Back To Nature. [Rewilding by Monbiot]
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Good point, but its worth recognising that without his wealth, or the land he owns, this whole plan would be pie in the sky. The objection to him being rich first and foremost could be taken as this wouldn't be happening otherwise if that makes sense?
When I came to England we saw our brother wolves in a Zoo. My grandson was in tears and my own eyes were sad, for the wolves could only walk up and down, up and down all day long. Like humans locked up it drives them mad. Wolves belong where there are no enclosures and they can run free. A good wolf pack on the barren lands can easily cover 20 to 40 miles in one day just looking for food.
I have not been to Scotland so I don't know whether it would be suitable place. But I do think I know a little about wolves. We have a saying; 'What wolf want, wolf gets". They are clever. Any fence will have to be big and strong. No trees must fall on it, nor snow drifts cover it in winter. And it should be deep as wolves are good at tunnelling.
Many years ago a cree hunter caught an adult wolf alive and put it in a trailer home until he could decide what he was going to do. He went to see the trader to see if he wanted to buy the wolf. When he got back to the trailer the wolf had ripped the metal and wooden sides through and gotten out and free in the ten minutes or so it took to see the trader.
Exactly.
A zoo, by definition, is a place to observe and peer at an animal, it isn't allowed to hide or disappear... if it did, the paying zoo visitor wouldn't get their monies worth... and what this guy in Scotland is proposing is a big zoo. The wolves aren't going to have this idyllic life running free and feeding on the deer to ultimately save his forests... they'll be cowering behind a fallen log. Who wants to spend their lives in front of the paparazzi?
And as you say Joe, they'll take every opportunity to leave the enclosure... and as has been pointed out before in this thread, it doesn't just take a fallen tree... we have people in the UK who will actively attempt to free the wolves by either destroying the fence, or at the very least compromising the enclosure in some way.
It's going to be bad for the wolves, bad for the area and very bad for the people of Scotland if this goes ahead.
I feel like I should end this with a "VOTE NO" statement... no idea why lol
Glad to say that when I was in hospital following a heart attack there was no trace of a chaplain. except that applied to the whole ward so even the critically ill people in there were denied the benefit of clergy. You can't have it both ways, if chaplaincy is a vital service then it should be offered. If it isn't then the money spent on it wasted? Actually Herbalist1 haven't you suggested the alternative. Let Priests, Rabbis, Imams etc come into hospital and care for their own flocks.
No, connecting to others, the environment, emotions and feelings are not spiritual. They come from being an animal and human. To claim that it is spirituality is part of the attempt by the religious ptretending that the decline in religion isn't really happening.
It is of concern that prescribing placebos can actually harm the relation between doctor and patient.
No, connecting to others, the environment, emotions and feelings are not spiritual. They come from being an animal and human. To claim that it is spirituality is part of the attempt by the religious ptretending that the decline in religion isn't really happening.
It is of concern that prescribing placebos can actually harm the relation between doctor and patient.
To return to the topic, before rewilding let us have England and Wales opened in the same as as in Scotland. I don't think the introduction of wolves and bears is a starter unless restrictions are placed on us, as in accessing the proposed giant Scottish zoo and theme park.
That's precisely what I was doing Boatman - visiting parishioners from my churches, the same as the 'clergy' from other faiths do for their members. However lots of people arent members of a church but still need someone to turn to in a time of crisis - that's where the chaplaincy comes. I'm very glad you weren't bothered by a chaplain you didn't require when you were in hospital and hope you are well recovered now. As for the other people on the ward, did they ask for a chaplain? If they did then one would have tried to get to them. However given that there is often only 1 or 2 full time chaplains in a large hospital that might see 1000s of people through its doors each week it's not always easy to get to everyone who wants to see a chaplain even with parish clergy coming in to supplement the chaplaincy provision. So yes I do think it's a vital service that brings comfort to a lot of people but it is limited in what it can offer due to limited numbers of chaplains - so you can't have it both ways either Boatman.
As as for the definition of spiritual - nope nothing to do with religious trying to pretend anything. Among the definitions given in the Oxford English Dictionary are: 1. Of or concerning the spirit as opposed to matter. 2. Of the mind - refined, sensitive, not concerned with matter. 3. Of a relationship - concerned with soul or spirit, not with external reality. So basically all the things I mentioned - relationships, emotions, thoughts and states of mind can be considered to be spirtual. To be human is to be a spiritual being by those definitions and also according to classical philosophy - so no mention of religion there at all.
