You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
147,000 signatures do you?
Nope since they miss that minor detail of having bugger all to do with wolves.
Perhaps if you find a petition that calls for the culling of their current predators it might be a bit more believable.
Where did the other 100 million come from? And since it was only being suggested in Scotland and Wales - thats about 8M combined, or if you stuck to Highland Council area only < 250K (and 1/4 of them are in the greater Inverness area), but over 30K sq.km.and once we have done all that we just need a way to kill off 160 million people and have a sustainable population <1M.
Nobody suggested putting them in England! They manage in Germany with a higher population density.That article also says they have a roaming distance of 200/400km per pack can you find anywhere in England with that amount of free range for them
possible - i'll leave the ecology modelling to those with the actual data - I think the 60k deer we cull each year to manage the population in Scotland mean there are areas with sufficient food without becoming a safari park, obviously those who profit from that cull may prefer their existing method though.The only way 5 miles could feed wolves is by constantly chucking in more prey... in the wild the pack move... split and change their behaviour due to food supply...
147tho people wow. I'm surprised by that tbh having seen reds with on the tv with pox and leprosy. The pine martins have been reinstated in some areas I believe. But it reminds of that Simpsons episode where they keep introducing animals to kill invading animals.
Pine martins eat the greys then run out of greys so they eat swans so we introduced big cats to eat the pine martins then shoot the big cats for sport*
*Using guns for sport is not really sport unless you arm the big cats with lasers
Why run around during the mountains after deer when sheep are so plentiful lower down and are often usefully penned up.
+1, and they're good scavengers so they're more likely to bypass live prey all together and make straight for plentiful tasty morsels in rubbish bins outside Chippies. The idea that any preditor is going to go after deer is a bit naive in the modern world, those things move way faster than any other source of Wolf food.
On another note, I think we've overdone it with Red Kites. I know Red Kites are supposed to be mainly scavengers but I swear rabbits have become rare in places and I'm convinced it's because of all the effort to introduce Birds of Prey. (No evidence to back that up, beyond what I've noticed.)
Another thought, maybe we should reintroduce the Polio Virus, it's pretty rare now and was common in years gone by...
Effing bonkers idea.Trying to create an environment that never was.
In Scotland those hills used to be hooching with people and their cattle. The Highlands were not a wilderness.
You are either trolling or have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Start here http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/rocks-soils-and-landforms/ice-age-landforms/the-ice-age/ but please continue reading about the history of Scotland's environment before spreading any more nonsense.
@Polly wolves don't respect boundaries. so we tag them and if they wonder near a town we dart them and put back or worse a farmer takes it out with a shot gun.
That's just more managed ecological projects for us stroke our ego with. If you want to kill/cull dear open up hunting rights or pay farmers to do the job then sell the meat and fir
Slight tangent. Imagine a small pack of wolves was discovered somewhere in a remote part of Scotland. Somehow they'd managed to survive unseen by man for a few hundred years.Would efforts be made to protect them or exterminate them?
A wild wolf is basically a glorified stray dog. Do we encourage stray dogs?
Another question how many wolves to you need to maintain a viable breeding population? I'm thinking 7 or 8 isn't going to be enough. 200? 2000? 20000?
I know Red Kites are supposed to be mainly scavengers but I swear rabbits have become rare in places
I've never seen a Red Kite take a rabbit, but I'm told they do take the babies and I know of at least one warren with a nearby family of Kites where there seem to be less rabbits around than there used to be 10/15 years ago.
But Kites are probably a better way of controlling rabbit population than Myxomatosis.
However, if they take baby rabbits, they'll also take leverets, and I don't think we suffer from an over population of hares 🙁
I read somewhere (and obviously it couldn't be proved) that people learned coppicing from watching beavers. Except that with an established coppice stool, the beavers leave one or two poles at the centre as this promotes faster re-growth.
Bigjim - you've read about the clearances, then?
But it reminds of that Simpsons episode where they keep introducing animals to kill invading animals.
Its reintroduction/stopping persecuting animals though. As opposed to introducing them. Its a rather significant difference.
