Talk of wolves being re-introduced to the mountains & glens of Scotland.

[Greg]

I have just read an article in todays Daily Express - Ingham's World about the possible re-introduction of wolves to Scotland. There is apparently very strong support from The Mammals Trust UK for wolves to be let free on the Scottish highlands.
They could also be joined by upto 450 Lynx. By all accounts there are enough deer in Scotland for it to become a reality. The deer population stands at around 700,000 and is enjoying a significant increase.
To bring the farmers into line they will be compensated for any cattle / sheep taken by the wolves.

I think this would be a good idea its about time we had some of our wilder craetures re-introduced. Personally I think we should have more wild boar aswell and in the remoter parts and islands of our country, bear should be brought back. As long as the right controls are put in place of cause.

What are your thoughts?

 

[h2o]

its a bad idea sounds good in theory but the reality is sheep and livestock would be savaged constantly by wolves that have probably been reared by man.The wolves would be happier in canada alaska or some other wilderness .scotland just isnt big enough.as for lynx come on be serious even scotish wild cats are struggling think how litle food there would be if they got reintroduced.in my opinion every type of animal released into the uk has led to serious repurcussions for other species .to name a few mink grey squirrel and crayfish,these 3 alone have led to the decline of smaller uk species.Wolves would be hungry and dangerous out of there natural suroundings,i hope i am wrong and the wolves thrive wolves being my favourite animal but i think it will spell truoble

 

[Greg]

Here's a link to the article:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/27604/Ingham-s-World

By the way I like you am aloud my own opinion!

 

[spamel]

They belong here and would have thrived if man had not intervened. I say reintroduce them, they cannot do any harm to the enviornment or other animals in the same way the grey squirrel or the mink did. They are meant to be here in the first place! I say reintroduce the dodo too!

 

[British Red]

Farmers will be compensated......by whom? Tax payers? Can the farmers shoot them if they become a problem?

Hmm - too many deer. It strikes me that, in a world where this country cannot feed itself, that a more logical idea would be to manage the deer herd and eat venison! I am all in favour of wolves by the way - but as a way of controlling deer when we import meat seems ludicrous as a justification! Also I don't believe that tax money going to compensate farmers for less domesticanimals whilst the wolves eat wild animals that people could eat makes any economic sense either! If we want them the arguments should be better than that.

I also dislike the phrase "to bring the farmers into line". I would prefer the phrase "since this activity will damage the already precarious livelihoods of farmers......"

Red

 

[Bernie Garland]

its a nice idea, but try and tell the sottish hill farmers its a good idea when sheep farming is there livelyhood

 

[Greg]

At a guess I would say discussions are already underway.

 

[familne]

This is utter nonsense - I was watching Chris Packham the other night and he hit the nail on the head - we should be concentrating on conserving what we have at the moment instead of re-introducing species along some ill-advised romantic vision of the past.

A wolf would only have to bear its teeth at somebody for a bunch of knuckle-dragging idiots to go off and start shooting every wolf they saw.

One of the recently re-introduced Sea Eagles has been deliberately killed on a shooting estate in Angus and a Golden Eagle was killed on a grouse moor in the Borders - do we want to introduce more animals for these half-wits to kill?

It would be unfair on the wolves to re-introduce them as long as there are people like this around.

 

[Greg]

Didn't people have the same fears of introducing wolves into Yellowstone and the SawTooth mountains in the US!

 

[Tengu]

yes they did, and now the wolves are thriving.

but we are too likley to dwell on the negative aspects in this country.

 

[Greg]

yes they did, and now the wolves are thriving.

but we are too likley to dwell on the negative aspects in this country.

Your not wrong there!

 

[Toddy]

No, but I think you are missing an incredibly valid point here. Scotland is not a virtually unpopulated wilderness.
Hill farmers.....that's a huge proportion of farmers up here. And those hills are busy places, people not only live here but use the hills and glens all year around for recreation and for their livelihoods.

Do I want to trip over a wolf with cubs when out for a walk in what could well be considered our backyard? That'll be a 'no' . Do I want to be foraging and find a black / brown bear rummaging around the same bushes? No, sorry, but I don't. Do I want to be out walking with children and find a troop of wild boars? No, again. Why should I expect the locals to feel any differently?
It's not just a matter of compensating a few farmers.

Do I regret their loss from our part of the world?
Of course I do, but you know, our little island is incredibly busy nowadays; our ancestors wiped them out because they felt these beasts competed, were a threat to their settled existance. That more than holds true now since the population has grown so much.

I delight in watching the great birds, the occasional glimpse of a pine martin or a wildcat is an incredibly special moment, but if they can't thrive here in any great numbers, what makes some newspaper hack think the wolf and the bear can?

700,000 deer, all on lands someone owns. The landwowners are aware of the issues, but I don't see many of them calling for wolves and bears. An occasional individual who wants to create a private zoo of some type or other, appears to be it.
Problem is they would have to rely on tourism to pay for it and that's always a hard one to make thrive in Scotland. The wildlife parks we have already struggle, and it's incredibly seasonal.

Nice idea but I don't really think it's feasible.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[familne]

yes they did, and now the wolves are thriving.

but we are too likley to dwell on the negative aspects in this country.

sorry mate but with over 15 years working as an field ecologist in this country 'negative aspects' = reality!

My rose tinted spectacles have been long tainted .

