Bigman said:I must confess I didn't look at the start date of this thread when I replied to it.
Just found the subject interesting.
I mentioned this old thread on a new thread discussing wild boar a few days ago and "bumped" it by proxy...
Hmmm... Fences or rambling bears?
- Thread starter ilovemybed
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
I mentioned this old thread on a new thread discussing wild boar a few days ago and "bumped" it by proxy...
Longstrider said:
exactly, to me this is the most sensible reply to this thread so far. the 23000 acres that has been quoted as the bigger size of reserve that this chap wants as a free zone for bears is no bigger than an average sheep hill farm. not nearly enough for wolves or bears. it sounds like a glorified safari park to me. unless you build a fence across the border to england, then the proposal just doesn't seem feasible, just the romanticised longings of the projects leader and some bushcrafters.
Thats what the animal rights people thought as they released 2000 mink into our countryside, a few years ago......
Scots_Charles_River
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
The eco system has been screwed up/changed so much the current agricutlure and land can't take those creatures. Look at the deer, they can't survive since there is a lack of forrest, due to clearences etc, so adding the predators to the mix won't work. I think the hedghog cull is a case similar.
Driving into the Pyrenees last year from the french side up into the Val de Aran nothing but NO bear signs. Probably put up by farmers ?
Ins cotland that landowner can keep deer and sheep out of his land for twenty years first to re-generate some of the forrest. Likewise the joke Cairngorms park, very lttle forrestation.
Rant over.....
Nick
Driving into the Pyrenees last year from the french side up into the Val de Aran nothing but NO bear signs. Probably put up by farmers ?
Ins cotland that landowner can keep deer and sheep out of his land for twenty years first to re-generate some of the forrest. Likewise the joke Cairngorms park, very lttle forrestation.
Rant over.....
Nick
Emm. Nick..
I think the point is that the deer have surrrvived even without the forests and are now part of the reason there is very little regeneration. Numbers need to be controlled.
However reintroducing any creatures without having sorted out our screwed up land won't work. Especially if you don't get the public onside.
I think the point is that the deer have surrrvived even without the forests and are now part of the reason there is very little regeneration. Numbers need to be controlled.
However reintroducing any creatures without having sorted out our screwed up land won't work. Especially if you don't get the public onside.
Scots_Charles_River
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
The deer are fed but to the detriment of the saplings etc which can regenerate the forrest. That's what I meant.
I don't mind deer but most are there for 'sport' just like the grouse moors.
Nick
I don't mind deer but most are there for 'sport' just like the grouse moors.
Nick
I'm in favour of the reintroduction of species, although it's a contentious subject - the project to reintriduce beavers to Argyll fell through because of opposition from vested interests.
According to Smout the forest cover in Scotland was less than 50% 2000 years ago, and fell to ~ 2% at the beginning of the 20th century. In his book "Beyond Conservation: a wildland strategy" Peter Taylor suggests that bears could not be reintroduced to the wild in Scotland because of the scarcity of food plants. That is berry bearing species like blaeberry, bear berry etc.
The reintroduction of lost species centered on the Glen Affric area is the long term goal of the Trees for Life charity.
According to Smout the forest cover in Scotland was less than 50% 2000 years ago, and fell to ~ 2% at the beginning of the 20th century. In his book "Beyond Conservation: a wildland strategy" Peter Taylor suggests that bears could not be reintroduced to the wild in Scotland because of the scarcity of food plants. That is berry bearing species like blaeberry, bear berry etc.
The reintroduction of lost species centered on the Glen Affric area is the long term goal of the Trees for Life charity.
Huge thread, may not have picked up every post etc, so apologies if cutting across/ repeating etc.
Think the only thing that most sides of any such debate could agree on is that nature is simultaneously hugely simple and complex. Solutions dont come from sound bites or one liner comments pro or con any particular stance.
Not sure if was resolved, but from the timing of the original post, I would hazzard a guess that original proposal discussed was from Mr Van Lissingen ( sic ) the then owner of Letterewe Estate? If wrong on that, then paddling off on one in what follows, but still germain to topic.
Sadly, VL died of cancer about two years ago ( ? ) so not sure what came of the estate or his vision. He was a widely travelled Dutch industrialist and life long hunter. As with most estate owners ( subjective dig on my part ) he had fairly definite ideas.
However, two things in particular grabbed my respect - 1. Following ( I think ) a RDC ( now DCS - Deer Commission Scotland ) assessment of the deer cull required on his estate - he disputed the figures and approach strongly. Rather than just moan, he established a research project over several years and published the findings - no precondition on the result. The work was published in a book ( not here at moment and duggered if I can recall the name ) and put on sale at a hugely subsidised price - all funded by VL.
It was from this study that he deloped plans to reintroduce species and attempt a balancing approach to land management. I think that is where the original post in this thread came in.
Agree or disagree with a person, I must respect anyone with the wisdom to realise there are things he doesnt know and the passion to set out to find answers. Obviously gets potentially complex and debatable from there on in. But credit due.
2. We are in a world of vested interest groups, red tape, rules and lip service drones by the million. The good, bad, ignorant and misguided - I think I sit with at least one part of my antanomy in each camp!
But respect ( again arguable ) to VL. He was diagnosed with cancer. His ethos had developed toward viewing this world as a complete system - each of us part of a whole. Little or nothing working in isolation. His belief before illness was that life is a natural cycle and the farther we travel from that, the unhappier we are as individuals and as a planet.
On that basis, he shunned full-blown therapy and viewed his illness as part of a natural order of things. He had the assets to fight and postpone the inevitable, but chose to concentrate on 'more constructive things' ( his words ).
