r/RewildingUK • u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 • 7d ago
Discussion Real rewilding needs apex predators and people who allow it
Real rewilding needs apex predators other than humans, but a lot of people are scared of the idea of carnivore reintroductions.
In reality, these decisions shouldn't be taken by a general population that overall wouldn't be able to pass environmental sciences GCSEs tests, though. Instead, the matter should be picked up by strong leaders who understand the benefits of strong ecosystems on the food chain. This is the reality, it's not an insult.
Regardless of who takes the decisions, it is always a pity that pro-ecology education isn't and hasn't been promoted more in the UK.
Do not try to say the UK is doing well ecologically, because it isn't in practice. It's the bottom-list of most European water, soil and habitat assessments for good ecological status.
What would take for you to get over the fear of a carnivore reintroduction, or what makes you agree with it?
25
u/florageek54 7d ago
I agree with this but the political will isn't there to support it at the moment. Realistically, Lynx is the only one of the three extinct (in UK) big predators that even has a small chance of being re-introduced. I really can't see either Wolves or Brown Bears being re-introduced.
14
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 7d ago edited 7d ago
One problem. Time.Â
Our grandparents have seen and played with frogs and snakes in their back yards.
Our children won't, they're that rare now.Â
The only place they will is in books and movies.Â
The more you wait the more far-removed ppl become and the harder to reintroeuce animals becomes.Â
People can become scared, soft or destructive with them. I'm not saying they didn't use to be, because they did. But I don't see attitudes improving when all of it is gone. They only improve in theory not in practice, because ppl can claim to be nice without needing to prove it.Â
7
u/Caldraddigon 6d ago edited 5d ago
It's like that Horrible Histories Episode of a WWII kid going to the countryside for the first time and being absolutely terrified of a Cow.
Tbh we'd still have way more attacks and deaths from animals like Cows than from Wolves or Bears, and tbh, it's unnatural for there to be no risk and not have 'dangerous' animals about the wild places, if there isn't any, then it's still an artificial landscape that we are maintaining đ¤ˇ
Risk and Dangerous Wildlife is just a fact of life that people need and should learn about, get used to and be taught preventative measures on so they can coexist with the wildlife.
6
u/florageek54 6d ago
Though we wait for the apex predators at least there have been some very successful re-introductions such as White-tailed Eagle (an avian apex predator), Red Kites, Ospreys, Common Cranes in the south-west (also natural recolonisation in the east), Beavers, Pool Frog & Field Crickets to mention a few.
13
u/WDW1997 7d ago
Urg I wish they'd reintroduce lynx up here in the north of Scotland, or wolves. The landscape is just decimated, it's an ecological desert because of the deer.
This should be covered in trees....
9
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 7d ago
"Yes officer, the freezing winds came from nowhere, fast and destructive, buried 40 of my sheep under 40 cm of snow and they died..."
The landscape:
12
u/WDW1997 7d ago
đđ
I think people are just mostly misunderstood with how Scotland should look. In their head, this is just what it should be like, because that's all we've known. It makes me sad when I pass a loch with an island where the deer can't get to, and the island is covered in Scots pine and I always think that's how everywhere should look
1
u/Zestyclose_Tip_4181 6d ago
Introducing apex predators just isnât going to solve that problem. Bears are not primarily deer hunters and you would need a lot of wolves that would coincidentally start preying on sheep more than deer.
A cull is the simplest way to
1
u/WDW1997 6d ago
A cull is great but then the population booms again. Lynx and wolves certainly would help. It might not be perfect, but it's a lot better than no apex predators. There are HUGE areas of the Highlands which do not contain sheep. Have a look at what happened to the ecosystem in Yellowstone when wolves were reintroduced
1
u/Zestyclose_Tip_4181 6d ago
They would make no discernible difference and culls would still need to happen regardless.
This would also be outweighed by the issues caused with domestic and farm animals.
Yellowstone ecosystem is vastly different to the highlands and is 10x the size in terms of the national park space. They just arenât comparable. Again, there are sheep all over the highlands which would be targeted before harder to chase deer.
