8 ms·

‘Rewilding’ process could soon return wolves to Scotland

60 points by nols 11y ago

dpflan 11y ago
Here is a HN submission (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8448929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8448929) for the How Wolves Change Rivers video that is mentioned in this article. (It was posted exactly a year ago, a coincidental anniversary of the topic here on HN). There are some good discussions and great links to related content including the TED talk on 'rewilding' by George Monbiot who narrates the How Wolves Change Rivers video.
- dalke 11y ago
  The article goes on to say: > Yet David Mech, a biologist who has worked extensively in Yellowstone, advises that such simple narrative arcs are hard to find in something as messy as an ecosystem. Mech does not discount all of Monbiot's claims, but cautions that as much harm could come to the wolf from being marketed as the poster boy of the environmental movement as it did in the era when it was hated and feared. One of the narratives in a re-wilding context is that human are not part of the "wild." Yet in post-glacial areas like Scotland and Yellowstone, where humans arrived shortly after the ice melted, the ecosystem developed with humans as one of the apex predators. We see this in Australia, for example at http://climatechange.umaine.edu/Research/Contrib/pdf/pdfFiles/contribution%2013.pdf http://climatechange.umaine.edu/Research/Contrib/pdf/pdfFile... : > For thousands of years, desert Aborigines have set fire to the arid savanna, creating an environmental patchwork to which much of the desert plant and animals are specifically adapted. Where Aborigines have been removed from their lands, the desert patchwork has often been obliterated with devastatingly large wildfires. Humans are left out of the rewilding equation because I think it's drawing from a romantic tradition of what the wild is supposed to be.
  - JulianMorrison 11y ago
    To be fair, "humans" covers quite different ground when you're talking about on the one hand, spear hunters and shifting-cultivation agriculturists, and on the other, industrial agribusiness, roads and concrete.
    - dalke 11y ago
      You're right. Somewhere in my edits I dropped out the important term "Neolithic". ... Though perhaps 'Stone Age' would be more appropriate given the long time that humans were an apex species.
      - JulianMorrison 11y ago
        It's probably a bit messy, because we started deforestation in the mesolithic I think, and we had an uneasy standoff with megafaunal predators well into the iron age. From Wikipedia: With the advent of agriculture, larger areas began to be deforested, and fire became the prime tool to clear land for crops. In Europe there is little solid evidence before 7000 BC. Mesolithic foragers used fire to create openings for red deer and wild boar. In Great Britain, shade-tolerant species such as oak and ash are replaced in the pollen record by hazels, brambles, grasses and nettles. Removal of the forests led to decreased transpiration, resulting in the formation of upland peat bogs. Widespread decrease in elm pollen across Europe between 8400–8300 BC and 7200–7000 BC, starting in southern Europe and gradually moving north to Great Britain, may represent land clearing by fire at the onset of Neolithic agriculture.
        dalke 11y ago
        Good quote. Yes, another aspect of this is which wild do we want to have? Which is why Pleistocene rewilding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_rewilding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_rewilding ) is a thing. From that page: > Opponents argue that there has been more than enough time for communities to evolve in the absence of mega-fauna, and thus the reintroduction of large mammals could thwart ecosystem dynamics and possibly cause collapse. Life is messy.
    - e12e 11y ago
      This discussion and the term "rewilding" reminds me of Kim Stanley Robinson's excellent Nebula Award winning novel "2312" - and the "reanimation" project which is part of the complex web of plot lines. One of a few recent books that embody the best part of what I consider "classic science fiction" (whatever that might mean :-). https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11830394-2312 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11830394-2312
  - arethuza 11y ago
    The complex history of the Highlands doesn't help either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances
    - dalke 11y ago
      I liked the line "typical example... of social engineering which met neither the hopes of the benefactors nor the needs of the beneficiaries, but produced social disaster." In 100 years time, will 'rewilding' create a new version of that quote, replacing 'social' with 'ecosystem'?
chroma 11y ago
"To be lying in your tent in the middle of nowhere and to hear a wolf cry. Now that must be quite something." The first time? Maybe. It quickly becomes distracting, annoying, and (depending on the distance) frightening. The only decent argument I can find for reintroducing wolves is that it would help keep wild deer in check. But the costs of wolves are far higher than the costs of too many deer. Deer don't kill livestock or humans. And of course, wolves aren't the only solution to reducing the deer population. They can be culled in other ways. The whole thing seems like a non-starter to me. I think most who are in favor of reintroducing wolves are just infatuated with charismatic megafauna. "Wolves look cool and they used to be on the island, so let's bring 'em back." …or something like that. Then they rationalize their conclusion with arguments about tourism and culling deer. What if instead of wolves, it was crocodiles that had been eradicated from Scotland? I seriously doubt there would be as many supporters, yet the same arguments for reintroduction apply.
