Lynx released in the Highlands (1 Viewer)

[Farnboro John]

Not. The dangerous wild animal act tells how locked and registered animals should be, but next to nothing about animals comfort or welfare.

I thought about the unreasonable fear of large wild animals in Britain and how can it be stopped. Besides that millions of Britons visit wilderness in continental Europe as tourists and nobody is attacked. One way would be making a blog or a podcast about lynx, wolves, bears, bison, pelicans and other big animals of Europe and interviewing European researchers, tourism business people etc.

Yes but it specifies conditions of keeping including liability for being periodically checked by the authorities: you can't just have it in the lounge of your fifth-floor flat. And "Lynx escapes near primary school" is as damaging for future reintroduction to Britain as any farmers' concerns despite their urban patrols in Finland and elsewhere - for goodness sake we've got people whose dogs bite their children trying to claim it was foxes entering their homes that did it. It's a good thing for the animals concerned that minimum requirements are specified.

Animal welfare comes under different, wider legislation. It is covered.

John

 

[Thrupenney Bit]

John, you've hit a nerve with me.
Nationally we hear of awful situations where typically XL Bully dogs end up killing their owner or relative of the owner, a regular report on national news.

Just after Christmas we had a three dogs attack dog walkers in my city about eight miles away, leaving an owner in hospital and three attacked dogs needing to be euthanized afterwards.
Now two dog attacks in my village locality over the past four weeks where another owner was dragged along the ground as his dog is attacked. Yesterday a runner being bitten when out fir a run. These were just badly behaved large dogs not necessarily XL Bullies.

Plus as a volunteer at my local wetland, constant dog incursions into the wetland, a new National Nature Reserve, disturbing the birds sometimes even chasing them. This is deemed acceptable behaviour by the dog owners and on two occasions become aggressive if challenged.

It is a constant narrative about badly behaved dogs both nationally and locally, yet this seems to be accepted as a fact of life.
Yet try and introduce a shy forest animal that would help solve our overpopulated deer problem and there's a massive national outcry.
A strange situation...

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

Unfortunately, more is needed than blogs or podcasts...

In the Netherlands the return of wolves in 2015 has now (10 years later) ended in the killing of 20 - 25% of our wolves by hunters, farmers and angry villagers. Not all of these wolves have been found of course. But to give an example, one wolf was buried 1 meter in the ground and dug up by wild boar.

There is an extreme agressive group of farmers, Farmers Defense Force, that threatens their colleagues when they want to install special fences that protect their animals. Because this way it's possible for wolves to live in our country. By the way, the government pays for these fences.

Fake news is spread constantly about wolves, even by ministers. In every internet thread there are people claiming wolves will kill all the ungulates and then start eating children. Although it's easy to calculate that's impossible given the 1000 roe, red deer, wild boar that every wolf territory has, compared to the annual number of prey of a wolf pack. In fact, hunters lose at most 20% of their kills.

These are hard times, since we also have violent animal welfare groups.

And yes, the weird thing is, our dogs attack 150.000 humans every year, hundreds of them end up in hospital and one person is killed.

Besides, estimates are that unleashed dogs kill 8000 - 15.000 sheep every year. Compare that to the 750 sheep killed by wolves, and 99% of these sheep were not protected with the special fences to keep out wolves.

Farmers are paid for every sheep killed by a wolf, it has become a perverse revenue model or perverse incentive (hard to find the right word).

 

[jurek]

And "Lynx escapes near primary school" is as damaging for future reintroduction to Britain as any farmers' concerns

Yes, agreed. It is helpful that the majority of people wants to protect nature, such voices are noisy but a very small minority.

All European countries where wolf and lynx became protected faced and solved the same issues, including hunters and farmers spinning often fantastic stories about predators.

constant dog incursions into the wetland

By the way, in the Netherlands I visited a large heath with breeding nightjars. The smaller part near the car park was marked as a 'leash free area', Basically at a cost of two small noticeboards the local dog owners got a large area where their dogs can run as much as they want, and hikers and nightjars got peace in the majority of the area.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

By the way, in the Netherlands I visited a large heath with breeding nightjars. The smaller part near the car park was marked as a 'leash free area', Basically at a cost of two small noticeboards the local dog owners got a large area where their dogs can run as much as they want, and hikers and nightjars got peace in the majority of the area.

.
You picked the right place

Our largest heathlands are found on the Veluwe, a big nature reserve of 1000 square kilometers. There, you find some good areas for unleashed dogs, they are surrounded by 2.20 meter high fences to keep deer and wild boar out and the dogs in.

Too many Dutch dog owners are antisocial, to say the least. The reason they behave themselves on the Veluwe is because wild boar and free roaming highland cattle kill attacking dogs and wolves don't tolerate wandering canine visitors. And the hunters there don't want their precious red deer to get harmed. Another reason for these areas, scared tourists will not come back.