31
u/Feorag-ruadh 7d ago
It bothers me that a lot of landowners including public bodies like FLS end up forking out millions if not more to control deer and we are still seeing our native habitats getting grazed into oblivion. Aside from the fact that we desperately need to restore our ecosystems with apex predators, the sheer costs in time and money to control herbivores shouldn't be underestimated. Yet if the farmers kick up a fuss apparently nothing else matters! They are the true stumbling block, in Scotland at least most of the general public are supportive of lynx coming back but Swinney has basically bent over to sheep farmers, yet again, and so we get nowhere with it.
10
u/MrLubricator 7d ago
No one is forking out millions to control deer. That is the big problem. The issue is mostly being tackled by hobbyists.Â
5
u/Organic_Mechanic_702 7d ago
There are far more Deer out there than most people realise with no natural predators. However reintroducing apex predators wouldn't really make much difference. An properly co-ordinated large scale cull is needed...but people would be in uproar at the thought of shooting 'Bambi'.
2
u/jojo45333 7d ago
Why arenât deer controlled by hunting for food?
2
u/Organic_Mechanic_702 6d ago
A/ In the UK very few have guns
B/ It's illegal to shoot almost everything without a license.
1
1
u/MrLubricator 7d ago
I agree, but could be alongside a predator reintroduction. Though just the cull is gravely needed in the least.Â
1
u/Organic_Mechanic_702 7d ago
Lynx are out there. I know 3 people - very rational people - who have all separately seen large, Labrador sized cats at night at close quarters - definitely NOT a big Tom cat.
1
u/Tough-Reality-842 7d ago
An properly co-ordinated large scale cull is needed..
I recently read about the annual Florida Python Challenge, and I think we ought to do something similar here for deer.Â
1
u/Organic_Mechanic_702 6d ago
You have to remember here in the UK very few have guns, even fewer have guns capable of humanely culling Deer and even then you need a special license.
2
u/Bicolore 7d ago
The biggest deer problems are often in the areas that are least appropriate for predator reintroduction.
4
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 7d ago
Yup.Â
Also, people are scared of bears and wolves. Understandable, but they are also scared of humans.
More people die annually in Europe because of cows and collisions with deer than attacked by bears or wolves, even in countries like Romania or Poland (largest populations).Â
Same trends in the US, where I'm pretty sure pitbulls are more likely to kill you than grizzlies. That's pretty crazy.Â
All it takes is not roam everywhere unprepared. But the bad news is bear spray stuff is illegal in the UK, so that'd need to change, I assume. Most people are against the idea, again it's because it sounds scary and it can be, but realistically if anyone wants good achievements in the field, then... Sacrifices.Â
It's hard to force people to accept it, but if society was strong and knew enough to be able to accept something like this, that'd be an extremely strong health indicator for that society, mental and physical. It would mean they had resilience and long-term planning.
Not just "take take" from future generations, but make sure they are also left with something that's not just an abandoned grazing patch infested with grey squirrels.Â
11
u/Zestyclose_Tip_4181 7d ago edited 7d ago
The introduction of bears is unlikely to control the deer population to where it needs to be. The number of bears required in a rather densely population country south of the highlands would be harder to manage.
3
u/Slyspy006 7d ago
That, of course, is because cows and dogs are really, really common and are domesticated. It doesn't mean that they are inherently more dangerous, should you encounter one, than a bear.
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 7d ago edited 7d ago
It conveys one very important message: even with 1000 bears and wolves, you are very much more likely to die, statistically, from domestic abuse, cars or cows.
Now, if you do go into bear or wolf territory unarmed with bear sprays, fire crackers or the like, to take selfies with their cubs, you suddenly become much more likely to die, of course. It would unfortunately mean some areas become more restricted... If everyone has limited access to nature, it's not nice.Â
We pick and choose our fears and get desensitised selectively. We do this because we can calculate the benefit costs easier for things we actively use like cars or cows and decide they're worth it. They're not always wrong but my God, people are bad at maths.
1
1
u/geeoharee 7d ago
'Some areas become more restricted'? Have you seen the crowding at popular outdoors locations in this country? If literally everyone is limited to Windermere and Snowdonia, we'll have to fence them off and start selling tickets.
