Look Out Norfolk, Chris Packham Is Back Again!

[Ray]

On 31/10/2020 at 11:53, Vaughan said:

Any countryman looking at this will guess that this is a farm which also manages game shooting.

As I was walking my dog at the weekend I realised Vaughan that you had taught me something as I recalled this post of yours immediately. Here is what I saw...

 

[SteveO]

The likes of the BBC and social media spend much of their time nowadays giving disproportionate voice and influence to  perverse minorities. Not sure what anyone stands to gain by this, but you only ever hear one side of the story from them.   We are seeing this now in areas such as transgender politics, the environment, historical slavery and now shooting and it is time people pushed back hard against it. Politicians who, for some reason, pander to pressure groups and vociferous individuals will never go far enough to meet their strident demands and even if they did, a new set of concerns/demands would result, as night follows day. 

[Vaughan]

Look out, he's coming back again!

The EDP says he will be giving a talk on Nov 3rd at the North Norfolk D.C.'s "Greenbuild Festival" which will explore the importance of green and ecological developments.

Sarah Butikofer, leader of the council (now there's a good old Norfolk name to juggle with) says :

"As we know more about the damage being done to our natural environment through climate change, we need to remember too, the impact this has on our bio-diversity. Norfolk is hope (sic) to many rare species and we need to keep doing all we can to protect them."

I would suggest that, rather than a whole lot more conference words, the best way to protect our countryside would be to stop granting planning permission for "Greenbuilding" all over it!

"At another talk, Rikke Nagell - Kleven will explore the concept of "algae innovation" in North Norfolk".

I can hardly wait for that!

 

[TheQ]

Since that's online only this year  hopefully I can fast forward, bypass or otherwise avoid him.

[Oddfellow]

Maybe someone can explain what the problem is with Chris Packham. 

 

[Vaughan]

10 minutes ago, Oddfellow said:

Maybe someone can explain what the problem is with Chris Packham.

Perhaps reading this thread through, would explain quite a lot . . . .

It's not only him though.  He represents a "tendency" which can cause great disruption to normal life because issues take on a lot more importance than they are really worth.  The classic example in Norfolk is the Acle straight, where literally "vital" improvements to road safety have already been held up for more than 5 years by a colony of snails, about the size of a grain of wheat, that have had to be "re-housed"  in a different part of the marsh.  The last I heard, a year ago, they couldn't find them any more.  Dead or alive!  And yet lives are still lost in accidents, while the work is still not allowed to start.

He is now playing the same game with rare bats, to disrupt the completion of the NDR. But what are all those expensive bat bridges supposed to be for?

[batrabill]

On 12/11/2020 at 00:02, SteveO said:

but you only ever hear one side of the story from them.   We are seeing this now in areas such as transgender politics, the environment, historical slavery and now shooting and it is time people pushed back hard against it.

What’s “the other side of the story” on slavery? 
 

Opportunities to travel? Meet people from different cultures?

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, Oddfellow said:

Maybe someone can explain what the problem is with Chris Packham. 

 

Yes another eco-warrior under the guise of a conservationist, I think most of us on here love and appreciate nature and want to see it flourish but in a balanced way, to many so called "conservatonists" do more harm than good being blind to reality and upsetting the balance of nature while claiming the opposite.

Fred

[Oddfellow]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

Perhaps reading this thread through, would explain quite a lot . . . .

It's not only him though.  He represents a "tendency" which can cause great disruption to normal life because issues take on a lot more importance than they are really worth.  The classic example in Norfolk is the Acle straight, where literally "vital" improvements to road safety have already been held up for more than 5 years by a colony of snails, about the size of a grain of wheat, that have had to be "re-housed"  in a different part of the marsh.  The last I heard, a year ago, they couldn't find them any more.  Dead or alive!  And yet lives are still lost in accidents, while the work is still not allowed to start.

He is now playing the same game with rare bats, to disrupt the completion of the NDR. But what are all those expensive bat bridges supposed to be for?

I get it. It's that age-old misconception that human life is more important on this planet than animal or plant life. 

A recent report showed that the UK has only 52% of its bio-diversity remaining putting the country in an almost "world beating" position where the average remaining is around 75%. 

Frankly, we aren't more important. We think we're more intelligent than animals but dumb animals don't go screwing with the eco system by burning coal and other fossil fuels. It's time this species began to think holistically and future-proofed the planet rather that remaining hell-bent on destroying it for very short-term gain.

The bat bridges had been proven not to work before they were installed on the NDR and are (probably) another example of giving public money to "friends" by a corrupt council. 

[Oddfellow]

13 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Yes another eco-warrior under the guise of a conservationist, I think most of us on here love and appreciate nature and want to see it flourish but in a balanced way, to many so called "conservatonists" do more harm than good being blind to reality and upsetting the balance of nature while claiming the opposite.

Fred

The term "Eco-Warrior" is no doubt used in a emotive way. 
The world is being quickly destroyed in the name of profit by people who would consider themselves "intelligent", but clearly not intelligent enough to prevent the effects of climate change. 

