Rewilding. Is it me?

[Tyla 3,179]

52 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

But you cannot give a valid reason why the bears should be reintroduced. You just think that it is a good idea. Those local people who rioted to stop mare bears being introduced obviously don't think that it is a good idea.

There is no natural food chain of prey animals other than two species that are already endangered and farm animals. The inconvenience to shepherds isn't just about losing a few sheep for which they will be compensated. They are only compensated if they can bring a carcase in to be examined by a vet or government official. The ones carried away or killed in remote places will have been devoured by the bears and latterly vultures leaving a pile of bones and no evidence. Then there are other issues. Shepherds aren't  being subsidised to own dogs they didn't need before the bears were introduced or for the electric fencing the government advises they should be now using. And, more importantly; the shepherds now feel it necessary to carry guns when out working with their sheep. 40 bears might not seem a large number, but on the north facing slopes of these mountains there are lots of areas where there is no grass so the flocks and bears become concentrated in small areas that benefit from more sunlight.

There are lots of reasons why the bears should not have been introduced in the Pyrenees, but no valid reason why the should have been. Where does this end? There is evidence that lions roamed this area at one time. Should we re-introduce those too?

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. 

[Nicepix 5,650]

14 minutes ago, Tyla said:

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. 

 

No that isn't a valid reason. They became absent from that area for a reason or reasons and things have changed in their absence. You can't turn the clock back and if you want to introduce any species you can only do it if the conditions are suitable for the species to thrive. Putting large wild carnivores into an area where the population of prey species is either endangered or farmed cannot be justified.

I agree that the Yellowstone project appears to be a success. But that was done in an area where there was a need to control large numbers of herbivores. It was either releasing wild wolves or letting the Yanks loose with hunting permits. The latter would be considered far too dangerous to the general population.

[Tyla 3,179]

3 hours ago, Nicepix said:

No that isn't a valid reason. They became absent from that area for a reason or reasons and things have changed in their absence. You can't turn the clock back and if you want to introduce any species you can only do it if the conditions are suitable for the species to thrive. Putting large wild carnivores into an area where the population of prey species is either endangered or farmed cannot be justified.

I agree that the Yellowstone project appears to be a success. But that was done in an area where there was a need to control large numbers of herbivores. It was either releasing wild wolves or letting the Yanks loose with hunting permits. The latter would be considered far too dangerous to the general population.

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.

 

[Greb147 6,808]

45 minutes ago, Tyla said:

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.

 

Wasn't their a massive rise in Coyote numbers whilst the Wolves were in exile in Yellowstone, once reintroduced they set the status quo. 

[byron 1,093]

8 hours ago, Tyla said:

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.

 

well said tyla. man.the only species,thats take take take..

[Nicepix 5,650]

9 hours ago, Tyla said:

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.

 

And there you illustrate the hypocrisy of the situation. The wolves in Yellowstone were re-introduced to reduce numbers of a species that was becoming a nuisance. There aren't enough wild prey species in the Pyrenees to support the bears who's diet is 25% meat. And by far the easiest way to obtain meat is to kill the slower and more numerous sheep. The bears can't get at the wild goats and sheep.

By your logic of the bears having been there for millennia have a right to be there then the wolves have the same right to be returned to the UK. Yet you don't support that. Rather hypocritical?

[Rabid 1,936]

I think we need a massive cull on mankind, the planet is way to over populated and we are pushing hundreds, no, thousands of species to extinction every year, we are the greediest, most destructive animal going, with no natural predators, cull the human race and nature will do the rest

[hollands hope 1,013]

19 hours ago, Tyla said:

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.

Oostvaardersplassen .That didn´t exactly worked out according theire plan. Most of the red deer had to be shot. The place was a graveyard in the end.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oostvaardersplassen

[DIDO.1 20,804]

17 hours ago, Bobtheferret said:

I think it’s all about the situation of each area that the reintroduction is planned for, from what nicepix has said bears where a terrible idea in the Pyrenees but in an area with plenty of natural food and space why not? Frankly, although I am not actually suggesting it, a few wolves round me would be a good thing to control the deer population which is frankly out of control. You can see herds of over a 100 fallow no problem at all round here and with no natural predators it’s down the cars and people to control them and with no market to take that volume of deer most stalkers seem to just take the odd one which doesn’t even dent the numbers. They do far more damage than rabbits to crops also. That’s what happens without natural balance. Yellowstone’s large herbivores have benefitted massively from the introduction of wolves as has the park in general as over grazing has stopped and allowed natural meadows and flowers to flourish again after being stripped bare before. A better balance all round creates a better ecosystem. The herds are now smaller but the remaining animals are stronger and have more food to eat. Natural selection at work.  