On another note, I think we've overdone it with Red Kites. I know Red Kites are supposed to be mainly scavengers
They are. They hunt under certain conditions but arent exactly built for it. Hence why I am fascinated by stevextc claim about them resulting in other raptors being endangered.
A buzzard can take rabbits but the growth in their numbers have had nothing to do with reintroduction schemes and even then I would doubt their ability to seriously depress a rabbit population.
They are. They hunt under certain conditions but arent exactly built for it. Hence why I am fascinated by stevextc claim about them resulting in other raptors being endangered.
A buzzard can take rabbits but the growth in their numbers have had nothing to do with reintroduction schemes and even then I would doubt their ability to seriously depress a rabbit population.
I did wonder if Rabbits are even being killed or if they're just stuck under cover because there's always some kind of broad winged BoP circling over head like a drone over Afganistan. Even if it isn't gonna eat them they don't know that and stay down.
Scotland needs to grow more trees before it starts anything else.
oh and so does England and Wales.
some kind of broad winged BoP circling over head like a drone over Afganistan
A good trick is to lie very still in the middle of a field. See how close the kite gets before it realises you're still alive (or your bottle goes and you shoo it off).
Scotland needs to grow more trees before it starts anything else.oh and so does England and Wales.
So why are we spending millions cutting them down to reinstate heathland?
Scotland needs to grow more trees before it starts anything else.
oh and so does England and Wales.So why are we spending millions cutting them down to reinstate heathland?
Madness, Scotland and most of our uplands were tree covered many moons ago..
Heathland was sparse in comparison.
A good trick is to lie very still in the middle of a field. See how close the kite gets before it realises you're still alive (or your bottle goes and you shoo it off).
I once slept on a Hillside and woke up to find a massive White shape gliding stationary into the wind over my face, close enough for me to hear the wind in its wings. I shreiked like a girl and the Owl (for that is what it was) flew off.
Im pretty sure that it had mistaken my eyes, nose and mouth (all that was visible in the DPM Bivvy Bag) for something edible. I've often wondered if I'd not woken would talons have gripped my eyeballs.
Im not sure on the red kites taking out rabbits for food but the rise of buzzards and magpies has had a large effect on the song birds where I am I see 10/20 very large buzzards every day and hardly no Hawks although the sparrow hawk has made a small come back this year. I know the buzzards don't target small birds I think the have just moved them on. The magpies on the other hand are eating so many chicks and disturbing nests it's a real problem.
As I said before if they want wolves and less deer just plant trees again not those pines that the Forrestry commission stick in the ground but the oaks and other hardwoods that got burn down under James V
Ninfan - in Scotland they are not cutting down trees to reinstate heathland. ( well maybe tiny bits I have never hear of. They are slowly replanting / regenerating the Caledonian forest in may parts of the highlands and from my recent walk its working. Rewilding is a stupid term really 'cos when was it wild? I'd like to see the tree cover we had pre clearances restored in Scotland. Don't know enough to say owt about southern England and what is happening there
I can see the attraction of having wolves - and if we had a land bridge to scandenavia I am sure they would be here now - but to deliberately create a wolf pack to roam free in the highlands? Never going to happen
ninfan - Member
Scotland needs to grow more trees before it starts anything else.oh and so does England and Wales.
So why are we spending millions cutting them down to reinstate heathland?
To re-instate heathland.
So why are we spending millions cutting them down to reinstate heathland?
http://www.snh.gov.uk/climate-change/taking-action/carbon-management/peatland-action/
Wolves? Why stop there? There are hippo fossils round these parts (yorkshire)...
The magpies on the other hand are eating so many chicks and disturbing nests it's a real problem.
Why *are* there so many magpies at the moment?
Another question, what are the mechanics of introducing new speicies to the Uk? I presume I can't just buy half a dozen bears and let them go in Brecon. So who would be in charge of the 'letting wolves go' project? Would they then have legal liability if a Wolf started eating sheep/chickens/vicars?
I'm open minded to the idea, depends on the details.
There was quite a thought provoking display in the National Museum of Scotland a couple of years ago, imagining that wolves were reintroduced to an area to keep the deer population under control. It focused on the benefits with wildlife tourism and rebalancing the natural ecosystem in a slightly biased manner, but it turned my view from "don't be so stupid" to "it might be worth looking at"
If the wolves eat vicars surely it's just an act of God?
