Rewilding

Perhaps they should simply accept that “the cause” is a broad church, and that there are those within it who will adopt guerrilla tactics because they feel reintroduction by official means takes too long and has achieved too little?

As you said, there are extremists supporting the cause movement who, whilst they may not reflect the mainstream position, want to see reintroductions whatever the cost.

It is sadly all too reminiscent of the animal rights movement.
Point taken.

However, the extremists that I know are all far too ecologically well informed to dump tame lynx next to a zoo in the middle of winter.

They’d do it in the absolute middle of the nastiest bit of midge infested forestry block nowhere, in mid to late spring.

Believe me: I have sat round the whisky having this conversation more than once. If someone who knew what they were about set about illegally releasing lynx, it would be 5 years or so before there was any obvious indication they were there.

A bit like all the pole cat reintroductions you never see mentioned…😁
 
My concerns in the Highlands would be un-managed moorland leading to an increased risk of out of control wildfires and introduced predators taking ground nesting birds such as capercaillie, black grouse, curlew etc
 
Point taken.

However, the extremists that I know are all far too ecologically well informed to dump tame lynx next to a zoo in the middle of winter.

They’d do it in the absolute middle of the nastiest bit of midge infested forestry block nowhere, in mid to late spring.

Believe me: I have sat round the whisky having this conversation more than once. If someone who knew what they were about set about illegally releasing lynx, it would be 5 years or so before there was any obvious indication they were there.

A bit like all the pole cat reintroductions you never see mentioned…😁
To be honest it’s not the “ecologically well informed” that I am concerned about, it’s those who posit that rewilding is the simple answer to the over-population of deer in the UK, which is an argument I seem to read about more and more in rewilding articles and the associated BTL comments.

As we heard from the team who presented on wolves at the Forestry Commission's Deer Conference last year, the relationship between large predators and deer is far more nuanced than those on both sides of the rewilding argument would have us believe, and there are relatively few areas, if any, in the UK where reintroduction would be as simple and beneficial as the impression that is often given (did someone mention George Monbiot??). Once I start to read the rewilders advocating as vocally for large-scale deer management in Southern England as they do for the reintroduction of wolves and lynx in the Highlands, I will start to take their proposals more seriously.

Personally I would love to see more wolves, lynx, boar, pine martens, etc in the wild, even if it hastens the day when I hang up my rifle in preference for my camera.

Anyone interested in the experience of wolves in Yellowstone might care to read "On the Trail of Wolves" by Phillipa Forrester. To her credit, she sought out the views of farmers and hunters just as much as the rewilders and wolf aficionados, in the process finding that many of her preconceptions were misplaced, certainly when it came to the former.
 
If you're the landowner, and you're doing it because the financial incentives make it a better money maker than farming sheep or shooting grouse then it is 100% a commercial decision.
Owning and managing land is not significantly different from running any other kind of business.

Again wholly disagree the only reason they can do that is because it’s policy led not market driven.

If owning land was not different from running a business why do so many bleat poverty. They are not anywhere near the same for people. Big corporate landowners yes it’s nothing but a dodge , individuals farms small holdings no.

But you can’t have it both ways as long as there are subsidies you will continue to see big corporates and trusts pile in this squeezes the independents further and drives up prices artificially.

If the only people that can afford to buy land are the ultra rich then what happens to that land will be solely a monoculture of what they decide which could go either way imo.
 
Again wholly disagree the only reason they can do that is because it’s policy led not market driven.

If owning land was not different from running a business why do so many bleat poverty. They are not anywhere near the same for people. Big corporate landowners yes it’s nothing but a dodge , individuals farms small holdings no.

But you can’t have it both ways as long as there are subsidies you will continue to see big corporates and trusts pile in this squeezes the independents further and drives up prices artificially.

If the only people that can afford to buy land are the ultra rich then what happens to that land will be solely a monoculture of what they decide which could go either way imo.
You're not disagreeing at all.
You've basically just said that the big landowners are choosing to put land into these schemes on the basis of the financial incentives (ie, subsidies) that make it worth their while to do so.
So they're making a financial decision on how best to manage their asset for monetary gain.

Even the not-so-big landowners, such as myself, are not immune to this pressure.
 
Subsidies (and the somewhat artificial carbon market) for rewilding may be annoying, but they're probably a better thing than previous subsidies for industrialised farming ,ripping out hedgerows, conifer monoculture, battery farming, wind turbines, solar farms and so on.

The main problem with rewilding is institutional capture by the usual lobby enriching themselves from it, which makes it an extractive and exploitative process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VSS
There are places where the most that any realistic manager can hope for is restoring some of the vegetation and reducing the detritus left behind from previous use - something like a former inner city factory site.
But this area is badged as good for carbon capture/rewilding/climate benefit, then good green production land is and does get covered in houses and there's more of it to come with the current govt proposals.
You've basically just said that the big landowners are choosing to put land into these schemes on the basis of the financial incentives (ie, subsidies) that make it worth their while to do so.
So they're making a financial decision on how best to manage their asset for monetary gain.
There's also individuals and companies buying large amounts of land for this.
 
