European bison

[JKD]

9 hours ago, Mice! said:

But a few animals in a fenced off wood is hardly re wilding,  and at some point that fence will break meaning they will escape and probably wind up getting shot.

@ditchman I hadn't heard of the water Buffalo I'll have look for that. I've seen a Gruffalo though😆

I didnt actually say this was a "re-wilding" 🤔 It's basically some bods testing the water, so to speak 🙄 And that last bit of your statement is basically garbage !

 

4 hours ago, Big Mat said:

There are several herds of water buffalo in the country. IIRC a farmer was killed or serious injured by one very recently. 

Several people are killed every year by cattle so that doesn't mean much TBH.

[Mice!]

14 hours ago, JKD said:

didnt actually say this was a "re-wilding" 🤔 It's basically some bods testing the water, so to speak 🙄 And that last bit of your statement is basically garbage !

The original post on this thread said it was a   re-wilding project,  and what do you think happens to the animal's that escape Zoos? I'm sure there was a Lnyx shot not long ago, despite wanting to release them, but probably in Scotland somewhere. 

Doing a search shows lots of escapes over the years, and most are shot so hardly garbage. 

[harkom]

Isn't it amazing just how many people support the concept of " re-wilding"  ie the releasing of non-native/indigenous animals ...generally .on somebody else's property. After all ....there is not much spare ground available in UK plc.

And whilst the supporters of these "projects" might willingly contribute to funding the release programme, I doubt that many would sign up to the ongoing costs involved in maintaining the "experiment" nor the expense of reparation and refunding for those adversely affected , directly and indirectly.

Seems to me that there would be a fairly large element of "nimbyism" amongst  the  supporters when approached or directed to put their money where their orifice is situated ?

[scutt]

Will re-wilding create exclusion zones for shooting/hunting I think it might just do that. Spooking an animal as large as that bison with a shot could do some damage could it not. 

[Stonepark]

1 hour ago, harkom said:

Isn't it amazing just how many people support the concept of " re-wilding"  ie the releasing of non-native/indigenous animals ...generally .on somebody else's property. After all ....there is not much spare ground available in UK plc.

And whilst the supporters of these "projects" might willingly contribute to funding the release programme, I doubt that many would sign up to the ongoing costs involved in maintaining the "experiment" nor the expense of reparation and refunding for those adversely affected , directly and indirectly.

Seems to me that there would be a fairly large element of "nimbyism" amongst  the  supporters when approached or directed to put their money where their orifice is situated ?

So far, no one has mentioned non-native or non- indigenous animals, so you are setting up a straw man argument, we are all talking about native species which were exterminated by man for various reasons (bar the lion which would have been here when the UK was jungle and was somewhat in jest in relation to how far back should we go).

Since landowners exterminated these species, why should they not bear at least part of the costs if their reinstatement? Your argument is basically landowners can kill everything as long as it is in competition to their use of the land and that ultimately results in a desert.

Just because landowners gave a piece of paper saying they own the land does not make them God, they are still subject to the rule of the country.

We do put our money where our mouths are by supporting charities to buy land to support the reintroduction of species, just like we support clubs etc to buy land for wildfowling etc.

NIMBYISM is a funny one, the charities are aquiring land thanks to above donations  and it is the landowners nearby and far and wide who are the Nimby's, look at the stooshie over the Beaver, NGO's due to landowners picked the most remote, isolated, least suitable spot they could to undertake a release to show it wouldn't work and have had to twice reinforce the population with additional releases.

Private individuals and groups (rightly or wrongly without land owners support) released them in the favourable habitat of Perthshire and numbers have increased naturally and re-colonisation is proceeding to the general publics approval and have now they have been released in a number of places in England.

Basically this money question is easy, we the public are already paying for it, the moment landowners stop taking agricultural, forestry and other subsidies and grants to the tune of £3 billion a year is when they can complain about species reintroductions costing them a tiny percentage of that sum.

 

 

[old'un]

Talking of non-native, aren’t pheasants and redleg non-native.

[Yellow Bear]

1 hour ago, Stonepark said:

Since landowners exterminated these species,

Hardly  -  to take 3 prime examples

Bison  15000 years  -  not many people let alone land owners then

Lynx  1500 years in Scotland more in the rest of the island  slightly more people but most of the island still wild.

Beaver  500 years - last report circa 1500 possibly hunted for their pelts not because they cased "landowners" problems again far fewer people.

 

Your argument , like the re-wilders does not hold water.  If you release you are responsible to for the maintenance and management, particularly on this small and over populated island.

[harkom]

2 hours ago, Stonepark said:

Private individuals and groups (rightly or wrongly without land owners support) released them in the favourable habitat of Perthshire and numbers have increased naturally and re-colonisation is proceeding to the general publics approval

And what about the farmers whose cereal fields became so waterlogged that they had great difficulty in preparing the ground for the new sowing? Were they happy chappies? Did they get compensation for alteration to crop patterns and rotation.

