Here is a HN submission (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8448929) for the How Wolves Change Rivers video that is mentioned in this article. (It was posted exactly a year ago, a coincidental anniversary of the topic here on HN).
There are some good discussions and great links to related content including the TED talk on 'rewilding' by George Monbiot who narrates the How Wolves Change Rivers video.
> Yet David Mech, a biologist who has worked extensively in Yellowstone, advises that such simple narrative arcs are hard to find in something as messy as an ecosystem. Mech does not discount all of Monbiot's claims, but cautions that as much harm could come to the wolf from being marketed as the poster boy of the environmental movement as it did in the era when it was hated and feared.
One of the narratives in a re-wilding context is that human are not part of the "wild." Yet in post-glacial areas like Scotland and Yellowstone, where humans arrived shortly after the ice melted, the ecosystem developed with humans as one of the apex predators.
> For thousands of years, desert Aborigines have set fire to the arid savanna, creating an environmental patchwork to which much of the desert plant and animals are specifically adapted. Where Aborigines have been removed from their lands, the desert patchwork has often been obliterated with devastatingly large wildfires.
Humans are left out of the rewilding equation because I think it's drawing from a romantic tradition of what the wild is supposed to be.
To be fair, "humans" covers quite different ground when you're talking about on the one hand, spear hunters and shifting-cultivation agriculturists, and on the other, industrial agribusiness, roads and concrete.
You're right. Somewhere in my edits I dropped out the important term "Neolithic". ... Though perhaps 'Stone Age' would be more appropriate given the long time that humans were an apex species.
It's probably a bit messy, because we started deforestation in the mesolithic I think, and we had an uneasy standoff with megafaunal predators well into the iron age.
From Wikipedia: With the advent of agriculture, larger areas began to be deforested, and fire became the prime tool to clear land for crops. In Europe there is little solid evidence before 7000 BC. Mesolithic foragers used fire to create openings for red deer and wild boar. In Great Britain, shade-tolerant species such as oak and ash are replaced in the pollen record by hazels, brambles, grasses and nettles. Removal of the forests led to decreased transpiration, resulting in the formation of upland peat bogs. Widespread decrease in elm pollen across Europe between 8400–8300 BC and 7200–7000 BC, starting in southern Europe and gradually moving north to Great Britain, may represent land clearing by fire at the onset of Neolithic agriculture.
> Opponents argue that there has been more than enough time for communities to evolve in the absence of mega-fauna, and thus the reintroduction of large mammals could thwart ecosystem dynamics and possibly cause collapse.
This discussion and the term "rewilding" reminds me of Kim Stanley Robinson's excellent Nebula Award winning novel "2312" - and the "reanimation" project which is part of the complex web of plot lines. One of a few recent books that embody the best part of what I consider "classic science fiction" (whatever that might mean :-).
I liked the line "typical example... of social engineering which met neither the hopes of the benefactors nor the needs of the beneficiaries, but produced social disaster."
In 100 years time, will 'rewilding' create a new version of that quote, replacing 'social' with 'ecosystem'?
"To be lying in your tent in the middle of nowhere and to hear a wolf cry. Now that must be quite something."
The first time? Maybe. It quickly becomes distracting, annoying, and (depending on the distance) frightening.
The only decent argument I can find for reintroducing wolves is that it would help keep wild deer in check. But the costs of wolves are far higher than the costs of too many deer. Deer don't kill livestock or humans. And of course, wolves aren't the only solution to reducing the deer population. They can be culled in other ways. The whole thing seems like a non-starter to me.
I think most who are in favor of reintroducing wolves are just infatuated with charismatic megafauna. "Wolves look cool and they used to be on the island, so let's bring 'em back." …or something like that. Then they rationalize their conclusion with arguments about tourism and culling deer.
What if instead of wolves, it was crocodiles that had been eradicated from Scotland? I seriously doubt there would be as many supporters, yet the same arguments for reintroduction apply.
Killing livestock is an issue, but killing humans isn't really; it's essentially in the "freak accident" category, and less common than even most rare sources of freak accidents. So far, at least, the reintroduction process in the lower-48 U.S. states (which has been going on for about 20 years) hasn't led to any attacks on humans at all. If you include Alaska, which has a native wolf population, there's been exactly one wolf fatality in the U.S. in the entire period since WW2.
As for crocodiles: There's quite a bit of effort being expended to protect the declining crocodile population in Florida, so I don't think it'd be categorically out of the question.