 

[Greg]

If ever I would change my mind or be convinced otherwise about various subject matter it would more than likely be by people on this site!
I opened this debate to hear the views of people who live and work in these areas - local expertise as you might say. And now although it would be wonderful to see such animals roaming free in our country I can now understand the reasons why it shouldn't happen.
Yes we could have a large compouded area like the Saw Tooth Mountain pack in the US were first introduced into but like toddy said it is probably financially unsound.
After all the Saw Tooth pack were eventually re-located to an Indian tribal reservation (when the original land deeds and funding ran out) where they are being looked after to this day.
So there you have my view, although like I have already said I would love to one day see it happen!
Thanks guys, but don't stop there carry on the discussion because its a very interesting and emotive subject.

 

[Tengu]

I looked this up on Wiki and there are about six saw tooth ranges in the US...

 

[Greg]

I looked this up on Wiki and there are about six saw tooth ranges in the US...

I think it was in either Utah or Montana, I have 2hr documentary at home about it all with the specific area, but as I'm in work at the moment I can't find out, it will have to wait until tomorrow!

Edit: It was actually Idaho, go figure! Here's a link if you want to read about them:

http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=2524

 

[PaleoHunterGatherer]

There is nothing quite like the sound of a wild wolf howling from across a small lake where you are camping, the hair on your neck stands up and you never forget that sound...all our ancestors probably experienced that same sensation. That said though, as was stated by British Red it's a poor reason to reintroduce a species just to naturally cull a large poulation of deer. Aside from the farmers concerns, a wild area of Scotland that could realistically support Wolves and Lynx, and would require a minimal human population interface, to my understanding, has not existed since the Bronze Age. Perhaps one of the Scottish Isles that are minimally populated?
Remember, here in Ontario even with the vast landmass we have, there are still no truely wild area's for Wolves, Lynx, or even Black Bears. With the amount of mining, clear cut forestry, roads, wolf/human interface often ends up violent, and not in the favor of the wolf.
I would guess to a man, if it were feasible, most bushcrafters and others who appreciate nature would love to see a Britain with area's that support wildlife like it was in pre-Bronze Age times. But is this possible in a small island with 60 million+ people? Here's hoping someone figures out a way to the benefit of wild animals and humans.
Sorry to rant so...
Alex

 

[Mike Ameling]

Just more "feel good" politics. A few people want this so that they can ... feel good ... about doing something for the wildlife - and, of course, having other people pay for it and deal with the consequences. Feel Good Politics!

The only way this would work would be to REMOVE all humans from the areas affected! Any human contact/interaction would adversely affect the reintroduction of wild predators - either through direct contact, or through access to domesticated "prey" animals (farm animals). Predators will go for the easy/accessible prey - unless trained to avoid them. The only way to train them to avoid hunting sheep/cattle/dogs/cats/kids would be actively hunt/pursue them - and kill a bunch. "Spare the rod", and they will come into direct conflict with humans.

Yes, wolves can survive or even thrive in fairly wild areas with humans and their domesticated animals around, but conflicts will become common. What then?

How long will people allow wild animals to have priority over humans? Think about that. The only real way to do that would be to round up all those pesky humans, and "cage" them up in cities and "food production factories" (farms). No more wandering through the hills - because that "contact" might alter "natural" animal behavior. And then only the ... annointed few ... would ever be able to see/experience nature out in the wilds (those specifically licensed to study them - or with enough political/economical clout to get a permit).

How far are you willing to take this?

Feel good politics. It makes a few people feel good about themselves and their work - because other people can see the "good work" they are doing for this concept of a "natural world before man screwed it up"! Feel Good Politics. The rest is mere justification for their chosen political beliefs.

Sorry. I've dealt with too many of these clueless yuppy over-educated people who have lost most of their contact with reality and the world outside their rose-colored vison, and firmly beleave that they know best how everybody else must live their lives - thanking them profusely, of course, for the overly generous gift of their devine guidance. Unfortunately, they also tend to have lots of money - which they spend profusely to create their personal "concept" of how the world should look and work while dragging those pesky rural peons along into their BRAVE NEW WORLD! They need to take their self-appointed egos, and crawl back into their concrete cells in those rats-nests called cities.

Hmmm ... sounds like I'm a little extra grumpy this evening. But "feel good" political causes tend to do that to me. Time to go have a ... wee dram or three ...

Mikey - that grumpy ol' blacksmith out in the Hinterlands

 

[Shewie]

My heart says yes but my brain says no.

We would all (well most of us) love to see some magnificent beasties roaming our land but I`m afraid the negatives would far outweigh the positives in my opinion.

Rich

 

[mr dazzler]

Sorry. I've dealt with too many of these clueless yuppy over-educated people who have lost most of their contact with reality and the world outside their rose-colored vison, and firmly beleave that they know best how everybody else must live their lives - thanking them profusely, of course, for the overly generous gift of their devine guidance. Unfortunately, they also tend to have lots of money - which they spend profusely to create their personal "concept" of how the world should look and work while dragging those pesky rural peons along into their BRAVE NEW WORLD! They need to take their self-appointed egos, and crawl back into their concrete cells in those rats-nests called cities.

Educated beyond there intellect. I know exactly what you mean Mike. These "awfully nice but dim" folks seem to be the "backbone?" of the utopian modern state beauracrat industry. They come up with all sorts of fashionable but deluded PC schemes not just in the contry side but in the city too. Because they feel bad about some issue or other, they demand that us pleb's feel WORSE about it They then expect their "interpretive center" or "visitor information centre" to be THE point from which we should all view there world. And we get to pay there wgaes and pension's from tax dollar/pound's as well .