- _delirium 11y ago
  Killing livestock is an issue, but killing humans isn't really; it's essentially in the "freak accident" category, and less common than even most rare sources of freak accidents. So far, at least, the reintroduction process in the lower-48 U.S. states (which has been going on for about 20 years) hasn't led to any attacks on humans at all. If you include Alaska, which has a native wolf population, there's been exactly one wolf fatality in the U.S. in the entire period since WW2. As for crocodiles: There's quite a bit of effort being expended to protect the declining crocodile population in Florida, so I don't think it'd be categorically out of the question.
  - whatusername 11y ago
    Four fatalities in Australia last year for Crocodiles.. http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/northern-territory/record-year-for-fatal-crocodile-attacks-in-northern-territory/story-fnk0b1zt-1227171287223 http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/northern-territory/record-year...
  - mikekchar 11y ago
    I didn't know Florida had crocodiles (I lived for a year in Tallahassee so I only saw alligators). Wikipedia tells me that there has only been one reported human attack in Florida ever. So pretty low risk. I grew up in Canada and especially when I lived near Ottawa, I heard wolves fairly frequently. I never saw one. Personally, I'm quite happy to live near them. The risk is incredibly low compared to pretty much anything you would care to mention with respect to living in a man made environment. According to Snopes, on average 1 person a year is killed in the US by lightning hitting them through telephone lines. Wikipedia tells me that 7600 people were killed by wolves in Europe... in the period from 1362 to 1918. I'm willing to believe that the numbers are under reported (damn middle ages where people were too illiterate to file a police report), but I think the risks are pretty negligable. I suspect that even if Scotland reintroduces wolves, you will still be at higher risk of dying by getting hit by lightning through the telephone lines.
mapt 11y ago
You know, we could avoid a lot of the culturally ingrained fear of wolves if we instead "returned Labrador Retrievers to the wild", and let feral packs of them roam Scotland pursuing deer. So cute.
- Gupie 11y ago
  Nice image but in reality labradors, unlike wolves, don't have a innate fear of humans so feral labradors would be much more dangerous than wild wolves.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  Maybe we just need to rebrand wolves. Rename them "Finnish Labradors". Hey, it worked for the Chilean sea bass.
peteretep 11y ago
Oooh, maybe we could rewild polio and TB too!
- ableal 11y ago
  Too soon. Maybe in a couple of centuries, if there are any suitable hosts around by then, so they can properly exercise their biodefense whatevers.
intellix 11y ago
The rabbits are on strike
sandworm101 11y ago
Britain and Japan, both island nations where anything remotely threatening was wiped out long ago. The largest predator in Japan is the salamander. A meter-long specimen will make news. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/10965843/Giant-salamander-discovered-on-walk-to-school-in-Japan.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/1096... What's the largest predator in Britain? The badger? The fox? Or that housecat everyone thought was a lion. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-19397686 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-19397686 Talk to anyone in the pacific northwest. If you take only the slightest precautions you have nothing to fear from the wolves, cougars and bears. You are far more likely to be eaten by a fellow human. You are more likely to be killed by deer. They are already all over Britain. So the wolves will in all probability reduce the number of animal-related deaths. http://www.therichest.com/animals/top-10-animals-that-kill-humans/ http://www.therichest.com/animals/top-10-animals-that-kill-h...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- chroma 11y ago
  > Talk to anyone in the pacific northwest. If you take only the slightest precautions you have nothing to fear from the wolves, cougars and bears. I lived in Washington for six years, and I can say that's simply not true. Protecting yourself from predators involves significant work. It's just that everyone is used to it. When camping, you have to store food and toiletries in bear canisters. You have to check for reports of bear activity. You carry bear spray. Some even carry a gun. Despite these preparations, there's the constant anxiety of knowing you might encounter a predator. It really sours the outdoor experience. > So the wolves will in all probability reduce the number of animal-related deaths. Wolves aren't the only way to cull the deer population. When it comes to reintroducing wolves, everyone agrees the risk to humans is low. Almost nobody is going to be killed by wolves. But that argument proves too much. Almost nobody falls victim to serial killers. We still try to reduce the number of serial killers to zero.
  - anon4 11y ago
barking 11y ago
In the 17th century one of the nicknames some English people had for Ireland was Wolfland. The century following the Cromwellian conquest saw a bounty-led drive to exterminate wolves with the last one being killed in 1786. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_in_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_in_Ireland