Not sure I would have courage of such conviction and certainly not suggesting he was either right or wrong in outlook. My respect comes from his standing by the views he expoused to the ultimate degree.
I will try to look out the book - it is a beautifully presented piece of work. As with all matters of research, open to argument as to methodology, conclusions, interpretation etc. So open to each to decide whether they agree with findings.
Personally, I would love to see a more natural world - including a wider range of wildlife here in Scotland. However, I dont believe the current way things are, the political circumstances or the way society is would result in anything but problems - for people, the environment and not least the creatures concerned.
Bears, wolves etc do live in 'modern societies', but reintroduction would be fraught - with a price to pay that people arent prepared to stand at the moment. It would be nice if things changed.
Currently interests and views are too polarised - that has come out in this thread as much as anywhere. Bird groups focus on birds - often high profile species to detriment of others. Tree Groups give way nothing to OBL in their view of deer and sheep; sporting interests have just as strong a battle within as without. Net result - huge energy and resource is expended running round in decreasing circles - but was it not ever thus?
Until the disparate interests start to build on the commonalty, I dont see much changing. And that is just to the detriment of us all.
Think the only thing that most sides of any such debate could agree on is that nature is simultaneously hugely simple and complex. Solutions dont come from sound bites or one liner comments pro or con any particular stance.
Not sure if was resolved, but from the timing of the original post, I would hazzard a guess that original proposal discussed was from Mr Van Lissingen ( sic ) the then owner of Letterewe Estate? If wrong on that, then paddling off on one in what follows, but still germain to topic.
Sadly, VL died of cancer about two years ago ( ? ) so not sure what came of the estate or his vision. He was a widely travelled Dutch industrialist and life long hunter. As with most estate owners ( subjective dig on my part ) he had fairly definite ideas.
However, two things in particular grabbed my respect - 1. Following ( I think ) a RDC ( now DCS - Deer Commission Scotland ) assessment of the deer cull required on his estate - he disputed the figures and approach strongly. Rather than just moan, he established a research project over several years and published the findings - no precondition on the result. The work was published in a book ( not here at moment and duggered if I can recall the name ) and put on sale at a hugely subsidised price - all funded by VL.
It was from this study that he deloped plans to reintroduce species and attempt a balancing approach to land management. I think that is where the original post in this thread came in.
Agree or disagree with a person, I must respect anyone with the wisdom to realise there are things he doesnt know and the passion to set out to find answers. Obviously gets potentially complex and debatable from there on in. But credit due.
2. We are in a world of vested interest groups, red tape, rules and lip service drones by the million. The good, bad, ignorant and misguided - I think I sit with at least one part of my antanomy in each camp!
But respect ( again arguable ) to VL. He was diagnosed with cancer. His ethos had developed toward viewing this world as a complete system - each of us part of a whole. Little or nothing working in isolation. His belief before illness was that life is a natural cycle and the farther we travel from that, the unhappier we are as individuals and as a planet.
On that basis, he shunned full-blown therapy and viewed his illness as part of a natural order of things. He had the assets to fight and postpone the inevitable, but chose to concentrate on 'more constructive things' ( his words ).
Not sure I would have courage of such conviction and certainly not suggesting he was either right or wrong in outlook. My respect comes from his standing by the views he expoused to the ultimate degree.
I will try to look out the book - it is a beautifully presented piece of work. As with all matters of research, open to argument as to methodology, conclusions, interpretation etc. So open to each to decide whether they agree with findings.
Personally, I would love to see a more natural world - including a wider range of wildlife here in Scotland. However, I dont believe the current way things are, the political circumstances or the way society is would result in anything but problems - for people, the environment and not least the creatures concerned.
Bears, wolves etc do live in 'modern societies', but reintroduction would be fraught - with a price to pay that people arent prepared to stand at the moment. It would be nice if things changed.
Currently interests and views are too polarised - that has come out in this thread as much as anywhere. Bird groups focus on birds - often high profile species to detriment of others. Tree Groups give way nothing to OBL in their view of deer and sheep; sporting interests have just as strong a battle within as without. Net result - huge energy and resource is expended running round in decreasing circles - but was it not ever thus?
Until the disparate interests start to build on the commonalty, I dont see much changing. And that is just to the detriment of us all.
Looks like this will go ahead but on a smaller scale.
Daily Record said:
The Estate details.
More detailed news below.
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1232332007
I voted for no Beasties
I love the idea but it`s completely bonkers at the same time.
Who / what would they eat, there`s very little out there for large beasties to munch on now.
They would be constantly under threat from dobadders and people would just want to harm / persicute them.
In a perfect world it`s a great idea but not anymore, especially in the UK.
My two penneth
I love the idea but it`s completely bonkers at the same time.
Who / what would they eat, there`s very little out there for large beasties to munch on now.
They would be constantly under threat from dobadders and people would just want to harm / persicute them.
In a perfect world it`s a great idea but not anymore, especially in the UK.
My two penneth
Im against this proposal.
If this guy gets whast he wants then where will it end?
Electric fences all over the joint!?
I agree with some other people here who think this is nothing more than a glorified zoo.
If Re-introduction of any species into britain had to happen then it should be
on the say so of the government and the proper authorities. Not by a private land owner. This man has the power to change a country because he has money? what ever happened to democracy?
If this guy gets whast he wants then where will it end?
Electric fences all over the joint!?
I agree with some other people here who think this is nothing more than a glorified zoo.
If Re-introduction of any species into britain had to happen then it should be
on the say so of the government and the proper authorities. Not by a private land owner. This man has the power to change a country because he has money? what ever happened to democracy?