I didn't know Florida had crocodiles (I lived for a year in Tallahassee so I only saw alligators). Wikipedia tells me that there has only been one reported human attack in Florida ever. So pretty low risk.
I grew up in Canada and especially when I lived near Ottawa, I heard wolves fairly frequently. I never saw one. Personally, I'm quite happy to live near them. The risk is incredibly low compared to pretty much anything you would care to mention with respect to living in a man made environment. According to Snopes, on average 1 person a year is killed in the US by lightning hitting them through telephone lines.
Wikipedia tells me that 7600 people were killed by wolves in Europe... in the period from 1362 to 1918. I'm willing to believe that the numbers are under reported (damn middle ages where people were too illiterate to file a police report), but I think the risks are pretty negligable. I suspect that even if Scotland reintroduces wolves, you will still be at higher risk of dying by getting hit by lightning through the telephone lines.
Yeah, you see similar attitudes (on the part of Americans) towards maneating tigers in India, or lions in Africa. People don't get that the wolves are gone because we killed them, on purpose.
I actually read a history of China that contained the following nugget: tigers were, naturally, an object of reverence in the north and south. But feelings in the south were more mixed... because in the south, coming face-to-face with a tiger was a real possibility. Regardless of notional divinity, nobody wants that.
> People don't get that the wolves are gone because we killed them, on purpose.
The implication there is that we had good reasons to kill them which is very reasonable; but do those reasons still exist in the modern world that would preclude them from being introduced?
The main conflict is the same as it ever was. Many farmers hate them because wolves kill livestock. Though, perhaps we can more easily afford the losses now.
This is one reason why lynx are often suggested as a first big predator to reintroduce. They keep to forests, while sheep graze on open ground. Sheep can be protected with fences (keeping them from spreading too thin), livestock guardian dogs, and active shepherding. Farmers just resent the effort.
Deer are kept at artificially high levels in Scotland. A more suitable way to keep them "in check" would be to just let nature take its course on the deer population and on the countryside itself. But then that wouldn't sit well with the landed gentry who think it's a jolly good lark to go out shooting with the boys. Ho hum.
I don't believe they are kept at artificially high numbers, but their population is actively managed. Culls often remove poor specimens, such as switches, to improve the wild stock.
It does make sense to manage the Scottish red deer population through limited hunting of both stags and hinds in the relevant seasons. Red deer are a valuable source of revenue for the highlands, both in direct fees associated with stalking, but also from tourist Pounds invested in local communities and employment.[1]
I can appreciate why there is some concern regarding the potential introduction of wolves and their effect on the deer population. However, I think that also needs to be considered in light of the economic benefits of such a re-wilding. How much revenue would wolf hunting and tourism bring to the highlands?
Huge areas in the Highlands are run as sporting estates for deer stalking, fishing and shooting - rather ironically these are called "deer forests" even though the deer have eaten most of the of the trees apart those fenced off or on islands in lochs:
They're run as sporting estates because that's the only way to monetise the area --- and they have to be monetised because the environment's so wrecked (mostly by the deer) they need to be actively managed, which costs money.
It's also worth pointing out that deer hunting in Scotland is a very, very different experience to deer hunting in America.
What happens in Scotland is that you get taken up into the hills by the gamekeeper, a specific animal is pointed out to you, and you shoot it with a high-powered telescopic rifle from a large distance. You pay very handsomely for this, and you don't even get to keep the animal. You're certainly not allowed to wander around on your own with a gun!
Whether you're accompanied by a gillie often depends on the estate and your experience. If you've completed the Deer Stalking Certificate (DSC) levels 1 & 2, there are many opportunities to wander around on your own with a gun, with the landholder's permission of course.
I agree this is unlikely to happen on many of the larger estates, but there are still opportunities, including joining an existing syndicate or leasing land yourself.
I'd also point out that generally you have the right to decline a specific animal pointed out to you by the gillie, but need to keep in mind it may be the only stag you're onto all day!
Also define "large distance." I'd contend there's not many deer highland stalking shots taken at distances greater than 200 meters and most more likely between 100-150 meters.
I'll admit to never actually done it myself (due to aforesaid huge sums of money).
If you do go out on your own, what do you do with the carcass? Phone in and get the keepers to come and pick it up? I assume it still belongs to them, and they've adequately briefed you on where you're supposed to go and what they want you to shoot.