And in your first post you introduced the old myth of " moral high ground"..... please tell the readers where that is but don't bother giving directions to me. Like the rest of your monologue...completely fatuous.

[bluesj]

As I understand it it's not rewilding but using the bison and other animals to help maintain the a bit of woodland. 

[Stonepark]

25 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

Hardly  -  to take 3 prime examples

Bison  15000 years  -  not many people let alone land owners then

Lynx  1500 years in Scotland more in the rest of the island  slightly more people but most of the island still wild.

Beaver  500 years - last report circa 1500 possibly hunted for their pelts not because they cased "landowners" problems again far fewer people.

 

Your argument , like the re-wilders does not hold water.  If you release you are responsible to for the maintenance and management, particularly on this small and over populated island.

Bison 6000 years, habitats (mixed woodland's and glades) removed by human agri expansion due to forest restriction, easy source of meat.

 

Lynx removed by farmers to prevent predation of livestock., Wolves are similar

 

Beavers, hunted for pelts and scent glands, but habitats destroyed by agri improvements i.e. drainage,

 

Whilst all animals are hunted for various reasons, hunting itself normally us not the cause of extinction, habitat destruction is.

 

Who destroys habitat, humans, in particular farmers and to a more limited extent foresters.

 

Some how you think our ancestors were unthinking, incapable peoples, not able to affect their environment, when the opposite is true, they were efficient farmers, foresters and hunters

Edited July 12, 2020 by Stonepark

[Stonepark]

7 minutes ago, harkom said:

And what about the farmers whose cereal fields became so waterlogged that they had great difficulty in preparing the ground for the new sowing? Were they happy chappies? Did they get compensation for alteration to crop patterns and rotation.

And in your first post you introduced the old myth of " moral high ground"..... please tell the readers where that is but don't bother giving directions to me. Like the rest of your monologue...completely fatuous.

Well, they are getting £300 per hectare for arable land already and you want them to get more?

UK farmers due to poor agricultural policy have turned large areas of the country into habitat deserts and have and continue to benefit from those policies. At no point would any of these reintroductions cause more than a minor inconvenience on a national scale, but trying to argue that any effect should be compensated for or that a reintroduction should not inconvenience anyone  falls under the above mentioned 'poor' arguments.

 

stopping all agricultural subsidies would by default result in habitat being made available due to it not being worth farming and large areas of the hills would for instance become sheep free and available for re-colonisation of wolves and lynx for example.

Finally, Socrates noted that when the debate is lost,  slander becomes the tool of the losers.

[London Best]

The hills would certainly become sheep free after the reintroduction of wolves and lynx anyway.

[islandgun]

Re-wilding  is a very much more complicated than just sticking a few large mammals into a space, most of our species have evolved to live in the managed land that is the UK, take away the management and loose them. At the risk of repetition I was involved for several years removing American Mink as they represent a serious risk to some of our indigenous animals,  should we introduce the  European Mink ?  As I said earlier Iv'e no real problem with a large introduced herbivore especially a threatened one but I very much doubt SNH would agree..... mind you it would be something watching a pack of wild wolves chasing a Bison across a hill top in the Highlands..😉

[bluesj]

39 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

stopping all agricultural subsidies would by default result in habitat being made available due to it not being worth farming and large areas of the hills would for instance become sheep free and available for re-colonisation of wolves and lynx for example.

But it would also mean that you had to pay the real cost of your food! I don't know one farmer that would not happily give up subsidies in favour  of a sensible price for what they produce not that that is the way subsidies are payed now.

[bluesj]

Like it or not the uk has too high a population to do much in the way of rewilding. 

[JKD]

10 hours ago, Mice! said:

The original post on this thread said it was a   re-wilding project,  and what do you think happens to the animal's that escape Zoos? I'm sure there was a Lnyx shot not long ago, despite wanting to release them, but probably in Scotland somewhere. 

Doing a search shows lots of escapes over the years, and most are shot so hardly garbage. 

I reiterate that I didn't say it was a re-wilding, but you edited my post taking out the 'I', confusing yourself in the process.

And then you guess that the fence might break, assuming the landowners are being irresponsible in some way,,,, more BS 🤭

When it goes wrong, then you can criticise.

[Mice!]

14 minutes ago, JKD said:

I reiterate that I didn't say it was a re-wilding, but you edited my post taking out the 'I', confusing yourself in the process.

And then you guess that the fence might break, assuming the landowners are being irresponsible in some way,,,, more BS 🤭

When it goes wrong, then you can criticise.

I haven't edited anything,  when I've highlighted part of the post to reply to its simply not got the 'I'

The original poster who would be Rob85 said it was a re-wilding project and I said its hardly re-wilding with a few animal's. 

