The triffids tv series gave me a fear of large plants that lasts today!
I have what I consider to be an entirely legitimate fear of trees and they have made occasional impacts on my riding, and certainly my riding has certainly made some impact on them, most entertainingly when a helmet light got hooked on a branch.
Also, they have time on their side. There's one tiny sapling birch growing on a local trail I used to dodge so as not to damage the poor thing. But over the past seven or eight years it's grown strong and substantial, so there's no doubt who would come off worse now, in the event of impact.
Wolves, on the other hand, I recon would dodge.
Nowhere in the UK has been truely wild for many thousands of years.
Quite clearly you’ve never been to Birkenhead.
This is the farm road behind our place in Austria, zoom in on the sign.
Molgrips - the highlands needs people and jobs not to be turned into a theme park
molgrips
Question for you, epicyclo – do you agree with the re-introduction of wolves to Yellowstone in the USA?
That's a question I'd leave to the people of that area.
But in general, I think the idea of re-introducing species is an urban dream of recreating a mythical fantasy past.
If you're going to do that, you need to rebalance the entire eco system, including parasites, deadly diseases etc etc or you're just creating another fancy zoo.
Oh, and reintroduce humans with the weaponry and skills of that time who are not burdened with the necessity of explaining why they are so keen to reduce the predator population.
But surely the important issue is deciding which period in an ever evolving landscape is the eco-correct one?
I really do struggle with the concept of creatures being introduced in order to provide theme-park entertainment for the public.
You should read "Wilding" by Isabella Tree. At Knepp Park in Sussex they've found that introducing large animals (not wolves but they get discussed) into the countryside has knock-on effects which are beneficial to other wildlife. It was a typically barren farm twenty odd years ago and is now a haven for purple emperors (no, not Trump) and nightingales.
I'd be interested to know how people that go mtbing in Spain or Eastern Europe get on in their encounters with the wolves there. My guess is that they never see them. I suspect that any wolves introduced to Britain would make themselves scarce, though they might go all "red kite" and end up fighting the foxes in my garden every night.
As for Wolves and Lynx etc, well the conservationist at the Highland Wildlife Park was very against it on the basis that they would be sharing habitat with the Scottish Wildcat very much hastening their demise.
I doubt very much that there would be much overlap in prey species between wildcats, lynx and wolves. And most ecosystems manage to support more predators than that. (So did Britain at one time, so there's a little disconnect in the thinking there..)
* Wolves are **** huge! Ever seen one up close? They are the size of a big Irish wolfhound. It wouldn’t be like getting nipped by next doors Springer Spaniel called Dennis.
Yep. A wild wolf isn't even quite the same as the things you get in zoos. Much more muscular and intimidating - a bit like a proper hunt dog vs. a foxhound that has spent it's life kept as a pet.
If you’re going to do that, you need to rebalance the entire eco system, including parasites, deadly diseases etc etc or you’re just creating another fancy zoo.
That tends to happen on its own from what I've read.
But surely the important issue is deciding which period in an ever evolving landscape is the eco-correct one?
I would say it's more about improving bio-diversity than historical recreation.
Yes but what is the point you are aiming for? what is the "correct" biodiveristy? Post ice age scotlands climate and ecosystem has changed a lot.
Also if increasing biodiversity is the aim then you don't start with apex predators
what is the “correct” biodiveristy?
Simply improving what we have, which is poor.
Also if increasing biodiversity is the aim then you don’t start with apex predators
Not sure that's the case. Scotland is overrun with deer, they trash the flora and eat tree saplings. Adding wolves would reduce deer numbers and let more flora grow which would increase numbers of all sorts of other animals either directly or by creating say insect habitats which would then feed more animals.
I presume you've read the Yellowstone story? The wolves were introduced, the deer then stopped hanging around by the water in the open; this meant that trees grew up by the water, which meant the beavers moved in, they created dams and marshy wetlands which attracted loads more species. It had a huge knock-on effect.
