Forest of Dean wild boar cull (3 Viewers)

[Amarillo]

Kenbro, I understand what you are saying regarding the fact that we are an island.

But being an island makes it impossible for mammals that we wiped out to recolonise. Mainland European countries also exterminated large mammals and as attitudes have changed they have simply come back naturally. Why should we accept an impoverished ecosystem just because ours can't recolonise naturally?

 

[Mike Richardson]

This is the argument that is often made, but it is simply wrong. They didn't evolve with the current countryside, they evolved with a totally different landscape - much less populated, much less managed, with a completely different mix of species. It's essentially like a new introduction.

Think of it this way, Lion fossils occur in Britain, so they are native in the same way as Lynx. The only difference is the distance in time. But the enviornment they both lived in has gone, so it doesn't matter if it was yesterday or 100,000 years ago - it's not there anymore.

Presumably (from this statement) you are against all species reintroductions. So not only would you be opposed to the reintroduction Sea Otters or California Condors to California (for example), but you would also disagree with reintroducing Water Voles to newly restored UK river systems where they were wiped out by habitat degradation twenty years ago?

 

[KnockerNorton]

Kenbro, I understand what you are saying regarding the fact that we are an island.

But being an island makes it impossible for mammals that we wiped out to recolonise. Mainland European countries also exterminated large mammals and as attitudes have changed they have simply come back naturally. Why should we accept an impoverished ecosystem just because ours can't recolonise naturally?

There are clear guidelines for re-introductions. One of those is that they will not have a negative impact on existing habitat/species. This is why e.g. beavers are strictly controlled and we haven't just released them willy-nilly. This is a sensible approach, because we want to avoid creating new problems, even if a species did exist there in previous times.

Obviously, none of this was considered prior to boars escaping. A quick back-of-an-envelope estimation suggests that there could well be problems with them in modern England. As such, they are very unlikely to have been reintroduced formally, at least in a way replciating the way they escaped. As such, it would have been sensible to have stopped them before they got too widespread, and then considered it. If appropriate, a controlled reintroduction could have happened at some point in the future. As it happens, we've had an accidental introduction. That's not the way to go about things. But as we've seen time and again, with species that were native in hisotircal times, questionably native, or obviously non-native, some people seemd to be ruled by sentimentality rather than objective consideration for the consequences.

skink1978, none of your comment follows on from what I posted. Most of the species you mentioned were still extant in the landscapes mentioned, so it would not be a reintroduction, it would be a translocation. Reintroductions or translocations are fine, subject to meeting the guidelines mentioned above (look them up).

 

[Mike Richardson]

There are clear guidelines for re-introductions. One of those is that they will not have a negative impact on existing habitat/species. This is why e.g. beavers are strictly controlled and we haven't just released them willy-nilly. This is a sensible approach, because we want to avoid creating new problems, even if a species did exist there in previous times.

Obviously, none of this was considered prior to boars escaping. A quick back-of-an-envelope estimation suggests that there could well be problems with them in modern England. As such, they are very unlikely to have been reintroduced formally, at least in a way replciating the way they escaped. As such, it would have been sensible to have stopped them before they got too widespread, and then considered it. If appropriate, a controlled reintroduction could have happened at some point in the future. As it happens, we've had an accidental introduction. That's not the way to go about things. But as we've seen time and again, with species that were native in hisotircal times, questionably native, or obviously non-native, some people seemd to be ruled by sentimentality rather than objective consideration for the consequences.

skink1978, none of your comment follows on from what I posted. Most of the species you mentioned were still extant in the landscapes mentioned, so it would not be a reintroduction, it would be a translocation. Reintroductions or translocations are fine, subject to meeting the guidelines mentioned above (look them up).

My mistake. I chose some poor examples from the top of my head. Wolves in Yellowstone National Park would have been a better case in point.

I understand what you are saying on the subject, although personally don’t agree with much of what you have to say.

