Hmmm... Fences or rambling bears?

[C_Claycomb]

Sorry As I say, I don't know much about the RA and may be biased having had more conversations with farmers irate with walkers insisting on asserting their right to follow the Right-of-Way exactly than I have had with walkers given a hard time by farmers. When I used to shoot, walkers were also something of a bane, particularly the ones that tore down signs warning that lamping was going on.

I own that I thoroughly enjoyed a recent canoe trip in Scotland where we camped by the lochs, had fires and harly saw a soul. Outside of that I know very little of the situation in Scotland so will keep mum.

 

[Tantalus]

......... but I suppose electrified fences are slightly trickier to cross !

there certainly are more pleasant ways to wake up in the morning yes

Tant

 

[havingagiraffe]

Dunno if I trust those ramblers. What's the difference between them and people just going for a walk...?

Goretex jacket in a primary colour = rambler.

Goretex jacket in an earth tone = walker.

Goretex jacket in camouflage = survival enthusiast.

Any of the above with assorted twigs, leaves and bits of twine stuffed in the pockets = bushcraft enthusiast.

 

[Toddy]

Goretex jacket in a primary colour = rambler.

Goretex jacket in an earth tone = walker.

Goretex jacket in camouflage = survival enthusiast.

Any of the above with assorted twigs, leaves and bits of twine stuffed in the pockets = bushcraft enthusiast.

Cheers,
Toddy

 

[Big Geordie]

Am I the only one concerned that we may end up as meals for some of these creatures?
In addition are we likely to see all the threads about Woodlore knives replaced over time by descriptions of firearms, as they do in the USA? A proliferation of firearms in the field would be bad news because wallys would be more tempted to carry.
We may have a right to roam responsibly, but do we want that to include "safely?"
Great thread guys!
George

 

[arctic hobo]

Such animals are quite safe if left alone. There's a whole website devoted to proving how harmless wolves are, I don't have the link but I'm sure another member could oblige Bears, wolves and wild cattle are found in many other countries beside the US, and the main reason they get shot is farmers. No offence to any farmers out there, it's just the way it is, trying to protect their stock. Whether the animals are a genuine threat to livestock or not is a hot topic and is irrelevant here - especially as the animals are fenced up and thus will not be able to trouble any farmers.
If nothing else, maybe these species can teach ignorant townies what nature is really like - not a sterile empty extension of the front lawn, but the real world

 

[torjusg]

By the way, bison is the specie causing most casualties in Yellowstone. Far more than either bear and wolf (zero for that specie I think).

Both the wolf and the bear could probably scrape a living off the heather moors, but the pine forest that stood there before would probably allow higher densities. Bison (at least Bison bonasus) would probably need quite a lot of forest too.

About the aurochs, Arctic Hobo, there is an old project called on something they call heck cattle . There is also something similar for recreating the tarpan; the heck horse .

 

[demographic]

What are they going to eat? Is there enough of their foodsource for them? If the land is privately owned then they can do whatever they like with it as far as I'm concerned. Why do the RA think they can go anywhwere they bloody like but no one else can? Would they like it if I walked through their little, no doubt immaculate gardens? Why don't the big cats eat more ramblers? Would they choke on the bobble hats perchance?

More wild beasts, less gobby Amblers to whinge about other people enjoying the countryside.

Sounds a good trade off to me

Anyone with an offroad/trail motorbike may possibly understand my feelings on this :tongue-ti

 

[Longstrider]

It would appear from the poll results so far that we are happy with the idea of the animals being free to roam as freely as they like. I'm all for that as long as they are only introduced into an area where they will be able to survive on the naturally available resources. If they need feeding and "looking after" then I see it being no more than a form of farming. There are (luckily) still paces on this panet where the creatures of the wild are left to roam and live with little interferance by Man. In these places the locals work around the problems that this situation causes and it seems to work well enough in most cases.
I say let the animals roam IF they will be able to survive happily, but let the public know that they are likely to encounter these animals in that area. People then have an informed decision to make and should either go prepared or suffer any consequences without whinging about the "big bad beasties" they might happen to come across.
I once met a bear in the wild, up close and VERY personal. I still have the scars from that meeting, but I went into the area knowing that it was a possiblity and would not have missed the opportunity for anything. It's a case of "You pays your money and you takes your choice".

