Two jokers and a serious view of the Somerset Levels

22 Replies to “Two jokers and a serious view of the Somerset Levels”

1. http://www.cvlbirding.co.uk/mammallist.html

   As you can see Harbour Porpoise have been in the area before!

2. Its worth remembering that those EA staff sweating blood to save people’s homes from flooding face another 1,100 job cuts – and whatever the arguments over statistics, anyone who knows anything about Defra’s budget knows EA has been severely cut – its the only agency with any spare, easy to grab cash. Listening to Liddell-Grainger and for that matter right wing Somerset County council which seems to be trying to close itself down (and whose CEO has been off work since November, almost certainly having refused to implement cuts which would seriously harm the people of Somerset) you wonder why public servants bother at all ? It is a huge relief that people like the EA staff are ready to look beyond the ranting politicians to their fellow citizens who they are doing a very fine job protecting – what no one is talking about is what might have happened: 40 flooded houses is serious and awful for the people affected, but if you go and see what is happening the size of the small town of Langport – and a 1,000 houses at least – is obvious. EA has done as well as it possibly could have done – and the only politician to come out of this with any credit is, against all the odds, Owen Paterson who has listened and shown leadership. David Cameron can recover some of his lost credibility by recognising that Defra has over volunteered in taking cuts and that actually rural people do need some support – the alternative will be a further round of money grubbing hitting NE yet again.

   1. Roderick – thank you.

3. I genuinely think Liddell Grainger may be mentally unwell- I remember a few years ago he launched an utterly bizarre personal attack on a Butterfly Conservation member of staff and claimed something along the lines that rare moorland fritillaries were not actually in danger at all and were common in secret spots away from the prying eyes of conservationists (see for example http://www.liddellgrainger.org.uk/local/BUTTERFLYFANCIERPIE.html). That’s the quality of representation you have, people of Bridgwater, and it goes to prove once again that in some rural parts you could pin a blue rosette on a pile of dung and it would get elected. But that’s the fault of the other political parties as much as anyone’s- as you pointed out a couple of weeks ago Mark they don’t seem to have any rural agenda or policies, and so the centre of gravity of the debate stays well outside the realms of sensible, pragmatic, evidence based reasoning.

4. I just am absolutely amazed at the fact the rspb seem to think they should get their ideas implemented and talk as if the local farmers in particular and also others in the area should do what they want,what arrogance.
   Fact is without any help from rspb the simple fact that the Levels will always flood to a degree that the birds will find to there advantage and it seems those farmers on the Levels are at least as tolerant of birds and birders.
   Just maybe rspb might shoot itself in foot if they push for some silly things I read about in that blog in regard to when they want to go on farmland in regard to Cranes they might be refused,they are on very dodgy ground especially as their own land has no problem with water even if no floods,in fact they might even make matters worse by pumping water out of reserve so that waders have access to mud.
   Why on earth should those farmers have people saying sacrifice that land to protect towns.
   Completely wrong,solve the problem for everyone which could get worse with climate change coming,even if that means dredging the existing rivers and if necessary dig a new one as well,it has been done before with much less sophisticated machinery.
   Just wonder if Martin would have same responsible attitude if his property being flooded saved surrounding property’s,well we know that answer.

   1. “done before with much less sophisticated machinery”

      Local lore says the Huntspill River was dug by Italian PoWs

   2. Dennis, I can’t help feeling that you have an automatic aversion to anything the RSPB and especially Martin Harper says or does. The fact is that we will have floods from time to time and the flood water has to go somewhere and rushing it on downstream as quickly as possible is not always an option or desirable and in some cases ends up causing more serious flooding downstream (I am talking in general terms here not specifically about the Somerset Levels). The measures Martin mentioned seem reasonable to me (I presume you are not in favour of soil compaction for example?) and I think it is unfair to characterise them as anti farmer.
      The RSPB clearly has an interest in the Somerset Levels and as much right as anyone else to join the debate and I believe that Martin’s comments were not narrowly aimed at protecting birds but take a wider view of flood management including the protection of homes and infrastructure.
      Your suggestion that Martin would hold different views if his own home were flooded is a low blow but also patently incorrect – if he believes that homes are less likely to be flooded if the rate of run-off in the upper parts of catchments is slowed, then I’d imagine that having his own home flooded would only make him press for such policies even harder.

