Back To Nature. [Rewilding by Monbiot]

[Toddy]

Suspicion isn't evidence. It's his land after all and if he meets legislative and welfare requirements, surely its better that wolves roam over thousands of acres than they are cooped up in an enclosure in a zoo? Surely if we are being even handed we should be judging every zoo and wildlife park in the UK by the same standards of space and welfare?

Hugh, I could quote innumerable articles on this fellow's attempts over nearly ten years now.
I sincerely doubt any philantrophy.

http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/news/alladale-estate-discussion-with-the-mcofs/00184/


If 'every zoo and wildlife park' were to be given the same space (welfare is doubtful, he's feeding the animals they already have, there's not enough natural feed for them on site) then there would be no zoos at all.
Not this discussion that point, I think.

M

 

[Toddy]

To be fair, the landowner has a huge problem with uncontrolled herds of deer who basically destroy trees, resulting in scrub rather than reforestation (I also remember reading that this guy had planted some 500,000 trees on his lands). The wolves would seem to be an ideal limiter on deer numbers. And if the wolves attack some of his "domestic" livestock, well. its his domestic livestock.

As to ramblers etc, that's an interesting one. As anyone who lives in the country will tell you, not all ramblers bother to shut gates. So is he intending to bar ALL access to his lands (with padlocked gates etc), or allow access? That hasn't been made clear from this article.

The landowner bought the estate after he discovered it when stalking…..y'know ? shooting deer. It's not beyond rocket science to organise a cull. It's pretty routine on forestry estates. I know men who do it, even on estates where the access is by helicopter to remove the carcases. Not saying they take all they shoot right enough, sometimes it's just too damned awkward to get to them, even though they're supposed to.

M

 

[dewi]

To be fair, the landowner has a huge problem with uncontrolled herds of deer who basically destroy trees, resulting in scrub rather than reforestation (I also remember reading that this guy had planted some 500,000 trees on his lands). The wolves would seem to be an ideal limiter on deer numbers. And if the wolves attack some of his "domestic" livestock, well. its his domestic livestock.

Something about that doesn't ring true... landowners employ stalkers to keep deer numbers in check. If a gamekeeper isn't doing his/her job properly, does that automatically mean its time to import some wolves? Seems a little drastic.

As to ramblers etc, that's an interesting one. As anyone who lives in the country will tell you, not all ramblers bother to shut gates. So is he intending to bar ALL access to his lands (with padlocked gates etc), or allow access? That hasn't been made clear from this article.

If its a fenced enclosure containing wolves, its going to put people off rambling through there at the very least, but access to the area would need to be controlled. Depending on the scale of the area, that could prove to be difficult if not impossible... so it would be effectively removing access rights to anyone who fears getting eaten by the big bad wolf.

Goes back to what causes a wolf pack to attack a human and what would the consequences be of Janet Street-Porter being found half devoured, little left other than a pair of glasses, some walking boots and a packet of Kendal mint cake?

 

[dewi]

The landowner bought the estate after he discovered it when stalking…..y'know ? shooting deer. It's not beyond rocket science to organise a cull. It's pretty routine on forestry estates. I know men who do it, even on estates where the access is by helicopter to remove the carcases. Not saying they take all they shoot right enough, sometimes it's just too damned awkward to get to them, even though they're supposed to.

M

Beat me too it

 

[Ferret75]

and what would the consequences be of Janet Street-Porter being found half devoured, little left other than a pair of glasses, some walking boots and a packet of Kendal mint cake?

Do wolves not like Kendal mint cake then, or is it too difficult for them to open without opposable thumbs? 😜

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[mrcharly]

Rich man playing games - likes the idea of hunting in forests that contain wolves.

 

[Ferret75]

Rich man playing games - likes the idea of hunting in forests that contain wolves.

Extremely likely, yes. But then there are more than a few of them, (such as everyone's favourite spanish dentist) who are happy to spend there money funding the economies of other countries for their leisure time. And that's most likely without even an unintentional benefit to any species or ecosystem involved.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[dewi]

Do wolves not like Kendal mint cake then, or is it too difficult for them to open without opposable thumbs? ��

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

I don't know any wolves personally to ask, but unless Janet had opened the packet of Kendal mint cake before her untimely demise, I suspect the wolves wouldn't take much notice of it. I could be wrong though... bears have been known to munch their way through packets, so why not wolves?

