People before animals

That had crossed my mind too, margaret, but I don't know enough about it. Sounds likely, though...(to some extent, at least).

I feel very sorry for the farmers. They do have to live in places like the Somerset Levels. Others don't have to. They have a choice.

Rough with the smooth?

Should we blame the EU? At least it would all our politicians/quangocrats off the hook - "just following EU directives gov'"

Well I feel sorry for the wildlife. People generally choose where they live. Animals can't. Dreadful to think how wildlife must have been decimated by the flood waters. Think rabbit burrows flooding. And badger setts.

If the environment were managed by elected people in regional groups (people who understand how the local environment works) rather than unelected quangos with heads too full of often mistaken ideology, I think a far better job would be done for the benefit of all nature, be it wild or rather less wild.

We were having a discussion of this very subject, and saying more or less what you have said in your OP, flick, on the way to archery this afternoon.

I am not suggesting we should go back to the wholesale destruction of habitat and hedgerows that occurred in the past but I think that the pendulum has now swung too far the other way.

Agriculture, like every other industry has to be run in a responsible manner, and overstocking sheep in upland areas is not responsible, but if you do not graze the land gets over run by bracken! I confess I am puzzled that it has been considered to lead to deforestation, most of this land has never had much in the way of trees on it anyway. Look at any landscape paintings of the past, trees in the valleys, but not on the uplands. Not until the Forestry Commission came and planted pines everywhere because it was all that would grow on the damp acid soil of most uplands.

I think farm stewardship plans, where conservation goes hand in hand with farmers is by far the best way to protect habitats, but when protection of habitat is clearly damaging to existing human occupation and land use then those in possession should be preferred.

Couldn't agree with you more Flick,

It was interesting on Countryfile last week- that one expert blamed part of the flooding on de-forestation and over-grazing and trampling (packing) of the soil by too many sheep in uplands areas- which do no longer absorb rain but let it run down ill to low lying lands.

Agreed, USA style farming methods are not good or suitable for this country. More and more farmers are conscious of environmental issues and are encouraging wildlife anyway without too much meddling from government and unelected quangos.

I'll second all that just so long as we don't go back to the sixties and seventies where the countryside was ripped apart to enlarge fields for over production of cereal crops.

I don't think anybody watching the threads will expect me to argue with the sentiment you express Flickety and Margaret m.

It will be bad for the environment when we produce less and less food and have to import more from overseas because these quangocrats do not understand the countryside and how it works.

Yes, we should all have access to the countryside and be able to enjoy it, but they fail to realise it is not just a pretty place to tour at weekends. It is the main source of our food , a working environment and livelihood for many people. Farmers have enough pressure from supermarkets and they do not need the added pressure from government and bureaucratic meddlers who have little or no knowledge of food production and best practice in rural affairs.