Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: SusanDoris on April 12, 2019, 08:01:40 AM
-
There was another item on the news yesterday about some estate owner in Scotland who wants to re-introduce wolves - as far as I can see, the idea is entirely without merit. It seems that promoters of this idea quote information from USA where the re-introduction of grey wolves has helped cull deer so that forest re-growth is promoted. The glaring, obvious point is that American forests are, surprise, surprise, a lot bigger than in Scotland. <deep sighs>
I don't know what others think and will be interested to hear and I'd like to hear how it could be GUARANTEED that no-one would leave a gate open, or that there would never be a hole in the electric fence, or that the number of wolves available would eat the required number of deer, etc etc. It’s fantasy land!
-
There was another item on the news yesterday about some estate owner in Scotland who wants to re-introduce wolves - as far as I can see, the idea is entirely without merit. It seems that promoters of this idea quote information from USA where the re-introduction of grey wolves has helped cull deer so that forest re-growth is promoted. The glaring, obvious point is that American forests are, surprise, surprise, a lot bigger than in Scotland. <deep sighs>
I don't know what others think and will be interested to hear and I'd like to hear how it could be GUARANTEED that no-one would leave a gate open, or that there would never be a hole in the electric fence, or that the number of wolves available would eat the required number of deer, etc etc. It’s fantasy land!
I agree it is a crazy idea.
-
Wolves might just work in the Highlands orCairngorms - I think the experiment is worth a trial; I'd suggest lynx a far more credible idea....either way, a top preditor is needed to curb the overpopulation of red deer. The red deer are predominantly a forest species; that they now frequent moorland, grassland and even rural town outskirts is symptomatic ove superabaundance. They create havoc in new plantations; efforts to expand the remnants of Caledonian pine forest and lowland native woodland are heavily hampered by deer destroying saplings and stripping bark from mature trees. Top predators would move them on and harry them, limiting the damage they cause. Research in Norway, Sweden and Denmark has shown that re-introduction of these species has benefitted native ecology.
-
Wolves might just work in the Highlands orCairngorms - I think the experiment is worth a trial; I'd suggest lynx a far more credible idea....either way, a top preditor is needed to curb the overpopulation of red deer. The red deer are predominantly a forest species; that they now frequent moorland, grassland and even rural town outskirts is symptomatic ove superabaundance. They create havoc in new plantations; efforts to expand the remnants of Caledonian pine forest and lowland native woodland are heavily hampered by deer destroying saplings and stripping bark from mature trees. Top predators would move them on and harry them, limiting the damage they cause. Research in Norway, Sweden and Denmark has shown that re-introduction of these species has benefitted native ecology.
Surely taking the deer out with a gun and using the venison for human consumption is a better method of keeping them down. Wild animals in the form of wolves and lynx are not a sensible idea, as they are dangerous to humans, as well as other wold creatures.
-
Nope. Deer staking is usually pracriced on hill and moorland -which is not red deer's natural habitat. Thery prefer forest and woodland,and shooting them is impractical in those surroundings - for obviousreasons. Deer fencing is OK - but it can limit the spread of native wildlife, and is easily damaged in your average Scottish winter - taking lots of time, effort, and money to repair. Surely a natural remedy - native species reintroduced to the wild - is a better idea? Reintroductions of species which were exterminated by man have proven pretty successful so far - the red kite,sea eagle,beaver and, to recreated pine forest, red aquirrel, have all flourished. I see no practical reason why the lynx - predominantly a forest or mountain predator - would not do the same. I see from the BBC that, for the first time in 180 years, wolves have been seen in Holland. Why not Scotland as well?
-
Going Dutch..... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-47866510
-
Nope. Deer staking is usually pracriced on hill and moorland -which is not red deer's natural habitat. Thery prefer forest and woodland,and shooting them is impractical in those surroundings - for obviousreasons. Deer fencing is OK - but it can limit the spread of native wildlife, and is easily damaged in your average Scottish winter - taking lots of time, effort, and money to repair. Surely a natural remedy - native species reintroduced to the wild - is a better idea? Reintroductions of species which were exterminated by man have proven pretty successful so far - the red kite,sea eagle,beaver and, to recreated pine forest, red aquirrel, have all flourished. I see no practical reason why the lynx - predominantly a forest or mountain predator - would not do the same. I see from the BBC that, for the first time in 180 years, wolves have been seen in Holland. Why not Scotland as well?
You might not be so enthusiastic if the wolves starting hunting people as well as deer.
-
You might not be so enthusiastic if the wolves starting hunting people as well as deer.