 

[Ferret75]

I don't know any wolves personally to ask, but unless Janet had opened the packet of Kendal mint cake before her untimely demise, I suspect the wolves wouldn't take much notice of it. I could be wrong though... bears have been known to munch their way through packets, so why not wolves?

...'untimely demise'! You just set a pack of wolves on her!

All that horrendous snarling, those pitiless eyes, the nightmarish gnashing of enormous teeth...

And then, after they had to face all that, you don't even let those poor wolves have a nice palate cleansing dessert to take away the awful taste...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[British Red]

If 'every zoo and wildlife park' were to be given the same space (welfare is doubtful, he's feeding the animals they already have, there's not enough natural feed for them on site) then there would be no zoos at all.
Not this discussion that point, I think.

M

I think it's exactly this point. To decry his efforts which offer much more space for, say, wolves, without imposing a similar standard on existing zoos and wildlife parks is surely duplicitous at best? Indeed it seems obvious at that point that animal welfare is not the real concern at all. If the land is his own, it is also not impact on farmers.

 

[Swallow]

I guess if we are talking about small numbers of a larger predator you would almost certainly radio tag them

That will only attract dentists...

 

[dewi]

...'untimely demise'! You just set a pack of wolves on her!

All that horrendous snarling, those pitiless eyes, the nightmarish gnashing of enormous teeth...

And then, after they had to face all that, you don't even let those poor wolves have a nice palate cleansing dessert to take away the awful taste...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

I know! And I like Janet Street-Porter!

In all seriousness, she was meant to represent the rambler as she famously speaks out for ramblers on national telly. I was being silly about it, but the real question is how would wolves react to humans... would they attack?

I was babbling earlier in the thread about people misunderstanding wolves... The Grey did for wolves what Jaws did for great white sharks... they demonised wolves and in particular painted wolves as creatures that would seek revenge. They also said that omega wolves would attack a group of men huddled round a fire to (and I quote) ".. test their defences.." It makes for a great film and an ending that leaves you wondering who won, but are wolves anything like that? Would they really savagely attack humans in the way the film says they would?

Modern day experts claim the wolf to be a wimp, only attacking when cornered or rabid, but history shows us that the wolf isn't a timid creature. Native Americans told stories of wolves killing people, but historical European records show thousands of deaths attributed to non-rabid wolves (and the number doubles when you bring rabies into the equation)

The difference between the expert view and the historical view is population. In the experts view, they observe wolves in remote areas away from population centres, such as the Northwest Territories... the records from Europe are based on wolves interacting with populated areas. Daniel MacNulty, an expert in arctic wolves claims that a wolf will run away when it meets a human, which an arctic wolf may well do, but that doesn't explain the deaths in Europe from non-rabid wolves.

Cut a long story short... where will this guy in Scotland source his wolf pack from? Can he be sure the wolves will adapt to their new environment? And can he reasonably prevent the wolves from attacking humans without shutting off huge areas of Scotland with electric fences and presumably guarding these fences with security guards?

Ultimately, is any of this going to do the chosen wolf pack any good? Is it cruel to resettle a pack outside their natural habitat and expect them to adapt for the sake of a landowner who either doesn't understand how to control deer on his land, or willfully ignores controlling the deer in the hope it'll give him an excuse to have his own 'pet' wolves?

 

[Herbalist1]

Herbalist1 makes a convincing argument re complementary medicine, until he brings up cost and Chinese/indian traditional medicine. Have you seen how expensive tiger bone is nowadays? Lion testicle? Rhino horn and elephant tusks? Snake gall-bladders? These things don't just grow on trees, you know. And the ancillary costs! Outfitting a modern African poaching team costs big bucks - those AK47s, radios, medics, drones don't come cheap any more. And sometimes it's just not possible any more to slaughter park rangers willy-nilly with assault rifles, as some of them are getting armed themselves.

