Tyla

I wouldnt say you were showing yourself to be any genius either mate. I cant be bothered to type you another long reply, you aren't interested in anything I've said anyway. Enjoy your evening, its not as if either of our opinions are going to change the world anyway

Right. One last time I will explain my opinions to you. I am in favour of rewilded, or to be less controversial, wilderness areas. Most of the planet is taken up by people but in some places the habitat has not irreversibly changed so much that having a wilderness comparible with what used to be there is possible. (This is the bit you have been struggling with, the difference between the UK and the Pyrenees) In places where that is the case, I believe the Pyrenees to be one of them, I think it would be good for the world in general to keep or encourage the species that made up the ecosystem in the not so distant past. This is not necessarily an instant fix but something to aim for. This is my opinion and I do, whether you like it or not, have a reasonable amount of knowledge to base it on. It isn't the same as yours and I'm happy to discuss it, in fact I quite enjoy it, but I won't be brow beaten by you just repeating the same things you believe again and again and then getting angry that I don't agree with you.

You really are coming across as an arrogant old so and so. I've explained myself pretty clearly and been pleasant to you throughout but you either can't or won't accept anything that isn't in line with your very narrow view of the world. You have no idea what I do or do not know. Your mind was made up before you started this thread and you just wanted a round of applause for your opinion. If i'd realised that to start with I wouldn't have wasted my time discussing it with you.

I still don't think you've really grasped what I'm saying but I am glad you are so delighted lol.

Just to clarify a little bit, rewilding and reintroducing species are two different things. They can be compatible but they are not the same thing. Rewilding is more about habitat creation to mimic the habitats that existed prior to development of land. The idea being to benefit all species of fauna and flora and to allow the soil itself to recover. This can lead to successful reintroduction but there are plenty of species already present but in dire trouble who will benefit from it first. A whole host of things have to be lined up right for reintroduction to work. Perhaps this is where my views differ from Nicepix, it could be he is correct that more reintroduction of apex predators to the Pyrenees is no needed right now as the resources aren't there. I dont know, im not an expert. We also differ though in what the solution should be. I believe, if that's the case, that whatever predators are already there should remain under protection while he appears to favour a cull. If prey species numbers are too low, as he insists, I would think that reintroduction and encouragement of those species to the point where they are high enough to sustain a predator population, would be the way forward rather than just leaving as is. I also think there is a tendency within conservation circles to want to reintroduce the big glamorous species quickly as it looks good in the media and is good for the various egos involved. Habitats don't work on that kind of timescales and regeneration takes time. These are things they are hopefully learning by mistakes that the one in the Netherlands.

Give up mate. If you can't see a difference between the uk and the Pyrenees I cant help you

https://whyy.org/segments/the-netherlands-grand-rewilding-experiment-gone-haywire/ It sounds like too much ego and not enough common sense. What a shame

I have given my reasons twice and am not going to repeatedly try and explain to you the difference between the Pyrenees and the uk. You have you opinion and I have mine. We are both adults so let's not try and make it personal.

Thats the one. My spelling was way off lol. No, the red deer population certainly did not work out, looking at it I cant imagine how they thought it would? Do you know the current status of it?

Its a difference of opinion. We both think the reintroduction of apex predators cant work in Britain but I think it can work in the Pyrenees and you don't. Let's leave it there.

I very much doubt we are going to agree on this. By your logic no attempt at conservation is worthwhile because whatever is causing the loss or reduction of the species has already happened and cannot be changed. I dont agree. If we hadn't made changes to help improve habitats and conserve species we would be in a worse state that we are now. Reduction in pollution has allowed fish to return to the Thames. Changes in pesticide practices have saved a lot of bird and insect species from extinction. The wolf has returned to yellowstone and others places we had previously pushed them out from. Whales are making a comeback. There are schools of tuna of Cornwall. I see these as success stories and without the changes people and governments made they wouldn't have happened. In the case you are talking about. bears in the Pyrenees, i am no expert but I do know that meat is only a part of their diet. The habitat, i would expect, still contains the rest so I see a lack of mouflon etc as something else to improve rather than a reason not to have apex predators. They are all links in the same chain. The yellow stone success story couldnt have been achieved by human predation and it had nothing to do with gun safety. The introduction of wolves worked, not just by reducing numbers but by changing the elks behaviour and browsing habits which reduced pressure on the habitat and allowed the whole system to start working again to the benefit of all the species. Wolves were back, elk populations were healthier and the adverse impact they were having on the habitat was changed.

I would say that because they have been there for millenia is a fairly valid reason. They are a part of those mountains as much as the rest of the wildlife and thr people. As I said before, we will have to agree to disagree.

I think that is still running, called aufwasasplazen (?) the idea of it was just to let nature run its course but, obviously, without any predators the big herbivores ate themselves out of food. Even though the place is massive its not big enough for them to migrate about finding new grazing while the last patch recovers. Distinct lack of common sense and forward thinking. I think they had to intervene on welfare grounds in the end. On the upside it was a huge success for migratory wildfowl and a lot of the smaller species. Rewilding is a land management system in its infancy. I still think its a worthwhile idea and has the potential to do good in places where its practical.

We will have to disagree on this. I see the environment as a whole as a poorer place without its wildlife, both predator and prey. I think there ought to be be room for them in the wild places, even if its a fraction of their original range. If that inconveniences farmers or forces them to change their management in those small areas I'm OK with that. I repeat, I am not talking about wolves in the UK.

I repeat, this post was about the French pyrenees NOT the uk. At no point have I suggested reintroducing wolves to the uk. I agree entirely that we are over populated and have no desire to see that problem increased by us taking on the dregs of the rest of the planet. That doesn't change my opinion that there are benefits to rewilding. This entire country is covered in houses and farmed land, almost nowhere else is like that, most countries still have large wild spaces. Are you really telling me that we, as a species, are so greedy that we have to have every little bit for ourselves? No one is suggesting that we revert everywhere to how it was, that would be impossible, but I believe we ought to share