Clearly we're not going to see eye to eye and that's fine, everyone has a right to an opinion. I responded to a point you raised about chaplaincy being a waste of money. I've tried to do that in an amicable way and speaking from my own experiences. You may not see any value in the chaplaincy service and I have no problem with that but that's not a reason to deny it to the many patients and their families who do find it helpful.
i think we should probably leave it there or we'll just continue to go round and round - we've seriously got off thread and I apologies to everyone wanting to discuss re-wilding. Sorry folks and all the best to you Boatman.
As as for the definition of spiritual - nope nothing to do with religious trying to pretend anything. Among the definitions given in the Oxford English Dictionary are: 1. Of or concerning the spirit as opposed to matter. 2. Of the mind - refined, sensitive, not concerned with matter. 3. Of a relationship - concerned with soul or spirit, not with external reality. So basically all the things I mentioned - relationships, emotions, thoughts and states of mind can be considered to be spirtual. To be human is to be a spiritual being by those definitions and also according to classical philosophy - so no mention of religion there at all.
Clearly we're not going to see eye to eye and that's fine, everyone has a right to an opinion. I responded to a point you raised about chaplaincy being a waste of money. I've tried to do that in an amicable way and speaking from my own experiences. You may not see any value in the chaplaincy service and I have no problem with that but that's not a reason to deny it to the many patients and their families who do find it helpful.
i think we should probably leave it there or we'll just continue to go round and round - we've seriously got off thread and I apologies to everyone wanting to discuss re-wilding. Sorry folks and all the best to you Boatman.
That is something we agree on (rights of access) but I can't see it ever happening. That right is enshrined in Scottish law while English law has progressively done just he opposite from the time of the Norman Conquest through the Enclosure Acts to the present. The CROW Act redresses this to a degree but then only in limited areas and not with anywhere near the same rights as in Scottish law.
which brings me to the point that I can't see anyway that rewilding could take place in the Scottish Highlands. The landowner would have to fence the Bears, wolves, giant sloths etc into his own land and that would in itself deny free access to the public (even access points deny free access) thus contravening Scottish law - unless I've missed something?
which brings me to the point that I can't see anyway that rewilding could take place in the Scottish Highlands. The landowner would have to fence the Bears, wolves, giant sloths etc into his own land and that would in itself deny free access to the public (even access points deny free access) thus contravening Scottish law - unless I've missed something?
Could I ask, please don't close such an interesting thread with discussions that are outside the remit of BCUK?
I really don't mean to interrupt nor lecture, just that we're discussing something that could happen to the determent of both the people of Scotland and the animals that could be displaced.
It is interesting and something we should all hear views on as it is something that is crucial to what we're all here for... living within the natural world and enjoying it. Please don't spoil it with a side discussion about religion in hospitals.
I really don't mean to interrupt nor lecture, just that we're discussing something that could happen to the determent of both the people of Scotland and the animals that could be displaced.
It is interesting and something we should all hear views on as it is something that is crucial to what we're all here for... living within the natural world and enjoying it. Please don't spoil it with a side discussion about religion in hospitals.
It's on a shoogly nail tbh., but I'm involved in the thread and I would prefer another Mod to cast an eye over it.
Response to British Red though…
"Again, asking for consistency is not a specious argument. It certainly seems that some object to the plans because the guy is rich and they want to have use of his land. It would be simpler if they simply said that was their objection.".
Do people not belong on our land ? Is the land not all one piece regardless of how we chose to break it up in 'ownership'? To fence off an entire estate (that has a known Corbett), with an electric fence, and stop wolves moving out would mean doing so with equivalent fencing to a concentration camp….but fifty miles long. Impractical and totally removing access for others.
His stated intentions have changed as he tries to change public opinion. He already has problems feeding the animals he has, his land is not suitable to house a totally 'wild' pack, it needs more room than he has and neighbouring estates aren't up joining in with his plans.
Animal welfare ? read through the thread, everything from fencing, to radio collars, and that the ecosystem is not ideal, and then compare that to the zoological parks (sorry that the only experience that Joe Tahkahikew saw was of a 'city' zoo, the majority of wolves here have small woodlands to roam, and though it is a habitat vastly shrunken from 40miles, they are well cared for) is an issue, especially since a wild pack, a fenced in wild pack, will have no 'outbreeding or genetic diversity. Normal wolf packs do. That's normal wolf packs on continental areas. We're on islands, and predators on islands have always been on a sticky wicket when those islands are also home to humans.
So far we've totalled them on the islands of the Med, the Aegean, and the British Isles. I don't know about elsewhere, not something I studied; my archaeology is European based.
