More good news

[Asha Santon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35890789

No more need for culling of deer and hare.
No more excuses for people thinking they own the place.

What we want is wildlife.

[Malcolm Ogilvie]

Post by Asha Santon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35890789
No more need for culling of deer and hare.
No more excuses for people thinking they own the place.
What we want is wildlife.

Indeed. But the serious overpopulation of Britain with deer means that we actually have
less other wildlife.

Malcolm

[Asha Santon]

Post by Malcolm Ogilvie

Post by Asha Santon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35890789
No more need for culling of deer and hare.
No more excuses for people thinking they own the place.
What we want is wildlife.

Indeed. But the serious overpopulation of Britain with deer means that we actually have
less other wildlife.
Malcolm

That was exactly my point.
Lynx eat deer so no need to cull and no overpopulation.
A few wolves would be good too.
The natural ecosystem works best if we don't kill everything just
because we can.

[BobHobden]

Post by Asha Santon

Post by Malcolm Ogilvie

Post by Asha Santon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35890789
No more need for culling of deer and hare.
No more excuses for people thinking they own the place.
What we want is wildlife.

Indeed. But the serious overpopulation of Britain with deer means that we actually have
less other wildlife.

That was exactly my point.
Lynx eat deer so no need to cull and no overpopulation.
A few wolves would be good too.
The natural ecosystem works best if we don't kill everything just because
we can.

I like venison and as I can't imagine them letting Lynx loose in the Royal
Parks, Bushy Park for example, they will still shoot (cull) them there.

[Asha Santon]

Post by BobHobden

Post by Asha Santon

Post by Malcolm Ogilvie

Post by Asha Santon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35890789
No more need for culling of deer and hare.
No more excuses for people thinking they own the place.
What we want is wildlife.

Indeed. But the serious overpopulation of Britain with deer means that we actually have
less other wildlife.

That was exactly my point.
Lynx eat deer so no need to cull and no overpopulation.
A few wolves would be good too.
The natural ecosystem works best if we don't kill everything just
because we can.

I like venison and as I can't imagine them letting Lynx loose in the
Royal Parks, Bushy Park for example, they will still shoot (cull) them
there.

I'm happy for you.
Eating other animals for food is quite common among hominids but I
doubt that is what anyone means by culling.
The list of possible sites for Lynx from which just one will be chosen
is included in the article. Obviously I hope my local area will be
chosen even if there is little chance of seeing them once released into
the forests.

[BobHobden]

Post by Asha Santon

Post by BobHobden

Post by Asha Santon

Post by Malcolm Ogilvie

Post by Asha Santon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35890789
No more need for culling of deer and hare.
No more excuses for people thinking they own the place.
What we want is wildlife.

Indeed. But the serious overpopulation of Britain with deer means that
we actually have
less other wildlife.

That was exactly my point.
Lynx eat deer so no need to cull and no overpopulation.
A few wolves would be good too.
The natural ecosystem works best if we don't kill everything just
because we can.

I like venison and as I can't imagine them letting Lynx loose in the
Royal Parks, Bushy Park for example, they will still shoot (cull) them
there.

I'm happy for you.
Eating other animals for food is quite common among hominids but I doubt
that is what anyone means by culling.
The list of possible sites for Lynx from which just one will be chosen is
included in the article. Obviously I hope my local area will be chosen even
if there is little chance of seeing them once released into the forests.

I doubt many carcasses are left in the field after shooting them. Like in
Bushy Park at Hampton Court they are taken for the meat trade only leaving a
pool of blood as evidence.

[Malcolm Ogilvie]

Post by Asha Santon

Post by Malcolm Ogilvie

Post by Asha Santon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35890789
No more need for culling of deer and hare.
No more excuses for people thinking they own the place.
What we want is wildlife.

Indeed. But the serious overpopulation of Britain with deer means that we actually have
less other wildlife.
Malcolm

That was exactly my point.
Lynx eat deer so no need to cull and no overpopulation.
A few wolves would be good too.
The natural ecosystem works best if we don't kill everything just
because we can.

But you live in Scotland which is where there is a (remote) possibility that lynx might be
released, while there is, in my view, no possibility that wolves will ever be released.
The problem with overpopulations of deer, though, is not confined to Scotland, but is even
more a problem in England and Wales where there are an estimated million doing serious
damage to lowland woodlands, where the chances of agreement to release their predators is,
I would suggest, nil. The "natural ecosystem" (whatever that is) is just not coping with
these numbers of deer.

Perhaps you would like to do some sums and work out how long in years it would take for a
population of lynx to increase sufficiently from the proposal in the article you
referenced to release just three pairs initially to make an impression on the c.350,000
roe deer (the lynx's likely main prey) in Scotland.

There's a published estimate that one would have to cull 50% of the UK deer population
each year just to stand still.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21688447

Can we afford to wait while enough lynx are released/bred to make any difference?

Malcolm

[Asha Santon]

Post by Malcolm Ogilvie

Post by Asha Santon

Post by Malcolm Ogilvie

Post by Asha Santon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35890789
No more need for culling of deer and hare.
No more excuses for people thinking they own the place.
What we want is wildlife.

Indeed. But the serious overpopulation of Britain with deer means that we actually have
less other wildlife.
Malcolm

That was exactly my point.
Lynx eat deer so no need to cull and no overpopulation.
A few wolves would be good too.
The natural ecosystem works best if we don't kill everything just
because we can.

But you live in Scotland which is where there is a (remote) possibility that lynx might be
released, while there is, in my view, no possibility that wolves will ever be released.