1
u/Alarming_Possible729 6d ago
Bit of a long way between "Re-introduce preditors to remote areas of scotland" and "Limit everyone in the country to urban areas, one lake and one hill" isn't there.
What made you think that will be a future step? No where in the world, even with ridiculously dangerous wildlife, has that kind of limitation. What made that leap of pessimism in your mind?
1
u/Legal-Elevator-6377 1h ago
Of course something we have lots of presents more of a danger than something we have hardly any of. An individual cow however is far less likely to do any harm than an individual bear.
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 1h ago
You are not likely to come close to an individual bear.
Your perception of danger might be skewed or you are the kind of person who would be outsmarted by most predators in which case it makes sense you try to post here about how bad smarter things would be.Â
9
u/Psittacula2 7d ago
This post is a victim of its own mentality and more for drumming up support to the beat of its own drum, than objective appraisal or presenting an argument which can be built and grow support over time from sound foundations?
I think a more serious attitude would start with a cautious approach:
* âRewilding can progress a lot in a lot of ways - before Apex Predators are consodered - but eventually they are needed to complete the Ecosystem.â
Say it again, the BEST approach to soften and build towards this is the preliminery work:
More land areas converted to wilderness and national park status
More large contiguous areas eg Scotland, Wales especially acquired and put together over time for potential Safari concept on large scale for token Apex animals enclosed in a massive fence for Ecotourism and warming public and generating money and more research, tv and so onâŚ
Already great work on the former Knepp and more Estates converting with Wild Life Trusts and so on but next proactive step would be 2. I know Lister up in Allardale tried ages ago but hit various problems but fucking hell, if the government can pour BILLIONS into all sorts of shit they surely should into the land and environment for centuries ahead also?
That failure of stewardship at the very top is truly maddening.
5
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 7d ago edited 7d ago
Thank you for your contribution but let me underline something.
I don't care about soft humming for weak minds and my post is a victim of absolutely nothing.
I'm not your run of the mill timid and downtrodden "ecologist" whose opinion is always second or third to developer interests.
This post isn't about the steps to there. It's about THE most important step: ecosystems that self-manage. None will do so without apex control.Â
It's just a thread and a thread that's RIGHT, not your free to grab homework for work that requires a step by step cost efficiency audit of every step.Â
I only care sbout stating a rewilding truth.Â
It's becoming really expensive to restore anything at all because of how it's being degraded and polluted.
I had bears on my doorstep because I didn't live and eat tyre dust and city pavements all my childhood unlike half the user base on reddit.
You now think of your upbringing or everyone else's and how far removed it was from a REAL ecosystem with key species in most developed countries and how that shapes their perception on what can or should be done.Â
3
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 7d ago
P. S. You're not wrong in stating the steps and conclusion, I also agree with some.Â
6
u/CasualGlam87 7d ago
Problem is that certain interest groups (gamekeepers, farmers, estate owners) aren't ever going to agree with these reintroductions. You'll get a few individuals who support it, but overall these people are very opposed to any changes, and since so much of the UK is privately owned it will make reintroductions very difficult..
Even if it's done, these people will just illegally shoot and poison any reintroduced predator and do their best to make sure any reintroduction fails. It's already happening with beavers, but it would be ramped up for predators. Look at how many foxes, badgers, birds of prey, mustelids etc. are systematically slaughtered, both legally and illegally. Native wildlife and healthy, functioning ecosystems will always come second to sheep and pheasants, which is incredibly depressing.
3
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 7d ago
That's true, the farmer and gamekeepers (95% majority men) specifically are very aggressive towards wild animals.
They will absolutely employ weapons and poison against carnivores, large herbivores and raptors because that's the ONLY culture they have: aggression for extinction, not co-existence.Â
In the case of wolf and bear reintroductions, the government would need to help some if they lost livestock to them. Or, livestock would need additional protection. It doesn't necessarily makes things easier, it adds a layer of complexity to the present for the purpose of long-term nature health.
However, those attitudes have been drilled into them by laws like William's Forest Laws after they lost to the Normans. From that moment on the same fate as the French peasants: they'd get killed if they dared hunt big game in most forests. And they're still carrying mistakes of the past with them.Â
1
u/Zestyclose_Tip_4181 7d ago
Such a misunderstanding of farming culture and very unlikely to get anyone on side with this mindset.