One of the ongoing debates locally is how much of a helping hand we need to give nature in the rewilding process. Some folk think we should be actively planting the hills with certain species of trees (or re-introducing more animals), the other option is just to take a hands-off approach and see what happens. The latter should produce a more "natural" ecosystem adapted to the current climate. The problem is, some habitats that should occur aren't. For instance, beavers are a really good way of creating pools etc on rivers that then allow other species to take hold and we have lots of rivers where beavers would eventually spread to but it might be centuries for that to happen. There is plainly some compromise needed between the two approaches. Meanwhile, we are fiddling around the edges while vast areas of uplands are regularly burnt and scoured of any creature that might threaten the grouse/deer hegemony.
The aurock has gone but it doesn't mean you can't replace it's function in the landscape with old breeds of cattle
Reforestation (not Sitka) instead of subsidies for farming sheep badly, keeping peat moorland wet to safeguard them and controlling deer (no predators) will see a change happen of its own accord
Etc etc
As for repopulation of remote areas, it's not going to happen. If you don't have a pool of labour with the right skills and talents nearby you aren't going to set up shop. No jobs means no families etc etc Healthcare is more centralised to maximise use of modern scanners etc and to ensure Dr's actually practice the skills they need
As for repopulation of remote areas, it’s not going to happen.
No, it's not. And you'd have people screaming blue murder about the roads they'd have to build to support the people 🙂
I'd love it, but I don't pretend to understand the complexities.
There are, after all, Wolves in the French Alps, I'm sure most of us have ridden there at some point.
I think Northern Euro Bears would be a better bet, they're big and cool to look at, but for the most party docile and harmless.
Have you seen how thick people are these days, introducing an apex predator wouldnt end well.
Depends upon your point-of-view. A little dredging of the shallow end of the gene pool might be just what society needs.
I think Northern Euro Bears would be a better bet, they’re big and cool to look at, but for the most party docile and harmless.
Plus they like to dance.
Btw is "Euro Bears" a dig at the Brexit Wolves?
Cause initially it went right over my head if it was.
Some bobbins being talked here about "rewilding scotland" being a code for "more crofters". as if they were the peak vegetation north of inverness.
Firstly, theres no such thing as a wholly natural landscape in the UK (I think pretty much the last wilderness in Europe [by some definitions] was a bit of Iceland last time I looked).
Every remaining landscape needs management to some degree, The real decisions lie in where we put our money and resources and where we want to end up. We can chose to manage things towards various options.
Industrialising it (windfarms),
Preserving it for continuing use for grouse moors (bleaurgh),
Sorting out the deer overpopulation and seeing what happens, more trees more biodiversity (see Creag Meagaidh NNR for some good work SNH is doing in that direction). Wolves might even help with this?
(Re)populating it (with associated infrastructure and building, to create more crofters (out of a misguided notion that they are more natural than forests).
Its a difficult area, and as much as I have little sympathy for parts of the hunting and shooting fraternity the decisions should probably not be made on the basis of which groups support the SNP.
tj
but given the last GE results the snp seem to have lost the huntin shootin fishin lot anyway
Really tj? Thats your basis for whos views should be taken into consideration? Nice.
sootyandjim
Member
Have you seen how thick people are these days, introducing an apex predator wouldnt end well.
Depends upon your point-of-view. A little dredging of the shallow end of the gene pool might be just what society needs.
😀 Remember the fuss a few years ago about those dangerous urban foxes?
Not quite what I meant eat the pudding. The SNP is a broad church and have IMO been over deferential to the hunting shooting fishin lot ie refusing to clamp down on raptor persecution etc. Perhaps now they are more broader based and have lost a lot of the hunting shooting fishin seats then they might be a bit more fairmined / conservation minded.
As Scotroutes eluded to above Ewing has been basically in thrall to the hunting shooting fishin lot. I am hoping for a more even handed approach in future
Edit - the SNPs deference to the hunting shooting fishing lot is a large part of why I find it hard to support them
Still - we have proven the shooting industry is responsible for raptor persecution. Lets hope the Werrity report actually recommends action and the SNP government take that action.