You talk a lot about the fact we are on an island. Indeed we are and this has contributed to our biodiversity. I just don’t think it’s very relevant with the boar issue (apart from the fact boars can not re-colonise naturally). Most habitats throughout the world are an ‘island’ of some description. Sterile farmland, urban areas, deserts, mountains and major roads etc. can all act as a barrier to wildlife. The island issue would be more relevant to the introduction of a non-native species e.g Foxes to Australia

Our fragmented woodland and high human population might be more of an issue. However, as many people have stated, parts of mainland Europe are very similar (in terms of land use) and still are home to healthy boar numbers. Sure, they are hunted (like deer are here), but they co-exist among most people with few problems.

Rightly or wrongly, the boars are here now. Until I see clear scientific evidence they are having a negative effect on our woodland ecology I will welcome their expansion. I do not care so much about the village green being rooted up or unnatural crops of Bluebells being destroyed.

The point I’m trying to make is you can not simply eradicate/fail to conserve any native creature that causes conflict (real or perceived) with humans. What would we have left? Certainly no Elephant, big cats, crocodilians, or anything else for that matter.

Finally, I have no idea if you have ever visited any of the areas of Kent or the Forest of Dean where the Wild Boar live. I was certainly surprised by how little visible damage I could see. In fact, apart from some well used paths (similar to a Badger’s), some hoof prints, and some rooting (on grass path), there was little evidence they were there.

 

[KnockerNorton]

You talk a lot about the fact we are on an island. Indeed we are and this has contributed to our biodiversity. I just don’t think it’s very relevant with the boar issue .....Our fragmented woodland and high human population might be more of an issue. However, as many people have stated, parts of mainland Europe are very similar (in terms of land use) and still are home to healthy boar numbers. Sure, they are hunted (like deer are here), but they co-exist among most people with few problems. .

My point about trhe island thing is that it interacts with the heavily fragmented thing, in that the populations of species that we are trying to conserve have only a finite population. This is much more finite than on the Continent, which all adds up to quite a different situation. All of the problems are much more acute here, and everything is under much more potential pressure. Our e.g. Wrens or Blackbirds are not the same as those in France or Germany. Even if they look the same, they are from different populations, and differences in behaviour (e.g. dispersal) do exist between them.

Rightly or wrongly, the boars are here now. Until I see clear scientific evidence they are having a negative effect on our woodland ecology I will welcome their expansion. .

That is a common statement, but it is also the most reckless. By the time you have your evidence, it will be too late. We can already estimate what potnetial problems might be, and that's the kind of thing we should be basing decisions on. If a bunch of bears escaped in Kent, we could guess what might happen, so would you wait until you had evidence of that too?

I do not care so much about ... unnatural crops of Bluebells being destroyed. .

But what is "natural"? Nothing in the UK is natural. Our populations of Blue Tits are 'unnaturally' high, hedgerows are unnatural, Minsmere is unnatural. Shall we not bother conserving them? Are they all worthless unless they look like 8000BC?

The point I’m trying to make is you can not simply eradicate/fail to conserve any native creature that causes conflict (real or perceived) with humans. .

I'm not talking about humans, although that is a significant factor that should not be ignored (I know it gets less truck on here from the misanthropes than it would at Defra - some people dislike people and wish there were a lot less of them, and put the badgers first). My concerns are about the damage to the woodland ecosystems that we have left, and that we are trying to get our head around in order to conserve due the populations of many species crashing. There are big problems with large mammals in fragmented woodlands, as they have a big concentrated effect. Another even bigger rooting mammal is, franky, something that I don't think many small British woods can cope with without suffering damage to their structure and biodiversity. This is not the kind of forest that boars evolved with, it looks totally different and has a different species composition. It is impossible for it to ever become 'natural' (pre-human) again, and boars are not going to make that happen. Talk of what's 'natural' is not only arbitrary (what point in time are you referring to?) it's whimsical (nobody knows what 'natural' really looked like). It;s also worth pointing out that, while boars were 'officially' eradicated around the 16th Century, this was only from Royal hunting parks where they were enclosed and heavily protected. They were probably lost from the general countryside much much earlier.

Finally, I have no idea if you have ever visited any of the areas of Kent or the Forest of Dean where the Wild Boar live. I was certainly surprised by how little visible damage I could see. In fact, apart from some well used paths (similar to a Badger’s), some hoof prints, and some rooting (on grass path), there was little evidence they were there.