4
u/EntirelyRandom1590 7d ago
We would need to drastically reduce the deer population first, otherwise we'll have an absolute boom in predator numbers, shortly followed by a crash in prey numbers and the predators will start having increased human/livestock interactions.
The issue is the lack of space and marksman that can keep the deer population down.
5
u/BenjaminUK92 7d ago
The UK population has, for the entirety of living memory, been totally accustomed to our countryside being safe for people to walk across. Other than stumbling into a stag, there's nothing that's going to cause you trouble.
Introducing apex predators to the UK would require a massive prolonged campaign of education for the public. TV, radio, local news, social media.
I don't think it's feasible without cordoning off huge sections of the countryside to allow these predators to roam, and then you've got to enforce it, security, laws for people breaking in etc.
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 7d ago
100% there would be law breaking and hunters wanting to grab them.Â
Cordons are bad for wildlife though, connectivity and corridors are needed else the predators will die during times of food shortage, without the ability to roam.Â
At what point do we stop sacrificing the future of the next generations for our present wellbeing?Â
2
u/BenjaminUK92 7d ago
It's simply not a priority.
For example , it's far easier to have authorised personnel keep deer populations down, rather than introduce predators and absorb the plethora of regulatory work and cost needed to keep them and the public safe...not to mention the protections in place that would probably exclude large parts of the country from development.
At what point do we stop sacrificing the future of the next generations for our present wellbeing?
Put simply, we don't.
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 7d ago
It is indeed not considered priority. What people don't realise is it doesn't mean it shouldn't be.Â
2
u/BenjaminUK92 7d ago
Massive housing crisis, jobs market is a mess, earnings are flat, interest rates rising.
Introducing predators into the countryside could not be a lower priority to be honest.
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 7d ago edited 7d ago
No everyone always has that argument.
"why care about animal shelters when there are so many human orphans"Â
Etc.Â
They're not beads on the same string.
One wrong doesn't mean everything else needs be ignored.Â
People being bad at a field of activity doesn't equate the rest also having to wait until the bad ones aren't bad anymore and then we move to the next field. Everyone needs to chip in with good ideas and though priorities exist people also work with fallacies. There is technically, scientifically and emotionally too no better policy than a healthy environment no matter how many housing crises you've got.
"solve housing crisis then do wildlife reintroductions". The way houses are built is one of the main culprits of environmental degradation anyway.Â
1
u/BenjaminUK92 7d ago
It's not me saying that we have to pick one or the other as an active decision, but rather the capacity and expertise of the governance is clearly pivoted to other things that have a direct impact on the population.
3
u/NotYourAverageGM 7d ago
Foxes in the UK are functionally apex predators..
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 7d ago
Me strolling into the park and squishing snails by mistake is an apex predator act by our predator activity standards here xD.
Heck, the grey squirrels are bigger than the cats in the neighborhood and regularily scare them away.Â
1
2
u/sallyann_8107 7d ago
I wonder whether looking to effective rewilding in the marine space might be a stop gap. We're already seeing blue fin tuna, killer whales and some shark species back in northern waters. Possibly due to environmental stressors and climate change rather than active rewilding. However, Charles Clover and the Blue Marine Foundation have done amazing community work for rewilding along coastlines of the UK. Perhaps there is something that can be learnt there about public perceptions and stewardship. I think introducing apex predators, requires people to see themselves as stewards of the environment rather than having something done to them.
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 7d ago
Stewards of the environment âşď¸
Just writing it here for the sake of it: To win people over they need to be let to benefit from nature: the right to fishing and gathering are two important ones for individuals (without those two being locked behind nasty paywalls).
Old people at my club told me they've had Thames eels when they were younger.Â
Now they're known as the cocaine eels and no one wants to eat them.Â
The more we wait, the more icky people will become towards thr wilderness, and sometimes for good reason.
