Britain and Japan, both island nations where anything remotely threatening was wiped out long ago. The largest predator in Japan is the salamander. A meter-long specimen will make news.
Talk to anyone in the pacific northwest. If you take only the slightest precautions you have nothing to fear from the wolves, cougars and bears. You are far more likely to be eaten by a fellow human. You are more likely to be killed by deer. They are already all over Britain. So the wolves will in all probability reduce the number of animal-related deaths.
> Talk to anyone in the pacific northwest. If you take only the slightest precautions you have nothing to fear from the wolves, cougars and bears.
I lived in Washington for six years, and I can say that's simply not true. Protecting yourself from predators involves significant work. It's just that everyone is used to it. When camping, you have to store food and toiletries in bear canisters. You have to check for reports of bear activity. You carry bear spray. Some even carry a gun. Despite these preparations, there's the constant anxiety of knowing you might encounter a predator. It really sours the outdoor experience.
> So the wolves will in all probability reduce the number of animal-related deaths.
Wolves aren't the only way to cull the deer population.
When it comes to reintroducing wolves, everyone agrees the risk to humans is low. Almost nobody is going to be killed by wolves. But that argument proves too much. Almost nobody falls victim to serial killers. We still try to reduce the number of serial killers to zero.
Here is a HN submission (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8448929) for the How Wolves Change Rivers video that is mentioned in this article. (It was posted exactly a year ago, a coincidental anniversary of the topic here on HN).
There are some good discussions and great links to related content including the TED talk on 'rewilding' by George Monbiot who narrates the How Wolves Change Rivers video.
> Yet David Mech, a biologist who has worked extensively in Yellowstone, advises that such simple narrative arcs are hard to find in something as messy as an ecosystem. Mech does not discount all of Monbiot's claims, but cautions that as much harm could come to the wolf from being marketed as the poster boy of the environmental movement as it did in the era when it was hated and feared.
One of the narratives in a re-wilding context is that human are not part of the "wild." Yet in post-glacial areas like Scotland and Yellowstone, where humans arrived shortly after the ice melted, the ecosystem developed with humans as one of the apex predators.
> For thousands of years, desert Aborigines have set fire to the arid savanna, creating an environmental patchwork to which much of the desert plant and animals are specifically adapted. Where Aborigines have been removed from their lands, the desert patchwork has often been obliterated with devastatingly large wildfires.
Humans are left out of the rewilding equation because I think it's drawing from a romantic tradition of what the wild is supposed to be.
The environmental benefits of re-introducing wolves are well described. However, with more and more people packed into the south of England, the economic benefits from tourism are going to be enormous. For example the re-introduction of the White-tailed Eagle benefits the economy of the island of Mull to the tune of 5 million UK pounds per year.
Ahh Mull! We are visiting Oban next week (big trip - we're coming over from the Netherlands via the ferry), and I'm going to try and get over to Mull, Iona and maybe even Staffa in our own car. I remember seeing the eagles from the bus when I did the Three Islands Tour years ago. I'm really excited for the kids to see the islands, just hope the weather allows it. :)
Lack of wolves and bears has caused some interesting side effects in Southern England where I live. Namely, the deer population has exploded as their only predator is now the motorcar. It's pretty cool seeing massive flocks of them and the occasional close encounter on my mountain bike; I once fed one some lettuce from a sandwich.
On the other hand, they are eating all the woods, starting with the saplings which is causing real harm to the sustainability of forests.
Predictably, the notion of culling some is very controversial, especially from nature loving people. But the alternative is bringing back the wolves. The wolves will do lots of wolfy things like killing dogs and eating livestock and be equally controversial.
It's not remotely controversial in Scotland - estates effectively have legal requirements for the numbers of deer they need to shoot each year to keep the population even vaguely under control (in fact, many campaigners complain that estate populations are allowed to keep deer populations too high to improve the commercial hunting.) This is generally accepted because, as you say, they have no natural predators. Is the situation different in England? I didn't realise it was.
You know, we could avoid a lot of the culturally ingrained fear of wolves if we instead "returned Labrador Retrievers to the wild", and let feral packs of them roam Scotland pursuing deer. So cute.
Nice image but in reality labradors, unlike wolves, don't have a innate fear of humans so feral labradors would be much more dangerous than wild wolves.
There are some great charities trying to restore the ancient woodlands of Scotland - the Trees for Life site has a lot of good information about some of the issues relating to high deer populations:
"To be lying in your tent in the middle of nowhere and to hear a wolf cry. Now that must be quite something."
The first time? Maybe. It quickly becomes distracting, annoying, and (depending on the distance) frightening.