I can handle wolves... i’ve always been fine as long as I have my Dwarvish Axe of Ultimate Fire, or at very least my hat and Cattleman’s Revolver.
Remember the fuss a few years ago about those dangerous urban foxes?
They jump through bedroom windows and eat babies, don't you know?
interesting topic
1) i think it would be impossible to get past the public in england, but "only in the wilds of scotland" sure.
2) i didnt see any mention of wild boar? there are people doing that legally and illegally in the UK.
3) from some reports there are "too many" deer here in the foothils on the Quantocks. they encroach into the towns and are "managed" (counted/culled under licence).
4) maybe it'd make buggers keep their out of control dogs on leads (I've also been bitten)
5) Quantock hills again. northern AONB. 'classic' part has a common area. there are regularly horses, sheep and cattle as well as the deer. mingling with mtb/ramblers/horse riders/doggers etc these livestocks in wide open land would be easy targets.
6) (obviously) there are foxes on the Quantocks, apparently some BIG ones. yes there is hunting/hunt sab activity too. (i've only seen a group of fox cubs but I know of fox sightings from other riders). fox kill sheep but dont take down deer apart from the young.
7) the forestry land here is former heath land and doesnt appear to have much bio-diversity / wildlife compared to the older oak/mixed woodland. (I know FC's long term plan is to mixed plant more as it actually helps their crop)
8) there are regular strong big cat sightings. and have been for many years around here. wolves can be a bit noisier though..
Hmmmm.. @cg, I see where you’re coming from but it kinda smacks of the arrogance of ‘man’. The one race of people, the First Nations of North America took it as their responsibility, for their own survival, to maintain the balance of them, nature and thei environment.
Possibly arrogance slackalice although to a certain degree that's become ingrained in our culture, as has not seeing the bigger picture. The West could certainly look to First Nations for insightful guidance on how not to be a d*ck.
The silence of the outcry of gamekeepers allegedly taking out other birds of prey (allegedly) is deafening too.
Twas ever thus so. Nothing will change.
That’s not it. If that were the goal there’d just be a safari park. Wolves should be a part of the British landscape, and they’re not because we’ve **** it up. Rewilding is an attempt to get back some of the beauty and wonder that we’ve lost. In fact you could argue that by sanitising our landscape and removing anything inconvenient what we currently have is more of a theme park.
molgrips - you've taken that too literally! The population of the UK has increased but the population over centuries has always changed the landscape to suit its needs and stomachs. The landscape throughout the UK has basically been manufactured. There needs to be an adult discussion as to how best this should be managed especially with climate change, however there are those pesky vested interests that need to be got out of the way first.
It does rather beg the question cinnamon_girl, was it OK to wipe out sea-eagles in the first place because they were interfering with farming activities?
Not sure if it was as simple as that slowoldman but would definitely be interested in knowing more.
Cinnamongirl, in regards to the Sea Eagles – we have to be seen to be doing something to protect or reintroduce our own species unless we want to be accused of hypocrisy on the international stage. Does the ivory trade bother you?
Tom there needs to be an adult discussion without vested interests. Pigs might fly! Of course the ivory trade is worrying but it's not just about protecting animals, you're talking about a continent where corruption flourishes along with a complete disregard for human life. How do you think it can be stopped?
Sea Eagles around the IoW will be a different proposition to the highlands; the IoW doesn’t have a large number of hill farmers with sheep, it’s a far more populous island, and the sea eagles will likely keep to matching fish, or scavenging carrion.
Which is what the majority of highland losses to eagles are; dead and sickly lambs.
Didn't know that CountZero as my concern was about sheep losses.
