Maybe so, but the size of the island again would have been the limiting factor. At least without a fence he wouldn't have people saying he had made a zoo!
A moose in the glen
- Thread starter jojo
- Start date
Another problem they didn't mention during the program is trophy hunters, some of these people would pay big bucks to have a scottish born wolf trophy head or skin.
Electric fence to east to west north of Great Glen. Fence off vulnerable communities. Re establish the whole ecosystem over the next hundred years. The biggest wilderness/ wildlife attraction in Europe. Loads of tourism jobs and regeneration of indigenous crofting / rural communities
Alternative, another hundred years of gross overgrazing by deer and environmental & community degredation.
After wandering around Denali Alaska , a few bears and wolves are not going to put me off walking the hills.
Alternative, another hundred years of gross overgrazing by deer and environmental & community degredation.
After wandering around Denali Alaska , a few bears and wolves are not going to put me off walking the hills.
But what if said human being is injured, has an accident.?
Heard them talking about this on Radio Scotland this morning and I thought they said they were going to start of with 450 acres. What on earth would it cost to fence off 23000 acres??
Personally I think 100,000 acres turned over to the reintroduction of native species as a environmental experiment is bearable, rights to roam or no. Given that humanity pretty much makes a mess of the rest of the little island we inhabit I think giving the land back to the beasts for a short time (I'm talking a few lifetimes here) in order to establish the impact they would have on the land and whether the long term reintroduction of them is practical is something which is not only acceptable, but necessary.
To try and profit from that in a small way is I think acceptable, the cost has to be eased a little and I don't think that the tourism it would generate would even begin to cover a 1000th of the initial cost to put such an experiment in place.
Those that wish to roam would still have a few hundreds of thousands of hectares to play in, how much space do wild camping folk need to be happy?
The fencing seems pretty much commonsense to me too, firstly to contain the animals and secondly to prevent the inevitable poaching that their introduction would attract.
Just getting my extinguisher ready for a flaming right now...
To try and profit from that in a small way is I think acceptable, the cost has to be eased a little and I don't think that the tourism it would generate would even begin to cover a 1000th of the initial cost to put such an experiment in place.
Those that wish to roam would still have a few hundreds of thousands of hectares to play in, how much space do wild camping folk need to be happy?
The fencing seems pretty much commonsense to me too, firstly to contain the animals and secondly to prevent the inevitable poaching that their introduction would attract.
Just getting my extinguisher ready for a flaming right now...
Eric_Methven
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I reckon you're right on Mick, and the chances of getting severely injured inside the reserve or whatever you want to call it, to the extent that wolves would come and eat you is pretty remote, even more so if you consider that people woulkd probably go in there in a group of some sort. This is also where the buzz in gates would help, the Rangers would have an idea of who is in and in what area and grouo sizes. I can see CCTV being put up for both Security reasons and for watching the wildlife.
It isn't a nature reserve because it has fences. Therefore it must be a zoo, and putting prey and predators in the same enclosure is against zoo regulations.
This is from a local forum.
I've got to admit I agree, you should not put the prey and the predator in the same enclosure.
The prey can only run as far as the fence and cannot escape once the Predators work this out it's all over.
How long will their prey last?? then what do you do throw a few more in to keep the natural cycle going????????
No doubt they will be fed but what about their natural instinct??
This is from a local forum.
I've got to admit I agree, you should not put the prey and the predator in the same enclosure.
The prey can only run as far as the fence and cannot escape once the Predators work this out it's all over.
How long will their prey last?? then what do you do throw a few more in to keep the natural cycle going????????
No doubt they will be fed but what about their natural instinct??
This was mentioned in the program. One of the experts said that they needed a far bigger enclosure than currently pland. No less than 50,000 acres but preferably more like 90,000 acres before they could really start thinking about predators. Any smaller than that would give the predators too much of an advantage.
So this means he either has to wait until a neighboring estate comes up for sale or convince some of his neighbors to join him in the enterprise before wolves are a real possibility.
I thought that's where it had come from.
It's repeated on Sunday so I will probably watch it then.
They could always put beavers back into the Norfolk Broads now they have got rid of the Coypu ??:thinkerg:
What's being proposed seems half baked to me. It just doesn't go far enough.
Never mind the moral and legal niceties of the zoo/ game reserve distinction, or the casual disregard for the hard won right to roam, given the possible impact of global warming instead of 'rewilding' with Scots Pine, moose, wolf and lynx shouldn't he go for acacia, water buffalo, hyena and lion?
Never mind the moral and legal niceties of the zoo/ game reserve distinction, or the casual disregard for the hard won right to roam, given the possible impact of global warming instead of 'rewilding' with Scots Pine, moose, wolf and lynx shouldn't he go for acacia, water buffalo, hyena and lion?
Forget the rights and wrongs of reintroduction of these animals what we should be doing is trying to save animals and plants that are NOW threatened with extinction in the UK and abroad so we don't need to go through this bull**** again. Then think about reintroduction extinct plants and animals.