smackay 11y ago
The environmental benefits of re-introducing wolves are well described. However, with more and more people packed into the south of England, the economic benefits from tourism are going to be enormous. For example the re-introduction of the White-tailed Eagle benefits the economy of the island of Mull to the tune of 5 million UK pounds per year. http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/wildlifeatwork_tcm9-282134.pdf http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/wildlifeatwork_tcm9-282134.pdf
- davedx 11y ago
  Ahh Mull! We are visiting Oban next week (big trip - we're coming over from the Netherlands via the ferry), and I'm going to try and get over to Mull, Iona and maybe even Staffa in our own car. I remember seeing the eagles from the bus when I did the Three Islands Tour years ago. I'm really excited for the kids to see the islands, just hope the weather allows it. :)
  - arethuza 11y ago
    If you go to Iona take your kids to Port Ban - just a wee bit up from the Bay at the Back of the Ocean - possibly the most perfect wee pure white shell sand beach anywhere.
  - andyjohnson0 11y ago
    Mull is a wonderful place, and imo the Autumn is the best time to visit. Much quieter than mid-Summer. Calgary Bay is beautiful at this time of year - there will be very few people around. There is a nice cafe at the old hotel, and the Calgary Art in Nature [1] is a great place to wander around. If you're going to Staffa - which I'd definitely recommend - its best to go from the Ulva ferry on the west coast. The sea trip is much shorter than from Tobermory, which helps if the weather is bad, and you get to spend more time on the island. We used Turus Mara [2], who I'd recommend. Hope you have a good trip! [1] http://www.calgary.co.uk/art.html http://www.calgary.co.uk/art.html [2] http://www.turusmara.com/ http://www.turusmara.com/
    - arethuza 11y ago
arethuza 11y ago
There are some great charities trying to restore the ancient woodlands of Scotland - the Trees for Life site has a lot of good information about some of the issues relating to high deer populations: http://treesforlife.org.uk/ http://treesforlife.org.uk/
cskau 11y ago
Wolves also returned (naturally I believe) to Denmark last year: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/11213512/Wolves-roaming-wild-in-Denmark-for-first-time-in-200-years.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/112...
- JulianMorrison 11y ago
  The European mainland is big on intentional rewilding, but a lot of the time the animals simply walk. Britain, obviously, is kind of stuffed for that. (In fact, we have been since Doggerland flooded, which is why even at peak biodiversity in this interglacial, Britain was a bit short on wildlife compared to the continent.)
techterrier 11y ago
Lack of wolves and bears has caused some interesting side effects in Southern England where I live. Namely, the deer population has exploded as their only predator is now the motorcar. It's pretty cool seeing massive flocks of them and the occasional close encounter on my mountain bike; I once fed one some lettuce from a sandwich. On the other hand, they are eating all the woods, starting with the saplings which is causing real harm to the sustainability of forests. Predictably, the notion of culling some is very controversial, especially from nature loving people. But the alternative is bringing back the wolves. The wolves will do lots of wolfy things like killing dogs and eating livestock and be equally controversial. (edit: SPAG)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jnty 11y ago
  It's not remotely controversial in Scotland - estates effectively have legal requirements for the numbers of deer they need to shoot each year to keep the population even vaguely under control (in fact, many campaigners complain that estate populations are allowed to keep deer populations too high to improve the commercial hunting.) This is generally accepted because, as you say, they have no natural predators. Is the situation different in England? I didn't realise it was.
  - gambiting 11y ago
    I think what he means is, that while it's not controversial with anyone who actually owns property in Scotland, there's a huge public disapproval of any hunting, the purpose doesn't matter. Deer would need to be literally eating babies for any newspaper to run a story saying that shooting them is good, otherwise people immediately complain that such inhumane acts are done.
  - techterrier 11y ago
    They aren't really hunted down here for sport. There's also the differing land uses - mostly arable when I am. That means that culls can be painted as "horrible farmers want to kill bambi" when the situation is more complicated. Deer can be eating crops and forests at the same time.
m-i-l 11y ago
It is interesting how something considered harmful can have beneficial effects. In this case reintroducing wolves could control the deer population and help the re-establish some of the Caledonian Forest. There was another example I read recently: the Indian Vulture Crisis[0]. Apparently the vulture population in India has been declining dramatically. I wouldn't have thought vultures were particularly good, but their declining population has led to all sorts of significant issues such as an explosion in the number of wild dogs and the spread of disease. It has been traced to the administration of an anti-inflammatory called diclofenac to livestock. Nature has many complex interactions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_vulture_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_vulture_crisis

