
‘Rewilding’ process could soon return wolves to Scotland - nols
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33017511
======
sandworm101
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.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/1096...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/10965843/Giant-
salamander-discovered-on-walk-to-school-in-Japan.html)

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](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...](http://www.therichest.com/animals/top-10-animals-that-kill-humans/)

~~~
chroma
> 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.

~~~
mikestew
> It really sours the outdoor experience.

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.

~~~
wallyhs
I wish I knew what this bear was thinking:

[http://www.mtexpress.com/news/environment/bear-grabs-
sleepin...](http://www.mtexpress.com/news/environment/bear-grabs-sleeping-
hunter/article_a5660592-6de9-11e5-a3e2-2fb6af5d58bd.html)

"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."

~~~
mikestew
> I wish I knew what this bear was thinking

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.

------
dpflan
Here is a HN submission
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8448929](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.

~~~
dalke
The article goes on to say:

> 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...](http://climatechange.umaine.edu/Research/Contrib/pdf/pdfFiles/contribution%2013.pdf)
:

> 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.

~~~
JulianMorrison
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.

~~~
dalke
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.

~~~
JulianMorrison
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.

~~~
dalke
Good quote. Yes, another aspect of this is _which_ wild do we want to have?

Which is why Pleistocene rewilding
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

------
smackay
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.

[http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/wildlifeatwork_tcm9-282134.pdf](http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/wildlifeatwork_tcm9-282134.pdf)

~~~
davedx
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. :)

~~~
andyjohnson0
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.

Hope you have a good trip!

[1] [http://www.calgary.co.uk/art.html](http://www.calgary.co.uk/art.html)

[2] [http://www.turusmara.com/](http://www.turusmara.com/)

~~~
theoh
I had to look this up to check, but FYI the names of seasons are
conventionally not capitalised.

~~~
andyjohnson0
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.

------
techterrier
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.

(edit: SPAG)

~~~
jnty
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.

~~~
gambiting
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.

------
mapt
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.

~~~
Gupie
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.

------
arethuza
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:

[http://treesforlife.org.uk/](http://treesforlife.org.uk/)

------
chroma
_" 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.

~~~
_delirium
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.

~~~
mikekchar
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.

------
barking
In the 17th century one of the nicknames some English people had for Ireland
was Wolfland.

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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_in_Ireland)

------
cskau
Wolves also returned (naturally I believe) to Denmark last year:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/112...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/11213512/Wolves-
roaming-wild-in-Denmark-for-first-time-in-200-years.html)

~~~
JulianMorrison
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.)

------
m-i-l
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.

Nature has many complex interactions.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_vulture_crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_vulture_crisis)

------
intellix
The rabbits are on strike