To claim that we're only agin it simply because the man has wealth is not true. The dispute is multi-stranded.
To claim that we must accept 'consistency' and compare the habitats of the proposal and present zoological parks is trying to focus on one strand and ignore all the others.
A safari park with only paid access is not really that much different from a zoo, except in the sheer acerage fenced off.
It would need wealth to pay for both construction and upkeep. Fencing doesn't come cheaply, neither does staff, and in Scotland tourism is incredibly seasonal, but those self same fences would need to be secured all year round, even when snow falls feet thick. (just how high can a wolf jump ? or dig ? ) and there's no way that it will pay for itself. Very, very few of the tourist attractions outside of the two honeypot castles of Edinburgh and Stirling manage without being subsidised in some form or another.
Interesting read here….
http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/news/viewpoint-walking-with-wolves-alladale-estate/009779/
I have worked up in that area. It's over four and a half hours drive from here (and remember that for half of the year we have less than 12 hours daylight and that area is bleak) Even taking the train or plane to Inverness still leaves a most uncomfortable drive once one is past Alness. I suppose if the wealthier visitors have helicopters then that point might be moot, but it's not the kind of trip that the 'bums on seats' coach tours do in vast numbers.
Honestly ? I think the man bought an estate and refuses to see that such estates are generally not self supporting unless they have farming. Forestry helps allay costs but there are issues with deer. If he's not managing to attract enough shooting parties to cull his deer population now, I doubt he will manage to pull in enough with a zoo park considering the added expenses he will have.
That has a concommitant effect on the welfare of the introduced animals….no money coming in doesn't mean they don't need fed and cared for.
Honestly ? I really don't think this is the way to re-wild Scotland.
M
Response to British Red though…
"Again, asking for consistency is not a specious argument. It certainly seems that some object to the plans because the guy is rich and they want to have use of his land. It would be simpler if they simply said that was their objection.".
Do people not belong on our land ? Is the land not all one piece regardless of how we chose to break it up in 'ownership'? To fence off an entire estate (that has a known Corbett), with an electric fence, and stop wolves moving out would mean doing so with equivalent fencing to a concentration camp….but fifty miles long. Impractical and totally removing access for others.
His stated intentions have changed as he tries to change public opinion. He already has problems feeding the animals he has, his land is not suitable to house a totally 'wild' pack, it needs more room than he has and neighbouring estates aren't up joining in with his plans.
Animal welfare ? read through the thread, everything from fencing, to radio collars, and that the ecosystem is not ideal, and then compare that to the zoological parks (sorry that the only experience that Joe Tahkahikew saw was of a 'city' zoo, the majority of wolves here have small woodlands to roam, and though it is a habitat vastly shrunken from 40miles, they are well cared for) is an issue, especially since a wild pack, a fenced in wild pack, will have no 'outbreeding or genetic diversity. Normal wolf packs do. That's normal wolf packs on continental areas. We're on islands, and predators on islands have always been on a sticky wicket when those islands are also home to humans.
So far we've totalled them on the islands of the Med, the Aegean, and the British Isles. I don't know about elsewhere, not something I studied; my archaeology is European based.
To claim that we're only agin it simply because the man has wealth is not true. The dispute is multi-stranded.
To claim that we must accept 'consistency' and compare the habitats of the proposal and present zoological parks is trying to focus on one strand and ignore all the others.
A safari park with only paid access is not really that much different from a zoo, except in the sheer acerage fenced off.
It would need wealth to pay for both construction and upkeep. Fencing doesn't come cheaply, neither does staff, and in Scotland tourism is incredibly seasonal, but those self same fences would need to be secured all year round, even when snow falls feet thick. (just how high can a wolf jump ? or dig ? ) and there's no way that it will pay for itself. Very, very few of the tourist attractions outside of the two honeypot castles of Edinburgh and Stirling manage without being subsidised in some form or another.
Interesting read here….
http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/news/viewpoint-walking-with-wolves-alladale-estate/009779/
I have worked up in that area. It's over four and a half hours drive from here (and remember that for half of the year we have less than 12 hours daylight and that area is bleak) Even taking the train or plane to Inverness still leaves a most uncomfortable drive once one is past Alness. I suppose if the wealthier visitors have helicopters then that point might be moot, but it's not the kind of trip that the 'bums on seats' coach tours do in vast numbers.
Honestly ? I think the man bought an estate and refuses to see that such estates are generally not self supporting unless they have farming. Forestry helps allay costs but there are issues with deer. If he's not managing to attract enough shooting parties to cull his deer population now, I doubt he will manage to pull in enough with a zoo park considering the added expenses he will have.