If you're unaccompanied on someone else's estate, then it's your responsibility to bring the carcass down off the hill. That usually involves tying yourself to the carcass and dragging it (or if the hill is steep enough, it will drag you) down the hill. At the bottom of the hill, or along the way a little, you are likely to have parked a quad or utility vehicle. The carcass remains property of the estate.
If you've leased land, or as part of a syndicate, then you still need to remove the carcass from the hill and transport it to a cool room, where you butcher it yourself and a game dealer will collect it the next day.
Carcasses are always gralloched immediately on the hill, and the entrails left behind.
Part of the training in DSC 1 and then much more thoroughly in DSC 2 is how to properly butcher a carcass.
In the Scottish Highlands a red deer stag isn't really prohibitively expensive, usually around the £450 mark. Hinds, later in the season, are much cheaper.
The real expense is everything that goes with it - the travel to the highlands, accommodation, appropriate clothing and equipment. I think you could probably cull one stag for £1,000 all included.
Predators are usually not that good for keeping animal populations in check. They often kill more than they can eat and leave the rest alone[1]. If you introduce predators for population control you would have to introduce scavengers as well. Otherwise rangers will have to clean up after them or the carcasses become a problem.
In the end you would need a whole and healthy ecosystem for this to work out correctly.
Britain has scavengers. Foxes, crows, rooks, etc. In fact it's expected that the scrap that large predators leave will help revitalize those parts of the ecosystem too.
Deer (and large herbivores in general) kill plenty of people. Statistically, they are more dangerous than any other animal (e.g. snakes, bears, sharks, alligators) in the US or Europe. The only thing I suspect might be more dangerous is insects such as bees and wasps that people have allergies to.
In 2012, deer caused $4 billion in damages and killed about 200 people in the US. Of course, many more than that were seriously injured.
They're spiky, grumpy, and they run in front of cars. People seem to equate predator with dangerous, but many of the world's most dangerous animals are herbivores.
I'm not so sure deer doesn't kill (or at least injure) humans -- surely there must be many roadkill incidents in which humans are injured (as well as the deer)?
You know, we could avoid a lot of the culturally ingrained fear of wolves if we instead "returned Labrador Retrievers to the wild", and let feral packs of them roam Scotland pursuing deer. So cute.
Nice image but in reality labradors, unlike wolves, don't have a innate fear of humans so feral labradors would be much more dangerous than wild wolves.
Britain and Japan, both island nations where anything remotely threatening was wiped out long ago. The largest predator in Japan is the salamander. A meter-long specimen will make news.
Talk to anyone in the pacific northwest. If you take only the slightest precautions you have nothing to fear from the wolves, cougars and bears. You are far more likely to be eaten by a fellow human. You are more likely to be killed by deer. They are already all over Britain. So the wolves will in all probability reduce the number of animal-related deaths.
> Talk to anyone in the pacific northwest. If you take only the slightest precautions you have nothing to fear from the wolves, cougars and bears.
I lived in Washington for six years, and I can say that's simply not true. Protecting yourself from predators involves significant work. It's just that everyone is used to it. When camping, you have to store food and toiletries in bear canisters. You have to check for reports of bear activity. You carry bear spray. Some even carry a gun. Despite these preparations, there's the constant anxiety of knowing you might encounter a predator. It really sours the outdoor experience.
> So the wolves will in all probability reduce the number of animal-related deaths.
Wolves aren't the only way to cull the deer population.
When it comes to reintroducing wolves, everyone agrees the risk to humans is low. Almost nobody is going to be killed by wolves. But that argument proves too much. Almost nobody falls victim to serial killers. We still try to reduce the number of serial killers to zero.
Many people go hiking/camping to enjoy a little bit of wildness. We shouldn't kill all the bears just to make the occasional hiker safer. When going to a desert, you need to bring water. When going somewhere with a large population of bears, you need to not tempt them with leaving your food around. If it's going to rain, you need to bring a rain-proof jacket.
I'm always a bit sad when I go hiking in Austria, knowing that all the bears there have been killed.
Man, this is going to come off as snarky, but that is the outdoor experience. Put your food up, if not for the bears you're more than likely not going to see, then for the raccoons you most likely will. Bear spray? Not unless I'm somewhere that might have grizzlies, and even then the stuff is a last resort when all other precautions have failed (read the label about the usage range: close enough that you're about to be mauled). I've never looked up reports of bear activity; I assume they're always out there.