They haven't been there long, and not in any great numbers. But I am familiar with areas where Boars exist on the Continent, in much more primitive forests than occur here, and even there you see areas several hundred sq m that look like they've been ploughed. There is much less understorey and herb layer.

But I guess we're going to see the experiment played out. My guess is that in 50 years we'll be cursing our misplaced enthusiasm now, just like we are with muntjac and Fallow deer, and boars will become a significant management issue. It's not fun seeing piles of gralloched deer innards lying on woodland rides after a cull, some with foetuses, but that's the reality of trying to manage these large mammals.

 

[bitterntwisted]

Kenbro,

You use 'negative' and 'better' and other value-terms throughout. Better for who? Humans? You'll never see eye-to-eye as you're arguing from a completely different standpoint which is why you think others aren't making sense.

This isn't 'our' country. This isn't 'our' planet. 'Conservation' is a waste of time. Preservation should be our goal. (We conserve things for our sake. We preserve things for their own sake.)

It's not about the thrill of seeing a wild boar. It's about the boar, not about how we get our thrills. Implict in all your arguments is an extreme anthropocentrism (a recent Judaeo-Christian artifact) which leads you to think the world's only value is its value to us. Well, it was better without us and will be better when we're gone.

Graham

 

[ColonelBlimp]

It's not about the thrill of seeing a wild boar. It's about the boar, not about how we get our thrills. Implict in all your arguments is an extreme anthropocentrism (a recent Judaeo-Christian artifact) which leads you to think the world's only value is its value to us. Well, it was better without us and will be better when we're gone.

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'?

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!

 

[Farnboro John]

One of the many things that opportunistic omnivorous boars take is infant deer. It is entirely possible that native boars could reduce the effect of non-native Muntjac and Fallow Deer in woodland.

It really does seem that you are unfamiliar with the New Forest and Forest of Dean, in both of which the presence of vast numbers of deer, sheep, horses and cattle, produce a distinct browse line on the trees and a very limited amount of herbage. Despite which, as I said before, the New Forest managers find it necessary to release pigs into the woods to keep other domestic species out of trouble. A no-brainer I reckon.

I might add that in woodland with numbers of boars, dog owners will have to be a good deal more responsible for their pets' behaviour than they are now (if they want them to come back in one piece), which can only be a good thing for all terrestrial wildlife.

You also made a crack about misanthropy on Birdforum. You may have noticed (I believe it has been in the mass media) that humans are thought to be cocking up the planet in almost every field of their endeavour, from occupying space through heating and poisoning the planet to eating (or hunting for medical quackery) species into extinction, while seeking ever more efficient ways to prevent themselves dying at their appointed times and being as resistant as rats or rabbits to curbs on their breeding. On Birdforum you see not misanthropy but despair.

John

 

[Jos Stratford]

have you see woodlands where wild boars live?

Very much so, hail from the UK so know British forests well, including the Forest of Dean, but now live in lands with abundant Wild Boar, including a sizeable population on my land.

Three-quarters of native woods are less than 10 football pitches in size.

Quite capable of supporting Wild Boar.

There are already massive problems with our heavily fragmented woodlands. And you literally want to drive a herd of wild boars through them. Do you think that will really have a benign effect? have you see woodlands where wild boars live?

This ISN'T Germany, it's nothing like it. It's uniquely British, with unique challenges and priorities.

Boars exist in fragmented forest/woodland areas across Europe, the one aspect that is uniquely British is the frequent attitude that Britain and its environment are so absolutely unique that experience from elsewhere in the species range (of whatever species) can be rejected, regardless of similarities.

No, it's not a lot like it. It's a small area surrounded by water. Things don't run on linear paths. Yes, we have a quarter of the forest, but we don't support a quarter of the Black or Three-toed Woodpeckers, so something else must be going on. .

Those species are not native to the UK, have not resided in the past and thus it's not a question of whether habitat exists today or not, clearly a different question to Wild Boars which clearly were native and are still able to reside in the habitats in existance.

There could be room for, I dunno, 5 packs of wolves.

There is room for far more than 5 packs, again merely a question whether Britain wishes to co-exist with this species - absolutely a human-orientated question, not a question of the land carrying-capacity.