Depends where it was. In the Rockies, I was honestly terrified of grizzlies. I know it was probably slightly irrational, but I had a hard time enjoying hiking due to fear of grizzlies. Then once, on a solo ride outside of Kamloops, I became convinced that, in the silence of the forest, I was being stalked by a mountain lion. After a long, long climb, it finally became too much, and I turned around and tore down the mountain side. I have never descended anything so quickly in life! Honestly, terror is a good motivator. Of course, I am sure I imagined everything.
In the East, where grizzlies don’t live, it was all black bears. And generally bears aren’t predatory. They can be, but it’s rare. I was always conscious of them, but the fear of them wasn’t debilitating for me. Meanwhile, coyotes would just watch you, and wolves would stay out of your way.
So really, you’re conscious of all the creatures out there, but (terror of grizzlies and imagined mountain lions aside) you learn to deal with them. We even had lessons in school to that end.
Oh my goodness SaxonRider, a mountain lion sounds utterly terrifying. Would you go so far as to say that you were always on full alert?
Rewilding will be happening probably post Brexit when the subsidy regime that keeps subsistence sheep farming going will get the bullet (except for national parks) and something that actually acts as a carbon sink and a ecological benefit can be done
Why pay farmers to farm the most ecologically damaging form of livestock in areas where without the subsidy they would go busy as the over supply of the meat and fleece means they get buttons for it from the market?
It’s bonkers!
There is a massive opportunity to change the landscape and create something that future generations will see as a turning point to actually create a green and pleasant land
Good post big_n_daft. It is definitely an opportunity.
Sorry, can anyone answer this please or point me in the right direction? I'm interested to know about the populations of Scottish Islands and what number have become uninhabited and when it happened. Ideally covering 100 years although post-war would be fine. Thanks and apologies for going off at a tangent!
tj, not how I read it, but glad to hear it.
Raptor persecution really needs to be dealt with regardless (and the issues brought up by sea eagle expansion is probably a good example of the issues that any reintroduction of wolves etc would cause).
Its a difficult crime to police, but making the landowners ultimately responsible is probably the way forward.
There is always a balance to be struck between farmers and wildlife, but what would exist if some people got their way would be a greenish desert with the occasional tree.
I read a great book about st Kilda - the life and death of st kilda IIRC which is a cracking read about how the islands became depopulated.
https://issuu.com/matthewsdcvds/docs/_pdf_the_life_and_death_of_st_kilda. I think a similar story on other depopulated islands
On raptor persecution IMO licensing of grouse shoots is the way forward. Raptor get killed on your land, lose your licences. show good husbandry of the land, keep your license. that would only need the civil level of proof not criminal. Hit them in their pockets. Remove all subsidy as well.
Q for the Scots - are deer numbers actually increasing and, if so, why aren't they being culled?
Estate values are partially judged on how many deer are shot each year, so it's in the estates interests to keep numbers high rather than cull them all down to a sustainable level. Also, the folk that pay to shoot them don't want to actually walk too far so high numbers cut down the amount of work needed/time taken. That means folk get back to their port and champers quicker.
It's an issue for those estates that DO want regeneration as the deer obviously overspill/travel between estates.
Varies estate by estate. Some like Feshie culled very hard and surprise surprise - the trees are recovering. Some keep numbers high for shooting and become eroded messes. culling is carried out but the debate is to what level of deer population in terms of deer per hectare is desireable. If you make your income from shooting them you want numbers high . If yu care for the land you want numbers to be low.
couyple of things I have googled on this.
https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-management/managing-wildlife/managing-deer
https://www.attadale.com/deer-management
Thanks for that explanation scotroutes. Do some starve to death I wonder?
Its been a concern the poor condition of some of the herds. some estates use supplemental winter feeding. I am sure some are weakened by poor diet and die over winter as a result but deer will always find something to eat.
Btw is “Euro Bears” a dig at the Brexit Wolves?
Cause initially it went right over my head if it was.
No, just lazy typing.
Britain had native Bears until about 1000 years ago when we hunted them into extinction. The species still continues in Europe and Asia, in fact they're also closely related to US bears. They're called European Brown Bears, or Eurasian Brown Bears.
