Forest of Dean wild boar cull (1 Viewer)

I think we have to be very careful here. The Wild Boar is a native species driven to extinction by us and therefore we have an obligation to seriously consider its reintroduction, accidental or intentional. However, as with deer, one of the problems is none of our higher predator species are still around either, so there is nothing to control the populations of boar. Except humans that is (and, as Kenbro pointed out, no doubt the hunting fraternity would be rubbing their hands together with glee). As omnivores and an opportunistic species they will spread into agricultural land as the population increases and cause further conflict.

Beautiful as bluebell woodlands are, and my local wood is one so I know very well, one heavily dominant species is not a healthy natural balance in any situation. If we lost bluebells and gained a greater diversity of ground flora that can only be a good thing to increase diversity of other species with it. But in my opinion we're working the wrong way round - natural predators need to be introduced before we allow an explosion of a potentially damaging species such as Wild Boar. Otherwise it will fall on us to judge how and when to cull animals, where in this situation we have no reference to give ourselves any indication of what a 'natural' population level would be in order to keep a balance. This is exactly the problem with deer and I worry that boar will end up following the same path.

Amarillo said:

I'm all for allowing a controlled hunting industry to develop, it will keep the population in check, make them wary of humans and strengthen the gene pool by picking off the weakest. Will even give the foxhunters something to do!

Click to expand...

The foxhunters don't need something to do, they're happy continuing as they always did, as all hunters do. Willingly giving hunters another species to kill is not a morally acceptable position, in my opinion. It shows unneccessary support of a pastime which I'm surprised is popping up on a forum like this....

Kenbro I have mixed feelings about wild boars - mainly to do with their possible affect on woodland ground flora - but some of your statements appear disingenuous. To compare a species which went extinct in the UK approximately 700 years ago with lion like creatures which disappeared 13,000 years ago is frankly absurd. Woodland cover is presently slightly over 8% in the UK compared to 15% by the time of the domesday book (and it would have been considerably less than that when wild boar went extinct) and it is increasing. You compare wolves and bears to boars. This is not a valid comparison bears and wolves do not live in areas of high human density boars do - as already stated. You talk about how it is not a natural landscape in Britain but as Jos says that is the case of the whole of Europe. Even the commonly cited example of Bialowieza is probably not entirely unaltered by man.
You say: 'Another point is that the boars themselves are not going to have a nice time. They're going to be persecuted to hell and are unlikely to receive protection - most wont have a pleasant life or death.' - that's just athropomorphism. You seem to turn your nose up at people who want to see them for pleasure I would argue that one of the main justifications for conservation is to give people pleasure and it is the big glamorous animals that bring the most people the most pleasure. You have valid points about the devastation caused by deer but, as already stated, you pick two non-native species.

Don't think this site has been mentioned in this thread:

http://www.britishwildboar.org.uk/

ColonelBlimp said:

Surely you're making a false distinction here Jos between naturalness and nativeness- for all intensive purposes here they are the same.

Click to expand...

Sure, tell that to the OP, I was merely responding to the general argument forwarded that a species shouldn't be allowed to return as it may disrupt densities of another speces that have increased presumably due to the lack of the former species, both are as 'natural' or 'native' as each other.

Steve Babbs said:

To compare a species which went extinct in the UK approximately 700 years ago with lion like creatures which disappeared 13,000 years ago is frankly absurd.

Click to expand...

Logically, why? Why is 700 years ago some kind of optimum but 13,000 years too far? How far is far enough, how far is too far? My point is that talk of 'they were here before' is choosing an arbitrary point in time as a benchmark. We also had smallpox 700 years ago, shall we have that again aswell? It's not a flippant comment - people are talking as if there was some starting point that we have been whittling away at, and that we should be trying to reach backwards towards it. I ask what is so special about boars 700 years ago. Nobody has answered this point yet, despite it being asked several times.
Also, you say 700 years, others say 500, or 900. What is likely is that they were already very rare a long time before they were eradicated. there might not have been wild boars roaming around the wider countryside (outside of Royal hunting parks) for hundreds of years before that, which takes us even further back in the arbitrary timeframe.

Steve Babbs said:

Woodland cover is presently slightly over 8% in the UK compared to 15% by the time of the domesday book (and it would have been considerably less than that when wild boar went extinct) and it is increasing.

Click to expand...

It has increased largely due to plantations. Do you think baors will be welcome in plantations? Also the new native forests that have been planted wont be anything like woodland for another 50 years. That's if we can keep large mammals from damaging them.

Steve Babbs said:

You compare wolves and bears to boars. This is not a valid comparison bears and wolves do not live in areas of high human density boars do - as already stated.