 

[KnockerNorton]

It really does seem that you are unfamiliar with the New Forest and Forest of Dean,

You're right. But the Forest of Dean is not in a bubble, and I'm not talking about the forest of Dean. I'm talking about British woodland in general, which is where boars are going to end up, and I'm very familiar with British woodlands in general.

 

[KnockerNorton]

There is room for far more than 5 packs, again merely a question whether Britain wishes to co-exist with this species - absolutely a human-orientated question, not a question of the land carrying-capacity.

Well, unfortunately, it is humans calling the shots, and human priorities that conservationists have to deal with and fit their conservation around. Like it or not, society is run for the benefit of humans, not wolves, so unless you wish to perform another Highland Clearance then the presence of humans and their socio-economic concerns somewhat reduces the theoretical carrying capacity for wolves (and boars).

Woods might be capable of supporting wild boars, indeed, but my point is that this will have an effect on those woods that will probably be very negative for other species that are currently present. In the guidelines for reintroductions, therefore, boars would be unlikely to be released intentionally by professional (as opposed to armchair) conservationists - that's for a very good reason.

There might be no evidence that the woodpeckers are native in c.9000 BP, but it's not improbable that they were (before sea level rise when Britain was connected to the Continent by a foreested land bridge). They'd be unlikely to leave much evidence. Likewise, it is only theoretical that boars are native to the Forest of Dean - they might well have been shunted around hunting preserves like Fallow Deer. So trying to pick a specific point in time in which to return things to is sentimental and pointless and completely anthropocentric. What are we trying to create here, a Holocene Theme Park? Boars are no more special than bears and wolves, but we accept that it's not really a goer to welcome their "return" to Kent, Essex or Bucks. Unless you like wolves better than people, in which case nobody is going to listen to you and rightly so.

 

[Amarillo]

the one aspect that is uniquely British is the frequent attitude that Britain and its environment are so absolutely unique that experience from elsewhere in the species range (of whatever species) can be rejected, regardless of similarities.

I think you've hit the nail firmly on the head here.

We have become so accustomed to having no in any way threatening species around us, that we have built up completely irrational fears. We've seen it with sea eagles, boar, eagle owls, even beavers for heavens sake!

Yes, this country is a different place compared to when these species were here and we should take precautions of course, but we need to get a grip and if escaped boar establishing themselves and sea eagles being released in Suffolk helps re-accustom British people to living alongside "dangerous" wildlife again then it can only be of benefit.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Woods might be capable of supporting wild boars, indeed, but my point is that this will have an effect on those woods that will probably be very negative for other species that are currently present.

Other than perhaps reducing the density of the (unnaturally) high concentrations of bluebells, could you give supported data as to which other species this will be very negative for.

Unless you like wolves better than people, in which case nobody is going to listen to you and rightly so.

Why a need to like one more than the other? I am not arguing for a reintroduction of Wolf incidently, but the case could simply be to better educate people - Lithuania, better forested than the UK agreed, but a fraction of the size holds a population that ranges between 250 to 800 Wolf individuals. Don't see the country's children walking to school in bloodied tee-shorts having battle off savage beasts. I can think of not one case in recent times of a wolf-human conflict.

As for occasional livestock loss, it will happen, but compensation schemes can be put in place and would be a marginal cost if compared to overall agricultural spending.

 

[Amarillo]

I think its fair to say that Lithuania and Scotland are comparable in terms of size and population density.

So if Lithuania comfortably holds up to 800 wolves why on earth can Scotland hold maybe 5 packs? The only difference is attitude.

 

[KnockerNorton]

Other than perhaps reducing the density of the (unnaturally) high concentrations of bluebells, could you give supported data as to which other species this will be very negative for..

Define "natural", because in the British context, nothing above ground is natural at all. Including the presence of boars in the Forest of Dean today.
Read Fuller et al 2005 (Brit. Birds, What is Happening to Our Woodland Birds), and that gives you an idea of the concerns over large mammals damaging woodland structure. Of course, there is no data for boars in the British context, just like there is no data for muntjac in the Lithuanian one, but using deer as a yardstick, and knowledge of how boars behave, we can predict potentialy significant effects. Bluebells can be used as shorthand for the woodland herb layer.

