5 ms·

"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 distrac

by 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.
- anon4 11y ago
  Of all the predators native to the various habitats of Earth, the one I fear the most is homo sapiens...
thaumasiotes 11y ago
Yeah, you see similar attitudes (on the part of Americans) towards maneating tigers in India, or lions in Africa. People don't get that the wolves are gone because we killed them, on purpose. I actually read a history of China that contained the following nugget: tigers were, naturally, an object of reverence in the north and south. But feelings in the south were more mixed... because in the south, coming face-to-face with a tiger was a real possibility. Regardless of notional divinity, nobody wants that. Related: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe-we-dont-cry-for-lions.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe-we-don...
- rurounijones 11y ago
  > People don't get that the wolves are gone because we killed them, on purpose. The implication there is that we had good reasons to kill them which is very reasonable; but do those reasons still exist in the modern world that would preclude them from being introduced?
  - slavik81 11y ago
    The main conflict is the same as it ever was. Many farmers hate them because wolves kill livestock. Though, perhaps we can more easily afford the losses now. I found The Economist's 2012 special on the reintroduction of the wolf to be quite informative: http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568656-after-millennia-spent-exterminating-them-humanity-protecting-wolves-numbers-have-risen http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568656-after-mille...
    - JulianMorrison 11y ago
      This is one reason why lynx are often suggested as a first big predator to reintroduce. They keep to forests, while sheep graze on open ground. Sheep can be protected with fences (keeping them from spreading too thin), livestock guardian dogs, and active shepherding. Farmers just resent the effort.
smcl 11y ago
Deer are kept at artificially high levels in Scotland. A more suitable way to keep them "in check" would be to just let nature take its course on the deer population and on the countryside itself. But then that wouldn't sit well with the landed gentry who think it's a jolly good lark to go out shooting with the boys. Ho hum.
- tomwalker 11y ago
  Do you have a source for this? Red deer have no natural predators just now and plenty of food - they will continue to increase in number. You will also find that a lot of those that stalk deer are not "the gentry".
  - phillc73 11y ago
    I don't believe they are kept at artificially high numbers, but their population is actively managed. Culls often remove poor specimens, such as switches, to improve the wild stock. It does make sense to manage the Scottish red deer population through limited hunting of both stags and hinds in the relevant seasons. Red deer are a valuable source of revenue for the highlands, both in direct fees associated with stalking, but also from tourist Pounds invested in local communities and employment.[1] I can appreciate why there is some concern regarding the potential introduction of wolves and their effect on the deer population. However, I think that also needs to be considered in light of the economic benefits of such a re-wilding. How much revenue would wolf hunting and tourism bring to the highlands? [1] http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S4/SB_13-74.pdf http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsh...
- charlieegan3 11y ago
  I think you may be thinking of game birds.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    Huge areas in the Highlands are run as sporting estates for deer stalking, fishing and shooting - rather ironically these are called "deer forests" even though the deer have eaten most of the of the trees apart those fenced off or on islands in lochs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_forest
brillenfux 11y ago
Predators are usually not that good for keeping animal populations in check. They often kill more than they can eat and leave the rest alone[1]. If you introduce predators for population control you would have to introduce scavengers as well. Otherwise rangers will have to clean up after them or the carcasses become a problem. In the end you would need a whole and healthy ecosystem for this to work out correctly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing
- JulianMorrison 11y ago
  Britain has scavengers. Foxes, crows, rooks, etc. In fact it's expected that the scrap that large predators leave will help revitalize those parts of the ecosystem too.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Amezarak 11y ago
> Deer don't kill livestock or humans. Deer (and large herbivores in general) kill plenty of people. Statistically, they are more dangerous than any other animal (e.g. snakes, bears, sharks, alligators) in the US or Europe. The only thing I suspect might be more dangerous is insects such as bees and wasps that people have allergies to. In 2012, deer caused $4 billion in damages and killed about 200 people in the US. Of course, many more than that were seriously injured. http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/10/24/267786.htm http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/10/24/267...
- JulianMorrison 11y ago
  They're spiky, grumpy, and they run in front of cars. People seem to equate predator with dangerous, but many of the world's most dangerous animals are herbivores.
e12e 11y ago
I'm not so sure deer doesn't kill (or at least injure) humans -- surely there must be many roadkill incidents in which humans are injured (as well as the deer)?