Click to expand...

I said I was not interested in wolves, and was trying to stick to boars. It's not about where they CAN live, it's about what happens to the places where they DO live. I have no idea if the stats for Berlin are correct. But Berlin has much more forest in the wider landscape than anywhere in the UK. Once a bit of woodland becomes trashed, there is no large pool of species to act as a source.

Steve Babbs said:

You talk about how it is not a natural landscape in Britain but as Jos says that is the case of the whole of Europe. Even the commonly cited example of Bialowieza is probably not entirely unaltered by man.

Click to expand...

Point being? That boars can live in a managed landscape? Nobody said they can't, and I have not used the word 'natural' myself. But there are degrees of 'managed', and Britain is more intensively managed (fragmented) than almost anywhere else.

Steve Babbs said:

that's just athropomorphism. .

Click to expand...

No it isn't, it's a welfare consideration. Is caring how a hunted fox dies anthropomorphism? Or is there an actual difference in being chased by dogs and being lamped? Of course there is if you're a fox - you are less stressed with the lamp. Boars are going to be hunted a lot - it will be their main 'value' - and there is likely to be some tangible suffering involved that would never happen if hunters didn't have the opportunity. A relatively minor considreration, I grant you, but a real philosophical one for some.

Steve Babbs said:

You seem to turn your nose up at people who want to see them for pleasure I would argue that one of the main justifications for conservation is to give people pleasure and it is the big glamorous animals that bring the most people the most pleasure. You have valid points about the devastation caused by deer but, as already stated, you pick two non-native species.

Click to expand...

And what about the pleasure that people receive from what already exists, and stand to lose something due to boars? Does the pleasure of the boar-brigade override that? I'd imagine that walking among bluebells is one of the greatest pleasures derived from woodlands by the wider public. The pleasure of a small minority in seeing a boar (which will be rare) or killing one may be at the expense of that. Most people will never ever see a boar, even if they become very common (think badgers), but they are likely to be very aware of the impact of them.

Kenbro said:

Logically, why? Why is 700 years ago some kind of optimum but 13,000 years too far? How far is far enough, how far is too far? My point is that talk of 'they were here before' is choosing an arbitrary point in time as a benchmark. We also had smallpox 700 years ago, shall we have that again aswell? It's not a flippant comment - people are talking as if there was some starting point that we have been whittling away at, and that we should be trying to reach backwards towards it. I ask what is so special about boars 700 years ago. Nobody has answered this point yet, despite it being asked several times.
Also, you say 700 years, others say 500, or 900. What is likely is that they were already very rare a long time before they were eradicated. there might not have been wild boars roaming around the wider countryside (outside of Royal hunting parks) for hundreds of years before that, which takes us even further back in the arbitrary timeframe.



It has increased largely due to plantations. Do you think baors will be welcome in plantations? Also the new native forests that have been planted wont be anything like woodland for another 50 years. That's if we can keep large mammals from damaging them.



I said I was not interested in wolves, and was trying to stick to boars. It's not about where they CAN live, it's about what happens to the places where they DO live. I have no idea if the stats for Berlin are correct. But Berlin has much more forest in the wider landscape than anywhere in the UK. Once a bit of woodland becomes trashed, there is no large pool of species to act as a source.



Point being? That boars can live in a managed landscape? Nobody said they can't, and I have not used the word 'natural' myself. But there are degrees of 'managed', and Britain is more intensively managed (fragmented) than almost anywhere else.



No it isn't, it's a welfare consideration. Is caring how a hunted fox dies anthropomorphism? Or is there an actual difference in being chased by dogs and being lamped? Of course there is if you're a fox - you are less stressed with the lamp. Boars are going to be hunted a lot - it will be their main 'value' - and there is likely to be some tangible suffering involved that would never happen if hunters didn't have the opportunity. A relatively minor considreration, I grant you, but a real philosophical one for some.



And what about the pleasure that people receive from what already exists, and stand to lose something due to boars? Does the pleasure of the boar-brigade override that? I'd imagine that walking among bluebells is one of the greatest pleasures derived from woodlands by the wider public. The pleasure of a small minority in seeing a boar (which will be rare) or killing one may be at the expense of that. Most people will never ever see a boar, even if they become very common (think badgers), but they are likely to be very aware of the impact of them.

Click to expand...

Again your comparison with badgers is not valid. As someone who has spent a fair amount of time watching both badgers and wild boar I know that badgers are shy - nocturnal/crepuscular - creatures whereas wild boar can be easy to see, fairly unworried by man and diurnal if they're not persecuted.