The pigs are harder to explain. Though given how common they’re becoming not far from there, I’m not sure why there was such a fuss made.

Which I think in a kind of way summarises why the guerilla rewilders take the approach they do.

They realise that, if they can release a sufficient number of a given species into the environment, then the political argument shifts from "should we release this species into the wild?" to "this species is in the wild, so now we need to start talking about how we manage protect the ones that are already there".

The cynic in me suspects that, once they have introduced a species (whether legally or otherwise) then they realise it is a fait accompli that it will be forever protected. In the process the illegal rewilders have achieved exactly what they always wanted, and get to avoid any of the consequences.

To be honest my only surprise is that illegal releases have not been far more common.
 
But this area is badged as good for carbon capture/rewilding/climate benefit, then good green production land is and does get covered in houses and there's more of it to come with the current govt proposals.
My take on it is that we need "sustainable intensification on the good land, nature recovery on the less productive areas, and housing development on brownfield sites.

To put that into the context of a typical 500 acre farm with a diversity of land types, a "new" farmyard comprising of modern agricultural buildings, and a range of traditional/dilapdated buildings that made up the original farmyard:
Agricultural activity could be sustainably intensified onto the best 300 acres, by improving efficiency, better livestock/crop genetics, etc etc, generating the same output as was previously achieved across the whole 500 acres. This would free up the 200 poorest acres for nature recovery/wildlife friendly farming/rewilding etc etc. The dilapidated area of the old farmyard could be developed into housing and/or business units.
Roll that out across a number of farms in the same area, and I think we'd very quickly start to see benefits. Even better if those farms are adjoining one another.

There's also individuals and companies buying large amounts of land for this.
Yes. Agricultural land is a very safe investment.
 
The biggest, and completely valid, complaint with reintroductions in the US is the “moving goalposts”.

Species X is given protections to allow population growth to a certain level, which is then considered recovered. After recovery the plan calls for turning over management to state wildlife agencies. But that rarely happens. The recovery are is expanded, or a judge decides some minute part of the plan hasn’t been followed to a T so state management is forbidden until new studies are planned, conducted and completed.

A perfect example of this is the upper Great Lakes wolf population. This population in 3 states (Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan) reached the targeted recovery numbers in 2007, and was attempted to be delistedfrom the Endang Species Act. 18 years later, the population has swelled to nearly 3 times the recovery numbers, and still various judges block delisting. There are parts of Minnesota where it is no longer safe to hunt with dogs (either hounds or bird dogs) becuase of wolf depredations.

We are also seeing the same sort of thing with the grizzly bear. Areas where they are completely protected, so they have no fear of humans even though incidental kills (trains, highways) are well above what hunting quotas would be.

I can’t find the citation right now, but there was a study done, I think in California, where even extremely limited hunting of mountain lions dramatically decreased negative human/mountain lion interactions. They quickly figure out that humans are not prey, and instead are apex predators and they begin avoid humans.
 
Which I think in a kind of way summarises why the guerilla rewilders take the approach they do.

They realise that, if they can release a sufficient number of a given species into the environment, then the political argument shifts from "should we release this species into the wild?" to "this species is in the wild, so now we need to start talking about how we manage protect the ones that are already there".

The cynic in me suspects that, once they have introduced a species (whether legally or otherwise) then they realise it is a fait accompli that it will be forever protected. In the process the illegal rewilders have achieved exactly what they always wanted, and get to avoid any of the consequences.

To be honest my only surprise is that illegal releases have not been far more common.
You know as well as I do that the pigs generally haven’t come from rewilders!

The few that did near Alyth got cleaned up very fast.
 
Rewilding has its place yes and I’m all for conservation and wildlife.
But reintroduction of larger predators like wolves and lynx will cause serious problems for farmers and livestock.
Look what’s happening in Europe
Wolves are increasing in numbers even taking pet dogs as well as sheep and cattle.
Rewilding has to include changing ourselves not just re/introducing lost species.
 
Whilst surfing Farcebook, I came across this poetic view of the situation, that seems to summarise the emerging situation......

The New Clearance #2 by Iain Mackay

They come not now with fire and blade,
But dressed in green, with deals well made.
They speak of "rewilding", "climate goals",
Yet tear the heart from Highland souls.

No more the stalker tracks the hill,
His rifle cold, his bothy still.
The ghillie’s rod, the shepherd’s dog,
Lie idle in the creeping fog.

Peatlands fenced with steel and lies,
To sell the air to foreign skies.
Carbon stored and credits traded,
While lives and legacies are faded.

The red deer fall in bloody ranks,
Not for food, nor sport, nor thanks,
But culled like vermin, cast away,
So saplings might have room to sway.

No dance of hoof on ridge or scree,
Just silence now, for every tree.
A woodland rising, rich and green—
But bought by hands unseen, unclean.

The Danish tycoon, the Russian heir,
Buy glens like stocks with cold-eyed care.
They praise the wild, the noble land,
But never lift a working hand.

They do not speak the Gaelic tongue,
Nor know the songs our grandfolk sung.
Yet write the rules, and sign the lease,
And call it “progress,” “hope,” or “peace.”

