3 ms·

Sheep farming is pretty uneconomic in the UK, and sheep are destructive beasts so lynx reducing their numbers might be a good thing

namenotrequired 6y ago
> Sheep farming is pretty uneconomic in the UK So it makes sense the farmers would be opposed to anything that may eat their tiny profit margins
- ggm 6y ago
  if they were wise, they'd see the lynx-kill as a guaranteed income (albiet possibly below full market rate) and thus, a hedge: I believe most successful re-wildings of predators include compensation, so really, when you think about it, its not a huge loss overall. Not a very romantic view I agree, if you're staring at a field of dead lambs and mothers, but farmers need to be philosophical these days. A lot of Australian farmers leave the land shortly after having to shoot stock in drought. Is this really worse?
- pvaldes 6y ago
  This is unclear and farmers could find that they were wrong about it. Wouldn't be the first time. Farmers lose small sheep to foxes. Lynx clean an area of foxes and defend bigger territories. Yes a couple of lynx can kill a lamb here and there, but currently they have yet twelve foxes in the same area trying to do the same all the time and living under the farm basement, so... what option looks better for the farmers? My bet would be "much less foxes and a lynx"
rmah 6y ago
Um, then why are there 22.5 mil sheep in the UK for just 67mil people? Contrast this to 5.2 mil sheep in the US for 330 mil people. It must be at least marginally profitable for so many sheep to be raised in the UK (or are agriculture subsidies really that large and widespread in the UK?)
- ggm 6y ago
  Yes. farming subsidies are huge. 55% of farming income is derived from the CAP (pre-brexit) and the UK is a net importer of sheep meat. Lamb is not popular in the US. It's a speciality meat. Lamb is common across europe. Also: Australia: 75m sheep for 25m people Also: New Zealand: 25m sheep for 5m people This quote: A sheep farmer from North York Moors national park in northern England, who owns about 700 sheep over 1,250 acres, makes around £12,000 profit in a good year, and even this small income would be impossible without subsidies worth about £44,000 from the EU Common Agricultural Policy. https://www.surgeactivism.org/articles/uk-farming-subsidies-and-brexit-explained https://www.surgeactivism.org/articles/uk-farming-subsidies-...
- youngtaff 6y ago
  UK is a net exported of lamb (or was prior to Brexit) - https://ahdb.org.uk/news/uk-lamb-self-sufficiency-and-impacts-of-brexit https://ahdb.org.uk/news/uk-lamb-self-sufficiency-and-impact... Sheep farming is mainly done on uplands and requires massive subsidies to give farmers a ‘liveable’ income To my mind it's far better to stop farming sheep and pay the farmers to rewild the hills Alternatively we could just stop subsidising sheep farmers let them go bust and the hills will rewild themselves

namenotrequired 6y ago

> Sheep farming is pretty uneconomic in the UK So it makes sense the farmers would be opposed to anything that may eat their tiny profit margins

ggm 6y ago
if they were wise, they'd see the lynx-kill as a guaranteed income (albiet possibly below full market rate) and thus, a hedge: I believe most successful re-wildings of predators include compensation, so really, when you think about it, its not a huge loss overall. Not a very romantic view I agree, if you're staring at a field of dead lambs and mothers, but farmers need to be philosophical these days. A lot of Australian farmers leave the land shortly after having to shoot stock in drought. Is this really worse?
pvaldes 6y ago
This is unclear and farmers could find that they were wrong about it. Wouldn't be the first time. Farmers lose small sheep to foxes. Lynx clean an area of foxes and defend bigger territories. Yes a couple of lynx can kill a lamb here and there, but currently they have yet twelve foxes in the same area trying to do the same all the time and living under the farm basement, so... what option looks better for the farmers? My bet would be "much less foxes and a lynx"

rmah 6y ago

Um, then why are there 22.5 mil sheep in the UK for just 67mil people? Contrast this to 5.2 mil sheep in the US for 330 mil people. It must be at least marginally profitable for so many sheep to be raised in the UK (or are agriculture subsidies really that large and widespread in the UK?)

ggm 6y ago
Yes. farming subsidies are huge. 55% of farming income is derived from the CAP (pre-brexit) and the UK is a net importer of sheep meat. Lamb is not popular in the US. It's a speciality meat. Lamb is common across europe. Also: Australia: 75m sheep for 25m people Also: New Zealand: 25m sheep for 5m people This quote: A sheep farmer from North York Moors national park in northern England, who owns about 700 sheep over 1,250 acres, makes around £12,000 profit in a good year, and even this small income would be impossible without subsidies worth about £44,000 from the EU Common Agricultural Policy. https://www.surgeactivism.org/articles/uk-farming-subsidies-and-brexit-explained https://www.surgeactivism.org/articles/uk-farming-subsidies-...
youngtaff 6y ago
UK is a net exported of lamb (or was prior to Brexit) - https://ahdb.org.uk/news/uk-lamb-self-sufficiency-and-impacts-of-brexit https://ahdb.org.uk/news/uk-lamb-self-sufficiency-and-impact... Sheep farming is mainly done on uplands and requires massive subsidies to give farmers a ‘liveable’ income To my mind it's far better to stop farming sheep and pay the farmers to rewild the hills Alternatively we could just stop subsidising sheep farmers let them go bust and the hills will rewild themselves