Wild boar are nothing but a pest we have 1000s of the Barstewards cause a shed load of damage everywhere and then you end up with the woods closed all the time so the hunters can have their fun.
Why *are* there so many magpies at the moment?
They're the only animals versatile and intelligent enough to survive once humans have completely screwed their natural habitat? Sort of like the cockroaches of the avian world? Them and crows, seagulls and pigeons anyway.
We're in a new build estate at the moment. The retired couple next door are trying to attract birds to their garden but all they are getting is crows (a murder of 9 most mornings hanging around) and magpies.
I like all birds, but would like a bit of variety, nothing but crows and magpies seems a little 'Brothers Grimm' for my tastes...
What's the objective of 're-wilding' the Lake District? Is it habitat creation, wildlife protection? Or is it so that visitors who earn their crust in cities can smile at the wildness and to alleviate flooding (is that not quite wild?).
Why are some communities/livelihoods forced out for re-wilding to please others, who don't live there?
I'm not against it and there are some great examples of it starting - Ennerdale is just over the hill from me. However, the population isn't decreasing any time soon, so what is it trying to achieve.
Hill farmers could do a great deal to help with flood alleviation etc and several here have already. Managing stock/grazing densities would help. Re-introducing Lynx and wolves however........
wicki - MemberWild boar are nothing but a pest we have 1000s of the Barstewards cause a shed load of damage everywhere
Tasty tasty pests.
and then you end up with the woods closed all the time so the hunters can have their fun.
So hunt them. Win win.
[s]Wild boar[/s] Humans are nothing but a pest we have 1000s of the Barstewards cause a shed load of damage
boxelder - Member
What's the objective of 're-wilding' the Lake District? Is it habitat creation,
Yes
wildlife protection?
Yes
...to alleviate flooding
Yes
Why are some communities/livelihoods forced out for re-wilding to please others, who don't live there?
Where are/were these communities that have been forced out for re-wilding...?
(I've heard that the NT(?) bought a small farm, high up in the Lake District, but nobody got forced out)
The National Trust own loads of farms in the LD. Not really into re-wilding though are they?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Lakes isn't just a National Park for it's scenic beauty. There's a cultural heritage etc that has hill farming at it's heart. Hill farming is in decline anyway, but what will re-wilding bring for people who live here?
I've a degree in Environmental Science, so I'm not oppose to it - just not happy to accept that 'wild' is necessarily good.
[url= http://www.wildennerdale.co.uk ]Ennerdale[/url] is certainly 'nicer' now.
boxelder - Member
The National Trust own loads of farms in the LD. Not really into re-wilding though are they?
They bought one a year or so ago with more or less that specific aim, it's caused some alarm...
Lot of townies conjecturing and pontificating on this thread, eh?
The reintroduction of predators will happen several centuries after you stop gamies shooting Hen Harriers. There are plenty of other problems with land management and ownership that need resolved first.
I've just read Feral by George Monbiot. Its worth a read, he basically says if we stopped grazing on some land it would rewild itself and be fantastic for wildlife.
Scathing about wildlife trusts and National Parks etc who claim their grazed land is some type of wilderness. National Parks in other countries are much more wild than our own and we have MUCH less true wilderness than other European countries.
Not so sure about wolves on a small island like this.
The beaver experiment worked though
We can always do with more beaver.
With the amount of scumbags out 'hunting' deer, badgers, sheep and anything else that moves with their dogs not sure wolves would stand much of a chance. Their locations would be found out and then the scum would move in.
It's a stupid idea anyway. What was the population of these islands the last time we had wolves here? Maybe we should cut back the number of people first.
This thread perfectly presents how this discussion gets derailed.
Suggestion: Easing off the intensive grazing / draining / shooting / dredging in some upland / lowland / marshy areas, offering plants and critters help where practical / cost effective.
Response: Wolves!?!?
I presume I can't just buy half a dozen bears and let them go in Brecon.
Dammit! That's my plan in utter ruins now then.