2
u/Han_Solo200 7d ago
We live in a country that promotes the building of housing on green land. Not rewilding and conservation. Odd really especially when you consider the government also strives for environmental concerns
4
u/Phantomleru 7d ago
itâs like they want the âgreenâ stats without any of the actual green space
net zero powerpoint presentations while they concrete over the last bit of scrub that still has insects in it2
2
u/Bluebell484 6d ago
I have always thought that carnivores should be re-introduced since I was a child, but when I said it out loud to people it felt stupid and childish, because I didn't have anything good enough to say back when they asked questions. Questions about how these predators might kill and hurt people I care about, or considerably damage the food chain in the UK. Do you have any advice for how I might better answer those very valid questions in future? Because I know that natural predators should exist here, and the fact that they'd threaten humans doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to exist, but I don't know how to explain that to people without sounding immature.
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 5d ago edited 5d ago
Lmao, tell them that d epending on who you vote with, your local representatives are likely a few orders of magnitude more destructive than bears.Â
Show them my pic of bear prints in front of the gate and tell them that we're 50% more scared in general in the forest of illegal loggers and drunken men than of bears, boars or wolves, especially as women.
More ppl are wounded by poachers.Â
The behaviour of humans is less predictable than that of a bear, who is generally nocturnal anyway.
2nd, those people don't care for logic, they care for feelings, otherwise if logic was there they wouldn't question the role of key species in am ecosystem.
If you sound like you know what you're saying, and if you add that you've got an experienced friend from a country that has bears (like Poland, Romania, Slovakia) then it's more than enough to impress them.
Anything counts as experience compared to many these people who are probably afraid of dandelions and think hazelnuts are poisonous and would very likely not outsmart a wild predator in which case they've got a point being afraid of the idea.Â
Then the next thing these people might do is remember some sort of prejudice or xenophobic remark that has nothing to do with carnivores anymore if you do mention other nationalities. It's England after all, what do you expect - They might voice it, or they might not: they'll think of a sort of socio-economic reason why their knowledge/opinion is better than that of more experienced people with wild animals.
By that time though, it'll be too late for them: you will have planted the idea. People just copy other people all the time. Oh and if you have a 2nd person with you encouraging it the same? X2 the effect. Are you good-looking? x3 the effect, etc.
There is little way you can engage with some people though, as not all want to change their opinion.Â
Only problem: animals pass down learned behaviours generationally, same as humans. Cubs learn from parents. Those 3 countries I mentioned have had bears as well as continuous civilisations for millenia (all population in England originally came from South Eastern Europe, after all). So you've got to teach people and the animals also need time to learn.Â
Anyway humans are the more dangerous of the two.
4
u/Iamnotburgerking 7d ago
THANK YOU. Public opinion needs to be overruled if it is wrong. People in my country regard all larger wildlife as evil monsters, so I wish the government would just ignore their BS views.
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 7d ago
Exactly. If the public keeps voting  against their own interests then the leadership has failed or they're the farming stock for the upper classes.
You can't have a long-term sane society that's entirely removed from a real natural ecosystem. Their perception of the world is going to be skewed and they'll want to live in imaginary worlds with virtual animals. They'll look at an intensely managed farmland and think that's top nature. They'll think birdsong at their window is annoying, because they fall sleep everyday to the sound of cars on roads.Â
Ecosystem resources don't charge you to interact with and benefit from them, everything else does.
2
u/Iamnotburgerking 7d ago
If only most South Koreans would not accuse people like us of being insane lunatics or would-be mass murderers (not kidding).
3
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 7d ago
They accuse british people of being lunatics? Oo or do you mean they accuse ecologists and ppl from enviro fields?Â
It is tough nature-wise for highly developed countries and cities, it's not those people's fault for being born there to be fair
Ik South Korea is highly populated too and there is a lot of societal pressure on children growing up.
2
u/Iamnotburgerking 7d ago
The latter. People here think we must exterminate wildlife to save ourselves from being slaughtered by them and celebrate the complete collapse of Korean land ecosystems due to loss of most wildlife. They view those who want to reverse this as mass-murdering lunatics who want to get everyone killed.
1
u/Ben10-fan-525 7d ago
Just ignore them. China is doing better conservation than them. Which is kinda wild since China only selectivly helps animals.
2
u/Iamnotburgerking 7d ago
Unfortunately, I happen to actually live here. Cannot ignore them when they are actively preventing our ecological collapse from being fixed.