Why a need to like one more than the other? I am not arguing for a reintroduction of Wolf incidently, .

well, why not? Why are boars ok but wolves are not? That's what I mean about liking one more than another. It's inconsistent to be ok with boars but not wolves.

but the case could simply be to better educate people - Lithuania, better forested than the UK agreed, but a fraction of the size holds a population that ranges between 250 to 800 Wolf individuals. Don't see the country's children walking to school in bloodied tee-shorts having battle off savage beasts. I can think of not one case in recent times of a wolf-human conflict..

I'm not interested in wolves, Little Red Riding Hood syndrome etc. My point is solely about the folly of allowing/welcoming the accidental introduction of boars to lowland England, without any regard to the current biodiversity and their potential impact upon it. I'd like to see them removed and, then, if appropriate, a controlled reintroduction taking place when it's all been considered and thought through. They're a big animal and may have a big effect on things that we're already spending a lot of money on.

 

[Amarillo]

My point is solely about the folly of allowing/welcoming the accidental introduction of boars to lowland England, without any regard to the current biodiversity and their potential impact upon it. I'd like to see them removed and, then, if appropriate, a controlled reintroduction taking place when it's all been considered and thought through. They're a big animal and may have a big effect on things that we're already spending a lot of money on.

The way its happened is not ideal of course.

But it would cost a lot of money to remove them - they are secretive and more would escape anyway

Given the opposition to beavers and white tailed eagles the chances are extremely slim of reintroducing them officially so surely common sense says that we should just accept them as part of our wildlife again.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Define "natural", because in the British context, nothing above ground is natural at all. Including the presence of boars in the Forest of Dean today..

Nothing is totally natural in the context of virtually anywhere in Europe, not the Boars in the Forest of Dean, not the Boars in my backwoods, nor the densities of bluebells in British woodlands. They are all however native.

Wild Boars previously existed in woodlands in the UK, bluebells previously existed. Since then forests have been fragmented, one of the species driven to national extinction, the other established in higher densities. Thus, there is nothing natural about the status quo in the UK as is at present. I fail to see the argument for preventing a species re-establishing in the UK on these grounds.

... knowledge of how boars behave, we can predict potentialy significant effects. Bluebells can be used as shorthand for the woodland herb layer.

Quite, woodland herb layer is healthy in woodlands across the continent.

well, why not? Why are boars ok but wolves are not? That's what I mean about liking one more than another. It's inconsistent to be ok with boars but not wolves.

Liking one species more than another? I did not say that. I merely said I was not arguing for a reintroduction - this is not saying I am against reintroduction of Wolf either. There is no logical reason for Wolves not to return to Scotland. Merely, given attitudes amongst many in the UK, I think it would be like banging a head against the wall to argue for.

 

[KnockerNorton]

The way its happened is not ideal of course.

But it would cost a lot of money to remove them - they are secretive and more would escape anyway.

Managed it with Coypu and doing a good job with mink...

Given the opposition to beavers and white tailed eagles the chances are extremely slim of reintroducing them officially so surely common sense says that we should just accept them as part of our wildlife again.

But that is ignoring why people are opposed to them, as if their opinions come below your knowldge that species x is out there. Are their concerns not important? They are the people who have to live with the consequences, after all - presumably you wont in your immediate surroundings and livelihood (?). It's not right to railroad people like that. 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. They'll probably start driving them with dogs like they do on the Continent.

 

[ColonelBlimp]

Nothing is totally natural in the context of virtually anywhere in Europe, not the Boars in the Forest of Dean, not the Boars in my backwoods, nor the densities of bluebells in British woodlands. They are all however native.

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

What are you classifying as the 'natural' or 'native' benchmark?

 

[Amarillo]

Managed it with Coypu and doing a good job with mink...

Yes, non-native species proved to be damaging to our environment so money well spent!

But that is ignoring why people are opposed to them, as if their opinions come below your knowldge that species x is out there. Are their concerns not important? They are the people who have to live with the consequences, after all

the legitimate concerns are important of course and steps should be taken to address them

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. They'll probably start driving them with dogs like they do on the Continent.

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!