Too many deer for too few people - George Monbiot's Blog in The Guardian

I'm a nuclear submariner, and a trident one at that, so I have never managed to get beyond P. 2 of the Grauniad without throwing it across the room in a fit of outrage anyway. This is not helping my blood pressure any...:evil:
 
To quote

"It takes as its case study the county of Sutherland, a wide territory in the far north of Scotland, covering 5,200 sq km".

well, thanks for that :banghead:

Condescending ****.
 
I am no fan of Monbiot, or environmental fascists in general. His off the cuff suggestion that somehow "mass wildlife tourism" could provide economic growth in the highlands is laughable.

But the man is correct in some key areas. The highlands were forceably depopulated in the 18th and 19th centuries and their people displaced - call it what it was - ethnic cleansing.

What I cannot support is the idea that these clearances should be perpetuated so a few people can have deer stalking.

The highlands need to be managed and regenerated in the interests of the current and future people who live there and for a much greater diversity of plants and wildlife than just deer, grouse and heather.

We had somewhat similar issue here in Ireland, but the land acts of the late 19th century forced a lot of land back into the hands of the small farmers, whose ancestors had owned the land in the first place before it was forceably taken from them.
 
Last edited:
To quote

"It takes as its case study the county of Sutherland, a wide territory in the far north of Scotland, covering 5,200 sq km".

well, thanks for that :banghead:

The sad fact is, there are quite a few of his readers who won't know the location or size of Sutherland... Arguably he is writing for the guardian's readership afterall...
 
There's a substantial core of truth in his article. The structure of land owneship in the Highlands and the uses to which the land is put are hardly conducive to benefiting most of its' inhabitants. There's room for more diverse farming, deerstalking, tourists and more people: the balance is all wrong. And it is most certainly the long-term consequence of ethnic cleansing and a subsequent land-grab. That's not to say that living under a clan/tribal system from subsistence agriculture was a great life by any means, but at least it was some sort of life. Whereas now, hardly anyone lives there, under what is essentially just another feudal system.

In the South (which isn't exactly Utopia either), we generally have to accomodate other land users when deerstalking. Certainly when I'm shooting woodcock, I adapt my timetable to try and avoid others (easy enough, the hours are unsociable), but I often meet ramblers, dog walkers, riders, cyclists, foresters, etc.

At the risk of sounding like a hippie, why can't we all just get along, Man?

I understand that the landscape, climate and ecology of the Highlands doesn't lend itself to intense use and dense population, but it can fit more people and uses than it does now. Of course, that would require another land-grab...
 
The nice thing about GM is that he very helpfully puts that picture of himself at the top of the column so everybody knows what to think about him even before you start reading.

Has anyone got a link to the actual report? I've had a quick look at the SGA site but can't spot anything except the press release.
 
There's a substantial core of truth in his article. The structure of land owneship in the Highlands and the uses to which the land is put are hardly conducive to benefiting most of its' inhabitants. There's room for more diverse farming, deerstalking, tourists and more people: the balance is all wrong. And it is most certainly the long-term consequence of ethnic cleansing and a subsequent land-grab. That's not to say that living under a clan/tribal system from subsistence agriculture was a great life by any means, but at least it was some sort of life. Whereas now, hardly anyone lives there, under what is essentially just another feudal system.

In the South (which isn't exactly Utopia either), we generally have to accomodate other land users when deerstalking. Certainly when I'm shooting woodcock, I adapt my timetable to try and avoid others (easy enough, the hours are unsociable), but I often meet ramblers, dog walkers, riders, cyclists, foresters, etc.

At the risk of sounding like a hippie, why can't we all just get along, Man?

I understand that the landscape, climate and ecology of the Highlands doesn't lend itself to intense use and dense population, but it can fit more people and uses than it does now. Of course, that would require another land-grab...

I'm not too impressed by Monbiot but I tend to agree with much of your answer... the balance as you say is all wrong - - I for one would love to see our Straths repopulated with a broader diversity of people and occupations making up small viable communities.

JR
 
The nice thing about GM is that he very helpfully puts that picture of himself at the top of the column so everybody knows what to think about him even before you start reading.

Has anyone got a link to the actual report? I've had a quick look at the SGA site but can't spot anything except the press release.

Did this link not work ?
Too many deer for too few people – a self-defeating study of the Highlands | George Monbiot | Environment | guardian.co.uk
 
Yes thanks - but I meant the actual SGA Report rather than Curious George's undoubtedly fair and unbiased critique.
 
