risk of flooding must be lied about because of their strange beliefs.

 

David.

Yes David, I incorrectly wrote......the government paid grants to “fill-in” drainage ditches, when in fact they paid grants to landowners to “dig” them! :blush: In order to drain the moors! I have amended the offending words!

Does my posting now make more sense? Lol!

Edited by panoma1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an information board on the river sow in Stafford that proudly proclaims how not to long ago it was navigable by small cargo boats, you can now walk across the bit in front of the board without getting your knees wet in normal conditions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dredging is massively damaging to any river eco system, I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise. 

That said you have to decide which is more important, the ecology of a stretch of river or the homes and livelihoods of hundreds or even thousands of people. 

There are plenty of places where wetlands can be encouraged and managed for wildlife without detriment to people's livelihoods. 

I would call myself a conservationist. I don't see anything wrong with trying to protect valuable habitats ecosystems or species. The trouble comes when politics get involved and conservation becomes more about people than wildlife. 

It's counter productive - take Wild Justice for example. Like it or not they are intelligent people, highly motivated and well resourced to achieve their aims. Imagine if instead of being so deeply entrenched in politics and their views and beliefs they put all of their effort into conserving animals for the sake of the animals rather than the sake of their own ego's or political views. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ClemFandango said:

Dredging is massively damaging to any river eco system, I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise. 

That said you have to decide which is more important, the ecology of a stretch of river or the homes and livelihoods of hundreds or even thousands of people. 

There are plenty of places where wetlands can be encouraged and managed for wildlife without detriment to people's livelihoods. 

I would call myself a conservationist. I don't see anything wrong with trying to protect valuable habitats ecosystems or species. The trouble comes when politics get involved and conservation becomes more about people than wildlife. 

It's counter productive - take Wild Justice for example. Like it or not they are intelligent people, highly motivated and well resourced to achieve their aims. Imagine if instead of being so deeply entrenched in politics and their views and beliefs they put all of their effort into conserving animals for the sake of the animals rather than the sake of their own ego's or political views. 

I agree.....but taking HS2 as an example, politically conservation comes a poor third to commercial interests and the convenience of human beings!

WJ, Monbiot et al appear to be trying to reverse this, so the conservation of animals and nature takes priority over the interests of humans.....this is not conservation it is as you say.....egotistical and politically driven extremism!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, panoma1 said:

I agree.....but taking HS2 as an example, politically conservation comes a poor third to commercial interests and the convenience of human beings!

WJ, Monbiot et al appear to be trying to reverse this, so the conservation of animals and nature takes priority over the interests of humans.....this is not conservation it is as you say.....egotistical and politically driven extremism!

Good point about HS2. I hadn't considered that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not wish to argue with the technicalities of any of the post so far. However there is one inescapable fact. The more human beings that live on our small island the more it will be to the detriment of the environment. However the political bodies who purport to be ardent environmentalists never face up to this fact. They are all hypocrites and anyone who confronts them with this fact is labelled racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, TRINITY said:

Do not wish to argue with the technicalities of any of the post so far. However there is one inescapable fact. The more human beings that live on our small island the more it will be to the detriment of the environment. However the political bodies who purport to be ardent environmentalists never face up to this fact. They are all hypocrites and anyone who confronts them with this fact is labelled racist.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TRINITY said:

Do not wish to argue with the technicalities of any of the post so far. However there is one inescapable fact. The more human beings that live on our small island the more it will be to the detriment of the environment. However the political bodies who purport to be ardent environmentalists never face up to this fact. They are all hypocrites and anyone who confronts them with this fact is labelled racist.

Absolutely correct!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/02/2020 at 15:13, Scully said:

Following storm Desmond five or so years ago, amongst many other areas, the football pitch in my hometown was flooded, as was the cricket pitch, a recreation area called the Butts ( named thus because of it's history of archery being practised there, in the days when it was mandatory ) and a children's play area. It was claimed that all the ground flooded where public had access, was deemed toxic, and it had to be removed and disposed of. It was fenced off as a precaution, but the cricket pitch wasn't for some reason, nor the Butts. The children play area was, possibly because it is on the same field as the football pitch.  The football pitch at great expense was dug up, replaced and resown, but the cricket pitch wasn't, nor was the childrens play area or the Butts, for whatever reason. This is the first time this had happened, despite the same fields being flooded many times in the past. 

My first recollection of the town being flooded was back in 1967, this was during the time we were all being told at school, to prepare for another ice age. I recall as a youth, on many of the farms I played on, that dykes and becks, streams and land drains were cleared, and in one notable instance, the river Eden itself where it runs through the town. Dredging has been stopped for many years now, and the flooding has increased in regularity. Whether there is a connection I have no idea, but many locals are in agreement that there is. All that rain landing on the Fells washes all manner of things down hill, into the valleys, and common sense says it ends up settling somewhere. 

Storm Desmond was the first time any of the flooded land was treated as toxic waste. It will be interesting to see if it is insisted upon that the football pitch etc etc are dug up again this year. 

I recall that during that same storm, some local lads were so annoyed with the water repeatedly flooding their village of Glenridding, they took it upon themselves to totally ignore the protestations of EA employees and dredge the beck bottom. The village didn't flood again during that storm as far as I know. 

 

It still is. If you're male and over 14 years you have to do 2 hours practice a week. Also, if you live in York it is still legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow, but just not on Sundays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...