Posted by Peter Cairns on July 25, 2009 at 7:06 AM
As discussion surrounding wolf reintroduction develops, this is a question I'm often asked. The majority of the public probably perceive that they are, whilst wolf advocates are at pains to point out that there have been no recorded wolf attacks on humans for decades.
Emerging evidence from Canada suggests the answer is less clear cut with the recent death of a geology researcher claimed to be the work of a wolf pack. Mail me if you want the full story.
I have a Canadian friend who used to go hunting in their winter. He hunted on foot with one friend and they used bows and arrows(thats another debate).
One afternoon they were returning to their cabin and my friend had sprained his ankle so was limping slightly. They noticed after a while that they were being tracked by a large male wolf who kept out of range but they believe had fixated on the limping "prey". The wolf got bolder and in the end they had to shoot it as they felt threatened. It was 8 foot long from snout to tail.
Wolves are like hyenas they are very good at spotting the weakest victim in a herd.
Are they dangerous? well yes under some circumstances but generally they will probably stay away from humans.
Pete
Of course they can be, all wild animals capable of killing a humanbeing are dangerous. Captive animals or domesticated dogs are more than capable of killing us frail humans, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want my German shepherd which is nearly 50 kilos dangling off your throat and then dragging you up the Yard.
The real question should not be are they dangerous, but what has man done to inflict the behaviour that it needs to haunt a human being instead of its natural food source, a starving predator will always take a easy food source domesticated human or wild.
Pete, I guess it comes down to circumstance. In an 'artificial' environment you and I have witnessed first-hand the difference that an individual's character can have upon its behaviour. One animal is full of bravado while another carries a very serious threat. If the latter individual is an 'alpha' of the group, its behaviour is likely to influence what the pack is capable of.
In the 'wild', food is the primary source of motivation on a day-to-day basis, so why shouldn't a human (out alone in a wilderness) represent a food source to a hungry pack of wolves? Driven by the need to eat, it is understandable (if not regrettable for the individual) that wolves may take a HUMAN ANIMAL, not for pleasure, enjoyment or through some evil malice, but simply to eat and survive. Some may argue that the individual deserved to be culled under the influence of natural selection (out alone in a wildness, in a known wolf territory, not carrying a gun!?).
We (some human animals) seek to influence the (un)natural balance of the UK's biodiversity by ?rewilding or ?restoring the ecological landscape back to a time long gone. For me, while I romantically endorse the notion, logically, it shouldn't happen any time soon. Why?, While I like the idea of 'chavs' and lying, money-grabbing politicians being consumed by packs of wolves, we live in a culture that's incapable of being rational - example: a relatively innocuous strain of flu!
How could our culture possible cope with such a weighty decision? Mass consumption is the new 'food of the soul', not preservation of the natural world. Yes, there is a need to educate but for the foreseeable future, it should be inconceivable that we entrust the guardianship of top predators such as the wolf to a society were intolerance, prejudice and ignorance is the excepted norm. Some people struggle with the notion of sharks eating humans when they venture into the shark's environment! Imagine the reaction to wolves running around remote parts of the Highlands - Glasgow airport wouldn't just have suicide bombers to contend with then, would it!?
Off course wolves can be dangerous. I have a story from a reliable source of two girls in Belorussia being killed a few years ago. I would however love to see wolves back in the UK. Think of all the money you would save controlling deer.
I find peoples comprehension of danger really interesting. Wild boar kill people in Europe every year but here are in the UK with out a massive fuss. People are killed by cows all the time and this gets just a few inches in a paper. Even a surprising amount of people die putting heir trousers on. Imagine the outcry if a person was killed by a wolf up in Scotland in a few years time?
Personally I'd be happy to go camping up in Scotland in the territory of a pack of wolves. Now what about bears?
Nice shot Peter.
You don't have a C in the title so I assume it is in the wild.
As to the discussion developing, what do you mean?
As to the others who would love to see wolves introduced in Scotland (you know, that place where you don't live or work) and advocate them as a method of deer control, well in my humble opijnion you need to take a good look at your selves and ask if you have the slightest understanding of what goes on in rural Scotland.