60 points by nols 11y ago

Here is a HN submission (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8448929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8448929) for the How Wolves Change Rivers video that is mentioned in this article. (It was posted exactly a year ago, a coincidental anniversary of the topic here on HN). There are some good discussions and great links to related content including the TED talk on 'rewilding' by George Monbiot who narrates the How Wolves Change Rivers video.

dalke 11y ago
The article goes on to say: > Yet David Mech, a biologist who has worked extensively in Yellowstone, advises that such simple narrative arcs are hard to find in something as messy as an ecosystem. Mech does not discount all of Monbiot's claims, but cautions that as much harm could come to the wolf from being marketed as the poster boy of the environmental movement as it did in the era when it was hated and feared. One of the narratives in a re-wilding context is that human are not part of the "wild." Yet in post-glacial areas like Scotland and Yellowstone, where humans arrived shortly after the ice melted, the ecosystem developed with humans as one of the apex predators. We see this in Australia, for example at http://climatechange.umaine.edu/Research/Contrib/pdf/pdfFiles/contribution%2013.pdf http://climatechange.umaine.edu/Research/Contrib/pdf/pdfFile... : > For thousands of years, desert Aborigines have set fire to the arid savanna, creating an environmental patchwork to which much of the desert plant and animals are specifically adapted. Where Aborigines have been removed from their lands, the desert patchwork has often been obliterated with devastatingly large wildfires. Humans are left out of the rewilding equation because I think it's drawing from a romantic tradition of what the wild is supposed to be.
- JulianMorrison 11y ago
  To be fair, "humans" covers quite different ground when you're talking about on the one hand, spear hunters and shifting-cultivation agriculturists, and on the other, industrial agribusiness, roads and concrete.
  - dalke 11y ago
    You're right. Somewhere in my edits I dropped out the important term "Neolithic". ... Though perhaps 'Stone Age' would be more appropriate given the long time that humans were an apex species.
    - JulianMorrison 11y ago
      It's probably a bit messy, because we started deforestation in the mesolithic I think, and we had an uneasy standoff with megafaunal predators well into the iron age. From Wikipedia: With the advent of agriculture, larger areas began to be deforested, and fire became the prime tool to clear land for crops. In Europe there is little solid evidence before 7000 BC. Mesolithic foragers used fire to create openings for red deer and wild boar. In Great Britain, shade-tolerant species such as oak and ash are replaced in the pollen record by hazels, brambles, grasses and nettles. Removal of the forests led to decreased transpiration, resulting in the formation of upland peat bogs. Widespread decrease in elm pollen across Europe between 8400–8300 BC and 7200–7000 BC, starting in southern Europe and gradually moving north to Great Britain, may represent land clearing by fire at the onset of Neolithic agriculture.
      - dalke 11y ago
        Good quote. Yes, another aspect of this is which wild do we want to have? Which is why Pleistocene rewilding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_rewilding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_rewilding ) is a thing. From that page: > Opponents argue that there has been more than enough time for communities to evolve in the absence of mega-fauna, and thus the reintroduction of large mammals could thwart ecosystem dynamics and possibly cause collapse. Life is messy.
  - e12e 11y ago
