What do you think - delightful or disaster?
The environment has had a chance to adjust to them not being around, if you suddenly change things, nature cannot always adapt that quickly. They used to be here but that does not mean that their niche in the balance of nature still exists.
Look at a forum topic post from me in 2012 "Beavers Gallery - Busy Fellows". This has a number of photos I took in Tayside where there are now about 142 in place according to SNH survey figures from 2012/13. No point having any consultation to follow on from the Knapdale "trial" when we have that number already on the loose !!
Burnie,
Yup, you are right. I agree.
I wonder, however, if this same will be said, at some time in the not too distant future - when all our rivers are stocked with artificial/hatchery reared salmon, trout and sea-trout - about the demise of our wild fish?
I guess that beavers existed in harmony alongside wild fish in Scotland for thousands of years, from the end of the last Ice Age, until humans, driven by commercial considerations, drove our native beaver populations to extinction.
Does what comes around really go around?
Bruce
For good or for ill, I think beavers are here to stay now. There have been so many illegal introductions in Perthshire and Angus. They are in the Dean, it's just a short hop to the Vinny and Lunan. The illegal introductions can be shot by landowners, but I guess many won't bother
It will depend, if they block the burns and flood the crops SHOOT.
The fishing in North America and Canada is ruined by all the beavers ? ;) Its the bloody beavers not man that's to blame ! However it needs to be slow. Sb
Anyone who goes about shooting lovely cuddly beavers will be pilloried by the conservationalists - notwithstanding the many millions of pounds spent each year across Europe on controlling beaver damage and unblocking impounded streams and small rivers.
Can we then shoot the cuddly netters or the cuddly fish farmers in the estuaries that really damage the fisheries ? If beavers get out of hand then fine cull them but an animal that should be here if it had not been hunted out of existence cant have a small space then lets just get rid of them all ? Cheers DA.
Quote from: Alan on May 17, 2014, 05:47:49 PM
It strikes me that one half of the British have an obsession with introducing things, and the other half an obsession with killing things,
There is a wild life centre near me that spends a lot of vet time on crows, magpies, foxes etc, a fair number have been shot, the strange cycle of human cruelty and compassion.
One half of the British have lost touch with reality.
Based on the above comments, we must restore balance to The Force (sorry, watching Star Wars).
Like Bruce and Burnie, I think that when it comes to re-introduction of species it's bound to cause problems because of course the niche that species once occupied has been allowed for, if not filled, over time and other species have adapted and habitats altered in it's absence. However, I find it paradoxical that some of the same people who decry such introductions are more-than-happy to see landscapes "managed" in a way which favours certain other species for so-called "sporting" purposes, to the detriment of so-called nature.
For the record though I loathe the word nature because it is inevitably used in a way which encourages people to think of "us" and "nature" as separate entities when really, however unlikely it may appear and however unpalatable a thought to some, humans are also "nature". However, if you want to get philosophical about it, and you accept that argument, then every aspect of human endeavour and its resultant detritus is, ispo-facto, also "nature". This of course can be used to contradict my first point because the managing of landscapes for whatever reason is a human cause and effect. Then again, the danger there is that this could ultimately be used to justify practically anything, including (to take it to it's furthest extremes) genocide! Uh oh, I feel a Godwin's Law moment coming on! :shock:
Quote from: Alan on May 17, 2014, 08:13:50 PM
Which one? i'd say both :lol:
Not that I condon cruelty to animals and love to see the wildlife around where I live and indeed one the reasons I chose to live there but sending foxes, crows & magpies to the vet sounds stupid IMO.
Quote from: Midgie Hater on May 17, 2014, 08:59:27 PM
Based on the above comments, we must restore balance to The Force (sorry, watching Star Wars).
Like Bruce and Burnie, I think that when it comes to re-introduction of species it's bound to cause problems because of course the niche that species once occupied has been allowed for, if not filled, over time and other species have adapted and habitats altered in it's absence. However, I find it paradoxical that some of the same people who decry such introductions are more-than-happy to see landscapes "managed" in a way which favours certain other species for so-called "sporting" purposes, to the detriment of so-called nature.