Thats a good point Andy except that the trade and use of endangered animal species (and plants for that matter) is quite rightly prohibited under CITES. The fact that there are greedy, unscrupulous people willing to trade in such material is obviously reprehensible and morally repugnant. That's not an argument against the efficacy of Chinese medicine or Ayurveda which can and do manage quite happily without these but it is an argument against people with too much money, no respect for the natural world and a very dubious moral compass!

 

[Ferret75]

That will only attract dentists...

Yes, but you could say the same about Kendal mint cake... And Janet Street Porter..😜

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Toddy]

I think it's exactly this point. To decry his efforts which offer much more space for, say, wolves, without imposing a similar standard on existing zoos and wildlife parks is surely duplicitous at best? Indeed it seems obvious at that point that animal welfare is not the real concern at all. If the land is his own, it is also not impact on farmers.

Specious argument to distract from the issue under discussion.
He's not doing it for their 'welfare', and to try to bring that into a discussion of the realities of the introduction of a previously exterminated species, a top predator previously exterminated species, onto land that he might 'own' but is part of our greater whole, (and that reality is here, in modern day Scotland whether some like it or not) and that is in the midst of other lands already in use, and with populations that do not agree with his intentions; is simply a distraction.

If you wish to open a discussion on animal welfare in zoos, go ahead; but on another thread please.

M

 

[Ferret75]

I know! And I like Janet Street-Porter!

In all seriousness, she was meant to represent the rambler as she famously speaks out for ramblers on national telly. I was being silly about it, but the real question is how would wolves react to humans... would they attack?

I was babbling earlier in the thread about people misunderstanding wolves... The Grey did for wolves what Jaws did for great white sharks... they demonised wolves and in particular painted wolves as creatures that would seek revenge. They also said that omega wolves would attack a group of men huddled round a fire to (and I quote) ".. test their defences.." It makes for a great film and an ending that leaves you wondering who won, but are wolves anything like that? Would they really savagely attack humans in the way the film says they would?

Modern day experts claim the wolf to be a wimp, only attacking when cornered or rabid, but history shows us that the wolf isn't a timid creature. Native Americans told stories of wolves killing people, but historical European records show thousands of deaths attributed to non-rabid wolves (and the number doubles when you bring rabies into the equation)

The difference between the expert view and the historical view is population. In the experts view, they observe wolves in remote areas away from population centres, such as the Northwest Territories... the records from Europe are based on wolves interacting with populated areas. Daniel MacNulty, an expert in arctic wolves claims that a wolf will run away when it meets a human, which an arctic wolf may well do, but that doesn't explain the deaths in Europe from non-rabid wolves.

Cut a long story short... where will this guy in Scotland source his wolf pack from? Can he be sure the wolves will adapt to their new environment? And can he reasonably prevent the wolves from attacking humans without shutting off huge areas of Scotland with electric fences and presumably guarding these fences with security guards?

Ultimately, is any of this going to do the chosen wolf pack any good? Is it cruel to resettle a pack outside their natural habitat and expect them to adapt for the sake of a landowner who either doesn't understand how to control deer on his land, or willfully ignores controlling the deer in the hope it'll give him an excuse to have his own 'pet' wolves?

Sorry mate, just trying to lighten things a little, i didnt mean to throw you off like that, (I quite like her to actually!).

You're right, here is simply far too little information and A LOT of the details needs to be considered before it ever went ahead. There have been too many human caused ecological disasters by both the well meaning and also the selfish profit seeker.

I would sincerely like to believe that public opinion, ecological welfare and political common sense would come before financial incentives and cronyism, unfortunately experience tells me a different story.

I guess we will have to wait and see how this develops.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[dewi]

Sorry mate, just trying to lighten things a little, i didnt mean to throw you off like that, (I quite like her to actually!).

You're right, here is simply far too little information and A LOT of the details needs to be considered before it ever went ahead. There have been too many human caused ecological disasters by both the well meaning and also the selfish profit seeker.