That has a concommitant effect on the welfare of the introduced animals….no money coming in doesn't mean they don't need fed and cared for.
Honestly ? I really don't think this is the way to re-wild Scotland.
M
Toddy I read through the thread when I woke up this morning but wanted to out for a quick walk afore doing any modding.
There's already been a thread closing and some other actions taken in part from members not following our No Religion Rule this week. There were also some smart Alecs who think it's funny to try and get a last word after warnings have been given. I like this thread too, some interesting stuff has come up, but there is no need for this side show of Chaplains in hospitals, it's just being divisive.
So I'll make a little ruling and if you don't agree go and find another site to talk about it on or arrange a get together around a fire and talk about it there. What I'll say on the matter having been close to death in a hospital bed is that it can cause worry. I saw scared people all around, patients and family. Fear causes stress and that's no good for peoples health. So if some money is diverted to have someone to give guidance and offer some form of comfort then that's good. It will be effective but in a hard to qualify way.
Right, from now on no more talk of religion, because I wont necessarily be closing the thread, more stopping those breaking the rule the chance to take part in it. Capeesh?
Thanks
GB.
Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.
There's already been a thread closing and some other actions taken in part from members not following our No Religion Rule this week. There were also some smart Alecs who think it's funny to try and get a last word after warnings have been given. I like this thread too, some interesting stuff has come up, but there is no need for this side show of Chaplains in hospitals, it's just being divisive.
So I'll make a little ruling and if you don't agree go and find another site to talk about it on or arrange a get together around a fire and talk about it there. What I'll say on the matter having been close to death in a hospital bed is that it can cause worry. I saw scared people all around, patients and family. Fear causes stress and that's no good for peoples health. So if some money is diverted to have someone to give guidance and offer some form of comfort then that's good. It will be effective but in a hard to qualify way.
Right, from now on no more talk of religion, because I wont necessarily be closing the thread, more stopping those breaking the rule the chance to take part in it. Capeesh?
Thanks
GB.
Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.
Last edited:
I don't know Mors, those heather heathlands and moors are pretty rare and important environments on an international level. I mentioned before that rare as they are the proportion of them in the UK is very high. Same with some of the high level peatbogs. They have their own flaura & fauna which if you look carefully at are quite diverse. They're also pretty fragile and things like large scale peat extraction just rips the heart out of them. Being ex forestry it was sad to see what had happened to some areas by being put under trees, but it was good to see that we were stopping doing it.
Unfortunately a lot of history books tend to trot out the phrase about a squirrel being able to travel from Lands End to John O' Groats without leaving the tree tops. It wasn't a huge boreal forest. There was a treeline and there were swathes of open ground.
My old stomping grounds were the Cairngorms and I love the open hill and moor. Just a pity it's such a rare and fragile ecosystem.
Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.
Unfortunately a lot of history books tend to trot out the phrase about a squirrel being able to travel from Lands End to John O' Groats without leaving the tree tops. It wasn't a huge boreal forest. There was a treeline and there were swathes of open ground.
My old stomping grounds were the Cairngorms and I love the open hill and moor. Just a pity it's such a rare and fragile ecosystem.
Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.
Hi Goatboy,
yes - already admitted we were well off thread and apologied. I only intended a quick response to a point someone else raised and had no intention of starting a religious debate. I did try to keep religion out of all my posts - I was trying to argue the importance of chaplaincy rather than any or no religious view point. However it was still off topic and did end up taking over the thread a bit - so sorry once again folks, no offence meant.
yes - already admitted we were well off thread and apologied. I only intended a quick response to a point someone else raised and had no intention of starting a religious debate. I did try to keep religion out of all my posts - I was trying to argue the importance of chaplaincy rather than any or no religious view point. However it was still off topic and did end up taking over the thread a bit - so sorry once again folks, no offence meant.
Again Mary, lots of talk of what people "think" may be the mans motivations. His motivations are his own business unless we are introducing the thought police. His actions are a matter of concern though (but then only as they impact public policy).
My take is this. If he can satisfy regulatory requirements, he should be able to build his park and his fence. The regulations imposed upon him should be no different than those imposed on zoos or wildlife parks. "Wild" may be a relative term, but a huge growing area must surely be preferable to a tiny enclosed area, and there are plenty of those already.