For the record though I loathe the word nature because it is inevitably used in a way which encourages people to think of "us" and "nature" as separate entities when really, however unlikely it may appear and unpalatable a thought to some, humans are also "nature". However, if you want to get philosophical about it, and you accept that argument then every aspect of human endeavour and its resultant detritus is, ispo-facto, also "nature". This of course can be used to contradict my first point because the managing of landscapes for whatever reason is a human cause and effect. Then again, the danger there is that this could ultimately be used to justify practically anything, including (to take it to it's furthest extremes) genocide! Uh oh, I feel a Godwin's Law moment coming on! :shock:
Ever had any thoughts about going into Politics ? :D
Whether beaver reintroduction is a good or bad thing I think most would agree that the people who are doing it illegally while there is a research program underway and not really doing beavers or the case for them much good. The SG has to take some flack for this too as it could be argued that in refusing to deal with the illegal introductions in the Tay catchment, as they did last year, they are giving encouragement to those who are doing this. At the very least it's making a bit of a mockery of the controlled trials.
You should try Kilmarnock town centre on a Saturday night , tons of wild beaver running the streets :D
Quote from: Suki1312 on May 17, 2014, 10:48:36 PM
You should try Kilmarnock town centre on a Saturday night , tons of wild beaver running the streets :D
:lol:
But good question were did they get these beavers from (apart from Kilmarnock) ?
Quote from: Alan on May 17, 2014, 10:44:43 PM
Cant believe you got a Salmon bash into that one :lol:
Who on earth is introducing beavers illegally? where do they get them?
They have been introduced illegally into the Tay catchment and are spreading. Last year the responsible SG minster was on BBC News and said no action was to be taken at the current time to deal with the illegal introductions. I'm neither for or against this, but I do find it a bit odd that this is being ignored while at the same time a controlled trial is underway in another part of the country. Perhaps the minster was worried about the dead small furry animal effect.
Baby beavers get carried about ducks feet or was it Pikes tails.
I'm told - by reliable sources - that the jumps they have made in recent years would have been impossible without human agency. But, yes, it does appear once they are there they breed and spread like rats. Because they are illegal introductions and considered non native, landowners and farmers etc are at liberty to shoot or trap them as they wish. The SG is taking big risk here, if houses and property are flooded and this can be attributed even in part to beavers blocking water courses they will be wishing they had organized a cull of the illegal introductions.
Quote from: admin on May 17, 2014, 10:57:19 PM
They have been introduced illegally into the Tay catchment and are spreading. Last year the responsible SG minster was on BBC News and said no action was to be taken at the current time to deal with the illegal introductions. I'm neither for or against this, but I do find it a bit odd that this is being ignored while at the same time a controlled trial is underway in another part of the country. Perhaps the minster was worried about the dead small furry animal effect.
The badger cull worked well for the minister ;)
I remember seeing it on the news, controlled introduction of beavers, fair enough, starting to look like it wasn't very controlled, either they escaped by themselves or some people chose to release them illegally ?
Not sure what I think, I probably like beavers but fear the environment is not there for them any more, great to have a few back in the country side but once there are loads of them I can see the culling starting if the photos of what is happening on Tayside is anything to go by. What with the climate change and flooding I fear for the beavers future.
PS I wrote that before I got to read the last two posts and I see it is along the same lines of thinking.
What I'm saying is that if there is flooding and illegally introduced beavers that "should have been culled" are in any way implicated, even partly, there will be trouble. I don't see this as being an issue in remote parts of the highlands, but in populous areas and over farmland where the country's food is grown it will be.
There is not a day i walk in local countryside (yes paisley has some) that i see more than one rabbit. Now knowing how the bunnies breed i think this makes a plague of beavers pretty unlikely. If I'm wrong the Ned's with unlicensed airguns will fix it.