700 years vs 13,000. 700 years ago the landscape had already been dramatically altered by man 13,000 years ago it hadn't. A totally logical distinction.

turkish van said:

I think we have to be very careful here. The Wild Boar is a native species driven to extinction by us and therefore we have an obligation to seriously consider its reintroduction, accidental or intentional. However, as with deer, one of the problems is none of our higher predator species are still around either, so there is nothing to control the populations of boar. Except humans that is (and, as Kenbro pointed out, no doubt the hunting fraternity would be rubbing their hands together with glee). As omnivores and an opportunistic species they will spread into agricultural land as the population increases and cause further conflict.

Beautiful as bluebell woodlands are, and my local wood is one so I know very well, one heavily dominant species is not a healthy natural balance in any situation. If we lost bluebells and gained a greater diversity of ground flora that can only be a good thing to increase diversity of other species with it. But in my opinion we're working the wrong way round - natural predators need to be introduced before we allow an explosion of a potentially damaging species such as Wild Boar. Otherwise it will fall on us to judge how and when to cull animals, where in this situation we have no reference to give ourselves any indication of what a 'natural' population level would be in order to keep a balance. This is exactly the problem with deer and I worry that boar will end up following the same path.

Click to expand...

Very well considered post, one minor point - the need for natural predators to control numbers is perhaps overstated. Wild Boars do occur across most of continental Europe, including on the near continent, and across much of this range, there will be no effective natural predator. Even in lands such as Lithuania, where Wolf still exists in reasonably healthy populations, there are vast tracks of the land with large Boar populations where Wolf does not occur, this would include my land. Now, personally I would not be worried if the Boars were causing damage to my 'agricultural' fields, but even in the absence of natural predator, I cannot say the Boars are causing any problem. The woodland has a very healthy ground flora, the meadows are rich in orchids, etc.

My only complaint is they occasional root up turf on the track where I drive my car, I think I can live with this.

turkish van said:

The foxhunters don't need something to do, they're happy continuing as they always did, as all hunters do. Willingly giving hunters another species to kill is not a morally acceptable position, in my opinion. It shows unneccessary support of a pastime which I'm surprised is popping up on a forum like this....

Click to expand...

Hunting is not incompatable with wildlife conservation and can benefit it as long as its done properly.

Steve Babbs said:

Again your comparison with badgers is not valid. As someone who has spent a fair amount of time watching both badgers and wild boar I know that badgers are shy - nocturnal/crepuscular - creatures whereas wild boar can be easy to see, fairly unworried by man and diurnal if they're not persecuted..

Click to expand...

I think your last word is the key one. Foxes are also quite approachable in situations where they're not persecuted (London). But in most areas they are, and the same is going to be true of boars.

Steve Babbs said:

700 years vs 13,000. 700 years ago the landscape had already been dramatically altered by man 13,000 years ago it hadn't. A totally logical distinction.

Click to expand...

Quite right, but the landscape was also dramatically altered 300 years ago, and 200 years ago, and 25 years ago, when there were no boars, so what's special about 700 years? Why is that a magic time to return to? Or are you really trying to get back to 13000? If so, let's have bears aswell then?

Kenbro said:

I think your last word is the key one.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm getting your meaning here - you're saying the fact that they can be fairly unworried by man and diurnal if they're not persecuted is key? Key to whether the population should be allowed to re-establish?!

Jos Stratford said:

Very well considered post, one minor point - the need for natural predators to control numbers is perhaps overstated. Wild Boars do occur across most of continental Europe, including on the near continent, and across much of this range, there will be no effective natural predator. Even in lands such as Lithuania, where Wolf still exists in reasonably healthy populations, there are vast tracks of the land with large Boar populations where Wolf does not occur, this would include my land. Now, personally I would not be worried if the Boars were causing damage to my 'agricultural' fields, but even in the absence of natural predator, I cannot say the Boars are causing any problem. The woodland has a very healthy ground flora, the meadows are rich in orchids, etc.

My only complaint is they occasional root up turf on the track where I drive my car, I think I can live with this.

Click to expand...

Do you know what they eat round your parts?

turkish van said:

Do you know what they eat round your parts?

Click to expand...

Bananas?

Amarillo said:

Hunting is not incompatable with wildlife conservation and can benefit it as long as its done properly.

Click to expand...

True, but we're creating (by inaction) a new industry here, and there would be no need to hunt them if they weren't there. We wouldn't need to shoot pregnant muntjac if they had been removed when it was still possible.

There is a moral question about encouraging an animal whose major function will be as a quarry animal for hunters.

Jos Stratford said:

I'm not sure I'm getting your meaning here - you're saying the fact that they can be fairly unworried by man and diurnal if they're not persecuted is key? Key to whether the population should be allowed to re-establish?!