I'd be delighted if wolves were introduced again if the folks introducing them could guarantee that they would only eat those exercising their right to roam without responsibility and the dogs they bring with them.
I don't see that being a vote winner though and it would certainly put off SNH as most of their supporters would be fodder
I of course would love to see large predators re-established to this country not just Scotland, Lynx have got to be a serious contention first but I think this will never happen because we can't even protect our Hen Harriers
On topic - if you've not done so read Barry Lopez's 'Of Wolves and Men' for a thorough exploration of human-wolf relationships. Sobering stuff.
Off-topic slightly - sharing the UK with wild predators - I have personally seen a (very!) large black puma-like feline in a remote part of Lochaber at less than 25m, and know three people personally whom I trust who have seen the same thing in that area. I've seen big cats in Africa and this animal I encountered was no labrador.
Is the truth out there? Who knows, but if there are lynx or other cats out there they're doing a good job of staying out of sight.
Apart that is from this one in last week's news: big cat attack
By just reading some of the above I can just see the Ramblers association "call to arms" now .
It is emotion I see fighting for it and emotion fighting against it; unfortunately the voting sides aren't numerically matched and the science is being relatively ignored. The outcome has nothing to do with 'fear' and all to do with ecomonics; for example one proposed solution was fencing an area off.
How much does fencing, its installation, patrol and maintainence cost to obtain a territory size where the wolf pack of a moderate size would be called wild (otherwise they are captive) in sparse Scotland- 600 sq km
Will the wolf pay it's way, if so from whom and how do we obtain the money? Tourists won't pay for something they cannot see/find? Ramblers wouldn't pay for what they don't want. Estates wouldn't pay unless there was a cash positive recoup and a livestock 'damage' reimbursement scheme. That said some hunters will pay to population control it (big game model) - ironic really.
I would doubt that any scheme to introduce wolves in this country would ever have a clause in it that would allow hunting Tom. God knows that there are some sad b**tards that would like to see wolves introduced as a way to control our out of control deer population (another myth). After hearing the outcry about hunting stags with dogs in the West Country I can't see the general public buying that one though.
The more ppl that portray predators as things of beauty and cuteness then the more hair brained schemes like this will gather momentum.
Interesting to see Danny's Pine Marten shot. Especially interesting that he passed up a better shot of one that wasn't as "cute"
Think I'll go find a brick wall to bang me head off
Simple answer is yes..! Dangerous to humans, well possibly if there is the ongoing conflict for space, and that leads to another question.. Do we have the understanding of the current functions within our ecosystems well enough to support a reintroduction of a species that has been missing in the food chain for so very long..? Without a doubt the answer is NO! A lot of the arguments for the reintroductions are based on the 'Yellowstone' system but there really is no comparison where the British Isles is concerned.. I expect we will end up having them around but in very large enclosures which will end up serving very little purpose whatsoever..
I think we should spend the money to try and conserve and understand what we already have and look to improve the habitats that we continue to destroy through persistent development. To put this into context we have been losing fragile habitats such as ponds in our countryside at a rate of between 40-50% since the last world war..! This is set to continue despite ponds being a 'priority habitat' in terms of government targets.. Scary to think that we might start to introduce something else into the equation before we've even got a handle on what we're destroying..
Same old, same old...!
Posted by Matt Peaster on July 26, 2009 at 4:02 AM
Some very intereseting thoughts here. It's obvious that we are considering the nature of wolves 'through human eyes' which undoubtebly are built up from negative media stories of a monirity of cases of attacks. At the end of the day a wolf would only attack a human becasue that's what it needs to do to survive - if you were really, really hungry would drive past McDonnalds or take the easy option? The wolf only kills to survive, what impact do humans have on our environment?? I think a red stag in the highlands might not like the idea.
Personally I would love to see wolves 'wild' in remote areas of Scotland but wild would have to be wild and not in some big 'reserve' like the re-wilding project - where at the end of the day the animals aren't wild. Also with our over populated island could wolves lead a natural or semi-natural existance, I doubt not. In which case I think they shouldn't be re-introduced in the aim to return to some pre-historic point but with current human populations and activities etc.
The debate could .... and will go on and on .... is anyone really right?