That's fine if the wolves simply follow the fallow about....its not fine if they prefare lamb. 

Also as said the organisations that support this sort of rewilding seem to always detest fieldsports and human involvement. They don't care if a farmer, gamekeeper or stalker is effected by their actions. In fact most would prefer that outcome. 

In our area the 'rewilded' areas run by councils, woodland Trust and public bodies seem to think that rewilding and public access go hand in hand. So massive car parks and ice cream vans to encourage people and there dogs are also part of the planting trees on what was once well managed valuable land. 

 

[DIDO.1 20,804]

3 hours ago, Rabid said:

I think we need a massive cull on mankind, the planet is way to over populated and we are pushing hundreds, no, thousands of species to extinction every year, we are the greediest, most destructive animal going, with no natural predators, cull the human race and nature will do the rest

Jump off a cliff then 

[Greyman 25,151]

4 hours ago, Rabid said:

I think we need a massive cull on mankind, the planet is way to over populated and we are pushing hundreds, no, thousands of species to extinction every year, we are the greediest, most destructive animal going, with no natural predators, cull the human race and nature will do the rest

Nature will cull the human race when the time is right, we have became so argent we think science and knowledge will allow us to carry on manipulating our environments to suite us, but Mother Nature suffers not feast nor famine

[JDHUNTING 1,817]

1 hour ago, DIDO.1 said:

That's fine if the wolves simply follow the fallow about....its not fine if they prefare lamb. 

Also as said the organisations that support this sort of rewilding seem to always detest fieldsports and human involvement. They don't care if a farmer, gamekeeper or stalker is effected by their actions. In fact most would prefer that outcome. 

In our area the 'rewilded' areas run by councils, woodland Trust and public bodies seem to think that rewilding and public access go hand in hand. So massive car parks and ice cream vans to encourage people and there dogs are also part of the planting trees on what was once well managed valuable land. 

 

Your spot on these groups must think we are aliens were beamed down from space 2000 years ago, humans are the apex predator of almost every land habitat on earth if we don't act as such then nothing is natural. "deer/wolves have no natural predators" is rubbish we are the natural predators. The same people who are all over the internet crying about hunters will be the ones driving the never ending greed for the latest iPhone car or whatever it's this what's destroying the environment not the hunters who try their best to live a natural life. 

They reckon the Amazon was once a lot richer environment than it is now and the time it was richest was when there were a lot more tribes in the forests the people were like the wolves of Yellowstone i.e the main force of balance we should learn from this. All humans have to do to protect the environment is to decide if we actually need all this tech as it's destroying the planet and not improving the quality of our lives and take our place as nature's big stick so to speak.it will never happen humans will just keep making bollocks we don't need and then deciding we are somehow inherently poisoness as a species and coming up with ever more unnatural lives to try and compensate nature. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by JDHUNTING

[foxdropper 17,092]

5 hours ago, Greyman said:

Nature will cull the human race when the time is right, we have became so argent we think science and knowledge will allow us to carry on manipulating our environments to suite us, but Mother Nature suffers not feast nor famine

It’s having a go now if only we’d let it .We are our own worst enemy trying to fix what isn’t broken .

[Tyla 3,179]

13 hours ago, Nicepix said:

And there you illustrate the hypocrisy of the situation. The wolves in Yellowstone were re-introduced to reduce numbers of a species that was becoming a nuisance. There aren't enough wild prey species in the Pyrenees to support the bears who's diet is 25% meat. And by far the easiest way to obtain meat is to kill the slower and more numerous sheep. The bears can't get at the wild goats and sheep.

By your logic of the bears having been there for millennia have a right to be there then the wolves have the same right to be returned to the UK. Yet you don't support that. Rather hypocritical?

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.

[Tyla 3,179]

11 hours ago, hollands hope said:

Oostvaardersplassen .That didn´t exactly worked out according theire plan. Most of the red deer had to be shot. The place was a graveyard in the end.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oostvaardersplassen

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?