    This discussion and the term "rewilding" reminds me of Kim Stanley Robinson's excellent Nebula Award winning novel "2312" - and the "reanimation" project which is part of the complex web of plot lines. One of a few recent books that embody the best part of what I consider "classic science fiction" (whatever that might mean :-). https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11830394-2312 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11830394-2312
- arethuza 11y ago
  The complex history of the Highlands doesn't help either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances
  - dalke 11y ago
    I liked the line "typical example... of social engineering which met neither the hopes of the benefactors nor the needs of the beneficiaries, but produced social disaster." In 100 years time, will 'rewilding' create a new version of that quote, replacing 'social' with 'ecosystem'?

chroma 11y ago

"To be lying in your tent in the middle of nowhere and to hear a wolf cry. Now that must be quite something." The first time? Maybe. It quickly becomes distracting, annoying, and (depending on the distance) frightening. The only decent argument I can find for reintroducing wolves is that it would help keep wild deer in check. But the costs of wolves are far higher than the costs of too many deer. Deer don't kill livestock or humans. And of course, wolves aren't the only solution to reducing the deer population. They can be culled in other ways. The whole thing seems like a non-starter to me. I think most who are in favor of reintroducing wolves are just infatuated with charismatic megafauna. "Wolves look cool and they used to be on the island, so let's bring 'em back." …or something like that. Then they rationalize their conclusion with arguments about tourism and culling deer. What if instead of wolves, it was crocodiles that had been eradicated from Scotland? I seriously doubt there would be as many supporters, yet the same arguments for reintroduction apply.

_delirium 11y ago
Killing livestock is an issue, but killing humans isn't really; it's essentially in the "freak accident" category, and less common than even most rare sources of freak accidents. So far, at least, the reintroduction process in the lower-48 U.S. states (which has been going on for about 20 years) hasn't led to any attacks on humans at all. If you include Alaska, which has a native wolf population, there's been exactly one wolf fatality in the U.S. in the entire period since WW2. As for crocodiles: There's quite a bit of effort being expended to protect the declining crocodile population in Florida, so I don't think it'd be categorically out of the question.
- whatusername 11y ago
  Four fatalities in Australia last year for Crocodiles.. http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/northern-territory/record-year-for-fatal-crocodile-attacks-in-northern-territory/story-fnk0b1zt-1227171287223 http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/northern-territory/record-year...
- mikekchar 11y ago
  I didn't know Florida had crocodiles (I lived for a year in Tallahassee so I only saw alligators). Wikipedia tells me that there has only been one reported human attack in Florida ever. So pretty low risk. I grew up in Canada and especially when I lived near Ottawa, I heard wolves fairly frequently. I never saw one. Personally, I'm quite happy to live near them. The risk is incredibly low compared to pretty much anything you would care to mention with respect to living in a man made environment. According to Snopes, on average 1 person a year is killed in the US by lightning hitting them through telephone lines. Wikipedia tells me that 7600 people were killed by wolves in Europe... in the period from 1362 to 1918. I'm willing to believe that the numbers are under reported (damn middle ages where people were too illiterate to file a police report), but I think the risks are pretty negligable. I suspect that even if Scotland reintroduces wolves, you will still be at higher risk of dying by getting hit by lightning through the telephone lines.

