Hmmm... Fences or rambling bears?

[ilovemybed]

'ning all.
I saw Countryfile yesterday with the legendary John Craven. There was an interesting feature about some fella who owns a vast estate up north of Inverness. He is planning on building a huge fenced enclosure (Circumference 50miles) and releasing Bears, Wolves and Bison into it as a reintroduction exercise.
There was also some fella from the Ramblers association who was claiming that this was against the rights to roam - because the area was fenced off, despite the fact there would be access points through the fence. He said he wanted to see the animals introduced, but wasn't happy about the fence.

So, here's my question to you all: Which would you prefer?
1) No bears/bison/etc, and free access to that bit of land
2) Bears/Bison/etc enclosed in a fence with access points
3) Bears/Bison/etc as free to roam as the ramblers, like in Italy, Switzerland, Gemany etc.

 

[Tantalus]

is it just me or can the ramblers be incredibly short sighted?

a fence with a stile interferes with nobodies right to roam

and if there is a bull on the other side it is up to the individual to make an intelligent decision about wether to cross the stile or not ?

the countryside is sadly not populated by disney creatures like bambi and thumper

can i stop ranting now ?

Tant

 

[mark a.]

Sounds very interesting. I wouldn't have a problem with the fence as long as there are plenty of access points to cover all the rights of way. I do wonder, though, how people would react to having wolves and bears wandering around.

 

[ilovemybed]

Sounds very interesting. I wouldn't have a problem with the fence as long as there are plenty of access points to cover all the rights of way. I do wonder, though, how people would react to having wolves and bears wandering around.

Well, they might stop complaining about Foxes....

 

[spamel]

I say introduce these fine animals, they where here before and still would be if we hadn't wiped them out. Also, if somebody does climb over the fence then it is up to them as to wether it is safe to do so. The size of cities now would attract these animals due to an easy meal, and they would be seen as a menace, therefore it is unfortunately necessary to fence them in. This is only to keep the dumb sheeple safe, you know how uncommon 'common sense' is these days!!

 

[Beakytzw]

What a brilliant idea. 50 miles of fenced off countryside, with wild beasts such as these, bloody brilliant. Good to see that there will be access points for the animals food source (Ramblers) to enter the woods.

Phil

 

[ilovemybed]

No self respecting bear would enter Inverness anyway! Apparently there are no problems in the rest of Europe with roaming bears (apart from one I'd read about that had learnt to politely knock on your front door!) or wolves. The issue, at least for the Ramblers, isn't what animals are there - it's the fact that someone wants to put a fence up.
Dunno if I trust those ramblers. What's the difference between them and people just going for a walk...?

 

[MartiniDave]

I saw that bit of Countryfile. I'll be that person from the RA has got a nice fence around his garden. I find them to be selfish & hypocritical! Let the ramblers in, it'll save having to feed the bears!

 

[StormWalker]

I saw that bit of Countryfile. I'll be that person from the RA has got a nice fence around his garden. I find them to be selfish & hypocritical! Let the ramblers in, it'll save having to feed the bears!

I agree. They pipe on about their 'Right to Roam' but what about the animals right to live on their true habitat!
I can see that fences are required to keep the animals safe form modern life rather than sheeple safe from them. To be able to enter the fenced area would be an amazing experience and a massive step forward for re-introduction.,

My 2p worth!

 

[arctic hobo]

In Norway there are bears, and no fences - after all, they have allemannsrätten
Why don't we have the same thing? And why not reintroduce the species over the country? Might help keep the deer population down, not to mention the rambler population

 

[mark a.]

Being a bit harsh on the Ramblers Association there, I think. As it was said in the original post, the RA guy said that he wanted to see the animals introduced. I wish the RA could do more - I've been on a few walks where things got complicated because a landowner had decided to ignore the rights of way and block the path, leaving no way round except through the big thicket of nettles or through the bull field!

 

[MartiniDave]

Being a bit harsh on the Ramblers Association there

Sorry to go a bit off topic, but the RA are a right pain in the proverbial! They are currently campaining very strongly for the abolition of vehicular use of green roads (off-roading to you and me), largely because they seem to want to keep them for themselves, in addition to all the public footpaths!
I'd personally feel very sorry for any bear that stimbled across Janet Street-Porter.

 

[ilovemybed]

I must say that I'm skeptical about the introduction of these creatures. We hardly have any ancient woodland in the UK. Most Scottish woodland was planted since victorian times and can be very species specific. Bears and Wolves require large expanses of established natural (varied) woodland for a decent habitat. But, I assume the experts have deemed the site suitable so it appears to be a debate about whether the fence should be up or not.

I must say I thought the RA chap was being unreasonable considering the plans included ways of access through the fence. I can't help but think of the old joke about Bear poo with Bells in....

 

[Angus Og]

It would be good to see but I just can’t see it happing up here there’d be too much of “not in my back yard try it in the New Forest first”. As for fences there’s always a way to get over, under or through.

 

[redcollective]

They are currently campaining very strongly for the abolition of vehicular use of green roads (off-roading to you and me), largely because they seem to want to keep them for themselves, in addition to all the public footpaths!

Offtopic: Well they do have a point... the Green LANES were never intended for four wheel drives. I've seen so much damage on the hills from motorbike and 4WD activity. I'm afraid my sympathies lie with the RA on this point.

On topic: As a hillwalker, I'd say the main objection is fencing off long standing walking routes, and if my memory serves me correct - a couple of Munros to boot? Can anyone confirm? I for one would get a kick out of a hill walk with the remote chance of seeing a wolf (perhaps not bears!). One problem with easy access to this kind of reserve though is animals become habituated to people - and when wild animals become habituated with humans people get hurt, and in the long run the animals suffer. Who's to blame - I don't know - it's a complicated issue.

 

[MartiniDave]

Indeed, the green lanes were never intended for use by 4x4's or trail bikes, as they didn't exist when the lanes were created. Indeed, green lanes, footpaths, forests etc were never INTENDED for any for of recreational use whatsoever, so should their use as such be stopped?
There is plenty of erosion caused for example, in the Lakes and Dales, by millions of pairs of hiking boots.

I personally beleive there is enough room for all, and would like to see a more live and let live approach by the RA. Remember, once they've banned the 4x4's and tral bikes, ponies and bicycles will be next, probably followed by compulsory RA membership if you want to go for a walk anywhere.

 

[Pappa]

What's the difference between them [Ramblers] and people just going for a walk...?

Um, I think it's mainly a class thing. Not that I've got anything against them. Although, most of the ones I've met are a bit odd.

Pappa

 

[Spacemonkey]

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?

 

[Rod]

Ramblers = Satan's Children. Feed them to the wolves!

 

[george]

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?

Spacemonkey

No offence intended here but we're talking about Scotland - they can't just do what they like with vast tracts of the country - not anymore. Not without considering the fact that the rest of us have a free right of access. The RA seemed to me to be taking exactly that line - bring back wolves and bears but ensure we all have access too. If you don't know anything about the struggle for land in the Highlands then if you're interested have a look at Prebble's "the Highland clearances". Allowing someone to fence off another vast tract without ensuring the common right of access would be giving up a very hard fought freedom.

This estate is within 1 days travel for a wolf from where I live. I would love to see the Highlands re-populated with them and with bears too. Of course it would be easy to solve the reintroduction and access issue with a pair of boltcutters and thats probably what some dafty would do.

I can't wait to hear the sound of wolves howling from the hills behind my house - and if that means I have to look after the animals that I farm a bit differently then I'd happily pay that price.

But I would not give up the right to roam for anything.

George