Now if public access to the land is a concern, make that a requirement of planning consent. If people are silly enough to be frightened of the big bad wolf they can stay out, but wolf attacks are vanishingly small in reality and we should not legislate based on irrational prejudice
I have seen documentaries on this proposal previously and don't empathise with the owner one jot. But I hold firm to my view that, within the confines of the law, he should be allowed to do what he wants on his land. I certainly believe he should be dealt with on a dispassionate basis and his proposals judged on their merits and relative to other people and institutions keeping the same types of animal.
My take is this. If he can satisfy regulatory requirements, he should be able to build his park and his fence. The regulations imposed upon him should be no different than those imposed on zoos or wildlife parks. "Wild" may be a relative term, but a huge growing area must surely be preferable to a tiny enclosed area, and there are plenty of those already.
Now if public access to the land is a concern, make that a requirement of planning consent. If people are silly enough to be frightened of the big bad wolf they can stay out, but wolf attacks are vanishingly small in reality and we should not legislate based on irrational prejudice
I have seen documentaries on this proposal previously and don't empathise with the owner one jot. But I hold firm to my view that, within the confines of the law, he should be allowed to do what he wants on his land. I certainly believe he should be dealt with on a dispassionate basis and his proposals judged on their merits and relative to other people and institutions keeping the same types of animal.
Thing with forestry is though that it encourages not just trees, iimmc.
Red squirrels are trapped and moved off some sites because they nip the tops of young trees ( our local park got a group that were taken from an estate in Argyll a few years back) wildcats too find refuge in them, as do pine martins….all good we'd say, but not if you're breeding birds for the shooting or trees for straight pole timber.
Our moorlands and heather bogs, as well as open lands such as some in the Cairngorms (and regardless of what mince they put in their publicity, the folks who rear reindeer there have to feed them, there's not enough on their grazing ground to keep their herd(s) most of them live on farmland, and there is no substantiated proof that reindeer existed here as a native species after the ice melted, again, hype) which are tiny pieces of sub arctic tundra in nature, are both fragile and difficult to restore. Trying to forest those would be a crime.
M
Red squirrels are trapped and moved off some sites because they nip the tops of young trees ( our local park got a group that were taken from an estate in Argyll a few years back) wildcats too find refuge in them, as do pine martins….all good we'd say, but not if you're breeding birds for the shooting or trees for straight pole timber.
Our moorlands and heather bogs, as well as open lands such as some in the Cairngorms (and regardless of what mince they put in their publicity, the folks who rear reindeer there have to feed them, there's not enough on their grazing ground to keep their herd(s) most of them live on farmland, and there is no substantiated proof that reindeer existed here as a native species after the ice melted, again, hype) which are tiny pieces of sub arctic tundra in nature, are both fragile and difficult to restore. Trying to forest those would be a crime.
M
It's been an amazing discussion in lots of diverse ways around the 'single subject' of wolves in re-wilding... And its still ongoing (please.. I hope??). As you work your way through threads like this you see the evolution of ideas, peoples mindsets, realisations and compromises. I for one learnt a hell of a lot - but hey thats what a forum is for, and this is a good one. The Mods have one hell of a job to do, but they are what helps make it so good and keep it as fair as possible, I for one don't ever want to force their hand into banning people. I somehow managed not to get involved in the sub-thread of Chaplaincy, which given my background and other interests was unbelievably difficult (and then some!), but I guess it can be done, and I'll continue to 'self-censor' as much as I humanly can, but help from others is good too. The passion you all show makes me very glad and very proud to have been part of this thread, so thanks.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Reply to BR
..no one's disputing that within the law he may do as he chooses, provided he fulfils all of the necessary licences
.he's been refused. The site did not fulfill the guidelines for animal welfare, etc., for a zoological park.
M
M
And this is one of the things that worries me, if he has supposedly looked into all this and wants it to be a success, the animals welfare is paramount. If he's fallen at the first critical hurdle, just how serious are we to believe that this has ever been a major concern of his from the outset and would ever be consistently upheld if he managed to achieve the standard to get the licenses? Cynical of me, seeing how it is no simple subject, but again my general experience of some people.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Quite right the guy can do what he want on his own land WITHIN the law. However if this is being promoted as a sustainable way of managing deer populations (rather than just a big zoo) I don't think its ecologically sustainable. Studies show that predators within a limited environment (even a massive Scottish estate is a limited environment for large predators) will tend to wipe our their prey. That's very different to free ranging populations over continental areas where predators tend to move within their territory as prey numbers fall allowing prey species recovery. Even then, predator and prey populations both peak and fall in response to the pressures each population exerts on the other as well as the other environmental pressures. This dynamic tends to break down within a limited environment.
Similar threads
