• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Forest of Dean wild boar cull (1 Viewer)

Thanks for acknowledging the debate, KN, and I fully appreciate the distance between any such philophical considerations and conservation policy in the real world. I don't want to demean the hard work and conservation efforts of anyone accepting the political realities and working within the system.

I do, though, share Laura's view that however difficult it may be to challenge the dominant ethos of the powerful, we have a duty to at least expose it. We're not the only species that matters, and our lives will be impoverished if we think we are or act as if we are.

Graham
 
Last edited:
But the problem is that most other people do not, and you are never going to convince them.

Most of the people who have ever lived, and most of the cultures which have ever existed, didn't think the world was all about us. The dominant culture today is the anomaly. And I have to believe it's persuadable.

Graham
 
Last edited:
humans come first, whether it's fair, right or not. That is the way society is constructed

Fallacy. In reality something like 90% of humans in Britain prefer to see more nature restored, and it is a vocal minority of backwards NIMBYs who block the will of majority.

If you don't like wild boar, fence your land and let them return.

And don't whip up fallacious pseudo-science that bluebells need to be protected from wild boars, or create fallacious guidelines for reintroduction than animal can be restored only if it harms no other life.
 
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.


It's no good us navel-gazing about the philosophical questions, when mums in Bolton are living on 15 grand a year and couldn't give a stuff. If you have much to do with farmers, who are the ones who make many of the choices that we want to influence, then you'll relaise that they don't care much about the philosophical questions. I've had the debate with myself, thanks very much, and as I said I agree in lots of ways and wouldn't be wasting my time having this debate if I wasn't somewhat passionate about conservation, but the majority of the people who stump up the money for what conservationists do simply don't engage, and we cannot really make them any more than we already are. People wont even recycle properly, doesn't that rather tell you that the philosophies of conservationsts don't really have much influence when they are unable to enact them? You can onyl work with the cards you're dealt. Yes, you can try and spread the message, but most people simply don't or wont get it, or just don't care. All they'll care about is if they can walk their dog without it getting chased by a giant sow, or if it looks like someone has driven a rotavator over their bean field. In the meantime, conservationosts have to try and make the best of it. You can only do that by meeting the philosophy of these people too.

It is somehwat arrogant to assume that your/our philosophy is the 'right' one, and that everyone else should fall in. Even if we think it is, you wont get anyone to help you if you act like that.
 
Last edited:
And don't whip up fallacious pseudo-science that bluebells need to be protected from wild boars, or create fallacious guidelines for reintroduction than animal can be restored only if it harms no other life.

You're misquoting me, but knock yourself out:

http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/forest/species/wildboar.html
http://www.mammal.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=201&Itemid=232
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...&gl=uk&sig=AHIEtbR0FhpBpElF2BK8dMkm5netcUogIg
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6785/6/5

I imagine that you rang up 90% of Britons from your nerve centre in Amsterdam/Warsaw? Interesting use of the term NIMBY, by the way, seeing as your tag suggests that it's well out of your backyard.
 
Last edited:
Most of the people who have ever lived, and most of the cultures which have ever existed, didn't think the world was all about us. The dominant culture today is the anomaly. And I have to believe it's persuadable.

Graham

Well good luck with that but, in the meantime, ask them what they think about these boars.....!
 
It is somehwat arrogant to assume that your/our philosophy is the 'right' one, and that everyone else should fall in. Even if we think it is, you wont get anyone to help you if you act like that.

I didn't suggest any philosophy being the right one, all I said was that if we stick steadfastly within the realms of reality, and sod our ideals because we're never going to achieve them anyway, then we'll never make any progress. The public definitely won't be recycling more if there's noone there to push them any further. In the few years I've had, I've found that ideals and dreams bring enthusiasm, enthusiasm is infectious, and that persuades people to do more. The reality at the moment is quite bleak, as you describe, so I will be doing my best not to rely and live solely on that. I feel we're off on a tangent though. ;)
 
http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/forest/species/wildboar.html
http://www.mammal.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=201&Itemid=232
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...&gl=uk&sig=AHIEtbR0FhpBpElF2BK8dMkm5netcUogIg

Some fascinating links. Some information is a little out of date (Mammal Society mentions anecdotal evidence of Wild Boar population in Forest of Dean!) but much of it supports the fact the boars have a beneficial impact on the woodland ecosystem. Trees For Life seem happy enough anyhow, and I assume they read the peer reviewed literature.

I would be very interested to read more about successful attempts to eradicate Mink on any large scale. Do you have more information please?
 
Last edited:
If you have much to do with farmers, who are the ones who make many of the choices that we want to influence, then you'll relaise that they don't care much about the philosophical questions.

My father was a farmer. He now has a doctorate in philosophy. And I spent a long time talking with my uncle about environmental philosophy while helping on the farm this summer.

Sample size one, of course.

It is somehwat arrogant to assume that your/our philosophy is the 'right' one, and that everyone else should fall in.

I never said that. I chose my words quite carefully... "however difficult it may be to challenge the dominant ethos of the powerful, we have a duty to at least expose it." And I talked about persuasion. I am well aware that brow-beating is unpersuasive.

Graham
 
http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/forest/species/wildboar.html
http://www.mammal.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=201&Itemid=232
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...&gl=uk&sig=AHIEtbR0FhpBpElF2BK8dMkm5netcUogIg

Some fascinating links. Some information is a little out of date (Mammal Society mentions anecdotal evidence of Wild Boar population in Forest of Dean!) but much of it supports the fact the boars have a beneficial impact on the woodland ecosystem.