Fences break, trees blow over, Bison are big critters so where is the BS you like talking about?

One of the Lynx escapes was because the trees were too tall, which they were told/warned about, I'm sure if something the size of a Bison escapes it will just trot around happily?

[JKD]

9 minutes ago, Mice! said:

I haven't edited anything,  when I've highlighted part of the post to reply to its simply not got the 'I'

The original poster who would be Rob85 said it was a re-wilding project and I said its hardly re-wilding with a few animal's. 

Fences break, trees blow over, Bison are big critters so where is the BS you like talking about?

One of the Lynx escapes was because the trees were too tall, which they were told/warned about, I'm sure if something the size of a Bison escapes it will just trot around happily?

You're just being negative about a 'trial' which obviously has approval. The OP mentioned re-wilding, I didn't, so don't criticise me for something I didn't say. I deliberately said it was an introduction, no mention of re-wilding,,,, Criticise the OP not me 😕

[Rob85]

Jeez the handbags are out on this one..

The only reason i mentioned it as rewilding is because that's what this article said. Whether someone believes it's not really rewilding doesn't matter as all I'm saying is that's what the article said. Feel free to send a letter to the newspaper to tell them that they are wrong (which you could bet your wife's virtue on that they probably are!) but please don't argue over words that are just taken from the article. I have enclosed a screen shot.

[ShootingEgg]

Three of them in a large fenced area, its not rewilding its a bison park of three surely. And potential to be the next barronsdown if not managed properly as and when they grow the population. Is it a good idea, pass, time will tell.

[Pushandpull]

A bit soon to be requesting a variation for .500 A Square then ?

[Vince Green]

On 12/07/2020 at 14:41, old'un said:

Talking of non-native, aren’t pheasants and redleg non-native.

yes and rabbits

not to mention muntjacs and grey squirrels

and those ******* red kites

coypu and mink, and the parakeets that I see in my tree every day

Edited July 13, 2020 by Vince Green

[Walker570]

On 12/07/2020 at 17:59, bluesj said:

Like it or not the uk has too high a population to do much in the way of rewilding. 

....and growing annually at an alarming rate.

[harkom]

On 12/07/2020 at 14:03, Stonepark said:

 

On 12/07/2020 at 11:34, harkom said:

Isn't it amazing just how many people support the concept of " re-wilding"  ie the releasing of non-native/indigenous animals ...generally .on somebody else's property. After all ....there is not much spare ground available in UK plc.

And whilst the supporters of these "projects" might willingly contribute to funding the release programme, I doubt that many would sign up to the ongoing costs involved in maintaining the "experiment" nor the expense of reparation and refunding for those adversely affected , directly and indirectly.

Seems to me that there would be a fairly large element of "nimbyism" amongst  the  supporters when approached or directed to put their money where their orifice is situated ?

So far, no one has mentioned non-native or non- indigenous animals, so you are setting up a straw man argument, we are all talking about native species which were exterminated by man for various reasons (bar the lion which would have been here when the UK was jungle and was somewhat in jest in relation to how far back should we go).

Since landowners exterminated these species, why should they not bear at least part of the costs if their reinstatement? Your argument is basically landowners can kill everything as long as it is in competition to their use of the land and that ultimately results in a desert.

Just because landowners gave a piece of paper saying they own the land does not make them God, they are still subject to the rule of the country.

We do put our money where our mouths are by supporting charities to buy land to support the reintroduction of species, just like we support clubs etc to buy land for wildfowling etc.

NIMBYISM is a funny one, the charities are aquiring land thanks to above donations  and it is the landowners nearby and far and wide who are the Nimby's, look at the stooshie over the Beaver, NGO's due to landowners picked the most remote, isolated, least suitable spot they could to undertake a release to show it wouldn't work and have had to twice reinforce the population with additional releases.

Private individuals and groups (rightly or wrongly without land owners support) released them in the favourable habitat of Perthshire and numbers have increased naturally and re-colonisation is proceeding to the general publics approval and have now they have been released in a number of places in England.

Basically this money question is easy, we the public are already paying for it, the moment landowners stop taking agricultural, forestry and other subsidies and grants to the tune of £3 billion a year is when they can complain about species reintroductions costing them a tiny percentage of that sum.

 

Ah! The politics of SNPism raises its head.

Sorry, but I won't bother replying as I will hold to the tenet that a wise man once told me  --- " Never argue with an i**t ....etc ".

[CharlieT]

1 hour ago, harkom said:

Ah! The politics of SNPism raises its head.

Sorry, but I won't bother replying as I will hold to the tenet that a wise man once told me  --- " Never argue with an i**t ....etc ".

Which is exactly why I ignored it. Mugabe at his best.