I have a recollection of a tv programme featuring Aubrey [s]Burl[/s] Manning ([s]Ancient[/s] Talking Landscapes [s]or something[/s], oh 10-15 years ago) where he stated that most of the BI deforestation took place during the Neolithic.
On the other hand I might just have been of my tits on something....
The Highlands were not a wilderness.
They were once.
I mean most of thier prey has been eradicated over the centuries
No, tons of deer all over the place. They are a pest in fact in many circumstances.
As for numbers - there are plenty of instances of heavily managed predator populations in the US. They have a whole government department for managing wildlife. It doens't cost anything - in fact it makes a fat profit. Instead of paying gamekeepers you let people pay you for tickets so they can come and shoot whatever you need culled.
eagles won't eat ramblers. Wolves probably will
Don't think so. Between 1952 and 2002 in the USA there were three fatal attacks. And many many more wolves than we would ever be able to support.
Think wolves stay away from people to avoid getting shot.
Wild boar are nothing but a pest we have 1000s of the Barstewards cause a shed load of damage everywhere
Maybe re-introduce a predator or two? 🙂
Tbh I don't think we've got the space for wolves. Unless we can come up with some kind of technological solution like electric shock vests for sheep. It doesn't have to be wolves and bears that get reintroduced though. Beavers, wildcats and so on would be welcome.
Just imagine, East Anglia will soon be empty when all the fruit and veg farmers can no longer operate without European labour. It'll make wonderful wetland habitat.
Re-wilding would have to start with taking most of the land into government ownership first. Maybe when we can synthesise all our food in factories it'd be a goer.
ahwiles - MemberThis thread perfectly presents how this discussion gets derailed.
Suggestion: Easing off the intensive grazing / draining / shooting / dredging in some upland / lowland / marshy areas, offering plants and critters help where practical / cost effective.
Response: Wolves!?!?
Erm, did you even read the OP?
Heard an item about it on Radio 4 the other day. They're talking about reintroducing [b]wolves [/b]to parts of Scotland and Wales.What do you think about this in principle, and about [b]wolves [/b]specifically?
Anyway Beavers, lets talk about Beavers I went to the introduction site in Devon, the positive effect on the flora is startling, I presume the insects are as happy too and thats before all the reduction in water fliws through the catchment.
Beavers should definitely be reintroduced and not just in enclosures. Wolves too. Big cats would be pretty cool too.
Hm.
They dammed Cardiff Bay some years ago. There were a lot of concerns about the loss of the tidal mud flats. But now the once tidal area of the river is lined with reeds and rushes that must be great habitat.
Re-wilding or not?
Lots of issues in France with wolves . They go for the sheeps .
they are very clever animals and have moved from the Alps and their numbers are increasing rapidly .
Where I live there are frequent attacks on sheeps .
An observation on the earlier talk of Lakes rewilding.
I love the lakes, even coming from north of the border, it's my favourite place to ride, I have a real affinity with the area, just love it.
But by God it's barren, I can't think of an area up here that has so little wildlife, ive been biking there for years, and can't really ever recall seeing any wildlife of note, save the otters on Windermere.
molgrips - Member
'The Highlands were not a wilderness."
They were once.
When? All indications are that humans moved in as the ice retreated.
Has anyone suggested genetically engineered midge-eating yet otherwise vegitarian mini-wolves yet?
Otherwise, I'm not convinced.
No bears.
Do not look at pictures of bear attack survivors.
Beavers, yes.
Everyone likes beavers.
And someone needs to give Delia a bung to promote venison.
They bought one a year or so ago with more or less that specific aim, it's caused some alarm...
No they didn't. They bought just the land, leaving someone else to buy the farmhouse. It's 20 mins from home and I camped out 'wild' on the land on Saturday.
the "alarm" was actually disappointment that the farm land has been hived off from the farmhouse, so breaking up a key Borrowdale farm.
I agree with them doing it though, as it would have been bought by someone else - probably not a local farmer.
From NT site:
Our plans for the futureWe'll continue to farm this land and we believe we can look after it in way which benefits nature, our visitors and the local community.
We already manage much of the surrounding land in Borrowdale, which means we can take a ‘big picture’ view of how we look after the wider landscape. That allows us to continue farming and at the same time deliver healthy soil, natural water management, thriving natural habitats and continued public access.
