Wolf Reintroduction yes or no

[Alan]

Originally Posted by sittingfox

Captain Kev, thoughtful comments, but recall that wolves do exist well on Isle Royale and some other islands.

Capt’n was referring to how wolves can exist on smaller prey animals when necessary. Not that they can’t exist on Islands.

The most insurmountable welfare problems come from the likely illegal killing and road accidents - wolves are extremely vulnerable to vehicles.

We live in a far smaller area, with closer population densities than regions where wolves exist such as in North America, so the likelihood of them coming into contact with roads is much greater.

As for the suggestion that wolves might pose a risk in harsh winters - er, "harsh winter + UK?" It goes down to -40C in the Canadian plains and no one's been eaten! The science is duller than Jack London. Wolves thrive in winter, the colder the better as far as they're concerned. Wild prey are weak and easy to catch in deep snow.

Wolves have no problem in dealing with harsh winters, but their prey move to lower ground to not only seek food but to escape from the wolves as was noted in Yellowstone when they were reintroduced. This is also the case in Scotland were Red Deer move down for some of the same reasons. I have thought they’d be even more likely to do this with the presence wolves which would again, bring them into contact with population areas such as farming interests and roads. This is of course it they happened to be located in higher regions, but of course the lower ones are usually populated by farms and shooting estates, which offer better grazing for the deer, so will again attract the wolves in. I don’t think that would go well with the farmers and landowners. This could well mean illegal killing as you state above.

We’ll have to come to terms with it that wolves will never be allowed to roam free in this country, so the only alternative is captive areas, but that isn’t ‘wild’ is it? It’s a token gesture for our piece of mind and our enjoyment - not the wolves.

[Earth Hart]

Originally Posted by Alan

We’ll have to come to terms with it that wolves will never be allowed to roam free in this country, so the only alternative is captive areas, but that isn’t ‘wild’ is it? It’s a token gesture for our piece of mind and our enjoyment - not the wolves.

Sadly Alan, I have to agree.

[SittingFox]

Originally Posted by Alan

Wolves have no problem in dealing with harsh winters, but their prey move to lower ground to not only seek food but to escape from the wolves as was noted in Yellowstone when they were reintroduced.

I know, I was responding to the ethereal image of half-starved wolves prowling about a white landscape that still inhabits the human imagination in some quarters...

We’ll have to come to terms with it that wolves will never be allowed to roam free in this country

Never say *never*, although I would agree that unless there's some unforeseen, massive change in landscape ownership and management then it's highly improbable. Nevertheless, I do want to read that book reviewed by Conservation Biology to at least hear what people who have really studied the "re-wilding" issue have to say.

We live in a far smaller area, with closer population densities than regions where wolves exist such as in North America, so the likelihood of them coming into contact with roads is much greater.

Agreed, although there's some places in Alberta where if they'd designed the road to kill wolves, they couldn't have do it better.

[Alan]

An interesting fact that is worth considering, is that for a species to be considered successful, their genes have to be passed on. If you think that the decsendant of the wolf - the dog, carries those same genes, you could argue that the wolf is one of the most successful animals on the planet!

I know, I know, it's not the same. Something to think about all the same though..

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Alan

An interesting fact that is worth considering, is that for a species to be considered successful, their genes have to be passed on. If you think that the decsendant of the wolf - the dog, carries those same genes, you could argue that the wolf is one of the most successful animals on the planet!

I know, I know, it's not the same. Something to think about all the same though..

excellent, lets reintroduce mamalutes to the scottish highlands , Actually if we did I wonder how long it would take for the wolf genes to become predominant again ?

[Alan]

Originally Posted by eeyore

excellent, lets reintroduce mamalutes to the scottish highlands , Actually if we did I wonder how long it would take for the wolf genes to become predominant again ?

Yes that's true. That little Yorkie's descendants could be living it up on venison in no time!

[Captain Kev]

Originally Posted by eeyore

excellent, lets reintroduce mamalutes to the scottish highlands , Actually if we did I wonder how long it would take for the wolf genes to become predominant again ?

-
Actually this has been studied, and amazingly it can only take a couple of generations of something like an Alsatian to exhibit true Wolf like behaviour, The main Wolf instincts are only lightly buried in dogs and the genes are more or less the same anyway, disregarding shape, size and appearance. As the saying goes "Dogs are Wolves in Dogs clothing".
Dogs are pack animals, Dogs Howl, Dogs are territorial, Dogs live within the hierarchy of their pack (Pack = us their owners)

Wolves are living with us, enjoy them

[TORTUGA]

I am all for Lynx and Wolf reintroduction as I believe we have a responsibility to restore the forna and fauna of Britain as a matter of principle. Man has messed with the eco ballance for his own selfish means and as a result the gaps produce Rabbit populations which need man made mixi to control, and massive Deer populations which need shooting (Lynx and Wolf natural food). In the New Forest Acorns poison ponies due to there being no Boar to hoover them up and the list is endless.
As a rich nation how can we preach to poor nations around the world about how to save their Lions or tigers, and tell countries not to chop their rain forests down when we cant handle our own environment.
Its interesting to see that some people are concerned of people being killed by Wolves however I am sure that more people accross Europe are killed by Cattle than Wolves but thats ok as money is to be made by Cattle. And if we are concerned about Human fatalities lets ban the car as road deaths are in the thousands every say accross Europe. But again people will continue to drive knowing the risk to themselves and others as nothing is allowed to get in the way of a humans needs or wants.
Where there is a will there is a way but unfortunatly there seems to be no will so the way will always be blocked by people concerned with their own greed or prejudice.

[Captain Kev]

Just so you can see one of the problems with releasing Wolves in our largest nat park.

Comparison of National parks that hold populations of wolves

Jasper nat park 10,878 sq km

Algonquin nat park 7,725 sq km

Yellowstone 8,992 sq km

Banff 6,641 sq km

Denali 6,600 sq km

All these national parks border other extensive wilderness areas i.e Banff and Jasper also border other parks within Alberta which together has a total area of 400,000 sq km


Cairngorms 3800 sq km GBs largest Nat park

New forest 1,100 sq km



In Europe it is difficult to measure wilderness areas, for example Finland has an area of 338000 sq km of which 72% is forested.
For comparison :
Cairngorm has an area of 3800 sq km of which 12.5% is forest and woodland.

The population of Wolves in Finland was between 185-200 in 2004 and they were declining. Finland also borders Russia, where there is an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 wolves. A number of Wolves are allowed to be hunted in Finland.

Wolves in Yellowstone and Banff were introduced, and there is continuing strife with their community’s to conserve these wolves.
So even a large wilderness area doesn’t guarantee great success.

So what chance has the relatively small area of the Cairngorms?

(All information gleamed from official Nat park websites and Wolf population trend analysis)

[SittingFox]

Originally Posted by Captain Kev

<snip>

Algonquin is a *provincial* park (and actively logged, alas), Banff never had its wolves reintroduced (they returned naturally after road accidents etc killed them off) and in any case, the size of parks is somewhat misleading because huge areas of Jasper and Banff are not suitable for wolves. As I learnt to my cost, in Canada, in the middle of the largest unhunted park (ie. Jasper) wolves aren't safe from vehicles, but that is beside the point. Icefields, alpine meadows and scree slopes are some of the few areas on earth that wolves haven't mastered, and the central Rockies have an awful lot of that. Incidentally, Algonquin is occupied by red / eastern wolves Canis lycaon, not Canis lupus.

Isle Royale is just 542 sq. km.

Obviously, however, from a political / social perspective, the larger area away from humans that is wolf habitat, the better the odds of wolf survival.