Of the five areas from which the one will be chosen, only two are in
Scotland. I just happen to live in one of those, hence my interest.
I agree that people are probably too selfish to reintroduce wolves in
spite of the tourism it generates and the compensation scheme which
ensures if a naughty animal eats one of our precious possessions, we
get the cash for it just as if it never happened.

Post by Malcolm Ogilvie
Can we afford to wait while enough lynx are released/bred to make any difference?

No, of course not but what we cannot afford to do is fail to make a
start. Yes, there will only be a small number of lynx and for two
reasons. There aren't exactly millions of them so we can't steal too
many at once. Having introduced a few, we wait to see what happens
before going completely wild with enthusiasm.

Reforestation of Scotland (and elsewhere) is delayed by too many deer
eating the baby trees. Something needs to be done other than having
mass murder sessions every few years into infinity. The reintroduction
of predators will put an end to the need and allow the trees to grow in
the future (not this week).

I don't recall suggesting this was a quick fix. It is a long term
solution and it will work because it is how nature works on this planet
(or would if we allowed it). There will be culls meanwhile but in the
long term, there will be no more need and that is worth aiming for. The
only thing which will not be a happy bunny is the bunny because lynx
eat those too. That said, I suspect a lynx kills a rabbit a lot faster
and less painfully than the obscenity which was introduced to control
rabbit numbers last century.

Bring back the predators. Other species can compete with one another.
Hominids can cope with sharing the world unless we are a lesser species.

I grew up wondering why all the countries I read about had (larger)
wild animals but there were none in mine (I was born in England). It is
because my pin brained ancestors killed them all. Time to put that
right.

I didn't even mention bears.

[Malcolm Ogilvie]

Post by Asha Santon
I don't recall suggesting this was a quick fix. It is a long term
solution and it will work because it is how nature works on this planet
(or would if we allowed it). There will be culls meanwhile

There will *have* to be culls meanwhile, which means for as long as it takes to establish
sufficient numbers of deer predators throughout Scotland, England and Wales. I would
suggest 20-30 years at a minimum. So in the meantime, get used to it.

[Asha Santon]

Post by Malcolm Ogilvie

Post by Asha Santon
I don't recall suggesting this was a quick fix. It is a long term
solution and it will work because it is how nature works on this planet
(or would if we allowed it). There will be culls meanwhile

There will *have* to be culls meanwhile, which means for as long as it takes to establish
sufficient numbers of deer predators throughout Scotland, England and Wales. I would
suggest 20-30 years at a minimum. So in the meantime, get used to it.

Again, you repeat my point perfectly. There is nothing for me to get
used to. If the long term I mentioned is only 20-30 years, that would
be brilliant. I would have thought at least fifty. Meanwhile and with a
bit of luck, I can go lynx spotting locally.
You seem to want to argue against points you agree with. Not to worry.

[Malcolm Ogilvie]

Post by Asha Santon

Post by Malcolm Ogilvie

Post by Asha Santon
I don't recall suggesting this was a quick fix. It is a long term
solution and it will work because it is how nature works on this planet
(or would if we allowed it). There will be culls meanwhile

There will *have* to be culls meanwhile, which means for as long as it takes to establish
sufficient numbers of deer predators throughout Scotland, England and Wales. I would
suggest 20-30 years at a minimum. So in the meantime, get used to it.

Again, you repeat my point perfectly. There is nothing for me to get
used to. If the long term I mentioned is only 20-30 years, that would
be brilliant. I would have thought at least fifty. Meanwhile and with a
bit of luck, I can go lynx spotting locally.
You seem to want to argue against points you agree with. Not to worry.

I'm merely pointing out to you, who posted: "No more need for culling of deer and hare. No
more excuses for people thinking they own the place." without putting any conditions on
those very positive statements, that there is every need to cull deer. You have now
wriggled enough to say that you didn't mean that culling had to stop now, but that was the
clear implication of your original post.

Malcolm

[Asha Santon]

Post by Malcolm Ogilvie

Post by Asha Santon

Post by Malcolm Ogilvie

Post by Asha Santon
I don't recall suggesting this was a quick fix. It is a long term
solution and it will work because it is how nature works on this planet
(or would if we allowed it). There will be culls meanwhile

There will *have* to be culls meanwhile, which means for as long as it
takes to establish
sufficient numbers of deer predators throughout Scotland, England and Wales. I would
suggest 20-30 years at a minimum. So in the meantime, get used to it.

Again, you repeat my point perfectly. There is nothing for me to get
used to. If the long term I mentioned is only 20-30 years, that would
be brilliant. I would have thought at least fifty. Meanwhile and with a
bit of luck, I can go lynx spotting locally.
You seem to want to argue against points you agree with. Not to worry.

I'm merely pointing out to you, who posted: "No more need for culling of deer and hare. No
more excuses for people thinking they own the place." without putting any conditions on
those very positive statements, that there is every need to cull deer. You have now
wriggled enough to say that you didn't mean that culling had to stop now, but that was the
clear implication of your original post.
Malcolm

Thank you for telling me what I meant. No wriggling was needed on my part.
The clear implication of my original post is that we need to
reintroduce predators right now (or as soon as is practicably possible)
instead of whining about the mess we made previously. Once this has
been done, there will be no need for culling as the system will take
care of itself. The only condition which needed to be applied to that
is common sense which, I incorrectly assumed, was a given. It did not
and still does not occur to me that anyone would think that meant
introduce half a dozen lynx and everything is sorted by the morning.

You are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled not to change mine.
Bring back the predators and by all means feel free to argue with
yourself meanwhile :)