Why should a predatory species leave an abundant, non-aggressive food source, to hund an aggresive one?
Whilst there are accounts of wolf attcaks, they are vanishingly rare and are almost always explained.
A classic attack in Germany was documented...wolves hunted humans near a village.
EWhat the sensation seekers forgot to mention was that the villagers left scraps for the wolves, habituating them to a food source they could further exploit.
If left alone, they pose no significant threat.
More humans are injured by charging bulls or cows protecting their calves in Scotland than would be hurt by wolves.
Should we therefore ban coes?
-
Can't see the problem: after all, we already have 'bears' here! *
*Viewers outwith the west of Scotland might not fully understand this reference.
-
Can't see the problem: after all, we already have 'bears' here! *
*Viewers outwith the west of Scotland might not fully understand this reference.
Gie that man a Killie Pie (As long as he disnae throw it.....)
-
You might not be so enthusiastic if the wolves starting hunting people as well as deer.
I'm with Anchorman on this one. Having been birding quite often in the Cairngorms, I have seen first hand the damage that deer(red deer especially) can do to young saplings etc. Most of the forests have high fences around them to stop the trees being damaged, but they can restrict resident wildlife and have to be constantly checked for gaps.
The number of attacks on humans by wolves is miniscule. They are a shy, retiring species who regard humans as a dangerous threat. I also agree with Anks on the idea that the European lynx could be re-introduced. I believe that there are suggestions that it might be introduced into the Kielder Forest.
I remember birding in Israel back in 1984 when we saw two wolves near an oasis area called the Yeroham Pools. None of our group considered them a threat, even though they were quite close.
-
Why should a predatory species leave an abundant, non-aggressive food source, to hund an aggresive one?
Whilst there are accounts of wolf attcaks, they are vanishingly rare and are almost always explained.
A classic attack in Germany was documented...wolves hunted humans near a village.
EWhat the sensation seekers forgot to mention was that the villagers left scraps for the wolves, habituating them to a food source they could further exploit.
If left alone, they pose no significant threat.
More humans are injured by charging bulls or cows protecting their calves in Scotland than would be hurt by wolves.
Should we therefore ban coes?
In the UK, even in much less populated Scotland, there are walkers who go everywhere. Some are careless with their dogs, which could easily provoke a wolf's defence reaction, some won't read the notices, some will get into the supposedly secure ground.... there are a thousand reasons why establishing wolves is an extremely bad idea. It doesn't matter what happens in other countries, as their circumstances and geography are different and the daft things the people do is their problem, not ours.
Trying to take such a step in UK anywhere is woolly thinking, thinking that has not taken into account all the things that can go wrong. It is not a good idea to talk of cows and livestock, they do not live wild. Wild boars are bad enough.
P.S. Thank you and LR for posts above.
{P.P.S ... and for other posts. I wanted to respond quickly to the latest because my computer is making a funny noise and I'm a bit worried I might have to turn off!
-
There was another item on the news yesterday about some estate owner in Scotland who wants to re-introduce wolves - as far as I can see, the idea is entirely without merit. It seems that promoters of this idea quote information from USA where the re-introduction of grey wolves has helped cull deer so that forest re-growth is promoted. The glaring, obvious point is that American forests are, surprise, surprise, a lot bigger than in Scotland. <deep sighs>
I don't know what others think and will be interested to hear and I'd like to hear how it could be GUARANTEED that no-one would leave a gate open, or that there would never be a hole in the electric fence, or that the number of wolves available would eat the required number of deer, etc etc. It’s fantasy land!
Personally, I would love to see wolves running wild in these islands. As others have pointed out there can be sound ecological reasons to reinstate native apex predators and these are typically advanced in utilitarian terms, such as the control of red deer (wolves) and roe deer (lynx). However, those most passionate about rewilding projects of this kind are often also motivated by other longings that can be difficult to articulate in a civilisation that has long been hostile to such impulses. Pioneer nature conservationists in the UK found themselves in a similar position and were only able to make headway by couching their ambitions as a scientific enterprise, hence the designation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Woven into our culture is an Abrahamic concept of land use https://mxplx.com/meme/2282/ (https://mxplx.com/meme/2282/) and for many rewilding is at least in part a reaction against the onward-marching jackboot of the Anthropocene. In that sense it can be seen as an ethical issue, perhaps (for want of a better word) a 'spiritual' one. The world is not all about us. Whether there is any merit in such fantasy is, I suppose, a matter of opinion.