I think you are right. I'd be very surprised if they are not already being shot. Knowing how much farmers hate any kind of obstructions on rivers that run through farmland I find it hard to believe they will sit idly by and watch them build dams when they are allowed to shoot them.
:lol:
Quote from: Alan on May 18, 2014, 12:07:12 AM
'Beavers Dash Hopes of Independence'
First minister Alex Salmond's plans for independence were in tatters last night after publicity surrounding Scotland's 'beaver gate' scandal eclipsed his final speech before polling on Tuesday, polls are showing a sudden last minute down turn,
The fiasco began when animal rights campaigners joined ranks with home owners from flooded Tayside where beaver activity has caused havoc with waterways, Mr Salmond tried in vain to ignore the protests from the back of the Perth town hall but campaigners broke through the police cordon and grabbed the media limelight,
Mr Sandy McDonald of Cuper Angus said ''we have had enough, these beavers have ruined our lives, our homes are flooded and the government is doing nothing, if this is what an independent Scotland will look like i'm having none of it, it either us or the beavers!''
:lol:
:lol:
David Cameron will have been glad there are no beavers in the S O E after last winter !
:D Alan did you write that yourself :D perfidious ... i admit i had to google that LOL
This is an interesting article and really underlines what a shambles this whole beaver business has been since 2008.
http://www.highlandperthshirenews.co.uk/general-landuse-environment/beavers-in-scotland-their-confused-legal-status (http://www.highlandperthshirenews.co.uk/general-landuse-environment/beavers-in-scotland-their-confused-legal-status)
You should start reading again Alan. Begin with the article I have linked to above. Monty Python's Big Red Book had nothing on this. :D As they say, you really couldn't make it up. Phrases involving arses and elbows come to mind. :lol:
Just caught up on all of this
Quote from: guest on May 17, 2014, 10:54:56 PM
I'm quite happy with beavers in Argyll - plenty room for them.
Reintroductions - why are we for ospreys, red kites and sea eagles but against beavers?
And if you don't like beavers ...
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-27445875?SThisFB (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-27445875?SThisFB)
Birds of prey been found killed recently up our way, mostly Red Kites and Golden Eagles, even been discussed at Scottish Parliament
Terrain is crucial in relation to the "effects" of beavers and they would prefer lowland situations of only slight slopes eg. much of Tayside. Rain fed spate streams and rivers with fast flow rates as with most of Argyll are less suited so they will centre on limited flood plain areas in Argyll where the areas of ground flooded are consequently larger and so the landowners may be more annoyed.
The piece about the legal status of the beavers either in-trial or escaped (aye right) shows that the genie is long out of the bottle. About ten years or more in fact.
Quote from: Bobfly on May 18, 2014, 11:22:55 AM
The piece about the legal status of the beavers either in-trial or escaped (aye right) shows that the genie is long out of the bottle. About ten years or more in fact.
So correct. There is a parallel with the wild boar around here. They have been here for years since they "escaped" or were "criminally released" from a farm in Glen Dessary (whichever the cause, the farmer got the insurance- go figure). Sightings were rare, a bunch of walkers got chased off the track at Poulary. There was plenty of sign- they ploughed up the bracken at Altnaslat and my neighbour's lawn (kind of stupid as he was a retired pork butcher with a rifle). You can see sign under the oak trees at Inshlaggan House right by the roadside. All this time the authorities were ignoring or denying the facts- though Forestry Enterprise had a shoot on sight policy that you could find on t'interweb of you dug hard enough. A B&B at Glen Gloy set up a camera trap and got one on video, there was a juvenile corpse by the side of the A82 for weeks and there is now the rumour of a police car hitting a full-grown boar on the A82 north of Fort Augustus. The story finally featured on "Landward" a couple of weeks ago with an interview with another neighbour.
The legal position is difficult as they are not mentioned in the legislation, so there is no definition be it "game", "non-native", "pest", or whatever- though cruel or inhumane killings will be covered.