The crofter’s roof caves in with rain,
The keeper’s track turns wild again.
The pub is shut, the school is bare—
What future grows when none live there?

They preach a “natural” rebirth,
But strip the land of rooted worth.
A hill is not a hill alone—
It's men and women, stone by stone.

This is no healing of the glen,
When land forgets the touch of men.
Greenwashed theft, a new disguise,
Of ancient grief in modern guise.

So mark this truth in storm and soil:
That land must live by native toil.
Let birch and beaver find their place—
But not at cost of the Highland race
 
Folks where has all this rewilding rubbish come from? I can get that folk want to plant more trees - sure. But the wolves and lynx brigade seems to be a combination of folk who are 1) anti hunting and 2) want to turn the highlands into a zoo.


Surely these discussions should be 1) science based and 2) decided between locals and farmers who will be most affected.

Ignoring the fact that the biggest deer issues are fallow down south and suburban roe - none of which likely in the proposed wolf catchment area


Thoughts? Is it Facebook warriors that’s now dictating how we manage wildlife..
It's not rubbish. It's about working with local landowners to look into nature restoration. There's a great book about it, "Feral" by George Monbiot, in which he looks into the feasibility and desirability of restoring to the British Isles a long list of species that have gone extinct here. Like many in this thread, he is clear that wolves and bears can't be reintroduced to any but the most remote islands, and then only with careful preparation and working with local people. Like any idea - great or otherwise - it is easy to caricature it, and to only get the most superficial and attention-grabbing headlines. In any event it does not affect stalking, except to make some areas more wildlife-rich and therefore more interesting an enjoyable to visit, whether that is to see wildlife or to stalk. Rewilding is already happening in the Forest of Dean, for example, with the reintroduction of Pine Marten, which will help control the Grey Squirrels and possibly give native Red Squirrels a chance to return. But most of the time it's not about anything as big as top predators. That said, it is only in recent years that top predators have been shown to play a vital role in healthy ecosystems, and guess what - we are one of those.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VSS
It's not rubbish. It's about working with local landowners to look into nature restoration. There's a great book about it, "Feral" by George Monbiot, in which he looks into the feasibility and desirability of restoring to the British Isles a long list of species that have gone extinct here. Like many in this thread, he is clear that wolves and bears can't be reintroduced to any but the most remote islands, and then only with careful preparation and working with local people. Like any idea - great or otherwise - it is easy to caricature it, and to only get the most superficial and attention-grabbing headlines. In any event it does not affect stalking, except to make some areas more wildlife-rich and therefore more interesting an enjoyable to visit, whether that is to see wildlife or to stalk. Rewilding is already happening in the Forest of Dean, for example, with the reintroduction of Pine Marten, which will help control the Grey Squirrels and possibly give native Red Squirrels a chance to return. But most of the time it's not about anything as big as top predators. That said, it is only in recent years that top predators have been shown to play a vital role in healthy ecosystems, and guess what - we are one of those.

I think forget the idea of Pine Marten saving the red by eating the grey tbh - do you not think the marten will just kill the young reds in the dreys - with far less defence coming from the adults ? I do !
 
The rewilding and reintroduction of species:-

Is the idea to return the landscape, flora and fauna to what we think it was like. At what time are we wanting to go back to. 100 years, 200, 300 or 416 years 3 months and 5 days.

I like the idea of increased biodiversity. Are we going to put measures in place to protect species that are still here but are in decline. Or are we going to forget them and spend time and money on bringing species that are no longer in Britain back.

When there are financial incentives we have to be careful we don't end up with a situation like we did in the 80's where large unsuitable areas where planted with unsuitable trees in order to get tax relief. Money is now spent on the removal of these trees

The 1st thing that must be in place for reintroduction of species is how to get rid of them if required. We also should ask, why did our ancestors get rid of these species

The deer population overall is still increasing. If we create more habits that favour deer then that population is going to increase even more. The planning of this habit is important and the maintenance of it is the same. I think they need to prioritise the control of deer and create the habitat around this.
 
Folks where has all this rewilding rubbish come from? I can get that folk want to plant more trees - sure. But the wolves and lynx brigade seems to be a combination of folk who are 1) anti hunting and 2) want to turn the highlands into a zoo.


Surely these discussions should be 1) science based and 2) decided between locals and farmers who will be most affected.

Ignoring the fact that the biggest deer issues are fallow down south and suburban roe - none of which likely in the proposed wolf catchment area


Thoughts? Is it Facebook warriors that’s now dictating how we manage wildlife..
In case you missed it politics in the UK has for many years now been dominated by the "right thinking" liberal lefty urban middle class elite. For greater details look no further than the BBC and Guardian newspaper!
 
I think forget the idea of Pine Marten saving the red by eating the grey tbh - do you not think the marten will just kill the young reds in the dreys - with far less defence coming from the adults ? I do !
The Isle of Wight is one of the few areas of the country that has red squirrels but no greys. A pine marten introduction/reintroduction was considered by NE but dismissed because of potential predation on the reds.
 
Back
Top