The only decent argument I can find for reintroducing wolves is that it would help keep wild deer in check. But the costs of wolves are far higher than the costs of too many deer. Deer don't kill livestock or humans. And of course, wolves aren't the only solution to reducing the deer population. They can be culled in other ways. The whole thing seems like a non-starter to me.
I think most who are in favor of reintroducing wolves are just infatuated with charismatic megafauna. "Wolves look cool and they used to be on the island, so let's bring 'em back." …or something like that. Then they rationalize their conclusion with arguments about tourism and culling deer.
What if instead of wolves, it was crocodiles that had been eradicated from Scotland? I seriously doubt there would be as many supporters, yet the same arguments for reintroduction apply.
Killing livestock is an issue, but killing humans isn't really; it's essentially in the "freak accident" category, and less common than even most rare sources of freak accidents. So far, at least, the reintroduction process in the lower-48 U.S. states (which has been going on for about 20 years) hasn't led to any attacks on humans at all. If you include Alaska, which has a native wolf population, there's been exactly one wolf fatality in the U.S. in the entire period since WW2.
As for crocodiles: There's quite a bit of effort being expended to protect the declining crocodile population in Florida, so I don't think it'd be categorically out of the question.
Deer (and large herbivores in general) kill plenty of people. Statistically, they are more dangerous than any other animal (e.g. snakes, bears, sharks, alligators) in the US or Europe. The only thing I suspect might be more dangerous is insects such as bees and wasps that people have allergies to.
In 2012, deer caused $4 billion in damages and killed about 200 people in the US. Of course, many more than that were seriously injured.
Yeah, you see similar attitudes (on the part of Americans) towards maneating tigers in India, or lions in Africa. People don't get that the wolves are gone because we killed them, on purpose.
I actually read a history of China that contained the following nugget: tigers were, naturally, an object of reverence in the north and south. But feelings in the south were more mixed... because in the south, coming face-to-face with a tiger was a real possibility. Regardless of notional divinity, nobody wants that.
Predators are usually not that good for keeping animal populations in check. They often kill more than they can eat and leave the rest alone[1]. If you introduce predators for population control you would have to introduce scavengers as well. Otherwise rangers will have to clean up after them or the carcasses become a problem.
In the end you would need a whole and healthy ecosystem for this to work out correctly.
Deer are kept at artificially high levels in Scotland. A more suitable way to keep them "in check" would be to just let nature take its course on the deer population and on the countryside itself. But then that wouldn't sit well with the landed gentry who think it's a jolly good lark to go out shooting with the boys. Ho hum.
I'm not so sure deer doesn't kill (or at least injure) humans -- surely there must be many roadkill incidents in which humans are injured (as well as the deer)?
The European mainland is big on intentional rewilding, but a lot of the time the animals simply walk. Britain, obviously, is kind of stuffed for that. (In fact, we have been since Doggerland flooded, which is why even at peak biodiversity in this interglacial, Britain was a bit short on wildlife compared to the continent.)
It is interesting how something considered harmful can have beneficial effects. In this case reintroducing wolves could control the deer population and help the re-establish some of the Caledonian Forest.
There was another example I read recently: the Indian Vulture Crisis[0]. Apparently the vulture population in India has been declining dramatically. I wouldn't have thought vultures were particularly good, but their declining population has led to all sorts of significant issues such as an explosion in the number of wild dogs and the spread of disease. It has been traced to the administration of an anti-inflammatory called diclofenac to livestock.
[+] [-] sandworm101|10 years ago|reply
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/1096...
What's the largest predator in Britain? The badger? The fox? Or that housecat everyone thought was a lion.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-19397686
Talk to anyone in the pacific northwest. If you take only the slightest precautions you have nothing to fear from the wolves, cougars and bears. You are far more likely to be eaten by a fellow human. You are more likely to be killed by deer. They are already all over Britain. So the wolves will in all probability reduce the number of animal-related deaths.
http://www.therichest.com/animals/top-10-animals-that-kill-h...
[+] [-] chroma|10 years ago|reply
I lived in Washington for six years, and I can say that's simply not true. Protecting yourself from predators involves significant work. It's just that everyone is used to it. When camping, you have to store food and toiletries in bear canisters. You have to check for reports of bear activity. You carry bear spray. Some even carry a gun. Despite these preparations, there's the constant anxiety of knowing you might encounter a predator. It really sours the outdoor experience.
> So the wolves will in all probability reduce the number of animal-related deaths.
Wolves aren't the only way to cull the deer population.
When it comes to reintroducing wolves, everyone agrees the risk to humans is low. Almost nobody is going to be killed by wolves. But that argument proves too much. Almost nobody falls victim to serial killers. We still try to reduce the number of serial killers to zero.
[+] [-] nandemo|10 years ago|reply
http://www.tofugu.com/2014/04/17/japan-cant-decide-if-bears-...