mapt 11y ago

You know, we could avoid a lot of the culturally ingrained fear of wolves if we instead "returned Labrador Retrievers to the wild", and let feral packs of them roam Scotland pursuing deer. So cute.

Gupie 11y ago
Nice image but in reality labradors, unlike wolves, don't have a innate fear of humans so feral labradors would be much more dangerous than wild wolves.
sliverstorm 11y ago
Maybe we just need to rebrand wolves. Rename them "Finnish Labradors". Hey, it worked for the Chilean sea bass.

peteretep 11y ago

Oooh, maybe we could rewild polio and TB too!

ableal 11y ago
Too soon. Maybe in a couple of centuries, if there are any suitable hosts around by then, so they can properly exercise their biodefense whatevers.

intellix 11y ago

The rabbits are on strike

sandworm101 11y ago

Britain and Japan, both island nations where anything remotely threatening was wiped out long ago. The largest predator in Japan is the salamander. A meter-long specimen will make news. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/10965843/Giant-salamander-discovered-on-walk-to-school-in-Japan.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/1096... What's the largest predator in Britain? The badger? The fox? Or that housecat everyone thought was a lion. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-19397686 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-19397686 Talk to anyone in the pacific northwest. If you take only the slightest precautions you have nothing to fear from the wolves, cougars and bears. You are far more likely to be eaten by a fellow human. You are more likely to be killed by deer. They are already all over Britain. So the wolves will in all probability reduce the number of animal-related deaths. http://www.therichest.com/animals/top-10-animals-that-kill-humans/ http://www.therichest.com/animals/top-10-animals-that-kill-h...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
chroma 11y ago
> Talk to anyone in the pacific northwest. If you take only the slightest precautions you have nothing to fear from the wolves, cougars and bears. I lived in Washington for six years, and I can say that's simply not true. Protecting yourself from predators involves significant work. It's just that everyone is used to it. When camping, you have to store food and toiletries in bear canisters. You have to check for reports of bear activity. You carry bear spray. Some even carry a gun. Despite these preparations, there's the constant anxiety of knowing you might encounter a predator. It really sours the outdoor experience. > So the wolves will in all probability reduce the number of animal-related deaths. Wolves aren't the only way to cull the deer population. When it comes to reintroducing wolves, everyone agrees the risk to humans is low. Almost nobody is going to be killed by wolves. But that argument proves too much. Almost nobody falls victim to serial killers. We still try to reduce the number of serial killers to zero.
- anon4 11y ago

barking 11y ago

In the 17th century one of the nicknames some English people had for Ireland was Wolfland. The century following the Cromwellian conquest saw a bounty-led drive to exterminate wolves with the last one being killed in 1786. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_in_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_in_Ireland

smackay 11y ago

The environmental benefits of re-introducing wolves are well described. However, with more and more people packed into the south of England, the economic benefits from tourism are going to be enormous. For example the re-introduction of the White-tailed Eagle benefits the economy of the island of Mull to the tune of 5 million UK pounds per year. http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/wildlifeatwork_tcm9-282134.pdf http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/wildlifeatwork_tcm9-282134.pdf