Quote from: Bobfly on May 18, 2014, 11:22:55 AM
The piece about the legal status of the beavers either in-trial or escaped (aye right) shows that the genie is long out of the bottle. About ten years or more in fact.
Indeed. Perhaps the previous SG were more astute than we gave them credit for at the time they refused beaver trial permission. What we now appear to have is a complete shambles thanks to Mike Russell .
Quote from: guest on May 17, 2014, 10:54:56 PM
I'm quite happy with beavers in Argyll - plenty room for them.
Reintroductions - why are we for ospreys, red kites and sea eagles but against beavers?
And if you don't like beavers ...
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-27445875?SThisFB (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-27445875?SThisFB)
I'm all for it. Anything that improves habitat is to be supported IMO, all habitat improvements ultimately improve fishing, including the dodgy looking fellows in that link.
Wouldn't wolves devour the work force of The Power Houses Of Europe? :lol:
Quote from: Alan on May 18, 2014, 02:53:26 PM
Beavers are not much different from humans when it comes to real estate, if you were to take a middle aged couple from Hampshire and release them into Argyll for example, they would settle into their new home initially, survey their surroundings and meet the neighbours, maybe even have some children, but ultimately they would consider moving to leafier surrounds more in keeping with their lifestyle,
The only difference is that beavers are not encumbered with house prices, without competition they would have the whole country to choose from, when Mrs Beaver sets her heart on a little corner of Tayside you know its only a matter of time before the neighbourhood is full of beavers.
But this is nature at work, its what we wanted surely, were they introduced only to be controlled by us in a pretend wildness?
'wild' comes with these inconveniences, it doesn't always 'provide us' with the nice bits for us to look at before we get back on the bus, did they not mention that bit? just sometimes it exercises its wildness and floods the garden, and we have to write a letter to someone to bring it back within our control,
Foxes are lovely reminders of wildness but if they pull all the rubbish out our bin or eat the chickens we don't put the bin and chickens somewhere safe, we shoot our little bit of wildness, wholesale, with the will of the country behind us, cull and tame, then reintroduce them when their fight for survival reaches a critical point and the bin is left unmolested,
In doing all this we don't give a damn about living things, their sole purpose is to satisfy our whims, the badger lovers for example get a cause to fight for, the marksmen get a reason to kill stuff, the scientists get to look like their vocation provides important data, and the word 'management' tells us all its a worthwhile way to spend money.
A nation of animal lovers? or are we just obsessed with keeping gardens tidy and slug free?
and there speaks the voice of reason. :8)
Quote from: Alan on May 18, 2014, 02:53:26 PM
A nation of animal lovers? or are we just obsessed with keeping gardens tidy and slug free?
It's not gardeners with slug pellets beavers will have to worry about in the fertile lands of Tayside. It's angry farmers with 12 bore shotguns.
Here's another "beaver in the woodpile" to ponder. On rivers like The Dean (there are illegal beavers there and lots of their dams), and indeed my local river, that have been heavily modified by canalization, embankments cutting them off from their natural flood plains, had obstacles like rocks and tree roots removed, banks built up and reinforced with giant boulders to prevent their natural meandering etc etc - I think a bit of beavering could be a good thing as far as resident fish go. They would create pinch points, scour pools, cover for fish - a more diverse habitat.
Now if the landowner does ANY work on the river he must first consult SEPA who will do an assessment and either grant or refuse a license
That's not a theory, it's a fact.
There have been recent cases of prosecutions of landowners who have chosen to ignore this. Even adding a few rocks here an there without permission will have you up in front of The Beak, cap in hand. You can't even build a croy on a salmon river now, not without SEPA consent.
How do random unplanned and unlicensed beaver modifications of watercourses fit in with this master plan?