There are also bears of another species not mentioned there. That said,
> You are far more likely to be eaten by a fellow human.
this is still true.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dpflan|10 years ago|reply
There are some good discussions and great links to related content including the TED talk on 'rewilding' by George Monbiot who narrates the How Wolves Change Rivers video.
[+] [-] dalke|10 years ago|reply
> Yet David Mech, a biologist who has worked extensively in Yellowstone, advises that such simple narrative arcs are hard to find in something as messy as an ecosystem. Mech does not discount all of Monbiot's claims, but cautions that as much harm could come to the wolf from being marketed as the poster boy of the environmental movement as it did in the era when it was hated and feared.
One of the narratives in a re-wilding context is that human are not part of the "wild." Yet in post-glacial areas like Scotland and Yellowstone, where humans arrived shortly after the ice melted, the ecosystem developed with humans as one of the apex predators.
We see this in Australia, for example at http://climatechange.umaine.edu/Research/Contrib/pdf/pdfFile... :
> For thousands of years, desert Aborigines have set fire to the arid savanna, creating an environmental patchwork to which much of the desert plant and animals are specifically adapted. Where Aborigines have been removed from their lands, the desert patchwork has often been obliterated with devastatingly large wildfires.
Humans are left out of the rewilding equation because I think it's drawing from a romantic tradition of what the wild is supposed to be.
[+] [-] smackay|10 years ago|reply
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/wildlifeatwork_tcm9-282134.pdf
[+] [-] davedx|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] techterrier|10 years ago|reply
On the other hand, they are eating all the woods, starting with the saplings which is causing real harm to the sustainability of forests.
Predictably, the notion of culling some is very controversial, especially from nature loving people. But the alternative is bringing back the wolves. The wolves will do lots of wolfy things like killing dogs and eating livestock and be equally controversial.
(edit: SPAG)
[+] [-] jnty|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mapt|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gupie|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sliverstorm|10 years ago|reply
Hey, it worked for the Chilean sea bass.
[+] [-] arethuza|10 years ago|reply
http://treesforlife.org.uk/
[+] [-] chroma|10 years ago|reply
The first time? Maybe. It quickly becomes distracting, annoying, and (depending on the distance) frightening.
The only decent argument I can find for reintroducing wolves is that it would help keep wild deer in check. But the costs of wolves are far higher than the costs of too many deer. Deer don't kill livestock or humans. And of course, wolves aren't the only solution to reducing the deer population. They can be culled in other ways. The whole thing seems like a non-starter to me.
I think most who are in favor of reintroducing wolves are just infatuated with charismatic megafauna. "Wolves look cool and they used to be on the island, so let's bring 'em back." …or something like that. Then they rationalize their conclusion with arguments about tourism and culling deer.
What if instead of wolves, it was crocodiles that had been eradicated from Scotland? I seriously doubt there would be as many supporters, yet the same arguments for reintroduction apply.
[+] [-] _delirium|10 years ago|reply
As for crocodiles: There's quite a bit of effort being expended to protect the declining crocodile population in Florida, so I don't think it'd be categorically out of the question.
[+] [-] Amezarak|10 years ago|reply
Deer (and large herbivores in general) kill plenty of people. Statistically, they are more dangerous than any other animal (e.g. snakes, bears, sharks, alligators) in the US or Europe. The only thing I suspect might be more dangerous is insects such as bees and wasps that people have allergies to.
In 2012, deer caused $4 billion in damages and killed about 200 people in the US. Of course, many more than that were seriously injured.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/10/24/267...
[+] [-] thaumasiotes|10 years ago|reply
I actually read a history of China that contained the following nugget: tigers were, naturally, an object of reverence in the north and south. But feelings in the south were more mixed... because in the south, coming face-to-face with a tiger was a real possibility. Regardless of notional divinity, nobody wants that.
Related: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe-we-don...
[+] [-] brillenfux|10 years ago|reply
In the end you would need a whole and healthy ecosystem for this to work out correctly.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] smcl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] e12e|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barking|10 years ago|reply
The century following the Cromwellian conquest saw a bounty-led drive to exterminate wolves with the last one being killed in 1786.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_in_Ireland
[+] [-] cskau|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JulianMorrison|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m-i-l|10 years ago|reply
There was another example I read recently: the Indian Vulture Crisis[0]. Apparently the vulture population in India has been declining dramatically. I wouldn't have thought vultures were particularly good, but their declining population has led to all sorts of significant issues such as an explosion in the number of wild dogs and the spread of disease. It has been traced to the administration of an anti-inflammatory called diclofenac to livestock.
Nature has many complex interactions.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_vulture_crisis
[+] [-] intellix|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peteretep|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ableal|10 years ago|reply