Great News For The Broads

[JennyMorgan]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-48051836

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-48051836

For a few seconds there Peter, i thought Packman had resigned?.

[dnks34]

Had my hopes up for a moment!

[marshman]

Yes Peter, you are absolutely right - this is a fantastic opportunity to bring the masses closer to wildlife.

The Norfolk WT has over the last few years been doing a similar project, albeit on a much smaller scale on the Thurne between Highs Mill opposite Martham boat yard and up to Candle Dyke - that has taken about 3 years or so but has resulted in a wonderful change from the old grazing marsh to a very wet freshwater habitat, and attracting bucket loads of birds! You can only access it by walking up the track towards the old Eel Sett and then round by the riverbank  - the whole water level has been raised significantly and it just shows what can be done if you try and work those marshes properly.

A grazing marsh was always going to be better than nothing but yet I continue to see farmers trying desperately to use the marshland for arable crops, all in pursuit of profit. The land alongside the Acle Straight towards Acle is an example but probably even worse is the attempt to grow arable crops around the Billockby end of the old road. All winter, even in our dry ones , the area is frequently under water, yet they still persist! Let marshland remain marshland and not try to drain it to pretend its just like other , higher, ground. 

The SWT have produced an excellent leaflet about what is being done explaining what is being done, and if you see it, grab as it shows the real efforts being made.

Good 'ol job them boys.

[expilot]

"You can only access it by walking up the track towards the old Eel Sett and then round by the riverbank..."

Would that that were true MM!  In fact, the vast majority of visitors walk to this newly created wetland not via Middle Wall, the track leading to the eel sett, but via the public footpath on the NE riverbank - a public footpath across private land in the ownership of each of the bungalow owners.  We the bungalow, owners, have a leasehold duty to keep the footpath clear and tidy.  Unfortunately, it now looks as if we, the bungalow owners, are obliged to keep this footpath clear, tidy and safe for members of the public to walk it.  We have just spent £4,000 to do just that.  The huge increase in Winter pedestrian traffic as a result of this new tourist attraction had turned the sole access to our riverside properties into a dangerously slippery thoroughfare. 

Of course, our Tenants Association asked Norfolk County Council, the Broads Authority, Broadland Environmental Services Limited and the Environment Agency to pay for this public footpath refurbishment, but, surprise, surprise, because it crosses private land, none of these organisations would accept responsibility to cover the cost.  To its credit, the EA offered to make a contribution to part cover the costs as a goodwill gesture.  

I wonder how long it will be before Middle Wall becomes totally unusable as a direct result of the huge increase in (speeding) vehicular traffic?

[marshman]

Point taken - although even now in the spring I doubt I would risk taking my car down Middle Wall. I assumed others would not either but forgot quite how stupid people are with cars - I wondered why that track had got so bad and now the penny has dropped!!

And now all I have done is drawn attention to it - with huge apologies ! The easiest way is to park in Lathams and walk the  Middle Wall route - why do they not put a gate on the access off the A149, its not a bridleway??? And indeed the other way too?

[riverman]

Sorry but I don't believe that's all entirely true. Nature doesn't need half the help these self serving ecologists believe, nor does it need millions wasted spoiling productive land. 

I have seen significantly more cranes on the arable marsh's at billockby by the junction than anywhere else. I see more otters in central wroxham than anywhere else. When you spend 5-7 days a week on the broads, you see that in many places the money is being spent in all the wrong places.

There are plenty of places on the broads where wildlife can thrive without much input. Most of these places are virtually inexcessible, but are we interested in doing the best conservation job possible or being able to view the wildlife? 

There are also places where the input of do gooders has done more harm than good, catfield fen for instance. 

A better balance must be found, one where local knowledge is as equally valued at as a degree. 

[JennyMorgan]

56 minutes ago, riverman said:

A better balance must be found, one where local knowledge is as equally valued at as a degree. 

A great deal of local knowledge and experience has gone into this development. Largely not quality productive land in this case. If the previous land owner had to have paid the land drainage costs then it's unlikely that he'd have made a living! I'm quite certain that the income to the local community will be far greater than was ever produced by the low quality agricultural marshland that it was. I'm not usually a great fan of do-gooders and tree huggers but having followed this one, literally as I live opposite, I am more than confidant that Suffolk Wildlife Trust will be good custodians of this part of the Broads. As it is it's largely a Ramsar, triple SSI site in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It doesn't impinge on the navigation and Suffolk Wildlife Trust has an excellent reputation in this corner of the Broads.

[marshman]

Cranes would still be seen at Billockby even without the land being "forced" into arable production - neither am I sure the lowering of the water table in the Ant Valley has really done Catfield Fen any good? Surely if it was having no impact, then the EA would not be withdrawing abstraction licences? 

I agree with Peter wholeheartedly about Carlton Marshes - like it or not the changes will increase the level of biodiversity and if as you say, you hide it away in accessible places, even the interested general public cannot see it all. Why should they be excluded from sharing some of the joys of Broadland, and if you leave nature alone entirely, I doubt we see the range of diversity we see today.

Would it be a good thing if our reedbeds disappeared under scrub alder, willow and silver birch? I realise it is a manmade environment but if nothing had already been done, and nature allowed its way, we would already have "lost" more of Broadland!

[Poppy]

2 minutes ago, marshman said:

Would it be a good thing if our reedbeds disappeared under scrub alder, willow and silver birch? I realise it is a manmade environment but if nothing had already been done, and nature allowed its way, we would already have "lost" more of Broadland!

Just as has been allowed to happen on the Ant above Barton Broad.

[riverman]

But surely the fact that cranes are equally likely to land in a corn field shows that we don't need to commit millions to conservation projects to encourage the cranes. 

I'm sure the lowering of water table hasn't done catfield fen any good (although I doubt it has done much harm), however I'm quite confident that digging all the dykes 20ft wide, and buring no end of forna and flora in the process has done the lions share of the damage. 

I'm all for conservation, and I don't actually disagree that the Carlton marshes project is a good one. However, how many nature reserves do we need, how many more places do people need to view a few birds. 

As for reed beds, if they are productive, they get managed essentially for free. The vast majority of broadland that has been lost, has been lost because of lack of management, however this previous management was most certainly not for the sake of biodiversity. I would argue by letting nature take hold in this man made environment, biodiversity has on the whole probably increased. 

The issue is as always, what point in history do we want to take the broads back to. 

 

[Vaughan]

2 hours ago, riverman said:

The issue is as always, what point in history do we want to take the broads back to. 

I'll second that!

[JennyMorgan]

5 hours ago, riverman said:

The issue is as always, what point in history do we want to take the broads back to.

Pre GRP?

Pre infernal combustion?

Pre BNP?

Pre JP?

Pre MAFI?

Pre ?????????