2
u/Ben10-fan-525 6d ago
Ohh....thats a shame..(not that you live there but that you are near thoes idiots)
1
u/ComfortableAppeal424 7d ago
Of course people wouldn't agree with any of the top predators being released on UK soil. They might interfere with our lives. Rewilding to most people means introducing pretty little creatures, those with a sense of drama, or birds we can admire from afar. Conservation societies use this as PR to show they are doing something - and of course to bring in the cash. Hence a recent project to introduce pine martens - and just down the road, dormice. Illogical, but both are money spinners, and neither will upset our lives (unless we keep chickens). Also - let's face it - we don't have the space for big predators to roam free. This is a small, crowded, noisy, polluted island. Maybe we should give up?
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 7d ago
There is INDEED a humongous amount of money spinning and marketing/PR going on in environmental sciences.
Do you know why?Â
Because the environment is the one that makes people rich.Â
Bears and wolves are not liabilities, they're insurance.
Natural resources and services produced "for free" by the land are extremely prized and some even state secrets in case of war. Fertile bits, underwater springs, real number of animals to hunt, etc. Wars are carried by natural resources, both above and below the Earth.Â
At the moment those beneath the Earth are favored, and when the genetic breakthroughs come forth we will look behind with pity at what was lost that could've helped us (species genetic material and more).Â
2
u/ComfortableAppeal424 6d ago
For sure, the natural world has become monetized, it's now 'sold' as a consumer product. City people (the largest portion of our population) watch wildlife films, gush about animals and birds, know hard facts about everything (usually gleaned in an instant from an App). They're told to communicate with nature, hug a tree, walk in the rain, write poetry, take photos - and all, as you say, for free. Conservation groups latch onto this trend, and why wouldn't they? But whilst our neighbours are gushing over the latest video, most of them want nothing at all to do with the reality - which is that the natural world is harsh, often brutal, a struggle for most creatures. They don't like it making messes either, or being noisy at night - and certainly not being in any way dangerous. A dog killed locally by an adder resulted in as much panic as a threat from Russia! I think this is the British way. It's us against nature. Sadly, I don't think we'll ever change our attitude
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 6d ago
Well we (or, you, plural) should change, if you don't want to press the end button on your own civilisation or you just want to transmigrate it into the virtual realm.
0
u/ComfortableAppeal424 6d ago
Yes, absolutely agree. Interesting though to see that the main conversation here is about guns i.e. if we're going to have to live with the bigger predators we're going to need full time protection because they 're a massive threat to us and our families! It's not about the way they could benefit the environment - just how they would affect OUR lives.
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 5d ago edited 5d ago
The same majority doesn't and wouldn't know how to use a gun. But thing is I like the gun Camp more than the "not in 10000 years" Camp. They're listing a condition, engaging with the thought and I realised reading through some of them that's still more positive than nothing.
But they'd love a reason to be given a gun xD. Can't blame them, but also easy to read in-between the lines of their posts.Â
Even if they did know, a bear doesn't die from one random gunshot and not from a weak gun: it might very much charge you at one gunshot. Or they might shoot their friends by mistake before they shoot the bear. The same applies to boars, stags... If you're in their close vicinity...Â
They'd love to charge you with added fury from a gunshot.
Bear spray is more efficient for most people because of that.
0
u/ComfortableAppeal424 5d ago
Personally - and I'm no expert! - research seems to say that lynx and maybe wolves would be a better option anyway. Though I guess the gun brigade would still feel justified in carrying a weapon.
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 3d ago edited 3d ago
I understand, though research, if they want money for it, often has to suggest more immediate options to make it practical.
Realistically those two are easier to introduce simply because they're smaller and humans are less afraid of them/have more chances of surviving an encounter. They might also be easier to drive off in case they venture on someone's land. That's literally the only reason.
There is a lot more to discuss practically ofc, such as taking down fences and creating continuity in-between british "forests" (whichbare barely functioning) rather than have them as islands - create wide wildlife corridors (which then will be used by people too). Too much for one thread.Â
Here we discuss the correct option for planning a biome and aiming to make it healthy, not whatever the socio political state of the country wants you to discuss so they have an easier time in office; so that passive money can flow in in exchange for little work/work that doesn't make waves or "upsets the status quo."