"Might encounter a predator", but overwhelming odds are you wont. Fifteen years of tromping around the woods of WA, trail running and hiking, I've seen one brown bear that wanted nothing to do with me. I'm sure I have more to worry about from my fellow drivers on the way to the trailhead than I do from bears and wolves.
We all have our personal worries, and one should pack accordingly. Non-human predators are low in my list of things I pack for. YMMV.
>read the label about the usage range: close enough that you're about to be mauled
There are various bear spray formats. Some have a rather long range (on the order of 10 meters). Still a bit close for comfort; guns are much more effective if you can legally carry them wherever you're camping. Many people doing outdoor activities in grizzly-heavy areas will bring long guns or large handguns.
The can I've got says in big bold letters on the packaging that it will spray 10 meters. The fine print of the instructions tell a different story. Something like five meters, or maybe less (don't bring my bear spray to work, so can't look). Doesn't matter, if there's a grizzly staring me down, I'm spraying that stuff as soon as the bear gets anywhere near me.
As for guns, most of my potential grizzly encounters are going to take place in Canada or someplace that involves going through Canada. Which means no gun-carrying for this U. S. citizen. Yes, technically I think it's possible, but the hassle puts it into my "Bigger Fish to Fry" bucket. I'm also probably going to be on a motorcycle, which means handgun. And from what I've been told by those that would know better than me, your handgun better be a .44 Magnum (biggest I have is a .45 ACP) or you're just going to piss the bear off.
"A Boise hunter sustained minor wounds when a black bear grabbed him by the head while he was sleeping in the open along the Middle Fork of the Salmon River last week."
"He said that before the men went to sleep on the night of the attack, they had stowed all their food in a box on their raft."
"Jon Rachael, state wildlife manager for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, said unprovoked attacks by black bears are rare, and it’s impossible to say what motivated this one. He guessed that either the bear had become conditioned to people by finding food around them or perhaps was just curious, and grabbed Vouch’s head to see what it was."
I dunno, put yourself in the bear's place. I think the wildlife manager might be right: the bear was wondering what the heck it was, or maybe even "I wonder if I can eat this". Most humans Mr. or Mrs. Bear encounters are up and moving, probably making noise, maybe even spraying stuff at them (be it bear spray or bullets). This one is just lying there on the ground, presenting a fine opportunity for investigation. Or maybe I'm anthropomophising the bear too much. I'm with you: I do wish I could spend ten seconds inside his little bear brain to see what was motivating him.
One thing I do know is that, despite not giving bear attacks much consideration when I'm out and about, I would never, ever, ever sleep in the open if there might be bears about, especially next to something called the Salmon River. Sure, a tent ain't going to do crap to keep a motivated bear out. But a little "out of sight, out of mind" can go a long way.
I also live in the Pacific Northwest. I live on the edge of a watershed. Black bears, cougars and coyotes live within 300m of my house (you should see our heavily armoured and locked garbage cans). It's a suburb of Vancouver, so no one really has guns (you'd mostly find them clustered around grow ops) and you'd only have bear spray if you're going far into the backcountry -- I have a can somewhere in my garage.
Dealing with the predators here is no more work than dealing with the Sun and sunburns -- a little bit of behaviour changes and a little bit of equipment goes a long ways. People are just used to it too -- putting on sunscreen, wearing hats, knowing when to seek shade.
> When it comes to reintroducing wolves, everyone agrees the risk to humans is low.
The contention is between wildlife activists and ranchers. Wolves tend to feed on livestock. You can imagine how upset a rancher gets when his assets disappear in the middle of the night.
The environmental benefits of re-introducing wolves are well described. However, with more and more people packed into the south of England, the economic benefits from tourism are going to be enormous. For example the re-introduction of the White-tailed Eagle benefits the economy of the island of Mull to the tune of 5 million UK pounds per year.
Ahh Mull! We are visiting Oban next week (big trip - we're coming over from the Netherlands via the ferry), and I'm going to try and get over to Mull, Iona and maybe even Staffa in our own car. I remember seeing the eagles from the bus when I did the Three Islands Tour years ago. I'm really excited for the kids to see the islands, just hope the weather allows it. :)
If you go to Iona take your kids to Port Ban - just a wee bit up from the Bay at the Back of the Ocean - possibly the most perfect wee pure white shell sand beach anywhere.