We will also explore how we may be able to use the farm to slow the flow of the Upper River Derwent, thereby contributing to the prevention of flooding downstream in communities such as Keswick and Cockermouth.
The Trust has a long history of and is committed to the tradition of Herdwick farming. We have an existing stock of 21,000 Herdwick sheep and we own 54 farms in the Fells.
The land will be managed by a tenant, and we have already had several expressions of interest. It will be farmed with nature in mind but it will continue to support a flock of Herdwick sheep.
Hardly recreating wilderness. They've put some nice new gates in, and fencing.
Another example is the reintroduction or success of the Red Kite... which has gone from endangered to making other native raptors endangered.Has it? Dont suppose you care to mention those raptors it is endangering do you and the source of this claim?
Still waiting on the factual info on which raptors the kite has endangered.
The only one I could possibly think of is the buzzard, and those only through increased competition for the same food resources.
Kites are only now starting to show up around my neck of the woods in North Wilts, there was one soaring over the Heddington & Stockley traction engine rally near Calne on Sunday, and I've seen them occasionally elsewhere, but but not in significant numbers as yet.
Buzzards are almost as common as bloody pigeons, though, and travelling back and forth to Devon and Cornwall along the M5/A30, I see loads of them every day, so having a bit of competition might not be a bad thing, balance the numbers out.
The uplands will need to be re-populated with humans.
Given that increasing global population, eventually we'll need to move people back into the country and reclaim all the low-lying, high-value and flood-prone agricultural land from the cities.
Brexit merely illustrated the lack of a coherent regional policy (redistributing people and wealth evenly across the uk).
So it's more about re-wilding the cities (like Crysis 2)
I'd recommend re-settling the uk's poorest families back to the country (like pre-enclosure/ clearances), give them say, 40 acres and a mule and pay them to grow hemp on the poorest land. Apparently it's a great nitrogen fixer and co2 trap.
One acre of hemp makes four times more paper than an acre of trees...
but the rise of buzzards and magpies has had a large effect on the song birds where I am
You sure this is causation and not correlation? Whilst there will be some impact it is unclear what the level is and habitat destruction is far more likely to have an impact.
The main acusers of magpies (or rather corvids in general) and buzzards (or raptors in general) are groups like the "songbird survival trust" aka astroturf organisation for the shooting lobby.
I've recently read Monbiot's Feral, too. Well worth it on this subject - you won't look at our 'wild' landscapes the same ever again. Basically, nature creates it's own checks and balances which humans have messed up big time, and worryingly sometimes out of good intent.
If anyone wants the book, I'll post it for a Treesforlife donation.
Buzzards are almost as common as bloody pigeons,
Kites will soon make Buzzards seem illusive and rare. The reason they were quite casually wiped out in the uk was because they were so common place nobody cared about them - 'Shitehawks'. London was hoaching with them "City of kites and crows" as Shakespere would put it.
And this is my point about fashion - we don't consider the animals that actually thrive in our environment 'natural' enough, ignoring the darwinian forces that allow them to thrive - rats, pigeons, midges, bedbugs, ticks ( 😉 ) urban foxes are 'pests' and we imagine that 'nature' is something else and that we have to create and manage it to make it happen.
Kites are lovely but the natural population levels they'll tend towards will be less like the odd soaring raptor over a bucolic countryside and more like a swarm of seagulls on a landfill site - they're 'nature' too by the way.
Kites:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
boxelder - MemberHardly recreating wilderness. They've put some nice new gates in, and fencing.
which is exactly the point i was trying to make in the first place: no-one (never mind a community) has been forced out for re-wilding.
(i was aware that the NT had bought a farm/farmland, had mentioned planting some trees, and some peoples' heads had exploded)
If anyone wants to really wind themselves up, pick up any random copy of 'Scottish [s]Tory[/s] Field' Magazine.
There was a charming story in the last one I flicked through about an industrious young man who saved up two or three months wages working as a gillie or stalker on an estate in order to have his own duck hunting pond built.
