I want European Bison to be reintroduced, am i the only one?

[Amarillo]

Originally Posted by earthdragon64

What about the potential for lost tourism because of Wolves? For every person that would be more likely to visit to see Wolves, there are bound to be others that would stay away. Would it be a net gain or loss?

Oh come on! Wolves are zero risk to humans and once a few myths are dispelled there wouldn't be a loss of one single tourist, let alone a net loss!

Again assuming that Lynx would be re-introduced in the Highlands of Scotland, would they conflict with the Scottish Wildcat? I don't know enough about the preferred habitat, range and prey species of Lynx to know myself. However, the Wildcat is already under a direct threat of extinction, I'd hate to see this species put under yet more pressure.

I don't know either - that is a concern, which the experts would need to consult on.

There's already enough problems and conflict about the over-grazing caused by the over-population of Red Deer, I hardly think adding another large grazer such as Elk, to the mix is going to help.

I agree, its not a species I would personally argue in favour of, just one mentioned by others that I would consider

The first thing that should be considered is whether re-introduction will have a negative impact on the existing wildlife, and whether it will benefit the re-introduced animals themselves, both in the long and short term.

I agree. I am only in favour of re-introductions if these criteria are met.

[earthdragon64]

Originally Posted by Amarillo

Oh come on! Wolves are zero risk to humans and once a few myths are dispelled there wouldn't be a loss of one single tourist, let alone a net loss!

I live in the Highlands of Scotland and have discussed this subject with both locals and tourists on numerous occasions. Whether it's rational or not, there is a genuine concern amongst a significant number of people that Wolves are dangerous and a threat to humans and livestock. Your somewhat offhand dismissal of their fears won't change that one little bit.

I would hope that no re-introductions will take place without the overwhelming support of those of us who will actually have to live with them on a day to day basis. Otherwise, they are doomed to failure before they start.

[Amarillo]

Originally Posted by earthdragon64

I live in the Highlands of Scotland and have discussed this subject with both locals and tourists on numerous occasions. Whether it's rational or not, there is a genuine concern amongst a significant number of people that Wolves are dangerous and a threat to humans and livestock. Your somewhat offhand dismissal of their fears won't change that one little bit.

I am aware there is concern, and it goes without saying that any reintroduction plan would have to include an information campaign to make everyone aware that they are not a threat to humans.

[RKB]

Originally Posted by Amarillo

Nothing, but the principle of the argument is the same, that commercial interests take priority over wildlife.

But what if the commercial interest came first. In other words, the sheep farm was therebefore any proven existence of wolves, and then you want to put wolves in there and displace the sheep farmer. Yes, I know wolves were all over the place at one time, but...

Originally Posted by Amarillo

Well, bison for a start, because I'm not sure they were here recently enough

Now we're getting to the philosophical and practical nuts and bolts. What kind of cut off time period do you have? And how do you rationalise this? Any time you choose is going to be completely arbitrary, and you will never get to a 'pre human' period because that was too far back. Plus, the further back you go, the less evidence you actually have of what was/wasn't there. Can you prove the existence of wolves in your chosen site within your pre-chosen timeframe? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Amarillo

Wolves are zero risk to humans

Not strictly true. There are verified attacks on people, so it's low but not zero. I'd be more concerned in e.g. Scotland where they're likely to get habituated to people being around due to the space restrictions, and the popularity of walkers/tourists. It's not only people, but they're quite likely to come to farmsteads and attack dogs and yard animals. That's the problem, they wont stick in the 'wild bits', they'll just go where the food is easy, and wolves have no qualms about approaching settlements.

Originally Posted by Amarillo

I am only in favour of re-introductions if these criteria are met[ no negative impact on wildlife]

Again, you're being completely arbitrary in this. Of course they will have a 'negative' impact on some species that are already there - red fox and other prey species, we know this from the US experience. But I suspect what you actually mean is 'no negative impact on other stuff that you value', which is very selective and a value judgement that is completely based on a human construct of your own mind. You're probably fine with a reduction in the fox population, but would draw the line if they started taking out the Wildcats. So on the basis of your blanket statement (no negative impact) we cannot reintroduce anything, because all projects will have a negative impact on something. But as long as you're being selective, you're just zoo-keeping and gardening, which is quite a long way from what you probably really want to achieve ('wildness'). So what's the point?

[Amarillo]

Originally Posted by RKB

Now we're getting to the philosophical and practical nuts and bolts. What kind of cut off time period do you have? And how do you rationalise this? Any time you choose is going to be completely arbitrary, and you will never get to a 'pre human' period because that was too far back. Plus, the further back you go, the less evidence you actually have of what was/wasn't there. Can you prove the existence of wolves in your chosen site within your pre-chosen timeframe? I doubt it.