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that they will be heavily persecuted and poached, so wont be idly wandering around in broad daylight for the pleasure of boar-huggers! So, as I stated, most people will never see one, just as most rural people hardly ever see a fox.

Jos Stratford said:

Bananas?

Click to expand...

That'll be why they don't need any wolves to eat them then! There can't be that many bananas lurking in your forests. :-O

ColonelBlimp said:

A rather bizarre response to a thoroughly well-thought out argument. You criticise use of value terms then use them yourself to suggest that we all 'do a Jonestown'?

Click to expand...

It was intended to provoke, and thanks for biting as it seems no-one else did. We don't need to 'do a Jonestown' and I'm certainly not advocating anything of the sort.

The point I was trying provocatively to make was that KN's argument is only well-thought out within a particular ethical framework which not all his antagonists share. The tacit assumption is that things only matter, or have value, in that they matter to humans, or have value to us. This is indeed the framework in which most people operate, and to me it's rather odd to assume that for four billion years past, and for billlions of years hence the world was and will be worthless, and that what matters matters only for the twinkling of an eye in which humans exist.

There's a famous philosophical thought experiment which aims to expose the naivety of this view, which I'll paraphrase...

Suppose there is one human left on earth, with the power to instantly destroy every living thing on earth. Would it be wrong of him to destroy every plant, bird, boar and microbe? No human would be harmed, after all. No person will suffer. So why and how could it be wrong?

If you subscribe to KN's view, and the one you appear to hold, that value is a human construct then the last man's actions are not wrong. But I suspect that most of us on here have a gut feeling that it would be wrong. It would be a bad thing in itself. And for it to be wrong there must be a source of value outside of human experience. Beauty cannot only be in the eye only of the human beholder.

ColonelBlimp said:

In much the same way why on earth should we 'preserve things for their own sake'? That relies on assuming a necessary constancy as part of 'nature' which simply does not exist and has not existed, but that we should suddenly seek to create? That relies on a human judgement on value as much as anything else!

Click to expand...

Well, no, by preserve I didn't mean keep the same. That's what conservation does, and I don't like it. Succession is successsion and evolution is evolution and nature should be left to get on with it. That's a value judgment, made by a human, but I don't think it 'relies on a human judgment on value'. Like most people of most cultures throughout history, I think the value is intrinsic, and not conferred. (I'll get back to you in ten years when I've worked out a full account of intrinsic value and environmental ethics.)

Now this might all seem rather arcane and far removed from the culling of boars, but it's at the very heart of all debates about the environment and what we should do to manage it, or leave it alone. It all depends whether you think it's ours to mess with, and worthless without us.

Graham

turkish van said:

one heavily dominant species is not a healthy natural balance in any situation.

Click to expand...

Like Homo sapiens, for example?

Graham

bitterntwisted said:

It was intended to provoke, and thanks for biting as it seems no-one else did. We don't need to 'do a Jonestown' and I'm certainly not advocating anything of the sort.

The point I was trying provocatively to make was that Kenbro's argument is only well-thought out within a particular ethical framework which not all his antagonists share. The tacit assumption is that things only matter, or have value, in that they matter to humans, or have value to us. This is indeed the framework in which most people operate, and to me it's rather odd to assume that for four billion years past, and for billlions of years hence the world was and will be worthless, and that what matters matters only for the twinkling of an eye in which humans exist.

Click to expand...

I actually share you view to some extent. But the problem is that most other people do not, and you are never going to convince them. And these people run the show (because the others want them to). In practical reality, conservationists simply HAVE to work within the framework whereby humans come first, whether it's fair, right or not. That is the way society is constructed, and you are not going to change that. Your views are valid, but they belong in a philosophial debate. In all honesty, they have next to no relevance for conservation strategies or what to do with boars, for the sole reason that they are nothing like reality.

Outside your window is the reality, and that's the framework I'm working in.

Kenbro said:

In all honesty, they have next to no relevance for conservation strategies or what to do with boars, for the sole reason that they are nothing like reality.

Outside your window is the reality, and that's the framework I'm working in.

Click to expand...

Disagree with that entirely, if we do not ask ourselves the philosophical questions and address the core issues that Graham was referring to, we will not reach a conclusion that has any real worth. For 'conservation', or whatever you want to call it, to be successful, it needs to be done with passion and a belief, and those can't truely be reached without having asked and thought about these thing. The public will never been convinced by someone who is just scratching the surface with reality, and if that is the only framework your working in, I think maybe you should dig a little deeper. If everyone resorts to reality and loses all ideology we will have very little worth aiming for.