In one paragraph he tries to pretend that by putting a pond in for the sole purpose of shooting ducks he was - "supporting the economy" (by buying shells I assume?) "helping manage watefowl populations" and most laughably "recreating valuable wetland habitat" (with the sole intent of blasting the inhabitants of said habitat back out of the sky?).
Throughout the magazine they love to present the image of hunting estate owners being 'guardians' of the landscape, which I suppose is true if you consider scorched grouse moors and barren, boggy deer slopes to the be the landscape's ideal form... 🙄
I am not against so called "Re-Wilding" in principle. Deer are a pest where I live and the current landowners make no attempt to manage the deer population.
If "Re-Wilding" is to be worth while it must have people at heart. Particularly country communities. If it's going to be just another source of cash to support large landowners be they private estates or NGO's like National Trust Scotland, then I'm against it.
We have a lot of problems here in Norfolk with lazy gamekeepers placing pheasant feeders next to the roads so it is easier for them to access, meaning that many rural roads are covered in the stupid buggers, on the flip side, we do eat a lot of pheasant and duck!
As opposed to re-wilding, i think what is needed is a change often in farming practises, although with such a large population i can see why this would be difficult, but it is clear to see here where i am in Breckland with small field sizes, lots of trees and hedgerows and rotating of arable crops with pigs that we have so much more visible wildlife than the farms 20 miles down the road in the Fens which are table top flat and the field sizes are huge. Due to the loss of bee populations, many of the fields here are now edged the first 10m with wild flowers and again you can visibly see the increase in bees/ butterflies and the like.
When? All indications are that humans moved in as the ice retreated.
Seriously please go and read about the natural history of Scotland. It's very interesting if that helps.
If anyone wants the book, I'll post it for a Treesforlife donation.
I might take you up on that!
Trying to create an environment that never was.In Scotland those hills used to be hooching with people and their cattle. The Highlands were not a wilderness.
Here's a simple starter for you
http://treesforlife.org.uk/forest/human-impacts/deforestation/
[i]...the vast, primeval wilderness that spread across about 1.5 million hectares of the Highlands..[/i].
bigjim - Member
Here's a simple starter for youhttp://treesforlife.org.uk/forest/human-impacts/deforestation/
And here's the relevant section out of that.
[i]...No one knows for sure what this wilderness was like..[/i]
In other words they are guessing.
There is however plenty of evidence of extensive human habitation in Scotland going back several thousand years, and evidence of large organised communities which means agriculture and pastoral activities and predator control.
And it's highly likely that there is plenty more evidence buried under several feet of peat in the so called wild places.
Then there's the effect of the various climate changes.
Any wilderness in Scotland predates human habitation, and that is a very narrow envelope after the melting of the ice. It is also quite possible that there was human habitation when there was ice, but the evidence of that would be long gone.
But you are arguing there was never a wilderness, and suggesting it went from ice to magically hooching with cattle farms, which is nonsense, there was a massive area of wilderness for many thousands of years, the human populations were nothing like that of today and would have incrementally crept up. I admire your persistence in the face of scientific evidence though - a job with the Trump administration awaits you.
I'd love to see some boar in the FoD. They might eat some of the sodding tourist and a few boar as well. Or is it the other way round?
Any wilderness in Scotland predates human habitation
No, it predates *agriculture*.
Ice age lasted until around 12,000 years ago, seems like agriculture was only brought into Britain something like 5-6,000 years ago.
But you are arguing there was never a wilderness, and suggesting it went from ice to magically hooching with cattle farms, which is nonsense, there was a massive area of wilderness for many thousands of years, the human populations were nothing like that of today and would have incrementally crept up. I admire your persistence in the face of scientific evidence though - a job with the Trump administration awaits you.
After the last ice-age, c.110,000 - c.11,700 years ago, the oldest evidence of human habitation in Scotland, near Biggar in Lanarkshire dates to c. 14,000 years ago, so within the last period of glaciation, and probably nomadic groups of hunters following migrating herds of horses or reindeer.
First permanent settlements seem to be around 3200-2800BC, the maximum extent of the ancient Caledonian forest came around came around 5000BC, arriving around 7000BC, the forest was greatly reduced in extent by 2000BC due to the climate becoming wetter and windier, from then human actions, including grazing of deer and sheep have reduced it to what it is now.
