"Oz" > wrote in message ...
> Jim Webster > writes
>
> >And not actually true. We have discussed soil erosian in the UK on UBA many
> >times and it is not the major issue it is made out to be. The best way of
> >dealing with it is to leave certain land under grass and graze meat
> >producing animals on it.
>
> Frankly england doesn't have a problem with excessive erosion.
>
> Of course every landscape naturally has erosion and the english one is
> no exception. If you wnat to see the erosion people get rightly agitated
> about then you need to go to tropical and sub-tropical enviromments
> where rainfall is very high and primodial forest is being removed (for
> the first time notice).
>
> The problems I have seen with erosion in england have all been
> associated with walkers. Typically on fragile upland peats (peak
> district in particular) and scree in the lake district. These can be
> really severe locally.
'The negative impacts of soil erosion due to inappropriate land
management have become increasingly apparent in England and
Wales since the 1970s. A number of factors are responsible
for this increase, including animal and crop production on
inappropriate land, overstocking, bad timing of agricultural
practices, degradation of river banks by stock, and lack of
ground cover in winter months.


Soil erosion has significant social, economic and environment
impacts. In addition to reduced future farm productivity, soil
entering freshwater ecosystems can cause major damage, for
example choking spawning gravels used by fish. Soil pollution
can often carry increased leads of phosphates into freshwater
bodies and the marine environment, exacerbating the problems
of eutrophication. Soil on roads blocks drains leading to
localised flooding, while soil entering strategic reservoirs and
ports can result in high dredging and disposal costs.
.....'
http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pd...onengwales.pdf