5. Plenty of news stories in the Western press regarding Mr “Chinless” LG I think he’s been refered as. He has some written some deplorable stuff during the Badger cull in West Somerset and yes, I think he’s completely raving bonkers!

   1. “he’s completely raving bonkers”

      NFB

6. Herd of cats missing in Ciderspace – all answer to name of Macavity

   http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84683

7. Come on guys must be more than 12 loyal rspb followers(Mark always insists we must not use abusive language).

8. Seems to me that from what I see on various sites the South West rspb take a more sympathetic and are keener on co-operation with Levels farmers than Martin Harper and so they should as Levels farmers have at least as good record with birds as farmers in the rest of country.There is no need for rspb to worry about Levels birds so I have to think they just want to milk any publicity about it they can get.
   The Levels need to stay as farmland with our ever growing population and any cost to avoid major flooding will easily be recouped from the food produced and the savings in all the associated costs with the floods during the last six weeks.

9. Jonathon,your assumption is very inaccurate,there are numerous instances of me praising rspb and feel sure I stated that in general they do great things in over 90% of the things they do and I am a member.
   Regarding Martin.
   3 things I do disagree with him would be(1)think underneath he has a dislike of farmers(I think if 100 ordinary farmers read his blogs well over 90% would not like his style)they would think that while trying to say he was pro farmers in actual fact the reverse is how it reads to them.
   (2)Obviously disagree with him on Levels.
   (3)I also think all the top brass at rspb should have put lots more effort into the Vicarious Liability petition.
   If there are only 3 things then that definitely is not a automatic aversion to what he says but you are of course welcome to your opinion.
   Fact is I have disagreed with Mark far more times than with Martin and I am big enough to see good in people who I disagree with.
   I feel that there is no reason at the moment that the levels should not be farmland and in general there would be very little soil compaction on the levels as cattle or sheep do not normally cause soil compaction and those farmers know it is not in their own interests to go on the ground when it is wet with heavy vehicles better than anyone.The output of food from the levels must outweigh any costs associated with stopping floods like these and although certain people think lots of the country should be just for wildlife we would do far better to persuade most farmers to get bird friendly and set aside a small area for birds,that will not happen until rspb genuinely get farmer friendly also the vast majority of the general public I think would rather have food from the levels with the birds as they are now than have it as no food but a supposedly wildlife refuge.It is debatable for sure if serious flooding like this does wildlife any good as birders on Levels are reporting far less sightings of some birds.
   Birds on the levels have done very well with less flooding than these we are now witnessing every year and do not think these floods are any good for waders anyway as Ham Wall pump water out to give the waders access to mud.

   1. “and in general there would be very little soil compaction on the levels as cattle or sheep do not normally cause soil compaction”

      This is simply not true Dennis. Whilst it is true that the majority of soil compaction is caused by machinery, the fact that livestock can cause soil compaction is beyond any doubt. Sheep typically exert ground pressure of around 15 PSI and cattle in the region of 30 – 58 PSI, on wet soils (particularly loamy and clayey soils) this is sufficient pressure to cause compaction up to 10cm below the soil surface.

      “and those farmers know it is not in their own interests to go on the ground when it is wet with heavy vehicles better than anyone”

      Of course farmers or their contractors do not traffic on wet soils out of choice. The bottom line is these days many are forced to due to the increased incidence of wet summers.

      1. http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/tag/precipitation/page/2/

10. Ernest,in theory and scientifically you are probably right but in practice having farmed land that did flood it does not happen in practice to any extent it is something in my opinion plucked up as proof.I practice what almost always happens is that wet farmland dries out during even modest dry times and really big cracks appear avoiding the land suffering from compaction,even compaction has very little effect when the water table is obviously not 10cm below surface but several cm above soil level.
    Whatever any of us think then it is quite obvious that soil compaction is not really a big issue on the levels.It is really all the other peoples water going into the levels that is at least a contributing factor and should really ensure they get sympathetic help to solve the problem whatever it takes.Trying to help them as a last resort each time it happens must be the most expensive answer in the long run.