Matt
Posted by Andy Astbury on July 26, 2009 at 5:13 AM
Are they dangerous to humans - no more so than any other member of the genus, and less so than a lot of domestics would be my answer.
But the wolf will always be seen by the majority as "Big 'n Bad".
Should they be in the wild here - yes.
Will they be here in the wild - NO.
Wolves and bears are part of our natural eco-system - they are the apex predators of our northerly latitude.
But through the course of time man has evolved to remove threats to his personal success and survival - removal of wolves and bears equals more food animals for me, with the added bonus that the fur keeps you warm and looks good in front of the fireplace.
That's why our apex predators have been removed - GREED was the motivating factor; not personal safety.
In todays UK society, the wolf cannot be a candidate for a re-wilding initiative, and neither can the bear.
The UK is too small an area for apex predators to be re-introduced without them impinging on modern day social or infrastructure boundaries.
So though I personally don't think they are dangerous and would love to see them here tomorrow, I don't see how it's practical.
Long term, re-wilding can only end up in tears before bedtime for its instigators, and there will only be one main casualty - the animals we tried to re-introduce.
And that is NOT ON......................
Posted by Peter Cairns on July 26, 2009 at 6:28 AM
Guys
Some interesting comments but this wasn't intended as a discussion on the pros/cons of a reintroduction, I simply wanted to point out emerging evidence that might dispel what some people presently perceive.
That said, I would pick up on one or two comments.
1. TOM: "Tourists won't pay for something they cannot see/find?" I disagree, visitor numbers in Germany's Harz NP increased by 33% when lynx were restored despite the very slim chance of seeing one.
2. TOM: "Ramblers wouldn't pay for what they don't want." I think you'll find that the Ramblers Assoc. at a coporate level support reintroductions generally.
3. TOM (again!): "Estates wouldn't pay unless there was a cash positive recoup". Again I'm afraid I disagree. There are estates that are already looking seriously at ecosystem-based restoration schemes with no obvious financial gain on the horizon.
For me, this debate has little to do with the wolf, it's ecology and it's potential danger to people. This is a tribal divide between different interest groups who all want to control what rural Britain looks like, which species it contains, in what numbers and to who's benefit.
Understandably there are financial concerns but I believe the issue is more one of cultural divides. John MacTavish's comment above ("God knows that there are some sad b**tards that would like to see wolves introduced") is typical. I don't necessarily disagree with you John but I'm not sure it helps constructive dialogue by labelling anyone who holds an opinion different to yours as a 'sad b**tard'!
I've heard so many keepers blanket label conservationists as 'bunny huggers' or 'urban do-gooders' and I've heard so many conservationists label all keepers as 'murdering whatevers.' Neither description is fair or accurate but nevertheless underlines how perceptions influence attitudes. Breaking down those prejudices has to be the first step in evaluating whether restoring wolves (or any other species) is desirable or not.
PETE: As you know there is a big gulf between (in above point order)
1 Visting (an area) and paying (e.g parking - I visit lots of carparks but will only pay at those where the fee is reasonable).
2 Corporate general support of benign introductions and individual sponsership for apex preditors from a wary membership for I can't see the Ramblers Assoc adding a £ per member to its subs to support it. If they do I will join. (I can give you stats on this type of activity/request from akin requests from an outdoor organisation)
3 Ecosystem based restoration (predominately recreating Caledonian Pine land - Rothemurchus/Mar Lodge/The Flow Lands etc) and apex preditor re-introductions to roam them; lets face it my current undertanding is that even the assessment of Boar project run by Liz has not found additional funding nor been acted upon and that economic effects of the SNH Breaver trials are being looked and are an issue that needs resolved with local landowners.
Now the above aside, if the money can be found (and the likelyhood of such is where we differ), I would welcome trials as it is a wonderful ideal and some day may come true as education can remove fear and worry.
T
Addendum for others - there was a good article on the reintroduction of Lynx in British Wildlife Vol 20, Number 2 and Beavers in Vol 19 No 4. Both are written in a balanced positive , mild scientific, manner and both contain the scientific paper references that can give you a leg up in starting to look at these topics. There is also a special edition of this Mag Vol 20 No 5 that looks at the re-wilding of Britain. I suggest this mag not because it is an authority but because it is a more pleasent read than the academic papers
Posted by Peter Cairns on July 26, 2009 at 8:50 AM
...and just to remind viewers, I have the pdf originally referred to at the top of the thread!
