4 ms·

European (especially British) "rewilding" "politics" is still in pretty early stages of maturity. Some of the language in this article is kind of demonstrative

by netcan 6y ago

European (especially British) "rewilding" "politics" is still in pretty early stages of maturity. Some of the language in this article is kind of demonstrative of this. "* This method of conservation aims to let large areas of land return to wilderness – in other words, a state of zero human intervention.*" This is quite clearly hopelessly idealistic. Robust ecosystems that sustain macrofauna are achievable (and necessary, IMO) but "untouched" is not. That sort of idealism is not a problem, but it does set up some issues in terms of getting everyone on board. Large grazers, bears, wolves, even lynx come into conflict with humans. This is reality. That conflict can be managed and mitigated such that we coexist, but we need to develop a models and cultures that allow this. Scottish farmers don't want wolves. They're not going to come on board with a naive effort. Even lynx are a tough sell, but it's a better place to start than wolves. I'm actually optimistic though. Despite some naive gaffs (especially in the UK & Germany), there's a genuine public interest growing. Birds of prey are back. Cyanide is a cultural faux pas. We should look east and west for ideas. Eastern Europe, and obviously Russia have a continuous culture of coexisting with large and potentially dangerous animals. Americans and Canadians have had some great successes reversing exterpations. George Monbiot has been very influential, and I like his book, but he is a hard liner. He draws heavily on the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction. That's a fine example, but I think it has led to an overly idealistic perspective. A large, pristine and remote park isn't the only way and its probably unrealistic in most of western europe.

grawprog 6y ago
>This is quite clearly hopelessly idealistic. Robust ecosystems that sustain macrofauna are achievable (and necessary, IMO) but "untouched" is not. That sort of idealism is not a problem, but it does set up some issues in terms of getting everyone on board. >Large grazers, bears, wolves, even lynx come into conflict with humans. This is reality. That conflict can be managed and mitigated such that we coexist, but we need to develop a models and cultures that allow this. Scottish farmers don't want wolves. They're not going to come on board with a naive effort. Even lynx are a tough sell, but it's a better place to start than wolves >Americans and Canadians have had some great successes reversing exterpations. One of the more high profile examples in the last ten-fifteen years are the wolf populations in Yellowstone. https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolf-restoration.htm https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolf-restoration.htm One of the biggest issues they faced and maybe still do are conflicts between ranchers, farmers and hunters outside the border of the park. To the point where people would camp just outside the park with rifles and wait for any that would stray over the border. Cattle ranchers in the area were the biggest opponents to the reintroduction, they also already deal with brucellosis issues because of the bison in the park, likewise, the bison in the park have a brucellosis problem because of the cattle ranches. It took years of negotiations with landowners in the area, a lot of enforcement for poaching and constant tracking and population studies on the wolves themselves to get the success they had.
tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
Most people live in cities, which makes them think of wolves as a cute, awesome, protect-at-all-cost animal with no downsides. The farmers are in the minority, which means the problem has to become pretty bad to get the majority of the public on their side.
- User23 6y ago
  Wolves will eat your children if they feel bold enough, it's not just about livestock. There's a reason they feature so prominently in folklore.
  - hannob 6y ago
    I heard one number in the discussion in Germany (where in some areas the wolves discussion runs wild) which I found interesting: The number of people killed by wolves in Germany in recent years is zero, the number of people killed by dogs is around 3-4 per year.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - bttrfl 6y ago
    So will people. And they too have their place in folklore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretel_%26_Hansel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretel_%26_Hansel not to mention blood libel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel Here's a list, not sure if complete, of wolf attacks (worldwide): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks Compare it with 1,494 child homicides in the United States alone just in 2008 and decide for yourself which species is a bigger threat to your children.
- dkarl 6y ago
  The majority of the public might not be enough in a democracy, depending on the political structure. A passionate and engaged minority can stop something that a majority passively approves of, plus there are issues of regional control that might make it difficult for an urban majority to dictate policy in rural areas.
User23 6y ago
> We should look east and west for ideas. Eastern Europe, and obviously Russia have a continuous culture of coexisting with large and potentially dangerous animals. Eastern Europe and especially Russia are rather a lot less densely populated than Western Europe and that factor dominates all others when it comes to coexistence between humans and wild animals.

by netcan 6y ago

grawprog 6y ago

>This is quite clearly hopelessly idealistic. Robust ecosystems that sustain macrofauna are achievable (and necessary, IMO) but "untouched" is not. That sort of idealism is not a problem, but it does set up some issues in terms of getting everyone on board. >Large grazers, bears, wolves, even lynx come into conflict with humans. This is reality. That conflict can be managed and mitigated such that we coexist, but we need to develop a models and cultures that allow this. Scottish farmers don't want wolves. They're not going to come on board with a naive effort. Even lynx are a tough sell, but it's a better place to start than wolves >Americans and Canadians have had some great successes reversing exterpations. One of the more high profile examples in the last ten-fifteen years are the wolf populations in Yellowstone. https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolf-restoration.htm https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolf-restoration.htm One of the biggest issues they faced and maybe still do are conflicts between ranchers, farmers and hunters outside the border of the park. To the point where people would camp just outside the park with rifles and wait for any that would stray over the border. Cattle ranchers in the area were the biggest opponents to the reintroduction, they also already deal with brucellosis issues because of the bison in the park, likewise, the bison in the park have a brucellosis problem because of the cattle ranches. It took years of negotiations with landowners in the area, a lot of enforcement for poaching and constant tracking and population studies on the wolves themselves to get the success they had.

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago

Most people live in cities, which makes them think of wolves as a cute, awesome, protect-at-all-cost animal with no downsides. The farmers are in the minority, which means the problem has to become pretty bad to get the majority of the public on their side.

User23 6y ago
Wolves will eat your children if they feel bold enough, it's not just about livestock. There's a reason they feature so prominently in folklore.
- hannob 6y ago
  I heard one number in the discussion in Germany (where in some areas the wolves discussion runs wild) which I found interesting: The number of people killed by wolves in Germany in recent years is zero, the number of people killed by dogs is around 3-4 per year.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- bttrfl 6y ago
  So will people. And they too have their place in folklore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretel_%26_Hansel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretel_%26_Hansel not to mention blood libel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel Here's a list, not sure if complete, of wolf attacks (worldwide): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks Compare it with 1,494 child homicides in the United States alone just in 2008 and decide for yourself which species is a bigger threat to your children.
dkarl 6y ago
The majority of the public might not be enough in a democracy, depending on the political structure. A passionate and engaged minority can stop something that a majority passively approves of, plus there are issues of regional control that might make it difficult for an urban majority to dictate policy in rural areas.

User23 6y ago

> We should look east and west for ideas. Eastern Europe, and obviously Russia have a continuous culture of coexisting with large and potentially dangerous animals. Eastern Europe and especially Russia are rather a lot less densely populated than Western Europe and that factor dominates all others when it comes to coexistence between humans and wild animals.