davedx 11y ago
Ahh Mull! We are visiting Oban next week (big trip - we're coming over from the Netherlands via the ferry), and I'm going to try and get over to Mull, Iona and maybe even Staffa in our own car. I remember seeing the eagles from the bus when I did the Three Islands Tour years ago. I'm really excited for the kids to see the islands, just hope the weather allows it. :)
- arethuza 11y ago
  If you go to Iona take your kids to Port Ban - just a wee bit up from the Bay at the Back of the Ocean - possibly the most perfect wee pure white shell sand beach anywhere.
- andyjohnson0 11y ago
  Mull is a wonderful place, and imo the Autumn is the best time to visit. Much quieter than mid-Summer. Calgary Bay is beautiful at this time of year - there will be very few people around. There is a nice cafe at the old hotel, and the Calgary Art in Nature [1] is a great place to wander around. If you're going to Staffa - which I'd definitely recommend - its best to go from the Ulva ferry on the west coast. The sea trip is much shorter than from Tobermory, which helps if the weather is bad, and you get to spend more time on the island. We used Turus Mara [2], who I'd recommend. Hope you have a good trip! [1] http://www.calgary.co.uk/art.html http://www.calgary.co.uk/art.html [2] http://www.turusmara.com/ http://www.turusmara.com/
  - arethuza 11y ago

arethuza 11y ago

There are some great charities trying to restore the ancient woodlands of Scotland - the Trees for Life site has a lot of good information about some of the issues relating to high deer populations: http://treesforlife.org.uk/ http://treesforlife.org.uk/

cskau 11y ago

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

JulianMorrison 11y ago
The European mainland is big on intentional rewilding, but a lot of the time the animals simply walk. Britain, obviously, is kind of stuffed for that. (In fact, we have been since Doggerland flooded, which is why even at peak biodiversity in this interglacial, Britain was a bit short on wildlife compared to the continent.)

techterrier 11y ago

Lack of wolves and bears has caused some interesting side effects in Southern England where I live. Namely, the deer population has exploded as their only predator is now the motorcar. It's pretty cool seeing massive flocks of them and the occasional close encounter on my mountain bike; I once fed one some lettuce from a sandwich. On the other hand, they are eating all the woods, starting with the saplings which is causing real harm to the sustainability of forests. Predictably, the notion of culling some is very controversial, especially from nature loving people. But the alternative is bringing back the wolves. The wolves will do lots of wolfy things like killing dogs and eating livestock and be equally controversial. (edit: SPAG)

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jnty 11y ago
It's not remotely controversial in Scotland - estates effectively have legal requirements for the numbers of deer they need to shoot each year to keep the population even vaguely under control (in fact, many campaigners complain that estate populations are allowed to keep deer populations too high to improve the commercial hunting.) This is generally accepted because, as you say, they have no natural predators. Is the situation different in England? I didn't realise it was.
- gambiting 11y ago
  I think what he means is, that while it's not controversial with anyone who actually owns property in Scotland, there's a huge public disapproval of any hunting, the purpose doesn't matter. Deer would need to be literally eating babies for any newspaper to run a story saying that shooting them is good, otherwise people immediately complain that such inhumane acts are done.
- techterrier 11y ago
  They aren't really hunted down here for sport. There's also the differing land uses - mostly arable when I am. That means that culls can be painted as "horrible farmers want to kill bambi" when the situation is more complicated. Deer can be eating crops and forests at the same time.

m-i-l 11y ago

It is interesting how something considered harmful can have beneficial effects. In this case reintroducing wolves could control the deer population and help the re-establish some of the Caledonian Forest. There was another example I read recently: the Indian Vulture Crisis[0]. Apparently the vulture population in India has been declining dramatically. I wouldn't have thought vultures were particularly good, but their declining population has led to all sorts of significant issues such as an explosion in the number of wild dogs and the spread of disease. It has been traced to the administration of an anti-inflammatory called diclofenac to livestock. Nature has many complex interactions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_vulture_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_vulture_crisis