They won't
I agree with Alan about the self-gratification aspect of all this and going on from that our paradoxical human approach to what I referred to previously as so-called nature. It's at least partly what I was trying to say earlier, but better expressed :)
However, call it pedantic if you like (I prefer to call it accurate ;) ) but there's no such thing as an illegal beaver :) Illegal acts committed by humans to place them where we deem they shouldn't be, yes. And I'd say the same goes for modifications of water-courses. The beavers are doing what they do. Humans have a choice, so if they breach the laws then it's fair enough that they are pulled up for it, whether we think laws governing such things are right, wrong, too rigidly defined or too vague to interpret without being tripped up.
Quote from: admin on May 18, 2014, 04:14:16 PM
How do random unplanned and unlicensed beaver modifications of watercourses fit in with this master plan?
SEPA have little or no remit to deal with "natural" changes to watercourses. In this they defer to SNH.
You will struggle to get SNH to grant you permission to evict or destroy any animal (though they can).
There are a few exceptions on the "pest" list and non-native species such as mink.
For beavers, somebody has to make a decision on what they are nowadays.
A) If a "native mammal" they will require to be added to the list in the legislation and then they (and all their works) would be protected as such- cue outcry from flooded farmers.
B) "Non-native" and you can shoot them at will, cue outcry from beaver cuddlers.
(A) also sets a precedent. If historically native animals can be re-introduced and go onto the protected "native" list, what of wolves, lynx and bear?
Tough times ahead for our decision makers, so they bury their heads in the sands of "scientific investigation" to delay the process and give us the inanity of a re-introduction project for a handful of beavers when something like 60 times that number are roaming free.
So as, the study can only conclude that re-introduction is a good or bad idea, they won't for the reasons given in A and B above.
I think I've spotted a niche for my retirement next year................trapper Burnie(I believe they taste alright too).
Quote from: Midgie Hater on May 18, 2014, 04:32:11 PM
However, call it pedantic if you like (I prefer to call it accurate ;) ) but there's no such thing as an illegal beaver :) Illegal acts committed by humans to place them where we deem they shouldn't be, yes. And I'd say the same goes for modifications of water-courses. The beavers are doing what they do. Humans have a choice, so if they breach the laws then it's fair enough that they are pulled up for it, whether we think laws governing such things are right, wrong, too rigidly defined or too vague to interpret without being tripped up.
You can call them whatever you like. Let's call them Bertie. Bertie Beaver, that has a ring to it. :D
As I said above a few Berties on our local rivers could well improve habitat for resident fish, I'm pretty sure they would, they are after all part of the original ecosystem, even although the rivers bear little resemblance to that now, but how will Bertie's random modifications of watercourses be received?
On agriculturally worthless wet lands in places like Argyll it may not be a serious issue, but in the bread basket of Scotland I somehow can't see them being welcome no matter how good the trout fishing gets. That might be one reason why the Bertie trials were located in Argyll and not in Aberdeenshire.
So, might SEPA have a Bertie monitoring squad that surveys his creations and removes any that are inappropriate? If so who would pay for this? Perhaps a binocular license could be brought in and enthusiast pro- Bertie groups and Bertie watchers could finance it?
SEPA is very strict about modifications of water courses, they prosecuted a landowner here last year, and to simply ignore this would do little for its credibility.
Quote from: admin on May 18, 2014, 04:14:16 PM
How do random unplanned and unlicensed beaver modifications of watercourses fit in with this master plan?
SEPA will have to take the beavers responsible to court or the beavers will have to apply to their local authority for planning permission. i should imagine a particularly enterprising beaver might see an opportunity for setting up a wind-farm or even a hydro-scheme....
Quote from: Alan on May 18, 2014, 05:38:35 PM
Shouldn't we call them Bertie the 'wild' beaver? was that not the point of reintroduction? same status as other wild things,
As I said you can call them what you like.
Now what about the issue of random modification of water courses?
OK, somebody had to post this one, might as well be me.
naked-gun-nice-beaver (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhyCL-ELRxg#)
Quote from: Alan on May 18, 2014, 05:43:07 PM
You would need to define 'random' first, i hope you don't mean beavers are just all behaving randomly :lol:
OK, I'll assume that you are avoiding the question because you don't have an answer. :8)
:lol:
Another cracker, well done!