-
Personally, I would love to see wolves running wild in these islands. As others have pointed out there can be sound ecological reasons to reinstate native apex predators and these are typically advanced in utilitarian terms, such as the control of red deer (wolves) and roe deer (lynx). However, those most passionate about rewilding projects of this kind are often also motivated by other longings that can be difficult to articulate in a civilisation that has long been hostile to such impulses. Pioneer nature conservationists in the UK found themselves in a similar position and were only able to make headway by couching their ambitions as a scientific enterprise, hence the designation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Woven into our culture is an Abrahamic concept of land use https://mxplx.com/meme/2282/ (https://mxplx.com/meme/2282/) and for many rewilding is at least in part a reaction against the onward-marching jackboot of the Anthropocene. In that sense it can be seen as an ethical issue, perhaps (for want of a better word) a 'spiritual' one. The world is not all about us. Whether there is any merit in such fantasy is, I suppose, a matter of opinion.
Wolves running wild? Someone would attacked by one sooner or later, then there would be demands for them to be culled.
-
Wolves running wild? Someone would attacked by one sooner or later, then there would be demands for them to be culled.
Sounds a bit harsh - and wouldn't it be simpler just to leave them to the wolves?
-
Sounds a bit harsh - and wouldn't it be simpler just to leave them to the wolves?
Lovely! :o
-
Personally, I would love to see wolves running wild in these islands. ...
Mostly agree. In the current proposal (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/cq6gF8rCHTFtzmvWCHvBqC/the-controversial-plan-to-bring-wolves-back-to-the-highlands) ,however, previously open land will be closed off except to paying tourists. Ie. He will turn a remote near wilderness into a theme park.
-
In the UK, even in much less populated Scotland, there are walkers who go everywhere. Some are careless with their dogs, which could easily provoke a wolf's defence reaction, some won't read the notices, some will get into the supposedly secure ground.... there are a thousand reasons why establishing wolves is an extremely bad idea. It doesn't matter what happens in other countries, as their circumstances and geography are different and the daft things the people do is their problem, not ours.
Trying to take such a step in UK anywhere is woolly thinking, thinking that has not taken into account all the things that can go wrong. It is not a good idea to talk of cows and livestock, they do not live wild. Wild boars are bad enough.
P.S. Thank you and LR for posts above.
{P.P.S ... and for other posts. I wanted to respond quickly to the latest because my computer is making a funny noise and I'm a bit worried I might have to turn off!
Don't get me started on the cretins who think walking Fido in the nice countryside is a nice idea, Susan.
I live next to a mixed farm - sheep and dairy cattle
The farmer had to have fivw ewes in lamb destroyed last year because some cretin decided Fido wanted to walk off the lead.
The following day, said cretin tried it again.
The farmer - regrettably but understandably - blew Fido's brains out with a shotgun.
-
Personally, I would love to see wolves running wild in these islands. As others have pointed out there can be sound ecological reasons to reinstate native apex predators and these are typically advanced in utilitarian terms, such as the control of red deer (wolves) and roe deer (lynx). However, those most passionate about rewilding projects of this kind are often also motivated by other longings that can be difficult to articulate in a civilisation that has long been hostile to such impulses. Pioneer nature conservationists in the UK found themselves in a similar position and were only able to make headway by couching their ambitions as a scientific enterprise, hence the designation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Woven into our culture is an Abrahamic concept of land use https://mxplx.com/meme/2282/ (https://mxplx.com/meme/2282/) and for many rewilding is at least in part a reaction against the onward-marching jackboot of the Anthropocene. In that sense it can be seen as an ethical issue, perhaps (for want of a better word) a 'spiritual' one. The world is not all about us. Whether there is any merit in such fantasy is, I suppose, a matter of opinion.
Here here; if it was a choice between re-wilding and conservation, I'd go with re-wilding. Conservation projects tend to glorify a vision of nature that is not really natural, but rather a Victorian pastiche of it. Britain is one of the most de-natured countries in the world, we've all lost sight of and contact with the natural world. It would benefit us to see past the 'wolves are dangerous' thinking and reconnect with the deeper, bigger picture of what life is.
-
Here here; if it was a choice between re-wilding and conservation, I'd go with re-wilding. Conservation projects tend to glorify a vision of nature that is not really natural, but rather a Victorian pastiche of it. Britain is one of the most de-natured countries in the world, we've all lost sight of and contact with the natural world. It would benefit us to see past the 'wolves are dangerous' thinking and reconnect with the deeper, bigger picture of what life is.
