The crazy idea of wolves in Scotland

[Anchorman]

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.

[BeRational]

       


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

[Roses]

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

[SusanDoris]

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

[Enki]

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 . 

[SusanDoris]

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!

[Anchorman]

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

[jeremyp]

       

 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

[torridon]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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.

[Anchorman]

     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/

[Samuel]

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.