Outside of this reserve, in general wild boar, free roaming cattle and red deer are not allowed so dog owners have nothing to fear. Besides, in the rest of the Netherlands the forests are small. Many of them are 20 - 50 hectares. There is hardly any room for these dog areas. The small ones without fences don't work very well. Of course, there are exceptions and we have some regions with nature-friendly people.

Unfortunately, many dogs are unleashed in our forests, they kill thousands of roe deer, hares, rabbits and attack hikers and runners. The 150.000 dog attacks every year have to come from somewhere.

 

[Patudo]

constant dog incursions into the wetland, a new National Nature Reserve, disturbing the birds sometimes even chasing them. This is deemed acceptable behaviour by the dog owners and on two occasions become aggressive if challenged.

Graze a couple of sheep on the ground. So if dogs appear you can summarily shoot them for "worrying", just as the farmers do.

 

[jurek]

Our largest heathlands are found on the Veluwe, a big nature reserve of 1000 square kilometers. There, you find some good areas for unleashed dogs, they are surrounded by 2.20 meter high fences to keep deer and wild boar out and the dogs in.

I don't remember the exact place, but it was somewhere closer to Amsterdam, and the dog area was not fenced. Just a big meadow and basically dogs could run until the owners started losing track of them so had to call them back.

 

[DMW]

It's a recurring fantasy to get a pet Leopard and take it for walks on the local heath, and tell dog owners "He's only being friendly" as it runs up a tree with their turd-factory by the throat.

 

[Andy Lakin]

Read a very interesting piece the other day (can't remember where unfortunately) about the possible benefits of releasing wolves into the more remote regions of Scotland. The experts had done an in depth study and worked out the benefits to native forestry such as increased natural coverage due to the decrease in the deer population due to predation. It also talked about the potential massive effect it could have on Scotland reaching its targets regarding Carbon dioxide emissions.

Surely a reduction in the deer population would also reduce financial losses through destroyed trees for timber.
Surely all this negates the odd bit of compensation that would be paid out to farmers for loss of livestock.

 

[Thrupenney Bit]

I think you're

Read a very interesting piece the other day (can't remember where unfortunately) about the possible benefits of releasing wolves into the more remote regions of Scotland. The experts had done an in depth study and worked out the benefits to native forestry such as increased natural coverage due to the decrease in the deer population due to predation. It also talked about the potential massive effect it could have on Scotland reaching its targets regarding Carbon dioxide emissions.

Surely a reduction in the deer population would also reduce financial losses through destroyed trees for timber.
Surely all this negates the odd bit of compensation that would be paid out to farmers for loss of livestock.

I think you're absolutely right Andy.
There are definite benefits from such introductions, yet they never seem to be highlighted, and definitely not shouted as loudly as those who are against it.
Reducing the deer population not only allows forests to naturally regenerate without the saplings being destroyed, it also reduces the tick population carrying Lyme disease. Something I'm in favour of!

Currently, the Beaver debate is uppermost on national tv and focussing on my local population.
The major landowner who owns the land where most are seen gave a balanced view. Yes there are benefits, but also negatives too. As he said, some trees do get felled.
What isn't immediately obvious though is in the headwaters of the river, they have dammed areas thus spreading floodwater across a larger area, slowing the flow and stopping it heading downstream. There are a lot of householders who will support anything that prevents them getting flooded yet again but it's never mentioned in such a way.
The negatives always seem to be highlighted, not the benefits.
Hey ho.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

In 2018 wolves returned to the Veluwe in the Netherlands, our largest forest with 1000 square kilometer. At the moment there are 7 packs, because of the unnatural high densities of Red, Roe Deer and Wild Boar. For decades hunters are feeding the ungulates, as a result thousands of them have to be shot every year. This is a common situation in Western Europe, wolves have hardly any impact on the numbers of deer and boar.

However, there are definitely changes in the way deer and boar behave. Foresters report this and I see it with my own eyes, since I'm trying to study the effects of wolves in these forests since they arrived.

The herds are larger, the animals stay close together, they keep the young ones in the center of the herd when moving. Herds are seen at different times and places than before. Even in the middle of the day, you may see a moving herd because of the presence of Wolves. Herds cross large open areas at full speed.

The grazing pattern has changed dramatically. Large herds are found at safe places, where an ambush is less likely. In the forests there is more diversity in grazing pressure. This improves the regeneration of the forest and the biodiversity in many ways.

Still, the overall effects are small because on many locations food is presented by hunters and farmers. There are simply too many deer and boar and they are everywhere. It's important to get more natural densities of grazing/browsing animals. Then there will be less wolf packs and then we'll see enough forest rejuvenation.

It's counterintuitive, when wolves arrive the densities of ungulates have to be lowered. Otherwise, you still need fenced areas for young trees. In Western Europe hunters don't have to worry, there is a lot of work to do, even with wolves.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Reducing the deer population not only allows forests to naturally regenerate without the saplings being destroyed, it also reduces the tick population carrying Lyme disease. Something I'm in favour of!