 

[Nikolai]

I say let them roam free... don't know why, just seems like the right thing to do, they have their rights too.

 

[Tengu]

I dont like ramblers because they have been known to damage property to assert their rights.

I side with the landowner because I have my very own house.

I have struggled all my life with work, and money has always been very tight. (people talk about average wages but a quarter of that would be a fortune to me.)

However when I came into a sum of money I rushed out and bought a house.

This means I am RICH and IN THE WRONG

 

[Bigman]

I voted for;

Beasties in a cage and limited access to ramblers.

My reasons are;

In an ideal world none of these animals would have been wiped out in the first place but unfortunately they were.

I prefer to see animals roaming free but in this case I don't think it would be a wise decision to allow this to happen and not just for the ramblers, but all people who would make the trek up to Scotland to try and catch a glimpse of seeing either a bear or a wolf in it's natural habitat.

 

[Angus Og]

catch a glimpse of seeing either a bear or a wolf in it's natural habitat.

They don't have natural in Scotland any more it's been destroyed over the past 250 years. The industrial revolution and Napoleonic Wars took care of that. I said it earlier they'd probably do better in the New Forrest.

 

[dave k]

They don't have natural in Scotland any more it's been destroyed over the past 250 years. The industrial revolution and Napoleonic Wars took care of that. I said it earlier they'd probably do better in the New Forrest.

The new forest is Tiny - and it's quite heavily populated. I don't think that having wolfpacks and bears there would help

 

[havingagiraffe]

The new forest is Tiny - and it's quite heavily populated. I don't think that having wolfpacks and bears there would help

It would be a lot less heavily populated after a few weeks of wolves and bears eating the locals...

 

[havingagiraffe]

Is this the oldest live thread on BCUK?

 

[andyn]

Does anyone know what happened on this? I'm guessing nothing has happened yet, but it would be interesting to know whether it is still being discussed/considered or if it was thrown out the window.

 

[Carcajou Garou]

Not being from the UK, but we have all kinds of bears in our area along with wolves and wolverines and wouldn't think of staying out of the bush because of them rather being in the bush because of them.

 

[Bigman]

Is this the oldest live thread on BCUK?

I must confess I didn't look at the start date of this thread when I replied to it.

Just found the subject interesting.

 

[silvergirl]

Re-introduction of any species needs careful consideration about how it will cope and adapt to a new situation. For any programme of this type, to gain backing it would need years of significant scientific study.

The area shown seems to have little in the way of woodland or any habitat other than that of open moorland and crags. To me it just doesn't look appropriate for wolves, bear, bison or wild boar in its current state,its also not a very large range for them.

Scotland used to be heavily wooded, but that was a couple of thousand years ago. Very little semi-native woodland now exists. This situation needs to be addressed before we can seriously look at enriching the wildlife in it. Currently the majority of the highlands are covered in wooly maggots and to high a population or deer that prevent the re-growth of any native trees.

I would love to see wolves and bears, roaming freely in an environment that can sustain their surrvival without the need for extra feeding or fences. Not so sure about wild boar or bison though, these species can be very dangerous. And yes I have been up close and personal with a bear too and am willing to balance the risks with the fact that they are not a species that is particularly agressive, in most situations.

I would also question the landowners motives they may be genuine, but I am sceptical. The right to roam is one of our fundimental rights and not one I would be happy to give up. And yes I do live on a shooting estate where there are areas I cannot (advised against) walk at certain times of the year and it really winds me up .

So re-introduce species that it has been looked carefully at whether or not they can lead a 'normal' unfed un-pet like existance, in a countrydside that is varied enough to sustain them. But don't fence them in or US out (and no I'm not a rambler, but I don't have a problem with anyone who is).

Oh and I'd rather take my chances with a bear than a bull any day. (or a walk down Sauchihall street at 3am)