Just come onto this thread and as usual lots of interesting comments some off topic,to those who understand the benefits both commercially and environmently it is indeed possible and having seen certain individuals in scotland who are starting to introduce beaver,moose etc and are doing a very good job of it I think it is only a matter of time before we start to see lynx,wolf and maybe even bear in similar circumstances,we have escaped boar,introduced beaver and as John said "big cats" roaming the UK it would only take one death from say a boar to cause public outcry and its the public that need convincing!!
I personaly would love to see predators back in the UK even if it was only in the remotest parts of the UK,whether it happens remains to be seen!!
Like the shot Pete,love the low level POV and falling snow!
Emailed you!
While it’s great to see this discussion evolve from 'are wolves dangerous?' to 'where are we going to put them; who's paying; who's making money? etc.' the debate is largely null and void. Apex predator reintroduction will continue to be a non-starter until public opinion is firstly, awakened and secondly, supportive.
Even if ‘Joe Public’ could be placated, it is unlikely that the vested interests of the various groups involving themselves in this debate could be accommodated - a consensus view in favour would be very difficult to broker (a point illustrated eloquently by the differing views of Pete and Tom). A sea-change in thought process, an abandonment of huge chunks of bureaucratic red tape/‘health and safety’ and a massive injection of cash would all need to be forthcoming and coordinated. Oh yes . . . . a big dollop of glasnost would need to be embraced by all sides too.
As a casual observer, my suspicion is that (for some) the beaver re-introduction has catapulted expectation stratospheric - the thin end of the wedge has been achieved, the rest will surely follow. For some species this might be true but for the UK residing, apex predator the foreseeable future is something akin to the Highland Wildlife Centre or Alladale . . . just bigger, ‘better’ . . . . . and possibly a lot more Disneyland?
None of the above is an argument against having apex predators back in the UK (well maybe the Disneyland bit), just a reality check. Back to the original question: ‘Are wolves dangerous?’ Yes, absolutely . . . just read between the lines of the ‘reintroduction debate'! For a long time to come we nature photographers will still be marking our images of ‘UK wolves’ with a big fat ‘C’.
Nah they'll get relegated along with Sunderland this year .Sorry couldn't help it.
I am probably in the joe public arena when it comes to the ignorance of rewilding and its relevance .An intersesting programme recently on the MFI heir and his attempts in Alladale was enlightening but I feel too slanted .Reintroduced ? Would love to see it but not in my back yard.
Nice image , eye contact would have made for a far more dramatic picture , but I'm sure you have it.
Can't help feeling that this just isn't the same country it was when they last existed here. How many people balanced on here now - 60 million plus; they are bound to impact negatively somewhere. There are no wild places left, just a few that are visited less often. Shame but I don't think we will see them in unfenced land until they have escaped. Until then it is going to be a glorified game park scenario I fancy.
Picture is great BTW Eric
interesting topic. the "is it dangerous" question is one (as one interested and involved with sharks) question that i and anyone else that is interested in shark conservation is dealing with every day. if possible, from those hoping to promote wolf reintroduction or to be avidly involved in their conservation is one that should be avoided at all costs.
once the question is raised, it allows general joe public and their variant mouthpieces (politicians, NGO leaders and the dreaded "other agencies") to weight in and support the claim that "yes they are", even if there is not the slightest evidence to suggest they might be. the anti wolf bandwagon will soon have their very own sun newspaper journalist ready to jump on any wolf story anywhere in the world, CNN will drag up the dodgiest news stories from absolutely anywhere they can, and discovery channel will make up a whole week long series devoted to programs like "wolf killer death syndrome", "the day my aunt red riding hood was murdered by a wolf", and "wolf on the slow painful death prowl" and other such imaginitive programming. scientific (for what it's worth) evidence will be left a long way from the back door, and the media will have a field day. the only loosers, will be the wolves.
Discussion
21 repliesEmerging evidence from Canada suggests the answer is less clear cut with the recent death of a geology researcher claimed to be the work of a wolf pack. Mail me if you want the full story.