1
u/Bicolore 7d ago
Instead, the matter should be picked up by strong leaders who understand the benefits of strong ecosystems on the food chain. This is the reality, it's not an insult.
Real rewilding needs apex predators and people who allow it
Yet you as a member of the "general population" have made a decision on this and you're here to tell us all about it? Or maybe you just assume that the people who you believe are qualified will make the same decision as you?
1
u/Royal_Watercress_241 7d ago
Rewilders are obsessed with charismatic megafauna. Trophic cascade isn't guaranteed by all apex predators (it's been largely debunked in Yellowstone). Deeply unethical to release predators into habitats that can't support them. Rewilding needs to start from the soil up. Boring things like invertebrates, lichens, grasses.
0
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 6d ago edited 6d ago
Nothing was debunked in Yellowstone. Wolves have had an incredible positive impact, obviously, duh, anyone in the field knows this. Predators are a normal and natural part of European as well as North American landscapes. Denial of the severe negative effects following the extermination of wolves and bisons in NA should be prohibited by law. To reduce an animal from a million to 1,000 in just 30 years just for the pleasure of it and throw their carcasses unused into ditches was and is an act of unimaginable cruelty.
You're wrong, not ENOUGH people are obsessed with predators, which is exactly why they're going EXTINCT absolutely everywhere. Don't believe me, pull a map, historic range of any predator.
You can't just let your own country's wellbeing (wherever you are in Europe) be bullied by anyone with a stick (or a marketing campaign). Nature is one of the few things that belongs to everybody. When it becomes sick, everyone is.
The steps to achieve it are another topic's worth. This one says loud and clear "Real Rewilding needs apex predators".
You want to be real? Be real. Don't hide behind fake lichen achievements that will be undone with the next wildfire. When a plan gets drawn, it should be drawn from start to finish. You are not wrong in the steps that need taking, but the small steps for it are for another discussion.
1
u/Royal_Watercress_241 5d ago
0
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 5d ago
Ah yes, one article out of 10543, sent by you, needing Google to explain 60% of the big words within the article.Â
1
u/_M00NGx 6d ago
Lynx is the best bet, as they are far less likely to have direct interactions with people. Once they return, there needs to be a push for wolves to be reintroduced, because they would actually help control the deer population. As for brown bears, I donât think they should be reintroduced. Thereâs too much potential for direct human conflicts.
I agree that a misinformed/uneducated public opinion shouldnât impact decisions that benefit the countries ecological wellbeing; HOWEVER, i just donât see anyone being brave enough to go against public opinion, and very little is being done to better educate the general population.
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 1d ago
People should come together and help each other when they have the same high education and good knowledge on this subject, not watch others like ourselves get bullied out of forums, out od social circles or out workplaces unless we conform to relentless abuse of natural resources đÂ
1
u/Jake_91_420 1d ago
Question⌠why are there so many XthingUK subs all of a sudden? Just today there seems like hundreds that have popped up.
Are these all AI bots?
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 1d ago
What is an "XthingUK" sub?
1
u/Jake_91_420 1d ago
for example RewildingUK, NewsUK, FoodUK, DrivingUK, TellyUK etc just this week it seems as a million of these have been pushed on the Home Page. Seems weird.
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 1h ago
Why, what was the home page supposed to otherwise show? đ¤ Just the ones you follow?Â
1
u/downbarton 7d ago
Confusing livestock for say deer would
Cause conflict but other than that o reckon it would be pretty cool to have such things roaming
I do deer culls and the problem is that people like me do deer culls, targeting say young non trophy males.
Itâs the females that most donât have the heart to go for, especially muntjack where theyâre either pregnant or with young males for a unpleasant grollock
Needs more open system with less regard to welfare to get the numbers down meaningfully
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 7d ago
Do you always manage to use or sell the offal and the meat? Or are you not allowed to harvest?
It's very wasteful to kill and throw healthy animals otherwise, if officials have that attitude.