Mull is a wonderful place, and imo the Autumn is the best time to visit. Much quieter than mid-Summer.
Calgary Bay is beautiful at this time of year - there will be very few people around. There is a nice cafe at the old hotel, and the Calgary Art in Nature [1] is a great place to wander around.
If you're going to Staffa - which I'd definitely recommend - its best to go from the Ulva ferry on the west coast. The sea trip is much shorter than from Tobermory, which helps if the weather is bad, and you get to spend more time on the island. We used Turus Mara [2], who I'd recommend.
Thanks! They always seem like they should be proper nouns to me. The fact that they actually aren't is something that I periodically rediscover and then forget - which is no excuse.
Out of interest, is Scotland a popular/common holiday destination for Dutch people? When driving around the highlands last summer I found that almost every foreign car had Dutch number plates, and I was wondering if it's just unconscious bias on my part, or whether there actually are large numbers of Dutch tourists getting the ferry over...
The Dutch seem to like large underpopulated wilderness. My parents have a summer house in northern Sweden at there are lots of Dutch (and German) cars driving around the forests there as well.
There are some great charities trying to restore the ancient woodlands of Scotland - the Trees for Life site has a lot of good information about some of the issues relating to high deer populations:
The European mainland is big on intentional rewilding, but a lot of the time the animals simply walk. Britain, obviously, is kind of stuffed for that. (In fact, we have been since Doggerland flooded, which is why even at peak biodiversity in this interglacial, Britain was a bit short on wildlife compared to the continent.)
Lack of wolves and bears has caused some interesting side effects in Southern England where I live. Namely, the deer population has exploded as their only predator is now the motorcar. It's pretty cool seeing massive flocks of them and the occasional close encounter on my mountain bike; I once fed one some lettuce from a sandwich.
On the other hand, they are eating all the woods, starting with the saplings which is causing real harm to the sustainability of forests.
Predictably, the notion of culling some is very controversial, especially from nature loving people. But the alternative is bringing back the wolves. The wolves will do lots of wolfy things like killing dogs and eating livestock and be equally controversial.
It's not remotely controversial in Scotland - estates effectively have legal requirements for the numbers of deer they need to shoot each year to keep the population even vaguely under control (in fact, many campaigners complain that estate populations are allowed to keep deer populations too high to improve the commercial hunting.) This is generally accepted because, as you say, they have no natural predators. Is the situation different in England? I didn't realise it was.
I think what he means is, that while it's not controversial with anyone who actually owns property in Scotland, there's a huge public disapproval of any hunting, the purpose doesn't matter. Deer would need to be literally eating babies for any newspaper to run a story saying that shooting them is good, otherwise people immediately complain that such inhumane acts are done.
They aren't really hunted down here for sport. There's also the differing land uses - mostly arable when I am. That means that culls can be painted as "horrible farmers want to kill bambi" when the situation is more complicated. Deer can be eating crops and forests at the same time.
It is interesting how something considered harmful can have beneficial effects. In this case reintroducing wolves could control the deer population and help the re-establish some of the Caledonian Forest.
There was another example I read recently: the Indian Vulture Crisis[0]. Apparently the vulture population in India has been declining dramatically. I wouldn't have thought vultures were particularly good, but their declining population has led to all sorts of significant issues such as an explosion in the number of wild dogs and the spread of disease. It has been traced to the administration of an anti-inflammatory called diclofenac to livestock.
76 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 77.0 ms ] threadThere are some good discussions and great links to related content including the TED talk on 'rewilding' by George Monbiot who narrates the How Wolves Change Rivers video.
> Yet David Mech, a biologist who has worked extensively in Yellowstone, advises that such simple narrative arcs are hard to find in something as messy as an ecosystem. Mech does not discount all of Monbiot's claims, but cautions that as much harm could come to the wolf from being marketed as the poster boy of the environmental movement as it did in the era when it was hated and feared.
One of the narratives in a re-wilding context is that human are not part of the "wild." Yet in post-glacial areas like Scotland and Yellowstone, where humans arrived shortly after the ice melted, the ecosystem developed with humans as one of the apex predators.
We see this in Australia, for example at http://climatechange.umaine.edu/Research/Contrib/pdf/pdfFile... :
> For thousands of years, desert Aborigines have set fire to the arid savanna, creating an environmental patchwork to which much of the desert plant and animals are specifically adapted. Where Aborigines have been removed from their lands, the desert patchwork has often been obliterated with devastatingly large wildfires.