Pete
Canon 5dII, 17-40mm, ISO 200, captive.
Peter Cairns
www.northshots.com
One afternoon they were returning to their cabin and my friend had sprained his ankle so was limping slightly. They noticed after a while that they were being tracked by a large male wolf who kept out of range but they believe had fixated on the limping "prey". The wolf got bolder and in the end they had to shoot it as they felt threatened. It was 8 foot long from snout to tail.
Wolves are like hyenas they are very good at spotting the weakest victim in a herd.
Are they dangerous? well yes under some circumstances but generally they will probably stay away from humans.
Pete
The real question should not be are they dangerous, but what has man done to inflict the behaviour that it needs to haunt a human being instead of its natural food source, a starving predator will always take a easy food source domesticated human or wild.
Phil.
In the 'wild', food is the primary source of motivation on a day-to-day basis, so why shouldn't a human (out alone in a wilderness) represent a food source to a hungry pack of wolves? Driven by the need to eat, it is understandable (if not regrettable for the individual) that wolves may take a HUMAN ANIMAL, not for pleasure, enjoyment or through some evil malice, but simply to eat and survive. Some may argue that the individual deserved to be culled under the influence of natural selection (out alone in a wildness, in a known wolf territory, not carrying a gun!?).
We (some human animals) seek to influence the (un)natural balance of the UK's biodiversity by ?rewilding or ?restoring the ecological landscape back to a time long gone. For me, while I romantically endorse the notion, logically, it shouldn't happen any time soon. Why?, While I like the idea of 'chavs' and lying, money-grabbing politicians being consumed by packs of wolves, we live in a culture that's incapable of being rational - example: a relatively innocuous strain of flu!
How could our culture possible cope with such a weighty decision? Mass consumption is the new 'food of the soul', not preservation of the natural world. Yes, there is a need to educate but for the foreseeable future, it should be inconceivable that we entrust the guardianship of top predators such as the wolf to a society were intolerance, prejudice and ignorance is the excepted norm. Some people struggle with the notion of sharks eating humans when they venture into the shark's environment! Imagine the reaction to wolves running around remote parts of the Highlands - Glasgow airport wouldn't just have suicide bombers to contend with then, would it!?
Cheers, Chris
PS. Nice picture but you should have got closer!
I find peoples comprehension of danger really interesting. Wild boar kill people in Europe every year but here are in the UK with out a massive fuss. People are killed by cows all the time and this gets just a few inches in a paper. Even a surprising amount of people die putting heir trousers on. Imagine the outcry if a person was killed by a wolf up in Scotland in a few years time?
Personally I'd be happy to go camping up in Scotland in the territory of a pack of wolves. Now what about bears?
You don't have a C in the title so I assume it is in the wild.
As to the discussion developing, what do you mean?
As to the others who would love to see wolves introduced in Scotland (you know, that place where you don't live or work) and advocate them as a method of deer control, well in my humble opijnion you need to take a good look at your selves and ask if you have the slightest understanding of what goes on in rural Scotland.
I'd be delighted if wolves were introduced again if the folks introducing them could guarantee that they would only eat those exercising their right to roam without responsibility and the dogs they bring with them.
I don't see that being a vote winner though and it would certainly put off SNH as most of their supporters would be fodder
Get real ppl
J
Danny
Off-topic slightly - sharing the UK with wild predators - I have personally seen a (very!) large black puma-like feline in a remote part of Lochaber at less than 25m, and know three people personally whom I trust who have seen the same thing in that area. I've seen big cats in Africa and this animal I encountered was no labrador.
Is the truth out there? Who knows, but if there are lynx or other cats out there they're doing a good job of staying out of sight.
Apart that is from this one in last week's news: big cat attack
and same again
It is emotion I see fighting for it and emotion fighting against it; unfortunately the voting sides aren't numerically matched and the science is being relatively ignored. The outcome has nothing to do with 'fear' and all to do with ecomonics; for example one proposed solution was fencing an area off.