The way is to get rid of the sheep they do more damage than the deer. When the shepard up at Caolasnacon near Kinlochleven died the sheep were got rid of and the whole place has trees poping up all over the place now.
Oh and the midgies are still hell.
The way is to get rid of the sheep they do more damage than the deer. When the shepard up at Caolasnacon near Kinlochleven died the sheep were got rid of and the whole place has trees poping up all over the place now.
Oh and the midgies are still hell.
Agree with that, though the deer don't help. I have a friend who helps look after a good sized wood near Loch Lomond and has had a lot of trouble with deer coming through eating the saplings.
It's repeated on Sunday so I will probably watch it then.
Is it? I can't find it listed, if so please let me know what time, channel etc.
Is it? I can't find it listed, if so please let me know what time, channel etc.
It's available to watch online here ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/b009z05l.shtml?src=ip_mlt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/b009z05l.shtml?src=ip_mlt
I found the program itself quite interesting, he has done his homework, which to be honest I didn't think that he would have done. As far as advice he is getting it from people that know a lot more about the subject than most ranging from Oxford university through game reserves in South Africa and Argentina.
Incidentally Shamwari game reserve is private, they have their own anti poaching unit and as far as I am aware they have not ever been used as a hunting facility.
I also found this quite interesting.
Now the guy whether you think he is right or wrong has a passion and it is going to cost him a small fortune one way or the other.
He does state that to start with it will require a lot of management.
Part of that management will probably be vets bills amongst other things to start with, if it came off he would probably be required to have it fenced by law anyway, so there will be the cost of and maintenance of the fence and certain costs will be continuous.
If he intends on charging people for the pleasure of going there it will be to recoup the loss of what he has already forked out, which you cannot really blame him for.
Now something that you can blame him for is trying to set up the first wildlife reserve in the UK (I find it kind of puzzling that we haven't got one already), that misguided or not he is attempting to reintroduce species that our forebears wiped out due to a lack of foresight for either the animals or the environment.
As one of his neighbours said "initially we may have thought he was mad, but you have got to admire the man if only for putting his wallet where his mouth is"
That's a neighbour who will be affected a lot more by what he is planning to do than most any of us.
His head ranger seems to think that it would be a good thing to, I think he said something along the lines of "it will create jobs for a lot of people" and when asked did he think it could work he seemed pretty positive about it.
So on one hand he is bringing work into the area, he is trying to create the first wildlife reserve in the UK and he is trying to re-introduce wildlife that nobody thought they would ever see here again living as close to being wild as they can.
On the other it effects laws to do with the right to roam and people worry that wolves will end up massacring the grazers to the point that it's game over.
Wolves won't, but then people have never really understood a lot about wolves. I seem to recall that Ernest Thompson Seton changed his mind about wolves after his last wolf hunt, but by then a lot of damage had already been done and nearly all of it was mans fault and the wolf was more of a scapegoat than anything else.
Bears, there are countries that have a fair amount of bears and once again the bears don't really cause the problem when there are problems, people do.
Incidentally Shamwari game reserve is private, they have their own anti poaching unit and as far as I am aware they have not ever been used as a hunting facility.
said:
I also found this quite interesting.
Did you know? said:
Now the guy whether you think he is right or wrong has a passion and it is going to cost him a small fortune one way or the other.
He does state that to start with it will require a lot of management.
Part of that management will probably be vets bills amongst other things to start with, if it came off he would probably be required to have it fenced by law anyway, so there will be the cost of and maintenance of the fence and certain costs will be continuous.
If he intends on charging people for the pleasure of going there it will be to recoup the loss of what he has already forked out, which you cannot really blame him for.
Now something that you can blame him for is trying to set up the first wildlife reserve in the UK (I find it kind of puzzling that we haven't got one already), that misguided or not he is attempting to reintroduce species that our forebears wiped out due to a lack of foresight for either the animals or the environment.
As one of his neighbours said "initially we may have thought he was mad, but you have got to admire the man if only for putting his wallet where his mouth is"
That's a neighbour who will be affected a lot more by what he is planning to do than most any of us.
His head ranger seems to think that it would be a good thing to, I think he said something along the lines of "it will create jobs for a lot of people" and when asked did he think it could work he seemed pretty positive about it.
So on one hand he is bringing work into the area, he is trying to create the first wildlife reserve in the UK and he is trying to re-introduce wildlife that nobody thought they would ever see here again living as close to being wild as they can.
On the other it effects laws to do with the right to roam and people worry that wolves will end up massacring the grazers to the point that it's game over.
Wolves won't, but then people have never really understood a lot about wolves. I seem to recall that Ernest Thompson Seton changed his mind about wolves after his last wolf hunt, but by then a lot of damage had already been done and nearly all of it was mans fault and the wolf was more of a scapegoat than anything else.
Bears, there are countries that have a fair amount of bears and once again the bears don't really cause the problem when there are problems, people do.
Similar threads