Humans are left out of the rewilding equation because I think it's drawing from a romantic tradition of what the wild is supposed to be.
From Wikipedia: With the advent of agriculture, larger areas began to be deforested, and fire became the prime tool to clear land for crops. In Europe there is little solid evidence before 7000 BC. Mesolithic foragers used fire to create openings for red deer and wild boar. In Great Britain, shade-tolerant species such as oak and ash are replaced in the pollen record by hazels, brambles, grasses and nettles. Removal of the forests led to decreased transpiration, resulting in the formation of upland peat bogs. Widespread decrease in elm pollen across Europe between 8400–8300 BC and 7200–7000 BC, starting in southern Europe and gradually moving north to Great Britain, may represent land clearing by fire at the onset of Neolithic agriculture.
Which is why Pleistocene rewilding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_rewilding ) is a thing. From that page:
> Opponents argue that there has been more than enough time for communities to evolve in the absence of mega-fauna, and thus the reintroduction of large mammals could thwart ecosystem dynamics and possibly cause collapse.
Life is messy.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11830394-2312
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances
In 100 years time, will 'rewilding' create a new version of that quote, replacing 'social' with 'ecosystem'?
The first time? Maybe. It quickly becomes distracting, annoying, and (depending on the distance) frightening.
The only decent argument I can find for reintroducing wolves is that it would help keep wild deer in check. But the costs of wolves are far higher than the costs of too many deer. Deer don't kill livestock or humans. And of course, wolves aren't the only solution to reducing the deer population. They can be culled in other ways. The whole thing seems like a non-starter to me.
I think most who are in favor of reintroducing wolves are just infatuated with charismatic megafauna. "Wolves look cool and they used to be on the island, so let's bring 'em back." …or something like that. Then they rationalize their conclusion with arguments about tourism and culling deer.
What if instead of wolves, it was crocodiles that had been eradicated from Scotland? I seriously doubt there would be as many supporters, yet the same arguments for reintroduction apply.
As for crocodiles: There's quite a bit of effort being expended to protect the declining crocodile population in Florida, so I don't think it'd be categorically out of the question.
I grew up in Canada and especially when I lived near Ottawa, I heard wolves fairly frequently. I never saw one. Personally, I'm quite happy to live near them. The risk is incredibly low compared to pretty much anything you would care to mention with respect to living in a man made environment. According to Snopes, on average 1 person a year is killed in the US by lightning hitting them through telephone lines.
Wikipedia tells me that 7600 people were killed by wolves in Europe... in the period from 1362 to 1918. I'm willing to believe that the numbers are under reported (damn middle ages where people were too illiterate to file a police report), but I think the risks are pretty negligable. I suspect that even if Scotland reintroduces wolves, you will still be at higher risk of dying by getting hit by lightning through the telephone lines.
I actually read a history of China that contained the following nugget: tigers were, naturally, an object of reverence in the north and south. But feelings in the south were more mixed... because in the south, coming face-to-face with a tiger was a real possibility. Regardless of notional divinity, nobody wants that.
Related: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe-we-don...
The implication there is that we had good reasons to kill them which is very reasonable; but do those reasons still exist in the modern world that would preclude them from being introduced?
I found The Economist's 2012 special on the reintroduction of the wolf to be quite informative: http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568656-after-mille...
Red deer have no natural predators just now and plenty of food - they will continue to increase in number.
You will also find that a lot of those that stalk deer are not "the gentry".
It does make sense to manage the Scottish red deer population through limited hunting of both stags and hinds in the relevant seasons. Red deer are a valuable source of revenue for the highlands, both in direct fees associated with stalking, but also from tourist Pounds invested in local communities and employment.[1]
I can appreciate why there is some concern regarding the potential introduction of wolves and their effect on the deer population. However, I think that also needs to be considered in light of the economic benefits of such a re-wilding. How much revenue would wolf hunting and tourism bring to the highlands?
[1] http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_forest
It's also worth pointing out that deer hunting in Scotland is a very, very different experience to deer hunting in America.
What happens in Scotland is that you get taken up into the hills by the gamekeeper, a specific animal is pointed out to you, and you shoot it with a high-powered telescopic rifle from a large distance. You pay very handsomely for this, and you don't even get to keep the animal. You're certainly not allowed to wander around on your own with a gun!