I would sincerely like to believe that public opinion, ecological welfare and political common sense would come before financial incentives and cronyism, unfortunately experience tells me a different story.

I guess we will have to wait and see how this develops.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Made me laugh when I realised that I'd killed off poor Janet for no other reason than to mention Kendal mint cake

It is incredibly complicated, and personally I think first and foremost the wolves should be considered before anything else. They're where ever they are for a reason... they have been wiped out like they were in Scotland and there are reasons for that as well... and just picking them up, dumping them in Scotland and expecting them to thrive because there are some deer to eat... I think is beyond naive.

 

[British Red]

Specious argument to distract from the issue under discussion.
He's not doing it for their 'welfare', and to try to bring that into a discussion of the realities of the introduction of a previously exterminated species, a top predator previously exterminated species, onto land that he might 'own' but is part of our greater whole, (and that reality is here, in modern day Scotland whether some like it or not) and that is in the midst of other lands already in use, and with populations that do not agree with his intentions; is simply a distraction.

If you wish to open a discussion on animal welfare in zoos, go ahead; but on another thread please.

M

Again, asking for consistency is not a specious argument. It certainly seems that some object to the plans because the guy is rich and they want to have use of his land. It would be simpler if they simply said that was their objection.

 

[Ferret75]

Made me laugh when I realised that I'd killed off poor Janet for no other reason than to mention Kendal mint cake

It is incredibly complicated, and personally I think first and foremost the wolves should be considered before anything else. They're where ever they are for a reason... they have been wiped out like they were in Scotland and there are reasons for that as well... and just picking them up, dumping them in Scotland and expecting them to thrive because there are some deer to eat... I think is beyond naive.

Well put my friend.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Herbalist1]

NHS chaplaincy costs £23.5 million and homeopathy about £4 million a year. May seem trivial amounts to some. How can a useless treatment be efficacious.

"A persons spiritual well being (whether they are of any particular faith or non) is an integral part of their overall well being and numerous studies have demonstrated that."
If a person has no faith then how can their spritual well being sustain them. There are also studies showing that knowing they were being prayed for has actually damaged people's chances of recovery as well as many dubious studies on the subject of religions benefits being promoted.

I don't think I said that the NHS chaplaincy budget was a trival amount but rather that it represented a very tiny proportion of the overall budget. The NHS England budget for 2014 was £95.6 billion so the amount allocated to chaplaincy represents about 0.025%. Is it worth it? Best ask the many people who have benefited from it and valued it!
As for the statement 'if a person has no faith then how can their spiritual well being sustain them', well it is rather condescending to suggest that all people with no particular faith have no spiritual life. Isn't the way we connect with our environment, those close to us, our own emotions and feelings spiritual? All religions have a spiritual core but not all spiritual experience is religious - look at the number of people who find mindfulness helpful, a spiritual technique derived from Buddhist practise being used by lots of people who don't subscibe to any religion.
when I was working full time as a parish priest I'd often visit parishioners in hospital. More often than not whilst there I'd get called over by another patient on the ward. They'd often start the conversation with 'Im not religious/don't believe in God but can I talk to you'. These were people who were anxious or afraid and just wanted to be able to talk about how they felt. Isn't this spiritual need - I'd say it was but even if you'd prefer to use he term counselling the effect is the same. This is a big part of chaplaincy work and meets a need that other staff don't have the time or sometimes the ability to meet.

As as for homeopathy, I was challenging you for lumping all complementary therapies together rather than attempting to justify any particular therapy. Whether you believe homeopathy works or think it is a whole bunch of B.S. isnt really the point. I'm guessing that if you're requesting homeopathy on the NHS it is because you have some faith in it in which case there is a very well documented placebo effect (which is also the case for conventional medicine besides any other proven effect of a particular medication). If this produces the desired outcome then it does represent a cost effective treatment - homeopathic treatment is much cheaper than drug intervention. I'm guessing this is why homeopathy is still offered (though with reduced provision) by the NHS. Note: I'm not commenting on the efficacy of homeopathy per se. I'm not a homeopath and have never received homeopathic treatment. Just commenting that all NHS treatment is closely costed versus treatment outcome!