Some wolves, once out - and the guarantee that they would not get out or be let out of their designated area is nil - some would become urban wolves.
Another point: If they were to be introduced into a particular estate in scotland, how many of you (i.e. those who want to see wild wolves in UK) would go and visit the place? How often? It simply would not be re-wilding the country. The introduction of various birds of prey is far less risky I think.
Whenever species have been introduced.. e.g. a particular toad in Australia, things go wrong - unforeseen consequences.
As anchorman says, people's stupid behaviour is one of the worst of the unforeseen consequences!
-
Rewilding is indeed the way to go. Many of the great estates are man made deserts, artificially maintained by the huntin' shootin'' fishin' brigade, and bring minimum employment to local areas. However, when an area is stripped of its' grouse moors, pheasant shoots, etc, and returned, with a bit of help to a mixed native woodland and crofting environment, not only do native and re-introduced species flourish, but the trees protect the environment from flooding, enrich the soil, and allow the crofts to flourish. One such estate, near Sanquhar, Dumfrieshire, abandoned the hunting ethos, and the resultant increase in eco-tourism,lowland crofting,and sustainable forestry has meant an increase in employment in a depressed area. As for rewilding? I'm all for it. My town's slap bang between two estates - the Boswell, and Dumfries estates - the latter part owned by Charlie Windsor's trust- and we're completely fed up with damn pheasant jam on the roads every Autumn, as the birds try to leave their shotgun infested home range. Also,like Highland estates, a number of raptors have been found poisoned here - mainly red kite and buzzard, but a few hen harriers as well. The estates claim it's pure coincidence that the birds die on their property....though strangely enough, none have been found in nearby farmland. Funny that, isn't it?
-
Here here; if it was a choice between re-wilding and conservation, I'd go with re-wilding. Conservation projects tend to glorify a vision of nature that is not really natural, but rather a Victorian pastiche of it. Britain is one of the most de-natured countries in the world, we've all lost sight of and contact with the natural world. It would benefit us to see past the 'wolves are dangerous' thinking and reconnect with the deeper, bigger picture of what life is.
I'd certainly go with re-wilding too, but I'm not sure what you mean by conservation Projects, as many of the projects of conservation that I've been involved with to some extent have simply been efforts to conserve natural habitat which would otherwise be destroyed or damaged. In my area this often consists of low lying watery/reedy habitats which otherwise would have been drained and potentially used as land for building houses on.
-
Quote from Susan's reply 19:
Another point: If they were to be introduced into a particular estate in scotland, how many of you (i.e. those who want to see wild wolves in UK) would go and visit the place? How often? It simply would not be re-wilding the country. The introduction of various birds of prey is far less risky I think.
Whenever species have been introduced.. e.g. a particular toad in Australia, things go wrong - unforeseen consequences.
Two points to make here, Susan.
Firstly I would want to go and see them, as, I think, would many others. Just think of the countless thousands of people who have been to see the ospreys at Loch Garten in Scotland over the years since they came back.
Secondly You seem to emphasise introductions rather than re-introductions. Introductions of alien wildlife can cause all sorts of bad effects, especially to the natural wildlife. A classic example is the one that you yourself quoted, the cane toad in Australia, which is an alien species. On the other hand, we are talking about re-introductions of species that once lived here, and were often made extinct by humans. Hence the birds of prey that you mention(I assume you mean the red kite and the sea eagle) are re-introductions and there is no risk at all. It's also not true that whenever species are re-introduced, 'things go wrong'. Red squirrels(of European stock) were re-introduced to Scotland, with no bad effects. There is much more liklelihood of things going wrong if they are an alien species, of course, although even that does not necessarily follow. Chinese water deer, for instance, are alien to this country, but, as far as I know, cause no problems whatever.
-
Quote from Susan's reply 19:
Two points to make here, Susan.
Firstly I would want to go and see them, as, I think, would many others. Just think of the countless thousands of people who have been to see the ospreys at Loch Garten in Scotland over the years since they came back.
Secondly You seem to emphasise introductions rather than re-introductions. Introductions of alien wildlife can cause all sorts of bad effects, especially to the natural wildlife. A classic example is the one that you yourself quoted, the cane toad in Australia, which is an alien species. On the other hand, we are talking about re-introductions of species that once lived here, and were often made extinct by humans. Hence the birds of prey that you mention(I assume you mean the red kite and the sea eagle) are re-introductions and there is no risk at all. It's also not true that whenever species are re-introduced, 'things go wrong'. Red squirrels(of European stock) were re-introduced to Scotland, with no bad effects. There is much more liklelihood of things going wrong if they are an alien species, of course, although even that does not necessarily follow. Chinese water deer, for instance, are alien to this country, but, as far as I know, cause no problems whatever.