But getting back to the topic, what about the issue of beavers modifying water courses? What are your views on how that potentially serious issue should be handled?
The law prevents farmers from making unauthorized modifications.
So, do you have any idea how it might be handled?
So how would you suggest beaver modification of water courses be handled?
I agree to a point, but the previous SG took such advice and decided not to go ahead with the trial (which appears to be a shambles) because of possible implications under EU law. The current lot for reasons best known to themselves reversed this and frankly took the politically cowardly route when it came to dealing with the illegal introductions that have made a nonsense of the trials they authorized and are spending our money on. You could not make this up.
In case you have not you should read this
http://www.highlandperthshirenews.co.uk/general-landuse-environment/beavers-in-scotland-their-confused-legal-status (http://www.highlandperthshirenews.co.uk/general-landuse-environment/beavers-in-scotland-their-confused-legal-status)
Trees have already had to be cut down on the main A92 at Forfar because they had been made unsafe by beaver gnawing and could have fallen on traffic. It's a real shame for these animals, like the mink released from fur farms by animal rights idiots they are only trying to gnaw out a living. Many are bound to be shot or trapped openly or otherwise.
As I said above I think beavers could improve trout fishing for reasons already explained, I have nothign against these animals, only the idiots who are responsible for spreading them around and undermining the case for their reintroduction and the politicians without the balls to tackle the problems.
As I read it the overall shambles would make it unlikely shooting them would be illegal as they were illegally released. I'm sure the SG could find out in 10 minutes if it wanted to.
1. The SG do not want to find out just at the moment....
2. Any confused situation means endless court actions and endless delays ....
Here is picture from America to give folks an idea of how they adjust their habitat:-
[attachimg=1]
I think I heard one of the unintended consequences was a cross breed with mink and the beaver were not able to compete with them.
Seems strange but quite a scary thought
Quote from: Bobfly on May 18, 2014, 07:10:25 PM
Here is picture from America to give folks an idea of how they adjust their habitat:-
Remind me never to park my Morris Traveller near the Dean water :D
[attachimg=1]
Quote from: admin on May 18, 2014, 06:04:07 PM
what about the issue of beavers modifying water courses? What are your views on how that potentially serious issue should be handled?
Did you threaten to overrule him?
I did not overrule him.
Quote from: admin on May 18, 2014, 06:08:51 PM
So, do you have any idea how it might be handled?
Did you threaten to overrule him?
I did not overrule him.
Quote from: admin on May 18, 2014, 06:14:16 PM
So how would you suggest beaver modification of water courses be handled?
Did you threaten to overrule him?
I did not overrule him...
Well, that's what I was reminded of anyway :lol:
Believe me, I'm far worse than Paxman. :lol:
Perhaps you should've done my old job then since maybe you were better suited? My old Editor used to call me the Sergeant Wilson of Scottish radio journalism :lol: Then again it seemed to work. Politicians are often wrong-footed somewhat if you're actually nice to them when they expect a mauling. This then sets things up nicely for a coup-de-grace. I still chuckle when I think of Bruce Crawford's "bunny caught in the headlights" look towards then end of one initially benign interview. :devil;
Can they not be treated a bit like deer ? We mostly all like seeing furry/hairy animals living in the wilds but like deer too many in an area cause problems and sometimes the numbers get culled back. Maybe even get wuperts to pay to shoot berties :D
I had no idea when i asked to join this fishy forum what extra entertaining nuggets i was to get treated to ! Sb.
PS. Ken i had forgotten that clip LOL
Quote from: sinbad on May 18, 2014, 09:41:26 PM
I had no idea when i asked to join this fishy forum what extra entertaining nuggets i was to get treated to ! Sb.
You aint seen nuthin yet. We can discuss anything here without falling out. On most other forums even disagreements over fly choice can lead to near anarchy. :lol:
Sunday Times today - yes, I know that I should get out more - tells readers that the John Muir Trust is advocating the reintroduction of wolves. Apart from the odd unsuspecting angler and surprised deer, maybe they (wolves) might fancy a nice bit of back of beaver as well for tea? Problem solved?