So there you go, climate change was largely responsible for the greatest reduction in the ancient Caledonian forests, humans just carried on what was already happening.
So if you want to re-wild Scotland you'll have to try to extrapolate what it was like around 150,000 years ago, which I'd suggest is pretty much impossible.
Get rid of the commercial crop forests, encourage the spread of Scots Pine and whatever broadleaf trees will grow in the local terrain, probably scrub oak, birch, hazel and the like, and you'll have something like what was there 5-7000 years ago.
bigjim - Member
But you are arguing there was never a wilderness, and suggesting it went from ice to magically hooching with cattle farms, which is nonsense, there was a massive area of wilderness for many thousands of years, the human populations were nothing like that of today and would have incrementally crept up. I admire your persistence in the face of scientific evidence though - a job with the Trump administration awaits you.
You're using scientific evidence which is actually guesswork.
Farming would not have been huge cattle farms but more small community and family groups, but plenty of them.
My opinion is based on the remains of large numbers of settlements in the hills and mountains of the Highlands. Plenty more would have disappeared under the sea as the levels rose.
My opinion is not guesswork based on what I read in a book, it is based on the number of sites I have visited over the years and looking at how the terrain was used. Grab an OS map of the Highlands, pick what looks like a reasonable spot, and you will almost inevitably find traces of ancient human habitation.
There were substantial stone built settlements in places like Orkney and South Uist 8,000 years ago and artefacts have been dated back 10,000 years in other areas.
I am arguing that there were people around from the start, and just like your evidence, it is definitely guesswork.
However the opinion is based on the existence of groups of people today who still live in Arctic conditions, so why not our ancestors? We have evolutionary adaptations which are an advantage in Arctic conditions.
The point is there would have been very little time in which there would have been wilderness untouched by human intervention.
BTW I would not be surprised if the population of the Highlands was bigger than it is now, but that would just be guessing.
Thanks for the job offer with the Donald. He's a cousin a few times removed*, but I would hate to take advantage of nepotism.
* not enough. 🙂
The beaver experiment worked thoughWe can always do with more beaver.
This. I chucked the Cornish beaver project £10 as part of their crowdfunding. Can't see the issue with further releases, though I imagine some farmers might disagree.
While we're on the subject banning (or at least removing subsidies from) grouse moors would be a good idea on many levels.
I still think people on this thread do not understand what rewilding means or may mean in a practical sense. This lot have a good stab at it
https://www.rewildingeurope.com/about/what-is-rewilding/
But still you are all having a good argument so crack on!!
@ratherbeintobago If you really want more beaver you'll surely have to part with more than a tenner
a_a - the definition (working definition) of re-wilding there is helpful. The goal isn't 'wilderness', but redressing the balance between what was, and the current environment.
Nobeer.... - you need to look up while out. We have red squirrels in the garden, red deer causing problems, hen harriers, otter cubs in the beck, quasi-relict arctic fish in the lake, alongside returned osprey. No bears or wolves though.
The goal isn't 'wilderness', but redressing the balance between what was, and the current environment.
Exactly
boxelder - Member
a_a - the definition (working definition) of re-wilding there is helpful. The goal isn't 'wilderness', but redressing the balance between what was, and the current environment...
Ah, Newspeak. They have changed the meaning of the world wild. No wonder some of us are confused.
Fair enough, but then really what they are proposing is simply an alternative method of cultivation and pastoral activity rather than wildness, or maybe simply an ersatz zoo.
I have no problem with that so long as there's no fences and our countryside doesn't get predators introduced after all the effort our ancestors went to to remove them, and above all the Highlands are not turned into a national park.
Caledonian forest came around came around 5000BC, arriving around 7000BC, the forest was greatly reduced in extent by 2000BC due to the climate becoming wetter and windier, from then human actions, including grazing of deer and sheep have reduced it to what it is now.So there you go, climate change was largely responsible for the greatest reduction in the ancient Caledonian forests, humans just carried on what was already happening.
There's more to Scottish natural landscapes, ecosystems and wilderness than Caledonian forest - that's just one type of woodland, though to be fair at one time it did cover a decent chunk of the country, but certainly nowhere near all of it.