On a slightly different point, do you think the lives of people - the growing number of people would be improved by a few wolves on an estate in Scotland, to which many would not have access because of the cost?-
And what about the almost inevitable increase in the numbers and spread of wolves?
As I have said, it won't affect me, butt if it were possible, I'd be there to say, 'Told you so""' <wry smile>
-
On a slightly different point, do you think the lives of people - the growing number of people would be improved by a few wolves on an estate in Scotland, to which many would not have access because of the cost?-
And what about the almost inevitable increase in the numbers and spread of wolves?
As I have said, it won't affect me, butt if it were possible, I'd be there to say, 'Told you so""' <wry smile>
Susan,
This article seems to me to be a very reasonable article which puts forward the pros and cons of a controlled wolf introduction.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/08/wolves-scotland-reintroduction-lister-alladale
-
On a slightly different point, do you think the lives of people - the growing number of people would be improved by a few wolves on an estate in Scotland, to which many would not have access because of the cost?-
And what about the almost inevitable increase in the numbers and spread of wolves?
As I have said, it won't affect me, butt if it were possible, I'd be there to say, 'Told you so""' <wry smile>
There's no law of trespass in Scotland; anyone can walk anywhere on any estate at any time.
So-called'private' estates must, under Scots law, provide access when asked,or be in controvention of the law.
Exemptions are only made on grounds of publicsafwety, and even then a case might be made for access.
Example?
Even Balmoralis open to the public.
Phillip moaned alot avout that; in the 1960's some protesters decided to spoil his shooting by rambling where he hand his pals were playing at soldiersshooting grouse.
The police firmly told the old twit that, yes, mannes and ettiquette should have made the protersyors leave, but, as they were walking legally unarmed and causing no public disturbance, there was nothing the nob could do about it.
-
There's no law of trespass in Scotland; anyone can walk anywhere on any estate at any time.
So-called'private' estates must, under Scots law, provide access when asked,or be in controvention of the law.
Exemptions are only made on grounds of publicsafwety, and even then a case might be made for access.
Example?
Even Balmoralis open to the public.
Phillip moaned alot avout that; in the 1960's some protesters decided to spoil his shooting by rambling where he hand his pals were playing at soldiersshooting grouse.
The police firmly told the old twit that, yes, mannes and ettiquette should have made the protersyors leave, but, as they were walking legally unarmed and causing no public disturbance, there was nothing the nob could do about it.
I would like that law in England too
-
I think the law on trespass should be upheld. I have been looking up the law in Scotland and it doesn't seem to be the case that there is no law of trespass there.
https://www.thompsons-scotland.co.uk/blog/33-main/2527-are-there-really-no-trespassing-laws-in-scotland
-
Susan,
This article seems to me to be a very reasonable article which puts forward the pros and cons of a controlled wolf introduction.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/08/wolves-scotland-reintroduction-lister-alladale
Thank you for the link but, no, it totally fails to convince me. This Lister person might just manage to manage the estate, but what about the future. /apart from that, he says something about as the land ‘was ‘meant to be’. Absolute rubbish. The landn was as it was and now is as it is as a result of human existence. Wishful thinking is not going to restore any mythical best time or anything. No land was ever ‘meant to be’ as it originally formed.
Thank goodness the article was amended to correct 50,000 sq miles to 50,000 acres/ which gives a better idea of the geographical area … … where so much could, and surely would!, go wrong..
The comparison with Yellowstone makes no sense at all.
I am glad the article was a acresmended to correct 50,000 aq miles to 50,000
-
Thank you for the link but, no, it totally fails to convince me. This Lister person might just manage to manage the estate, but what about the future. /apart from that, he says something about as the land ‘was ‘meant to be’. Absolute rubbish. The landn was as it was and now is as it is as a result of human existence. Wishful thinking is not going to restore any mythical best time or anything. No land was ever ‘meant to be’ as it originally formed.
Thank goodness the article was amended to correct 50,000 sq miles to 50,000 acres/ which gives a better idea of the geographical area … … where so much could, and surely would!, go wrong..
The comparison with Yellowstone makes no sense at all.
I am glad the article was a acresmended to correct 50,000 aq miles to 50,000
I never expected to convince you, Susan. I just thought that this article gives a fairly balanced view of what is being suggested . :)
-
I never expected to convince you, Susan. I just thought that this article gives a fairly balanced view of what is being suggested . :)
Yes, well, fair enough, it certainly was that!