Would the introduced wolves not fight with the resident panthers?
JMT can advocate all they like. It isn't going to happen.
There is that I suppose. A furry domino effect isn't impossible, but while arguments about them restoring the predator-prey balance are all well and good, and could perhaps be a "natural" control for deer numbers as well as a potential attraction for some, wolves are very mobile. When conditions suit they procreate very extensively, seek their own territories and pack hierarchies, and are going to bring more than mere dam-building with them when they do! Landowners may decry the wetland-creating effects of beavers, but they'll decry even more the livestock, working dog and small children devouring capabilities of old Lupus!
Stop it, you're scaring me! :lol:
But yes, there's always the possibility that reason will be trumped by subjectively "good ideas". There are numerous examples after all :roll:
Sounds like the wild boar might be doing fine for them selves (great something else to drive into), Can the beavers chop down the windmills and wolves chase away the workers who come to put them back up :D
:lol: You've either provided a sound case for both species to be perpetuated or a good reason for the SG to to shoot all the beavers and veto the wolves
The I want to go and live in a hut in the Alaska back country part of me would love to see these animals running around Scotland again and me with them, catch a few trout along the way and never have to work another day in this job :D
But as that isn't going to happen the sensible boring bit of me can't see the day when wolves will again run wild in Scotland, maybe in a larger trial introduction bigger enclosure and like the boar and beaver should they ever escape as soon as they start becoming a nuisance they will be shot and culled just like the deer :(
Perhaps a new job opportunity and as Alan says boar does taste good along with vension, I'm up for some beaver though don't think I could eat wolf and look at Caley in the eye :?
Not even the current S.G. is idiotic enough to allow wolves to run free in Scotland. It's a good newspaper story for a slow Sunday, but that's all it is. It's not going to happen.
Quote from: admin on May 19, 2014, 07:09:47 AM
Not even the current S.G. is idiotic enough to allow wolves to run free in Scotland. It's a good newspaper story for a slow Sunday, but that's all it is. It's not going to happen.
And previous governments were silly enough to reintroduce kites and sea eagles, all bound to have an negative impact on fragile remote rural communities, right. Not the case, those self same fragile remote communities lucky enough to have the sea eagle, in particular, are doing alright with the up turn in eco trade, people coming to see the sea eagle are having a positive economic impact.
The wolf would make a fine addition.
Sea eagles don't eat people. :lol:
Yes I know wolves don't either, but nice as it might be in principle there won't be any wolves running free in Scotland, I'd put money on it but don't imagine William Hill is offering worthwhile odds. There is a hell of a difference between sea eagles, red kites and wolves. But you know this. :D
the howl of a wolf would definitely add a certain frisson to a remote camp :8)
It would indeed, but it would be drowned out by the howls of the farmers whose sheep were being taken, gnashing of teeth in Hollyrood and heated conversations that went something like .....
Alex Salmond: "F.F.S. MacKaskill, did nobody tell you sheep were easier to catch than deer"
Kenny Macaskill: "It's your fault for pitting me in that joab Alex, you ken fine snaw on roads air guns and corroboration are my areas of expertise"
Now then, yesterday I took a pal to see the sea eagles in Kylerae, Donny on the ferry told me, "I'll be here at 4 boy, when the tide turns and the seals and gulls start fishing". Of course he was wrong wrong wrong, it didn't show up until 4.11.
11mins late but, turn up it did and much to the delight of my pal and the 5 or 6 tourists that had turned up, to see the bugger beat up black back marauding gulls.
Donny's enthusiasm for the "big black bastards", as the sea eagles are fondly known, around the west here :lol:, is due in no small part to the birds new status: as prized local economic asset.
Every car load of folks that turn up to see the birds and cross the ferry is £15 to the local community owned and run ferry company, and possibly a customer for other local product. That kind of low impact foot fall is not to be sniffed at in a fragile remote rural community like gelnelg.