I agree this is unlikely to happen on many of the larger estates, but there are still opportunities, including joining an existing syndicate or leasing land yourself.
I'd also point out that generally you have the right to decline a specific animal pointed out to you by the gillie, but need to keep in mind it may be the only stag you're onto all day!
Also define "large distance." I'd contend there's not many deer highland stalking shots taken at distances greater than 200 meters and most more likely between 100-150 meters.
If you do go out on your own, what do you do with the carcass? Phone in and get the keepers to come and pick it up? I assume it still belongs to them, and they've adequately briefed you on where you're supposed to go and what they want you to shoot.
If you're unaccompanied on someone else's estate, then it's your responsibility to bring the carcass down off the hill. That usually involves tying yourself to the carcass and dragging it (or if the hill is steep enough, it will drag you) down the hill. At the bottom of the hill, or along the way a little, you are likely to have parked a quad or utility vehicle. The carcass remains property of the estate.
If you've leased land, or as part of a syndicate, then you still need to remove the carcass from the hill and transport it to a cool room, where you butcher it yourself and a game dealer will collect it the next day.
Carcasses are always gralloched immediately on the hill, and the entrails left behind.
Part of the training in DSC 1 and then much more thoroughly in DSC 2 is how to properly butcher a carcass.
http://basc.org.uk/sporting-services/basc-training-courses/d...
http://basc.org.uk/sporting-services/basc-training-courses/d...
There are also specific basic carcass and butchery courses:
http://basc.org.uk/sporting-services/basc-training-courses/c...
In the Scottish Highlands a red deer stag isn't really prohibitively expensive, usually around the £450 mark. Hinds, later in the season, are much cheaper.
The real expense is everything that goes with it - the travel to the highlands, accommodation, appropriate clothing and equipment. I think you could probably cull one stag for £1,000 all included.
In the end you would need a whole and healthy ecosystem for this to work out correctly.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing
Deer (and large herbivores in general) kill plenty of people. Statistically, they are more dangerous than any other animal (e.g. snakes, bears, sharks, alligators) in the US or Europe. The only thing I suspect might be more dangerous is insects such as bees and wasps that people have allergies to.
In 2012, deer caused $4 billion in damages and killed about 200 people in the US. Of course, many more than that were seriously injured.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/10/24/267...
Hey, it worked for the Chilean sea bass.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/1096...
What's the largest predator in Britain? The badger? The fox? Or that housecat everyone thought was a lion.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-19397686
Talk to anyone in the pacific northwest. If you take only the slightest precautions you have nothing to fear from the wolves, cougars and bears. You are far more likely to be eaten by a fellow human. You are more likely to be killed by deer. They are already all over Britain. So the wolves will in all probability reduce the number of animal-related deaths.
http://www.therichest.com/animals/top-10-animals-that-kill-h...
I lived in Washington for six years, and I can say that's simply not true. Protecting yourself from predators involves significant work. It's just that everyone is used to it. When camping, you have to store food and toiletries in bear canisters. You have to check for reports of bear activity. You carry bear spray. Some even carry a gun. Despite these preparations, there's the constant anxiety of knowing you might encounter a predator. It really sours the outdoor experience.
> So the wolves will in all probability reduce the number of animal-related deaths.
Wolves aren't the only way to cull the deer population.
When it comes to reintroducing wolves, everyone agrees the risk to humans is low. Almost nobody is going to be killed by wolves. But that argument proves too much. Almost nobody falls victim to serial killers. We still try to reduce the number of serial killers to zero.
I'm always a bit sad when I go hiking in Austria, knowing that all the bears there have been killed.
Man, this is going to come off as snarky, but that is the outdoor experience. Put your food up, if not for the bears you're more than likely not going to see, then for the raccoons you most likely will. Bear spray? Not unless I'm somewhere that might have grizzlies, and even then the stuff is a last resort when all other precautions have failed (read the label about the usage range: close enough that you're about to be mauled). I've never looked up reports of bear activity; I assume they're always out there.
"Might encounter a predator", but overwhelming odds are you wont. Fifteen years of tromping around the woods of WA, trail running and hiking, I've seen one brown bear that wanted nothing to do with me. I'm sure I have more to worry about from my fellow drivers on the way to the trailhead than I do from bears and wolves.
We all have our personal worries, and one should pack accordingly. Non-human predators are low in my list of things I pack for. YMMV.