I have doubts about this - Lithuania has a fairly high wolf population and growing Lynx population (one killed a Roe Deer on my land this weekend). I think deer densities are lower than the UK, but ticks are massively abundant, far higher than anything in the UK. Says me who had Lyme last year and tick-borne encephalitis in 2020 🙂

 

[Thrupenney Bit]

I assume if Lynx feed on deer, it would have some impact on deer numbers, but I acknowledge this is only what I've read.
I remember seeing in the press, possibly 10 years ago it was estimated our deer population was the highest for 1,000 years. In my humble opinion anything to reduce these numbers is a positive move.

As a 'resting' mountain biker, I remember the sudden realisation that Lyme disease wasn't an import from Lyme County USA and restricted to the New Forest/Forest of Dean, but indigenous in out tick population. There was a request for people to send in to DEFRA ( or Min of Ag maybe? ) any ticks you acquired as they had no idea how common this was.
Then returning from holidays, chatting over the fence to a neighbour and being told 6 youngsters had contracted Lyme. We were then living within Dartmoor National Park and had forest areas close, and deer seen all over the place if venturing out after dark in the summer months.

I'm sorry to hear you succumbed to tick borne diseases and hope you're OK now.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

I assume if Lynx feed on deer, it would have some impact on deer numbers, but I acknowledge this is only what I've read.
I remember seeing in the press, possibly 10 years ago it was estimated our deer population was the highest for 1,000 years. In my humble opinion anything to reduce these numbers is a positive move.

It's not clear yet, large predators were absent for hundreds of years in the Netherlands.

In areas with wolf packs, Roe Deer is their favorite meal, estimates are that it's 65% of their prey.

However, the numbers of Roe Deer are increasing in wolf territories. This might be a false coherence since the changed behavior of deer and boar leads to more young trees in the forest, the favorite meal of browsers like Roe Deer.

It's possible that Roe Deer from neighbouring areas (without wolves) 'fill the gaps'. At least 35.000 of them have to be killed by hunters every year (plus 10.000 death by cars and dogs) to prevent the population from growing. Enriched agricultural soils and feeding by hunters lead to extremely high densities of ungulates. And not to forget, prey animals adapt to the presence of predators, by having more young.

All these relations and indirect effects are still in progress. For now, the numbers of deer and boar stay more or less the same in wolf territories in the Netherlands except for alien species like Mouflon (flee to inaccessible rock faces in case of danger and there are no mountains here).

 

[Thrupenney Bit]

It's not clear yet, large predators were absent for hundreds of years in the Netherlands.

In areas with wolf packs, Roe Deer is their favorite meal, estimates are that it's 65% of their prey.

However, the numbers of Roe Deer are increasing in wolf territories. This might be a false coherence since the changed behavior of deer and boar leads to more young trees in the forest, the favorite meal of browsers like Roe Deer.

It's possible that Roe Deer from neighbouring areas (without wolves) 'fill the gaps'. Besides, prey animals adapt to the presence of predators, by having more young for instance.

All these relations and indirect effects are still in progress. For now, the numbers of ungulates stay more or less the same in wolf territories in the Netherlands (except for alien species like Mouflon).

This is really interesting stuff, thank you for sharing...

 

[Thrupenney Bit]

As a Sony camera owner, I get regular emails from them advertising their wares.
This caught my eye....

https://www.sony.co.uk/alphauniverse/stories/the-lynx-effect?src=eml&cid=CFW22JLNIWDARHJUH6R9GN&ccid=55DD2168FDB0F406AEE7F48CAFEA25CC5F09FC96

A great story ( and lovely photos ) of how a farmer can change direction and make use of newly introduced animals.

My local area has some enlightened farmers.
I just wish the message would spread...

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

From the article:

''In 2022, more than 1,300 photographers from all over the world visited the site, and the benefits for the local economy were far greater than those of hunting. It proves that sustainability can exist in private and public spaces.”

A good example of ecotourism and a nice Sony commercial

Not all farmers can work with hides but the presence of a legendary predator will attract visitors. That gives a boost to the economy of small villages in these areas. Think about nature oriented holiday resorts that fit in the landscape.

For example, in the Netherlands there is only one hill left with breeding Black Grouse, the Sallandse Heuvelrug.

People visit this place because of this iconic bird. Other animals take advantage of the protective measures, heathland is being restored. Of course, more people in nature has its drawbacks. But public acceptance is important, the residents can see the advantages. The challenge is to find a balance between nature and economy. It's a National Park, and the Black Grouse is its symbol. One thing is for sure, without this bird it would have ended very differently.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

Well, they changed the corporate style and got rid of the Black Grouse icon.

Marketing agencies...