11. With finite resources is it not inevitable that spending is prioritised in urban coastal areas, where there is a risk of loss of life, as opposed to farmland in a floodplain?

    At a time of public spending cuts, quite how much is farmland worth in the levels compared to the millions that would have to be spent to prevent the type of scenes from the last two years recurring? If the inflating influence of farm subsidies was deducted from the value of farming in the affected area, would the economic argument still stand up? Otherwise, might a big chunk of public money be spent simply to enable other forms of public funding to continue?

    I would like to see farmers supported, but would also hope that expanding areas of wetland might be part of the public benefit for all the money spent.

12. Dennis – soil compaction caused by grazing livestock (usually surface) and machinery (usually sub-surface) is not a scientific theory conjured up by academics sat in their ivory towers, it is a practical management problem that effects much of the UK’s farmland. Why else would thousands of farmers across the country be prepared to invest significant sums of money in equipment that can alleviate compaction such as sward slitters, aerators, sward-lifters/grass sub-soilers etc. I don’t think they spend this money for the good of their health! The problem is a very high proportion of cow-centric livestock farmers haven’t cottoned on the issue of soil structure and soil health and in many catchments poor soil structure is a major contributory factor towards flooding. Although I don’t have personal experience of farming on the Somerset Levels, I would be astonished if the soil compaction issue was greatly different to the rest of the grassland areas on the western side of England.

    I don’t understand your point about flooded soils cracking up once wet, are you suggesting that wet anaerobic conditions are a boon to natural restructuring processes?

    But just to make myself clear, I’m not arguing that the present situation in the levels is the result of soil compaction, however I suspect soil compaction may be one of several contributory factors. I could be wrong.

13. Ernest my point about the soil cracking in dry times on wet land was that nature does exactly the same as those sub-soilers etc which in my opinion(of course I may be in a minority)have very little lasting effect.The big benefit of sub-soilers etc in my opinion is in the manufacturers and dealers(there is a saying that you make something then think up a use for it and it makes a big profit,wonder if that applies to these implements) who have managed to persuade some people that they are the cats whiskers from I believe originally being used for only on top of mole drains.Ironically mole ploughing appears to have gone out of fashion.

    1. So just to recap, your arguing that soil compaction isn’t an issue on livestock farms, but if by chance a farmer was to discover some of his soils were compacted, the best thing to do would be hope for some flooding followed by drought because that would alleviate the problem much more efficiently than specialist machinery, which is doesn’t really work anyway and is nothing more than a cunning ruse by machinery manufacturers to con farmers out of their hard-earned.

       Priceless Dennis – just priceless.

       1. There is no doubt that compaction is rife, especially on sandy soils in the SW peninsula where there is inherently low organic matter. These soils were classified as “permeable and well drained” by the Soil Survey of England and Wales, when it existed. Not any more they aren’t not. It’s compaction that crept up when nobody was looking, believing that plough pans and the like were joys of farming on clay. It rarely cures itself and needs mechanical intervention. This can get serious – think of busting a compacted layer three feet down in a very deep sand caused by potato lifting in the wet.

          Where you have compaction you also raise the risk of soil erosion and washoff – even from grassland – as the surface drainage flow is increased. If a bunch of deluded ideologues decide to thwart the water’s ambition to reach the sea there will be … trouble. Of a very predictable sort.

14. Ernest,I will explain what happens in practice such as on wet land we farmed for 30 years some of which flooded every year,there is no need to hope it floods it just always does and you hope it doesn’t but hope is never enough.
    We always basically kept off the fields from mid Oct to mid April and feel sure the levels farmers will do similar.Without fail during a dry spell in summer those wet fields will dry out and cracks appear that will break up any minor compaction caused by cattle grazing that land during the period mid April to mid October.
    Having spent moey on buildings why would we put cattle out on wet fields where
    they would just spoil more than they eat no if necessary we would house them like we did in 1983 until mid June.We never suffered compaction and kept close to a cow per acre.
    Any responsible levels farmer will be following similar pattern even though probably not as densely stocked.
    In practice what we call treading is far more of a problem than compaction and by avoiding treading you almost certainly avoid compaction from cattle grazing.
    There are far more important reasons levels are flooding so bad than any of us citing compaction as playing any important part.

Comments are closed.