To be honest, I remembered them as 'Black' bears which are smaller and generally more docile than Brown bears, they're not 'Grizzly Bears' but pretty closely related to them.
Thank you tj and for the links, shall take a read.
As does leaving it alone for millions of years!
But given thats not really an option unless we have a time machine
‘Gotta’ start sometime😋
I realise the highlands are close to a lot of people on here so I want to leave politics etc aside for this comment and it is not meant as an insult. The highlands like other uk upland areas are glorified farmland. As alluded to by others there are no real wilderness areas in the uk. I don’t think rewinding is about returning to untamed wilderness, it is about improving what we have got and large predators are proven to have the required effect. I personally think that local people should be considered and their views weighted against non locals because ultimately they have to live and work there. However rewinding the highlands could open up other economic opportunities.
How do you all feel about the wildcat because I have read that the current population is not viable therefore rewinding needs to be carried out to preserve it.
I also think wolves are the poster child for UK rewinding when it is about much more than them.
Given our paucity of large mammals, we have plenty of things we could re-introduce.
How do you all feel about the wildcat because I have read that the current population is not viable therefore rewinding needs to be carried out to preserve it.
The primary problem for wildcats would be persecution. No point reintroducing them if they are going to get killed by gamekeepers. Which is going to be an issue for several species.
Obvious candidates for reintroduction would be:
Lynx: no risk to humans. Minimal risk to livestock (unless they are grazed in the woods). Help reduce the deer population.
Pine Martin: Or rather boost their numbers. No risk to humans and minimal to livestock. There is some evidence that they are rather effective at reducing grey squirrel numbers whilst leaving reds alone.
The primary problem for Wildcats is domestic cats. The interbreeding is such that we may already have no pure Wildcats. If we don't cull domestic cats then there's no point in introducing more.
Lynx make some sense. Likely you'd never see one (which plays against the wildlife park/zoo notion.
Pine Marten can (probably) be left to spread as long as we plant suitable woodland corridors from exiting strongholds.
If we don’t cull domestic cats then there’s no point in introducing more.
One article I read suggested the domestic cats arent really a problem so long as there is a decent population of wildcats. Apparently their default interaction is to ignore or kill domestic cats (which in itself might be an issue) unless the population is restricted enough that there are limited other wildcats. Not sure how accurate it is though.
Likely you’d never see one
That wouldnt necessarily stop people trying. However my listing of them was more for the deer control side of things.
plant suitable woodland corridors from exiting strongholds.
True and there is some evidence of them spreading. However I would be in favour of giving them a helping hand to speed up the process.
I think the article said that they have pure wildcats in captivity and they estimate 60 still in the wild. So would you let them follow the dodo or support a uk wide reintroduction, the article said Devon, Cornwall and mid Wales were perfect for it.
I wondered if the Pine Marten eating grey squirrels but being unable to catch the reds due to them being able to escape to smaller branches, would lead to a reintroduction in west Cornwall. They have a plan to introduce reds after culling the greys. The last red squirrels were supposed to have survived to the mid 80s in Tehidy woods.
Edit - this was in reply to Scotroutes,
I wondered if the Pine Marten eating grey squirrels but being unable to catch the reds due to them being able to escape to smaller branches......
Not that it matters of course but my understanding was that pine martens are able to catch grey squirrels because they spend far more time on the ground than red squirrels.
That would make sense.
It says here the greys are naive to the martens who catch them at nut feeders, whereas the reds are more wary so you are correct.
Not sure if it was as simple as that slowoldman but would definitely be interested in knowing more.
https://community.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/b/scotland/posts/sea-eagles-return
"Also known as white-tailed eagles, sea eagles were once widespread across Britain and Ireland. A steady decline from mediaeval times is evident, but the Victorian era brought intense persecution against birds of prey and other predators seen as competing with sporting estates for game and fish. The remaining number of sea eagles plummeted and in 1916 the last known surviving one, an albino female, was shot at North Roe in Shetland".