How much does fencing, its installation, patrol and maintainence cost to obtain a territory size where the wolf pack of a moderate size would be called wild (otherwise they are captive) in sparse Scotland- 600 sq km
Will the wolf pay it's way, if so from whom and how do we obtain the money? Tourists won't pay for something they cannot see/find? Ramblers wouldn't pay for what they don't want. Estates wouldn't pay unless there was a cash positive recoup and a livestock 'damage' reimbursement scheme. That said some hunters will pay to population control it (big game model) - ironic really.
T
The more ppl that portray predators as things of beauty and cuteness then the more hair brained schemes like this will gather momentum.
Interesting to see Danny's Pine Marten shot. Especially interesting that he passed up a better shot of one that wasn't as "cute"
Think I'll go find a brick wall to bang me head off
I think we should spend the money to try and conserve and understand what we already have and look to improve the habitats that we continue to destroy through persistent development. To put this into context we have been losing fragile habitats such as ponds in our countryside at a rate of between 40-50% since the last world war..! This is set to continue despite ponds being a 'priority habitat' in terms of government targets.. Scary to think that we might start to introduce something else into the equation before we've even got a handle on what we're destroying..
Same old, same old...!
Personally I would love to see wolves 'wild' in remote areas of Scotland but wild would have to be wild and not in some big 'reserve' like the re-wilding project - where at the end of the day the animals aren't wild. Also with our over populated island could wolves lead a natural or semi-natural existance, I doubt not. In which case I think they shouldn't be re-introduced in the aim to return to some pre-historic point but with current human populations and activities etc.
The debate could .... and will go on and on .... is anyone really right?
Matt
But the wolf will always be seen by the majority as "Big 'n Bad".
Should they be in the wild here - yes.
Will they be here in the wild - NO.
Wolves and bears are part of our natural eco-system - they are the apex predators of our northerly latitude.
But through the course of time man has evolved to remove threats to his personal success and survival - removal of wolves and bears equals more food animals for me, with the added bonus that the fur keeps you warm and looks good in front of the fireplace.
That's why our apex predators have been removed - GREED was the motivating factor; not personal safety.
In todays UK society, the wolf cannot be a candidate for a re-wilding initiative, and neither can the bear.
The UK is too small an area for apex predators to be re-introduced without them impinging on modern day social or infrastructure boundaries.
So though I personally don't think they are dangerous and would love to see them here tomorrow, I don't see how it's practical.
Long term, re-wilding can only end up in tears before bedtime for its instigators, and there will only be one main casualty - the animals we tried to re-introduce.
And that is NOT ON......................
Some interesting comments but this wasn't intended as a discussion on the pros/cons of a reintroduction, I simply wanted to point out emerging evidence that might dispel what some people presently perceive.
That said, I would pick up on one or two comments.
1. TOM: "Tourists won't pay for something they cannot see/find?" I disagree, visitor numbers in Germany's Harz NP increased by 33% when lynx were restored despite the very slim chance of seeing one.
2. TOM: "Ramblers wouldn't pay for what they don't want." I think you'll find that the Ramblers Assoc. at a coporate level support reintroductions generally.
3. TOM (again!): "Estates wouldn't pay unless there was a cash positive recoup". Again I'm afraid I disagree. There are estates that are already looking seriously at ecosystem-based restoration schemes with no obvious financial gain on the horizon.
For me, this debate has little to do with the wolf, it's ecology and it's potential danger to people. This is a tribal divide between different interest groups who all want to control what rural Britain looks like, which species it contains, in what numbers and to who's benefit.
Understandably there are financial concerns but I believe the issue is more one of cultural divides. John MacTavish's comment above ("God knows that there are some sad b**tards that would like to see wolves introduced") is typical. I don't necessarily disagree with you John but I'm not sure it helps constructive dialogue by labelling anyone who holds an opinion different to yours as a 'sad b**tard'!
I've heard so many keepers blanket label conservationists as 'bunny huggers' or 'urban do-gooders' and I've heard so many conservationists label all keepers as 'murdering whatevers.' Neither description is fair or accurate but nevertheless underlines how perceptions influence attitudes. Breaking down those prejudices has to be the first step in evaluating whether restoring wolves (or any other species) is desirable or not.
Pete
1 Visting (an area) and paying (e.g parking - I visit lots of carparks but will only pay at those where the fee is reasonable).