-
I think the law on trespass should be upheld. I have been looking up the law in Scotland and it doesn't seem to be the case that there is no law of trespass there.
https://www.thompsons-scotland.co.uk/blog/33-main/2527-are-there-really-no-trespassing-laws-in-scotland
https://www.scotways.com/faq/law-on-statutory-access-rights
-
https://www.scotways.com/faq/law-on-statutory-access-rights
Section 6 of the relevant act lists quite a lot of restrictions on access rights to land in Scotland
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/6
-
Some wolves, once out - and the guarantee that they would not get out or be let out of their designated area is nil - some would become urban wolves.
Another point: If they were to be introduced into a particular estate in scotland, how many of you (i.e. those who want to see wild wolves in UK) would go and visit the place? How often? It simply would not be re-wilding the country. The introduction of various birds of prey is far less risky I think.
Whenever species have been introduced.. e.g. a particular toad in Australia, things go wrong - unforeseen consequences.
As anchorman says, people's stupid behaviour is one of the worst of the unforeseen consequences!
I don't think there is a risk of wolves becoming 'urban'; wolves avoid humans like the plague. Hikers would count themselves lucky if they managed to spot one. i think the fear we have of wolves is largely a European cultural artefact. In reality they pose little danger to humans. What would be at risk would be sheep, deer, pet dogs perhaps, and so we would need to consider and manage the impact on hill farmers in particular.
Their reintroduction would not be a single policy in isolation but part of a greater drive to reestablish native flora and fauna, reversing centuries of ecological degradation and narrow vision.
-
I don't think there is a risk of wolves becoming 'urban'; wolves avoid humans like the plague.
Hmmm, yeah. I'm not convinced about that. If there's a ready supply of food somewhere, I expect wolves are as susceptible to the lure of the urban environment as other animals are.
Hikers would count themselves lucky if they managed to spot one. i think the fear we have of wolves is largely a European cultural artefact. In reality they pose little danger to humans. What would be at risk would be sheep, deer, pet dogs perhaps, and so we would need to consider and manage the impact on hill farmers in particular.
Yes, I think this is a fair point and it is the reason why it will not happen.
-
Hmmm, yeah. I'm not convinced about that. If there's a ready supply of food somewhere, I expect wolves are as susceptible to the lure of the urban environment as other animals are.
Exactly. Foxes for example; and there are many differences between ffoxes and wolves. Foxes don't move in packs, are a lot smaller and need far less territory. Another good reason why, as you say, it won't happen.
Yes, I think this is a fair point and it is the reason why it will not happen.
-
An interesting report from 'The Herald' last year, citing scientists' support for a limited reintroduction of wolves in Scotland. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16285698.scientists-back-reintroducing-wolves-to-scotland/
-
The central question of any conservation effort is 'how do we sustainably manage this landscape'?. To be clear that means managing it for human benefit by sustinaing things we rely on such as biodiversity, water regulation, soil quality, ecological connectivity etc. It can also include intangible benefits such as landscape character and sense of place which have an intrinsic value but also contribute to the economic viability of communities for reasons relating to quality of life.
Re-wilding is just one approach to sustinable landscape management and certainly isn't suitable or achievable everywhere. Personally I'm skeptical about it being anything more than a highly circumstabtial tool that is destined to remain on the perifery of 'mainstream' landscape management. But it is undeniable that ecosystems have their own checks and ballances and us trying to replace them with our own can lead to more cost in the end. What I do like about re-wilding is that it throws up lots of important questions about our attitudes towards nature. I work for an environmental conservation charity and in my experience people are hugely resistent to giving ground to natural processes of any kind. They simply do not see it as something that should ever have precedent over human affairs, even when its blindingly obvious and backed up with evidence that human affairs can benefit from letting nature do its own thing. It is deeply engrained and deeply problematic.
The worry about wolves posing a mortal threat puts me in mind of the shalk cullings that have occured in Australia recently... all becasue people think they shoud be entitled to take posession of the shark's habitat. Wikipedia tells me Wolves went extinct in th UK in around 1500. In other words, very recently considering human occupation of these islands has been continuous for the last twleve thousands years or so.
The fact that we took posession of the wolves habitat is besides the point though... its our habitat too after all and almost the entire country is essentially the result of us 'gardening' since the neolithic anyway. We do, however, need to give ground when neccesary and the debate over the reintroduction of wolves is helpfully emblematic of that.