Yes, of course its arbitrary and exact dates of extinction aren't known for sure anyway. We are as sure as we can be that wolves were in the wilds of Scotland several hundred years ago. I don't see that the details of where precisely they lived and when precisely they died out are particularly important. More important is that the right habitat still exists today.

Not strictly true. There are verified attacks on people, so it's low but not zero. I'd be more concerned in e.g. Scotland where they're likely to get habituated to people being around due to the space restrictions, and the popularity of walkers/tourists. It's not only people, but they're quite likely to come to farmsteads and attack dogs and yard animals. That's the problem, they wont stick in the 'wild bits', they'll just go where the food is easy, and wolves have no qualms about approaching settlements.

OK, not quite zero I concede, but near enough.

I do however, think you're underestimating the scale of the wilderness areas of Scotland and lack of population. It compares pretty favourably to other areas of Europe that still have wolves.

So what's the point?

probably none. I concede that the desire to reintroduce is mostly a romantic one rather than a practical one, but its also one that a lot of people interested in wildlife have and thats why we've had reintroductions of beavers, kites, sea eagles and bustards in the UK and more are surely in the pipeline. Out of interest, of those reintroductions, were you in favour of any?

[RKB]

Originally Posted by Amarillo

Yes, of course its arbitrary and exact dates of extinction aren't known for sure anyway. We are as sure as we can be that wolves were in the wilds of Scotland several hundred years ago. I don't see that the details of where precisely they lived and when precisely they died out are particularly important.

I disagree. It is essential that we know that they were part of the local ecosystem and also the reasons why they died out (which wouldn't have just been hunting, but also habitat loss/fragmentation and prey scarcity, possibly even cross-breeding with feral dogs as in Russia), which includes a rough idea of when. These are essential requisties before any reintroduction. Saying the 'habitat is right' is one thing, but habitat is about much more than bushes, trees and a bit of elbow room. It's about everything else living there aswell (including people).

Originally Posted by Amarillo

OK, not quite zero I concede, but near enough.

I must say, that's breathtakingly arrogant for someone to say, seeing as they wont be the one running that small risk. It might be "near enough zero" for you, living miles away, but it will be significantly higher for the farmer that gets night visits and daren't let his kids out. Not massive, but still there.

Originally Posted by Amarillo

I do however, think you're underestimating the scale of the wilderness areas of Scotland and lack of population. It compares pretty favourably to other areas of Europe that still have wolves.

And I think you're overestimating it, seeing as it is completely managed.

Originally Posted by Amarillo

I concede that the desire to reintroduce is mostly a romantic one rather than a practical one, but its also one that a lot of people interested in wildlife have .

Unfortunately romance costs money, and not everyone shares the dream. This is what many people need to understand. Somebody has to pay for it and bear the brunt of it, just so they get a warm feeling inside. It's a delicate trade-off, and I think we need to be very pragmatic about what is justifiable.

Originally Posted by Amarillo

and thats why we've had reintroductions of beavers, kites, sea eagles and bustards in the UK and more are surely in the pipeline. Out of interest, of those reintroductions, were you in favour of any?

All except the bustards, which i think is pointless (not enough habitat, never be a self0sustaining population, little room to expand, questionable methods). I also think the original sea eagle re-introduction has raised concerns, and knowing what we do now i wouldnt be a strong supporter of the same thing again. It has had a very low rate of success despite many decades of input. I'm not sure the expense was worth it. As such, and because of local concerns, I'd prefer to see an Anglian reintroduction put on the back-burner. I think the evidence for their existence there is very weak, there is too much local opposition, and they have a reasonable chance of colonising themselves within a reasonable timeframe if it really is suitable. The Scottish experience suggest that we'd be better off saving our money on that one, as there isn't a pressing conservation need for it (it's not like they're Chatham Is. Robins, after all).

[aeshna5]

There was a piece this evening on Countryfile about a guy in Wiltshire who is farming Bison- though this is nothing to do with ann introduction/re-introduction to the wild. The farmer also has to have a Dangerous Animals License.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by aeshna5

There was a piece this evening on Countryfile about a guy in Wiltshire who is farming Bison- though this is nothing to do with ann introduction/re-introduction to the wild. The farmer also has to have a Dangerous Animals License.

was he near Salisbury?

I shore there are Bison north of the city, I was wondering if my eyes where playing tricks on me.

[aeshna5]

Originally Posted by Vixen

was he near Salisbury?

I shore there are Bison north of the city, I was wondering if my eyes where playing tricks on me.

I don't know, they just said Wiltshire.

[The Woodman]

If you want a fix, they can be found at the Bison Centre, Bush Farm
West Knoyle, Warminster.