"So called 'conservationists". Another ridiculous term. What is "so called" supposed to mean here if it's not derisory? Who else out there is looking out for bio-diversity and being very vocal about it? And how can he do more harm than good? He's no blinder to reality that you; I daresay he's vision of reality is a great deal clearer. This man has spent his life studying nature and presenting it to the public through the media. He is a hugely respected advocate for conservation.

What are your credentials? 

[rightsaidfred]

3 minutes ago, Oddfellow said:

The term "Eco-Warrior" is no doubt used in a emotive way. 
The world is being quickly destroyed in the name of profit by people who would consider themselves "intelligent", but clearly not intelligent enough to prevent the effects of climate change. 

"So called 'conservationists". Another ridiculous term. What is "so called" supposed to mean here if it's not derisory? Who else out there is looking out for bio-diversity and being very vocal about it? And how can he do more harm than good? He's no blinder to reality that you; I daresay he's vision of reality is a great deal clearer. This man has spent his life studying nature and presenting it to the public through the media. He is a hugely respected advocate for conservation.

What are your credentials? 

I am not getting into a protracted argument here as your post tells me all I need to know, as for my credentials like many I have a lifetimes experience and interest in a wide range of things none of which I earn a living from, as for hugely respected advocate yes like all spokespeople on any topic he has his followers but also his critics, Spring Watch is a series of programmes that I enjoy watching for their basic interest but being sponsored by the BBC has now becomes another platform for the current crusade.

Fred

[Oddfellow]

4 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

I am not getting into a protracted argument here as your post tells me all I need to know, as for my credentials like many I have a lifetimes experience and interest in a wide range of things none of which I earn a living from, as for hugely respected advocate yes like all spokespeople on any topic he has his followers but also his critics, Spring Watch is a series of programmes that I enjoy watching for their basic interest but being sponsored by the BBC has now becomes another platform for the current crusade.

Fred

And your response tells the rest of us all we need to know too. 

 

[Vaughan]

42 minutes ago, Oddfellow said:

This man has spent his life studying nature and presenting it to the public through the media.

I wish the naturalist Ted Ellis - a great friend of my father - were still here to join this discussion, as well as Dr Martin George, who was largely responsible for the first Broads Study and Plan, back in the 60s.  They were men who knew, and readily accepted, that the Broads are not natural.  They have been made by Man, over the years, and they must be maintained by Man.

I refer members to "The Wind in the Reeds", a film by Ted Ellis and Philip Wayre, commissioned by Blakes in the late 50s, which I hope is still available on Youtube.  It tells you all you need to know about the balance, on the Broads, between the need to be commercial, without forgetting the need for nature conservation.  It is also a fabulous half hour of viewing for those who love the history of the Broads.

[Oddfellow]

12 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I wish the naturalist Ted Ellis - a great friend of my father - were still here to join this discussion, as well as Dr Martin George, who was largely responsible for the first Broads Study and Plan, back in the 60s.  They were men who knew, and readily accepted, that the Broads are not natural.  They have been made by Man, over the years, and they must be maintained by Man.

I refer members to "The Wind in the Reeds", a film by Ted Ellis and Philip Wayre, commissioned by Blakes in the late 50s, which I hope is still available on Youtube.  It tells you all you need to know about the balance, on the Broads, between the need to be commercial, without forgetting the need for nature conservation.  It is also a fabulous half hour of viewing for those who love the history of the Broads.

With respect. a 60 year old film may have historic value, but it's 60 years old and what we know now is very different from what we knew then. Things have changed from a time when we though the climate was cooling. 

I will seek out the film all the same. 

[Oddfellow]

The Wind in the Reeds

https://eafa.org.uk/work/?id=1048930

[annv]

During the last war the experts came round and told grandfather what to grow they wouldn't listen to him that this crop wouldn't grow in that field but would in another, but no do as we say result two crop failures. local knowledge can be much better. John

[Oddfellow]

30 minutes ago, annv said:

During the last war the experts came round and told grandfather what to grow they wouldn't listen to him that this crop wouldn't grow in that field but would in another, but no do as we say result two crop failures. local knowledge can be much better. John

Those with true knowledge know when to listen, know when to shut up, know when to pipe up and know when to adapt. 

Too many of us think we know more than enough and walk the earth with closed ears, closed minds but open mouths. 

[batrabill]

I really like Chris Packham. He has spent his life encouraging an interest in the natural world in others. I'm sure I don't agree with everything he thinks but, hey ho, that's normal. 

He seems to create a lot of anger for opposing Blood Sports - that is, killing animals for fun - and loads of people, not just town-dwellers agree with him.

I like reading this site, party because of the number of times I hear from people who see the world quite differently. But one of it's real Achilles heels is that the multiple-posters can assume that "everyone" agrees with their world view.

For instance, it appears the norm here that "woke" is used as an insult, but I'd define it, as "trying to be sensitive to others feelings and views of the world"

Also Climate Activist/Eco Warrior - "someone who has recognised that our future is under threat from our own actions".

As Jim Jeffries says, ""We don't have to save the planet, we have to save ourselves. The planet doesn't care and will be glad once we're gone."