I would be very interested to read more about successful attempts to eradicate Mink on any large scale. Do you have more information please?

"beneficial"? Or just an impact? It's not beneficial if you're conserving bluebells. They have a positive impact on diversity, but a negative impact on e.g. bluebells. Cutting down every 3rd tree in a wood has a beneficial effect on diversity by allowing lots of varied seedlings to germinate, but you've still lost much of your structure, so diversity per se is not necessarily a 'good' thing. It's just a thing.

Mink: http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/scotland-voles536.html#cr

Interesting how mammal society is fine with damage to ancient woodlands if it's 'wild-type' boar, but if they're hybrids this is intolerable! Ethical debate for the offing there!
 
Last edited:
What is a 'good' thing? A useful thing, perhaps?

What's the point of conservation?

Graham

Blimey! I bet you and your dad could empty a pub with this kind of chat!

There's obviously no one/right answer to either of those. They are what you want them to be. There's not much value in this kind of territory.
 
"beneficial"? Or just an impact? It's not beneficial if you're conserving bluebells. They have a positive impact on diversity, but a negative impact on e.g. bluebells. Cutting down every 3rd tree in a wood has a beneficial effect on diversity by allowing lots of varied seedlings to germinate, but you've still lost much of your structure, so diversity per se is not necessarily a 'good' thing. It's just a thing.

But what are we trying to do here? Conserve/preserve what we like, bluebells for example, even though a carpet of bluebells would not exist with the original set of species, how the habitats evolved as a whole. The lack of bluebell woodlands on the continent has already been discussed. The quality of wild areas in Britain is judged on diversity of the species within them isn't it?
 
Blimey! I bet you and your dad could empty a pub with this kind of chat!

OK, I won't labour the point beyond one (EDIT: multi-part ;) ) final question, though I tend to think the pub wouldn't be entirely emptied.

There's obviously no one/right answer to either of those. They are what you want them to be. There's not much value in this kind of territory.

What do you want the answers to be? On what grounds do you think anyone should give a toss what we do to, for, or with the environment? I struggle to understand why anyone would work in conservation, and argue over conservation policy, without some conviction that there was a point to it all?

Graham
 
Conserve/preserve what we like, bluebells for example, even though a carpet of bluebells would not exist with the original set of species,

There we have that arbitrary benchmark again - what is 'original'? When was this? Everything about British woodlands is very different from the 'original' circa 10000BP. From the species compositon to the very size and structure of thr trees. talk of 'natural' and 'original' is redundant, because we don't know exactly what it looked like, what the species diversity was, how they interacted etc etc etc. There is not even agreement on what original forested landscape looked like in structure - the Amazon or Kruger. So why not concentrate on the here and now?

The quality of wild areas in Britain is judged on diversity of the species within them isn't it?

Ummm, no. Not at all. If you planted a load of trees on Dunwich Heath you'd dramatically increase the diversity of species, but you'd lose the 'important' ones. We're trying to preserve global biodiversity, I suppose, but within the context of the cultural and aesthetic and socio-economic context of our local area. In effect, we do preserve what we like, that's why we spend a fortune on Red Kites and WT Eagles and next to nothing on rare bees.
 
though I tend to think the pub wouldn't be entirely emptied.

We must go to different pubs ;)

What do you want the answers to be? On what grounds do you think anyone should give a toss what we do to, for, or with the environment? I struggle to understand why anyone would work in conservation, and argue over conservation policy, without some conviction that there was a point to it all?
Graham

Well, that's a very individual question. I don't think that answering that fully would help, because I think it's better to be objective in debates and not load them with baggage about what you think the person is saying based on what you think you know of them, rather than sticking to the words on the screen. I prefer to be objective and not make judgement calls on what matters, because I know this varies with everyone and there is no right answer.
 
There we have that arbitrary benchmark again - what is 'original'? When was this? Everything about British woodlands is very different from the 'original' circa 10000BP. From the species compositon to the very size and structure of thr trees. talk of 'natural' and 'original' is redundant, because we don't know exactly what it looked like, what the species diversity was, how they interacted etc etc etc. There is not even agreement on what original forested landscape looked like in structure - the Amazon or Kruger. So why not concentrate on the here and now?



Ummm, no. Not at all. If you planted a load of trees on Dunwich Heath you'd dramatically increase the diversity of species, but you'd lose the 'important' ones. We're trying to preserve global biodiversity, I suppose, but within the context of the cultural and aesthetic and socio-economic context of our local area. In effect, we do preserve what we like, that's why we spend a fortune on Red Kites and WT Eagles and next to nothing on rare bees.

On a habitat by habitat basis is what i meant. Whether it be woodland, heathland, marshland or whatever else, the more diverse they are the healthier they are. The more diverse the ground flora of a woodland the greater the insect diversity. I knew original was the wrong word... its too late, my brain is switching off, i'll reply tomorrow!
 
"beneficial"? Or just an impact? It's not beneficial if you're conserving bluebells.

Bluebells are not endangered. I see you here desperately try to find something in nature which would justify culling of boars.

Any proposal to cull a boars to protect bluebells would first require: 1) proving that bluebells are more endangered than boars. 2) proving that bluebells cannot survive in forests too small or unsuitable for boars. 3) proving that Forest of Dean site is necessary for bluebell conservation. 4) proving that other management options (other than culling) cannot protect bluebells. 5) study what magnitude of cull is necessary to preserve desired numbers of bluebells. None of these was done. So, even within a very dodgy thinking framework that bluebells are so precious to justify shooting of boars, any cull is unscientific.
.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top