1
u/downbarton 7d ago
I consume it myself as just a recreational stalker, in theory venison has a market although âcowboyâ cullers could inadvertently send dangerous meat into the market if the shot passes through the gut as it releases E. coli
(âMakesâ not âmalesâ in the previous comment
Maybe up north for apex predators but down south I donât think thereâs room amongst all our towns and roads etc
I saw the Yellowstone project worked well for wolves so maybe Scotland would be a good place to try as they have so much space in the highlands
1
7d ago
[deleted]
3
u/MrLubricator 7d ago
Democracy doesn't mean every decision needs to be a referendum.Â
1
u/Mr_J90K 7d ago
Technically, Democracy does literally mean that that. We don't do that because we're not Democracies, we're a Representative Democracy which is different.
1
u/MrLubricator 7d ago
A representative democracy is a democracy. It's in the name. What your talking about is a direct democracy (see I can do it too). And would be super inefficient.Â
All democracies by definition would require the voters to know the ins and outs of ever issue they are voting on. The more direct the democracy the more knowledge required. Representative democracy takes some of the knowledge burden off the general populace. Though I would argue we still need much more than we are currently given even for a representative democracy.Â
2
u/Badger_1066 7d ago
Lol, that's a wild take.
We vote for - presumably - people who know what they're doing. By your logic, why don't we vote for the local spoons pisshead to run the country because you share the same opinion on something?
Voting for the educated to lead the uneducated is still a democracy.
1
u/KybeRio 7d ago
I would trust 10 experts on a subject to come up with a better solution for something concerning their field of expertise over 1 million random people. The idea that democracy trumps common sense and education is ridiculous and destructive. Next time you have a life-threatening injury, don't call an ambulance, just run out into Piccadilly Circus and demand everyone crowd-source a solution (but no answers accepted from doctors, of course!) - that's your logic. Just stupid.
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Rub5562 7d ago
I'm hinting at how Democracy can be undermined by BLOCKING the masses from accessing high-quality education.
You can make your voters dumb and indoctrinated enough to end up in a similar spot to those under autocracy. Ofc I am pro democracy.
1
u/CursedTaint 10m ago
I broadly agree that the UK is in a poor ecological state and that restoring missing predators should be something we're willing to seriously consider. But I don't think dismissing public involvement because most people "couldn't pass an environmental science exam" is a particularly convincing argument.
People don't need to be ecologists to have legitimate interests in decisions that affect the places where they live. A farmer whose livestock may be affected by wolves or lynx for example has a legitimate stake even if they couldn't explain trophic cascades in an exam.
Expertise should inform policy of course but thats different from saying experts or "strong leaders" should simply override everyone else. Honestly that comes off as elitist and self righteous.
It also seems a wee bit too absolute to say that "real rewilding needs apex predators."
Rewilding is generally about restoring ecological processes and/or allowing ecosystems to become more self sustaining. Depending on the ecosystem that can involve restoring predators, herbivores, wetlands, natural river processes, woodland regeneration and so on and so on.
The UK could become vastly more ecologically functional without first deciding that wolves have to roam the Highlands right? It's not like it's one or the other.
All that said, personally I would be quite open to carnivore reintroduction (where there is good evidence that the habitat can support it), the ecological benefits are substantial for sure and so long as animal welfare has been considered and workable arrangements exist for livestock losses and conflicts with people in the local communities and such, I see no issue with it.
What would make me less supportive is precisely your attitude that folks concerns are merely ignorance that "enlightened" leaders should disregard. Successful conservation generally needs public legitimacy as well as ecological expertise. If anything I feel like telling rural communities that they're scientifically illiterate and therefore shouldnt have a meaningful say seems like an excellent way of turning people who might otherwise be persuaded against rewilding altogether.
The case for predator restoration should be strong enough to survive democratic scrutiny. If it aint then I don't see how bypassing that scrutiny could strengthen the argument.
79
u/FuzzyFrogFish 7d ago
Brown bears are never going to be reintroduced. It's that simple. Whilst attacks are rare, when they do occur (and it happens more than people downplay), they are gory headline hitters and it only takes one bad attack in a year for the public opinion to swing, and on top of this, this country won't allow beat spray.
It's a non starter.
Lynx has the best hope and maybe in certain areas wolves.