 

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

I really like Chris Packham. He has spent his life encouraging an interest in the natural world in others. I'm sure I don't agree with everything he thinks but, hey ho, that's normal.

Also Climate Activist/Eco Warrior - "someone who has recognised that our future is under threat from our own actions".

As Jim Jeffries says, ""We don't have to save the planet, we have to save ourselves. The planet doesn't care and will be glad once we're gone."

 

This I think is where the two sides separate, I would suspect that pretty much every one accepts that climate change is real and that evolution is the natural course of events, the main difference in attitude is that while many of understand that mankind has an added influence on the process it is not the cause and while to some extent we can mitigate with practical change that influence we cannot stop the natural course of events and definitely cannot save the planet, whereas the eco warrior/extremist view wants to blame mankind for everything and force through unrealistic changes or in some cases stop improvements with no or little regard to the needs of the vast majority of the earths population, I fully accept that there is a place for all life and while I don't put humans above all else nor do I place them below other forms of life, nature knows best and copes pretty well left to its own devices, its our meddling and interference that causes most problem

Fred

[Vaughan]

2 hours ago, batrabill said:

As Jim Jeffries says, ""We don't have to save the planet, we have to save ourselves. The planet doesn't care and will be glad once we're gone."

Or as Douglas Adams said : "Goodbye and thanks for all the fish".

I am not denigrating what you say; I sort of agree with you.  Trouble is, the Norfolk Broads are not natural.  They are reclaimed land and if we want to enjoy their "natural" biodiversity, then it is up to us to manage it!

[Vaughan]

6 hours ago, Oddfellow said:

but it's 60 years old and what we know now is very different from what we knew then.

Actually, I think you might find that the way the Broads is now managed by the BA and EA is almost exactly the same as that laid down by the Nature Conservancy in the first Broads Study and Plan of the early 60s.  It's a pity Peter Waller is no longer with us, as he would soon agree with me.  His father and mine were on the committee which drew up that first plan!

[Vaughan]

7 hours ago, Oddfellow said:

The Wind in the Reeds

https://eafa.org.uk/work/?id=1048930

I never tire of watching this film.  The production was just as good then, as the Springwatch that we see nowadays.  It took them a long time to film that, with the crew living for quite a while, on a couple of Hearts Cruisers hire boats!

The Broads was in recession at the time, owing to bad press publicity about pollution killing off wildlife, so Blakes commissioned this to try and re-dress the balance.  The point, which I hope comes across, is that despite the crowded waterways of the holiday season, the natural life of the Broads (that we now call biodiversity) was still going on un-disturbed, behind the scenes.  In fact I am not so sure that we (and Chris Packham) are managing it better now than we did in those days.  Where are all the coots, moorhens, kingfishers and even the genuinely wild mallard duck?  Perhaps because we have re-introduced the otter, which was such a pest in the old days that it was hunted by hounds.  And now we are introducing the beaver.  I think we will very soon find what a big mistake that will be!

Special things to note are at 2mins 16, where we can see the wrecks of the old wherries on Surlingham Broad.  In those days, you could still walk over their decks.  And at 16mins 50, is the only cine film I have ever seen, of a bittern feeding her young on the nest.

[rightsaidfred]

13 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I never tire of watching this film.  The production was just as good then, as the Springwatch that we see nowadays.  It took them a long time to film that, with the crew living for quite a while, on a couple of Hearts Cruisers hire boats!

The Broads was in recession at the time, owing to bad press publicity about pollution killing off wildlife, so Blakes commissioned this to try and re-dress the balance.  The point, which I hope comes across, is that despite the crowded waterways of the holiday season, the natural life of the Broads (that we now call biodiversity) was still going on un-disturbed, behind the scenes.  In fact I am not so sure that we (and Chris Packham) are managing it better now than we did in those days.  Where are all the coots, moorhens, kingfishers and even the genuinely wild mallard duck?  Perhaps because we have re-introduced the otter, which was such a pest in the old days that it was hunted by hounds.  And now we are introducing the beaver.  I think we will very soon find what a big mistake that will be!

Special things to note are at 2mins 16, where we can see the wrecks of the old wherries on Surlingham Broad.  In those days, you could still walk over their decks.  And at 16mins 50, is the only cine film I have ever seen, of a bittern feeding her young on the nest.

Vaughan you have nailed in a nutshell the futility of mans interference of introducing or reintroducing large numbers of protected species with no top predator apart from man who is banned from exercising control, cormorants are another example of misguided protection and you can add Red Kite to that and I am sure there will be more, we meddle with nature at our peril.

Fred

[Wussername]

The poor old otter seems to attract a lot of negative PR. Where did it all go wrong?

Andrew

[Wussername]

I note that the Red Kite seems to have entered the frame all of a sudden. Why? It is a scavenger. Only two years ago two non breeding pairs at Strumpshaw. Have things changed.

The decline of birds and other wild life needs to be looked at far closer. 

An in-depth study, which takes into account all relevant factors, not just those that happen to be convenient.

Andrew

Andrew