So killed due to their impact on shooting estates not farming as I suggested. Plus ça change.
cinnamon_girl
Sorry, can anyone answer this please or point me in the right direction? I’m interested to know about the populations of Scottish Islands and what number have become uninhabited and when it happened.
Here's a fairly representative sample of how the islands started to get depopulated.
If you'd like to read a fictional account but based on fact on the next island
some more clearance history from the hebridies
https://www.virtualheb.co.uk/balallan-pairc-memorial-deer-raiders-lochs-isle-of-lewis-land-struggle/
And some contemporary additional reading
https://www.ukhillwalking.com/articles/opinions/its_time_to_go_beyond_wilderness-11972
@epicyclo
thanks for the link to the Scotsman article - that was fascinating.
That makes a really good read scotroutes. It lays bare the hypocrisy.
The excuse for large predators is an excess of deer, which are maintained at artificially high populations so the toffs can have fun maiming and killing them.
That is a problem that can easily be fixed without introducing wolves.
Just declare open season on deer. Reinstate the traditional rights of a fish from the stream for the table, a deer from the hill for the pot.
I'm sure there would be a sufficiency of large predators in that case.
Just declare open season on deer. Reinstate the traditional rights of a fish from the stream for the table, a deer from the hill for the pot.
That's unlikely to work. In the US, hunting is part of the culture, people grow up around guns, hunting and gun safety and it's as common as.. well, I struggle to think of an activity in the UK as ubiquitous as hunting is in Wisconson. To make a difference in Scotland you'd need to create a big recreational industry from scratch. I doubt you'd get enough customers either tbh.
That makes a really good read scotroutes. It lays bare the hypocrisy.
Except that it destroys the idea of rewilding because the extreme romantic idea (pristine wilderness) when it says things like "rewilding is firmly rooted in the old romantic tradition, retaining its basic premise that humans don't belong.". That's one approach, but there are others - rewilding isn't all or nothing. We can have wind turbines alongside Lynx and even wolves if we want. Sure it won't be pristine Alaskan wilderness, but it will be an improvement on any scale I can think of.
Thanks slowoldman but don't believe the RSPB can be trusted to give a balanced view, no mention at all of the impact on local people.
Thanks tj, epicyclo and scotroutes for the links, lots of reading to do and am not complaining!
Have you seen how thick people are these days.
yeah this thread backs this up 🙂
The excuse for large predators is an excess of deer, which are maintained at artificially high populations so the toffs can have fun maiming and killing them.
That is a problem that can easily be fixed without introducing wolves.
Just declare open season on deer. Reinstate the traditional rights of a fish from the stream for the table, a deer from the hill for the pot.
No, wild fish populations can't support free for all fish taking, for salmonids catch and release is increasingly the standard these days as populations have crashed, in terms of salmon and sea trout quite likely due to the scottish government's love of salmon farming and turning a blind eye to the terrible damage it causes to wild salmonids and the wider environment (see recent panorama program). The actual allocation of fishing tickets still needs to be managed but shouldn't be based on who can pay the most, should be equal access for all incomes. Also in terms of deer it depends on the landowner and what the land is managed for as per the mention earlier in thread regarding areas with good deer control.
bigjim
wild fish populations can’t support free for all fish taking
They used to when there was a much larger population in the Highlands.
But point taken, and the answer is to restrict that traditional right to those who need the food.
The catch and release wealthy fish torturers would howl somewhat, but we shouldn't encourage psychopaths. Killing and maiming animals for fun and pleasure is a sick hobby.
As for the deer, if hunting for "sport" was banned, then there will be no profit for the landowners in encouraging unsustainable populations, and that problem would be on the way to being solved. If there were still too many, then charge the landowners a deer tax per head. They would soon organise a cull.
Thanks slowoldman but don’t believe the RSPB can be trusted to give a balanced view, no mention at all of the impact on local people.
