[Jonsey]

Having watched the Riverwoods film, I am afraid I can't share your enthusiasm. In my opinion, it is full of inaccuracies and appears driven, primarily, by a re wilding agenda.

It starts by showing a Scottish highland valley, a river and no trees, it then implies that the salmon numbers are in trouble because of the lack of trees. The narrator then explains that the salmon are essential for the survival of the forest and the two are intrinsically linked. Certainly true in Alaska with their Pacific salmon but not here with Atlantics. The film then switched to an Alaskan wilderness and a river, red with pacific salmon. It implies that that could be the same here. Again the narrator emphasises the link between the salmon and the trees. They state that the salmon carcasses supply the essential nutrients required for the trees survival. Certainly true in Alaska, where all the salmon die after spawning. They seemed to have totally missed the point, that Atlantic salmon head back to sea after spawning and any that do die, mostly do so, many miles downstream from their spawning grounds.

Not surprisingly, there was also a big push for reintroducing beavers and lynx. Also, the implication was that the landscape has been created for grouse shooting and salmon were suffering as a result.

To me, the way the whole presentation came across, was that the re wilders were just using the status of Atlantic salmon as a means to try and promote their agenda.

I am certainly not opposed to the right trees being planted in the right areas. That could certainly help improve habitat for young fish, while also help mitigate rising water temperatures. However, they also seem to have missed the fact that the high numbers of salmon recorded in the past, occurred when these same areas, were actually devoid of trees then too.

Certainly worth a watch, it's well made, but just remember to switch on the B… S…t filter. Sadly, the average urban dwelling viewer, will take it all as gospel and probably believe every word.

I think you should rewatch it. There are many reasons why reforestation of especially the upper catchment would be of crucial benefit to salmon, food, shelter, controlled flows, increased water quality and crucially lowering water temps etc. The film is fanciful in parts for sure, but the reasonings and interviews with river owners are carefully explained for those overly obsessed with the 'rewinding' terminology.
FYI 90-95% of atlantics die after spawning and it's not just bears that recycle that bounty..

 

[Jonsey]

Where did I say trees would not be beneficial in the upper catchment? I think you need to re read my post. Of course they would, or as long as they are the right trees, in the right areas, certainly not Sitka plantations. However planting peat moorland can cause more harm than good, especially regarding carbon sequestration.
The big difference between Atlantic and Pacific salmon dying, is that the Atlantic salmon that die, tend to do so many miles downstream of their spawning grounds up in the headwaters. Therefore, their carcasses would not provide any beneficial nitrification to trees planted there.
It was the fanciful notion, that the film implies, that the relationship between Pacific salmon and their Alaskan environment could be applied here for Atlantic salmon, if the upper reaches were turned into forest, that I disagree with.
I still maintain the main agenda was based on re wilding. The presentation I attended had stalls set up, promoting the concept, selling books and giving out literature on every aspect of re wilding, beavers, lynx etc.

If the purpose and end result is a restored and functional ecological landscape, what is your problem? We're at a point where big problems need actual solutions. Are there viable alternatives?

 

[Jonsey]

I can't speak for Horsbrugh, but personally:

- The definition of 'restored' tends to be in the eye of the beholder, ditto 'functional'.
- There is never enough consideration given to the complex interactions between different reintroduced species.
- The end result is just more human meddling in a different, more sensitively presented form.
- There us too much sales pitch and not enough evidence,e.g. 'Salmon are essential for survival of the forest' - no they're not. Most ancient forest doesn't surround Salmon rivers or spawning sites
- The end result is that these schemes are often promoted as one size fits all greenwash to obscure other significant problems and as a vehicle to get on the sponsor's personal hobby horse.

No problem with the right tree in the right places.

Perhaps, but forests are essential to salmon, please don't get hung up on the the other bit, yes there are exceptions, but in the main all the worlds greatest salmon producing rivers have a fundamental connection with forests, because they create the diversity of habitats and resources that a salmon needs to be abundant.

 

[Jonsey]

Iceland? Northern Norway? The Karlovka?

I'm all for the tree planting, just find it hard not to get hung up on the other stuff - not that my view matters in any way.

Tana? Altaelva? You've heard of the boreal forest?