There are various bear spray formats. Some have a rather long range (on the order of 10 meters). Still a bit close for comfort; guns are much more effective if you can legally carry them wherever you're camping. Many people doing outdoor activities in grizzly-heavy areas will bring long guns or large handguns.
As for guns, most of my potential grizzly encounters are going to take place in Canada or someplace that involves going through Canada. Which means no gun-carrying for this U. S. citizen. Yes, technically I think it's possible, but the hassle puts it into my "Bigger Fish to Fry" bucket. I'm also probably going to be on a motorcycle, which means handgun. And from what I've been told by those that would know better than me, your handgun better be a .44 Magnum (biggest I have is a .45 ACP) or you're just going to piss the bear off.
http://www.mtexpress.com/news/environment/bear-grabs-sleepin...
"A Boise hunter sustained minor wounds when a black bear grabbed him by the head while he was sleeping in the open along the Middle Fork of the Salmon River last week."
"He said that before the men went to sleep on the night of the attack, they had stowed all their food in a box on their raft."
"Jon Rachael, state wildlife manager for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, said unprovoked attacks by black bears are rare, and it’s impossible to say what motivated this one. He guessed that either the bear had become conditioned to people by finding food around them or perhaps was just curious, and grabbed Vouch’s head to see what it was."
I dunno, put yourself in the bear's place. I think the wildlife manager might be right: the bear was wondering what the heck it was, or maybe even "I wonder if I can eat this". Most humans Mr. or Mrs. Bear encounters are up and moving, probably making noise, maybe even spraying stuff at them (be it bear spray or bullets). This one is just lying there on the ground, presenting a fine opportunity for investigation. Or maybe I'm anthropomophising the bear too much. I'm with you: I do wish I could spend ten seconds inside his little bear brain to see what was motivating him.
One thing I do know is that, despite not giving bear attacks much consideration when I'm out and about, I would never, ever, ever sleep in the open if there might be bears about, especially next to something called the Salmon River. Sure, a tent ain't going to do crap to keep a motivated bear out. But a little "out of sight, out of mind" can go a long way.
Dealing with the predators here is no more work than dealing with the Sun and sunburns -- a little bit of behaviour changes and a little bit of equipment goes a long ways. People are just used to it too -- putting on sunscreen, wearing hats, knowing when to seek shade.
The contention is between wildlife activists and ranchers. Wolves tend to feed on livestock. You can imagine how upset a rancher gets when his assets disappear in the middle of the night.
http://www.tofugu.com/2014/04/17/japan-cant-decide-if-bears-...
There are also bears of another species not mentioned there. That said,
> You are far more likely to be eaten by a fellow human.
this is still true.
Only on Hokkaido (which has 3 different brown bear lineages, and more bears than the contiguous US)
The century following the Cromwellian conquest saw a bounty-led drive to exterminate wolves with the last one being killed in 1786.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_in_Ireland
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/wildlifeatwork_tcm9-282134.pdf
Calgary Bay is beautiful at this time of year - there will be very few people around. There is a nice cafe at the old hotel, and the Calgary Art in Nature [1] is a great place to wander around.
If you're going to Staffa - which I'd definitely recommend - its best to go from the Ulva ferry on the west coast. The sea trip is much shorter than from Tobermory, which helps if the weather is bad, and you get to spend more time on the island. We used Turus Mara [2], who I'd recommend.
Hope you have a good trip!
[1] http://www.calgary.co.uk/art.html
[2] http://www.turusmara.com/
http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/gaidhlig/aite/Canada/calgary.html
I grew up not that far from Dallas - which is also rather more modest than its namesake!
http://treesforlife.org.uk/
On the other hand, they are eating all the woods, starting with the saplings which is causing real harm to the sustainability of forests.
Predictably, the notion of culling some is very controversial, especially from nature loving people. But the alternative is bringing back the wolves. The wolves will do lots of wolfy things like killing dogs and eating livestock and be equally controversial.
(edit: SPAG)
There was another example I read recently: the Indian Vulture Crisis[0]. Apparently the vulture population in India has been declining dramatically. I wouldn't have thought vultures were particularly good, but their declining population has led to all sorts of significant issues such as an explosion in the number of wild dogs and the spread of disease. It has been traced to the administration of an anti-inflammatory called diclofenac to livestock.
Nature has many complex interactions.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_vulture_crisis