Its funny how history can repeat itself. There was a series of Royal Commissions set up before the second world war to look at whether the highlands of Scotland could be re-populated so reversing the clearances. Even with the lower expectations of the people then it was concluded that it was impossible to achieve without massive taxpayer subsidy. The land in most areas is too harse and bleak to support any other activity except deer and grouse. As for tourism-well its already been done to death and I think is at saturation point already. Anyway folk dont have to pay to walk the hills just to look and its doubtful how much these tent living ramblers bring in to the local economy. I think we can get carried away in this romantic notion that the clearances were all bad. In some areas there was no doubt atrocities committed but mostly the people could hardly make a living then and on removal to the colonies ,in a lot of cases, they thrived. Near to me are several old hill settlements. I look at them with wonder at how the people could exist in this barren land. There are no roads or tracks and even trees struggle. Was there a warmer climate then? David
 
I don't think that it was quite as barren back then. After all, we know full well that human activities form the landscape. Now it's all deforested (except in name, where the "deer forests" subsist), and barren from overgrazing by deer and sheep, and subsequent soil erosion. Back then you would have seen more trees and more arable farming. So the land would have looked less harsh than now, although the weather was just as awful.

I've been to villages in Crete (sunnier, warmer, but even more barren) which are almost abandoned, although you can see terraces with retaining dry stone walls. You wonder how people survived, and the answer is by the skin of their teeth and painstakingly looking after what little soil and natural resources they had. Same thing, now it's all eroded, rocky, and kept that way by goats. And they fall back on tourism.
 
I am sorry but if you read the Guardian you deserve everything you get.
If you write in the Guardian you deserve a lot worse!

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]The man is an idiot and I will not justify his overblown salary by reading the bile that he vents.[/FONT]
 
Quote "But these are small by comparison to the employment that could be generated, for example, from wildlife tourism with mass appeal, if the ecosystem is allowed to regenerate and missing species allowed to return."

I look forward to the Thomas Cook brochure advertising holidays to a Sutherland bog to look at the flora and fauna (in August with all the midges, cloud,cold and rain) and the family from the South East then trying to decide between Sutherland and Benidorm. Which one do you think is the "tourism with mass appeal" ?

We (Stalkers/walkers/outdoor types) are in the minority and I want to keep it that way.

Call me a snob, but if I wanted to go on holiday with Mick and Tracey from Dagenham in their nike/Addidas shorts and trainers and sit by a pool/bar I would go to Benidorm. But I would rather get wet, bitten, muddy, cold etc in a Sutherland bog stalking deer.

PS I know not everyone from Dagenham are the same.

ATB
 
Its funny how history can repeat itself. There was a series of Royal Commissions set up before the second world war to look at whether the highlands of Scotland could be re-populated so reversing the clearances. Even with the lower expectations of the people then it was concluded that it was impossible to achieve without massive taxpayer subsidy. The land in most areas is too harse and bleak to support any other activity except deer and grouse. As for tourism-well its already been done to death and I think is at saturation point already. Anyway folk dont have to pay to walk the hills just to look and its doubtful how much these tent living ramblers bring in to the local economy. I think we can get carried away in this romantic notion that the clearances were all bad. In some areas there was no doubt atrocities committed but mostly the people could hardly make a living then and on removal to the colonies ,in a lot of cases, they thrived. Near to me are several old hill settlements. I look at them with wonder at how the people could exist in this barren land. There are no roads or tracks and even trees struggle. Was there a warmer climate then? David

Agreed 100% what you call hill setlements were probably sheilings, where they went to the hill and lived with their cattle during the summer months.

Pine Marten, trees there may have been but only up to a certain hight nothing other than heather will grow on the tops.
Agriculture yes but only in the glen bottoms, its almost impossible to make a living from crofting, you need to have other employment, crofting is a life style choice,you need another form of income.
In the old days it was mainly cattle, but in the Highlands they could not even grow enough to feed the cattle through the winter, a very few may have been kept for breeding the following year, but most were either butchered for their own use or walked to the lowland markets to be sold Crieff and Falkirk being the two of the main ones

Commercial forestry suits a lot of these places but just look at this forum to see how popular that is, its notorious for providing very little local income, I live in an area with a lot of commercial forestry, while it did provide a small amount of local work at first ie tree planting , some of it has now reached harvesting state apart from planting almost all other work has been done by outside contractors nothing local.

Any idea of repopulating the Highlands is pie in the sky, sporting be it Grouse or Deer, sheep, commercial forestry,
tourism thats the options that provide employment and income but its
limited.
 
sporting be it Grouse or Deer, sheep, commercial forestry,
tourism thats the options that provide employment and income but its
limited.

and renewable energy production? (not trolling - a genuine question from a flat and relatively over-populated land dweller)
 
and renewable energy production? (not trolling - a genuine question from a flat and relatively over-populated land dweller)

It's a nice idea. The problem is scheme's like hydro aren't popular as a resource use (often with good reasons). Wind is very unreliable (Be easier to commericalise if we had a better way of storing produced energy) Biomass based fuels: Often relatively low value and high transport costs and growing conditions aren't great so low yields compound the problem...

Might be an option in future but not a near term one I don't think.

ATB,

Scrummy
 
and renewable energy production? (not trolling - a genuine question from a flat and relatively over-populated land dweller)

Indeed but renewable energy is even less popular than forestry by locals, wind farms always petitions to stop them
water turbines require hill roads to build them and then service them, outcry about spoiling the landscape from the usual suspects.
 
Back
Top