2 Corporate general support of benign introductions and individual sponsership for apex preditors from a wary membership for I can't see the Ramblers Assoc adding a £ per member to its subs to support it. If they do I will join. (I can give you stats on this type of activity/request from akin requests from an outdoor organisation)
3 Ecosystem based restoration (predominately recreating Caledonian Pine land - Rothemurchus/Mar Lodge/The Flow Lands etc) and apex preditor re-introductions to roam them; lets face it my current undertanding is that even the assessment of Boar project run by Liz has not found additional funding nor been acted upon and that economic effects of the SNH Breaver trials are being looked and are an issue that needs resolved with local landowners.
Now the above aside, if the money can be found (and the likelyhood of such is where we differ), I would welcome trials as it is a wonderful ideal and some day may come true as education can remove fear and worry.
T
Addendum for others - there was a good article on the reintroduction of Lynx in British Wildlife Vol 20, Number 2 and Beavers in Vol 19 No 4. Both are written in a balanced positive , mild scientific, manner and both contain the scientific paper references that can give you a leg up in starting to look at these topics. There is also a special edition of this Mag Vol 20 No 5 that looks at the re-wilding of Britain. I suggest this mag not because it is an authority but because it is a more pleasent read than the academic papers
Now...does anyone like the image???!!!
Pete
I personaly would love to see predators back in the UK even if it was only in the remotest parts of the UK,whether it happens remains to be seen!!
Like the shot Pete,love the low level POV and falling snow!
Emailed you!
Craig
www.craigchurchill.co.uk
Even if ‘Joe Public’ could be placated, it is unlikely that the vested interests of the various groups involving themselves in this debate could be accommodated - a consensus view in favour would be very difficult to broker (a point illustrated eloquently by the differing views of Pete and Tom). A sea-change in thought process, an abandonment of huge chunks of bureaucratic red tape/‘health and safety’ and a massive injection of cash would all need to be forthcoming and coordinated. Oh yes . . . . a big dollop of glasnost would need to be embraced by all sides too.
As a casual observer, my suspicion is that (for some) the beaver re-introduction has catapulted expectation stratospheric - the thin end of the wedge has been achieved, the rest will surely follow. For some species this might be true but for the UK residing, apex predator the foreseeable future is something akin to the Highland Wildlife Centre or Alladale . . . just bigger, ‘better’ . . . . . and possibly a lot more Disneyland?
None of the above is an argument against having apex predators back in the UK (well maybe the Disneyland bit), just a reality check. Back to the original question: ‘Are wolves dangerous?’ Yes, absolutely . . . just read between the lines of the ‘reintroduction debate'! For a long time to come we nature photographers will still be marking our images of ‘UK wolves’ with a big fat ‘C’.
Cheers,
Chris
I am probably in the joe public arena when it comes to the ignorance of rewilding and its relevance .An intersesting programme recently on the MFI heir and his attempts in Alladale was enlightening but I feel too slanted .Reintroduced ? Would love to see it but not in my back yard.
Nice image , eye contact would have made for a far more dramatic picture , but I'm sure you have it.
Picture is great BTW
interesting topic. the "is it dangerous" question is one (as one interested and involved with sharks) question that i and anyone else that is interested in shark conservation is dealing with every day. if possible, from those hoping to promote wolf reintroduction or to be avidly involved in their conservation is one that should be avoided at all costs.
once the question is raised, it allows general joe public and their variant mouthpieces (politicians, NGO leaders and the dreaded "other agencies") to weight in and support the claim that "yes they are", even if there is not the slightest evidence to suggest they might be. the anti wolf bandwagon will soon have their very own sun newspaper journalist ready to jump on any wolf story anywhere in the world, CNN will drag up the dodgiest news stories from absolutely anywhere they can, and discovery channel will make up a whole week long series devoted to programs like "wolf killer death syndrome", "the day my aunt red riding hood was murdered by a wolf", and "wolf on the slow painful death prowl" and other such imaginitive programming. scientific (for what it's worth) evidence will be left a long way from the back door, and the media will have a field day. the only loosers, will be the wolves.
wel..that's only my opinion of course...