by chroma 11y ago

_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.
anon4 11y ago
Of all the predators native to the various habitats of Earth, the one I fear the most is homo sapiens...

thaumasiotes 11y ago

Yeah, you see similar attitudes (on the part of Americans) towards maneating tigers in India, or lions in Africa. People don't get that the wolves are gone because we killed them, on purpose. I actually read a history of China that contained the following nugget: tigers were, naturally, an object of reverence in the north and south. But feelings in the south were more mixed... because in the south, coming face-to-face with a tiger was a real possibility. Regardless of notional divinity, nobody wants that. Related: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe-we-dont-cry-for-lions.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe-we-don...

rurounijones 11y ago
> People don't get that the wolves are gone because we killed them, on purpose. The implication there is that we had good reasons to kill them which is very reasonable; but do those reasons still exist in the modern world that would preclude them from being introduced?
- slavik81 11y ago
  The main conflict is the same as it ever was. Many farmers hate them because wolves kill livestock. Though, perhaps we can more easily afford the losses now. I found The Economist's 2012 special on the reintroduction of the wolf to be quite informative: http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568656-after-millennia-spent-exterminating-them-humanity-protecting-wolves-numbers-have-risen http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568656-after-mille...
  - JulianMorrison 11y ago
    This is one reason why lynx are often suggested as a first big predator to reintroduce. They keep to forests, while sheep graze on open ground. Sheep can be protected with fences (keeping them from spreading too thin), livestock guardian dogs, and active shepherding. Farmers just resent the effort.

smcl 11y ago

Deer are kept at artificially high levels in Scotland. A more suitable way to keep them "in check" would be to just let nature take its course on the deer population and on the countryside itself. But then that wouldn't sit well with the landed gentry who think it's a jolly good lark to go out shooting with the boys. Ho hum.

tomwalker 11y ago
Do you have a source for this? Red deer have no natural predators just now and plenty of food - they will continue to increase in number. You will also find that a lot of those that stalk deer are not "the gentry".
- phillc73 11y ago
  I don't believe they are kept at artificially high numbers, but their population is actively managed. Culls often remove poor specimens, such as switches, to improve the wild stock. It does make sense to manage the Scottish red deer population through limited hunting of both stags and hinds in the relevant seasons. Red deer are a valuable source of revenue for the highlands, both in direct fees associated with stalking, but also from tourist Pounds invested in local communities and employment.[1] I can appreciate why there is some concern regarding the potential introduction of wolves and their effect on the deer population. However, I think that also needs to be considered in light of the economic benefits of such a re-wilding. How much revenue would wolf hunting and tourism bring to the highlands? [1] http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S4/SB_13-74.pdf http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsh...
charlieegan3 11y ago
I think you may be thinking of game birds.
- arethuza 11y ago
  Huge areas in the Highlands are run as sporting estates for deer stalking, fishing and shooting - rather ironically these are called "deer forests" even though the deer have eaten most of the of the trees apart those fenced off or on islands in lochs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_forest

brillenfux 11y ago

Predators are usually not that good for keeping animal populations in check. They often kill more than they can eat and leave the rest alone[1]. If you introduce predators for population control you would have to introduce scavengers as well. Otherwise rangers will have to clean up after them or the carcasses become a problem. In the end you would need a whole and healthy ecosystem for this to work out correctly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing

JulianMorrison 11y ago
Britain has scavengers. Foxes, crows, rooks, etc. In fact it's expected that the scrap that large predators leave will help revitalize those parts of the ecosystem too.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Amezarak 11y ago

> Deer don't kill livestock or humans. Deer (and large herbivores in general) kill plenty of people. Statistically, they are more dangerous than any other animal (e.g. snakes, bears, sharks, alligators) in the US or Europe. The only thing I suspect might be more dangerous is insects such as bees and wasps that people have allergies to. In 2012, deer caused $4 billion in damages and killed about 200 people in the US. Of course, many more than that were seriously injured. http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/10/24/267786.htm http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/10/24/267...

JulianMorrison 11y ago
They're spiky, grumpy, and they run in front of cars. People seem to equate predator with dangerous, but many of the world's most dangerous animals are herbivores.

e12e 11y ago

I'm not so sure deer doesn't kill (or at least injure) humans -- surely there must be many roadkill incidents in which humans are injured (as well as the deer)?