30 years back Donny and the Glenelg crofters lost a lot of lambs to the then rouge golden eagle, well recorded at the time. If you'd said to these people back then that they'd one day value the eagle, they'd have sent you packing, and more than likely, with a thick ear for your trouble.
Ding dong dollar, the eagle is now welcome and valued. Donny was also saying they'd had an Osprey fishing in the narrows 30mins before we'd shown up.
In my opinion, the wolf wouldn't be welcomed initially but the communities who'd benefit from the wolf's presence would perhaps rethink their opinion, when the cash starts flowing.
The wolf is back across mainland europe, and they seem to be surviving.
This wolf business was featured this evening on The Font Of All Knowledge Radio Scotland. They had some guy from a resident's group or something, didn't catch that, up in Sutherland, who as you might expect was against and a bloke from the John Muir Trust. After 5 minutes of the usual predictable stuff even the John Muir guy conceded it was not going to happen in his lifetime. This stuff comes up regularly when there is not much else happening news wise.
I'd like to see wolves back, but considering the furore and shambles over few beavers it's just not something any of our worthless self serving politicians is going to sanction. Wolves are an all together different proposition from birds of prey.
Our public broadcasting (PBS) had a nature show on TV last night all about beavers. They showed where they are pest in Canada and heros in Nevada. They introduced beavers into near desert country and the beavers slowly turned a ditch into a green oasis. One of the points was that the beaver digs the pond down to 5 or so feet deep and it ensures a year round water supply for native animals. This increased the carrying capacity for the area and helped to increase animal populations. "It depends..." seems to be the answer.
I'd love to see wolves, lynx and all the rest reintroduced. It will probably never happen though as there are too many differing interests that will never agree but in theory I don't see any reason why not. Yes they would eat livestock but even the worst case scenario the compensation would be peanuts if taken out of the EU farming subsidies budget. If they spread out of their ideal range into other areas where they cause problems make it legal to control them which is what happens in Sweden. They seem to be coping with wolves in western Europe without any public safety problems - I'd bet more people would drown in beaver dams than get eaten by wolves if they were reintroduced :)
I've no problem with beavers becoming established in the wild so long as they can be controlled in circumstances where they are causing problems - beavers seem to have the same (lack of) legal status as boar at present; its well established that boar can be legally shot with an appropriate firearm and very likely that the same applies to beavers.
Quote from: guest on May 18, 2014, 08:10:31 PM
Have you seen the mess commercial forestry makes and you're bothered about a few beavers?
A wee bit of a sweeping statement :)
I don't think many in forestry would deny that clearfelling can be visually messy (it shouldn't be environmentally messy these days) but it has the potential to improve a forest in the long term in many ways. I'm all for beavers in the wild but it needs to be recognised that although they can be beneficial in many ways they also have the potential to cause harm in some circumstances, a bit like forestry, aquaculture and other industries do.
Not made up my mind about beavers being introduces and I have yet to come across one.
Wolves are another matter although its just been an article in a paper up to now.
A few years ago I worked in Khazakstan and was out in the middle of nowhere one day looking for a pipeline which carried the main water supply across the tundra. We were tying into it for a new camp or what eventually turned out to be a medium sized community.
While I was out checking the area I caught something out of the corner of my eye.
It was a wolf on the brow of the hill just watching me. It was not too far away but it was the biggest feckin 'dog' I have ever seen in my life and it was not in the least bit wary of me. It just stood its ground watching me.
I did what I had to do for the survey and got into the jeep and drove away fairly sharpish. These things probably survive most of the time just eating the prairie dogs as they are all over the place so plenty of eating and I suppose attacks on people are as rare as hens teeth but you never know.
Do I want to come across one of these when I am on my own walking across the Scourie hills on a wee fishin trip? I seem to remember they hunt in packs as well.
No way.
Lets just leave it at the beavers they just splash their tails at you if you get too close.
Billy