OK how about Scottish Raptor Study Group?
cinamon – firstly I really do struggle with the concept of creatures being introduced in order to provide theme-park entertainment for the public.
reintroduced. I can't work out if you've never been to a theme park or never observed wild animals in their natural habitat - even from a "safari" type boat... its hard to make any comparison.
Secondly, there was on i-player I think a program about sea eagles where pro-sea eagle campaigners and residents of a tiny island off the coast of Skye were interviewed. The residents were crofters, eeking out a barely sustainable living with sheep. Apparently they would normally expect 75% of their lambs to survive each year but since the arrival of sea eagles this has reduced to 50%. They were losing half of the lambs meaning a huge financial hit year after year and it was becoming unsustainable as obviously nobody reimburses or compensates them.
Dead lambs were shown and not a pretty sight, no question it was sea eagles who’d killed them.
Should these crofters abandon their way of life? Why should they, they’ve been crofting for donkey’s years? Crofting is a tradition in Scotland and obviously a very hard life especially with variable weather conditions. Are the sea eagles more important than the crofters? I don’t know whether any other crofters or farmers are affected by these birds but surely there’s a good chance it will happen elsewhere.
Not much crofting on the isle of wight though - so not following the connection. Ironically, if one group of farmers was going to understand the plight of the sea eagles being pushed out of their natural habitat by overzealous landowners only interested in themselves it would surely be crofters.
It does seem to be recognised that sea eagles will take health lambs in some circumstances:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/31/farmers-welcome-documents-showing-sea-eagles-do-kill-healthy/
but lets not pretend that the animal was going be bouncing around the hills like a fluffy cloud forever. It was destined to end up on dinner plates. Nature is harsh, bigger animals eat smaller ones, just because a lamb is "farmed" doesn't make the process any worse.
As for compensation - there was a scheme (which cynically, probably helps inflate the number of reported losses!). I think this scheme has been replaced with one which is aimed at funding activities/equipment to scare eagles away from livestock rather than throw money at compensation.
To cap it all off, not many crofters do it as a sole livelihood; many of those disadvantaged by losing lambs have some vested interest in tourism too, so benefit from the upside.
I get that it’s bringing in money and providing jobs but at the expense of others trying to make a living from the land? Doesn’t sit well with me at all.
Crofting and the very rural island communities are not quite as clear cut as that - someone might be a crofter who also works as at the ticket office for the ferry, delivers the post, drives a taxi, runs a B&B (or all of the above!). That will probably be less of a clear advantage in the populated south, but then there are probably fewer people who are subsistence farming on the breadline either.
As molgrips suggests, it's way too complicated and nuanced to be summed up in that article I linked but that does help to show the range of opinion.
I live in a National Park, the largest in Scotland and an area famed for its wildlife and wilderness. Lots of folk want to see that preserved and enhanced. Lots of locals frankly just want a decently paid, full-time job and housing they can afford without being priced out by holiday homes. Of course, tourism brings some jobs but they tend to be seasonal and minimum wage.
Folk also want a range of shops and services that don't entail long journeys or mail order. Without the seasonal income many get, there would be even fewer than at present.
All of that requires a change of mindset away from the disneyficatiion some desire, or a return to some human-free wilderness others propose. With an abundance of "green" energy available we really need an improvement to some strategic transport links (the bloody mainline railway for a start) and a diversification of employment.
Will that drive some tourism away? Probably. Few here would mourn that if there were alternatives.
What IS clear is that the current land ownership and taxation model has failed. Without a redistribution of land and the income it generates, nothing will change.
Edit: typed as poly was posting. Can't disagree with any of that either.
Thanks slowoldman but don’t believe the RSPB can be trusted to give a balanced view, no mention at all of the impact on local people.
And that there, is the 2010s in a nutshell.
This isn't a dig at whoever said it at all, but when did we reach the point that whenever we're presented with information that doesn't prove our pre-existing opinion, we just discredit it or ignore it.
There is no doubt legally or morrally about the raptor persecution. Its SOME grouse moors. The data is complete and damning
