Article

Wolf reintroduction to Scotland: public attitudes and consequences for red deer management.

Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biology, University of Oslo, PO Box 1066 Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (Impact Factor: 5.68). 05/2007; 274(1612):995-1002. DOI:10.1098/rspb.2007.0038
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Reintroductions are important tools for the conservation of individual species, but recently more attention has been paid to the restoration of ecosystem function, and to the importance of carrying out a full risk assessment prior to any reintroduction programme. In much of the Highlands of Scotland, wolves (Canis lupus) were eradicated by 1769, but there are currently proposals for them to be reintroduced. Their main wild prey if reintroduced would be red deer (Cervus elaphus). Red deer are themselves a contentious component of the Scottish landscape. They support a trophy hunting industry but are thought to be close to carrying capacity, and are believed to have a considerable economic and ecological impact. High deer densities hamper attempts to reforest, reduce bird densities and compete with livestock for grazing. Here, we examine the probable consequences for the red deer population of reintroducing wolves into the Scottish Highlands using a structured Markov predator-prey model. Our simulations suggest that reintroducing wolves is likely to generate conservation benefits by lowering deer densities. It would also free deer estates from the financial burden of costly hind culls, which are required in order to achieve the Deer Commission for Scotland's target deer densities. However, a reintroduced wolf population would also carry costs, particularly through increased livestock mortality. We investigated perceptions of the costs and benefits of wolf reintroductions among rural and urban communities in Scotland and found that the public are generally positive to the idea. Farmers hold more negative attitudes, but far less negative than the organizations that represent them.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
75 Views
  • Source
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: What is the future of vertebrate reintroductions in Britain? Word Count (2060) The IUCN define reintroductions as "An attempt to establish a species in an area which was once part of its historical range, but from which it has been extirpated or become extinct." (Pullin, 2002). This differs from translocations to bolster existing populations or introductions of species into novel habitats (Primack, 2006). This paper identifies three species with potential as future candidates for reintroduction to Britain and discusses some of the ramifications of such action. Most attention is given to the species which the author believes could have the largest individual effect. The history of vertebrate reintroductions in Britain is not particularly rich. There have been a number of red squirrels (Scirius vulgaris) reintroduced into areas where they were locally extinct(GURNELL and PEPPER, 1993; Bertram and Moltu, 2008; Lloyd, 2008) , several bird reintroductions including red kites (Milvus milvus) (Evans and Pienkowski, 1991), white tailed sea eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla) (Evans et al.,2009) and capercallie (Tetrao urogallus)(Moss, 2001). There have also been the recent reintroduction of the Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) (Kitchener and Conroy, 2008) and the perhaps accidental reintroduction of the wild boar (Sus scrofa) (Goulding and Roper, 2002; Goulding et al., 2003;Goulding, 2008). Both of these are of interest as they are ecosystem engineers, that is: species which directly affect the availability of ecosystem resources to other species by causing changes to that ecosystem (Jones, Lawton and Shachak, 1994). The beaver engineers its ecosystem by felling trees and physically changing habitat (Jones, Lawton and Shachak, 1994). It is thought to have disappeared from Britain by the 16 th century (Macdonald et al., 2008). Beaver dams cause conditions to change both upstream and downstream by slowing water flow in some channels whilst simultaneously causing faster flow in others. A wide range of invertebrate habitat is provided and greater invertebrate diversity ensues (Gurnell et al., 2009). Beavers also allow greater diversity amongst some types of fish and can create conditions which may allow for greater plant diversity (Gurnell et al., 2009). The beaver was approved for reintroduction to Scotland in 2008 (Jones et al., 2009) and it is thought that Norfolk, with its plentiful waterways and deciduous trees, may provide suitable habitat to replicate this in England (South et al., 2000; MacDonald et al.,2008).
    12/2013;
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Conserving biodiversity requires productive management of conflict. Currently, wildlife are often portrayed as conscious human antagonists, which must be fought. We suggest using the ‘comic corrective’ to experiment with ways to reframe human–human conflicts over wildlife management and wildlife damage. This requires a deep commitment to change, often made more palatable through humour. This effort to fight the use of the term human–wildlife conflict should not be interpreted as a call to reject human–human conflict as a useful conservation tool. Conservationists, who value wildlife, often misleadingly suggest that conservation can sidestep irreducible value differences and political processes that see proponents of different views as antagonists. Because democracies cannot function without dissent, we suggest that conservation biologists should embrace stakeholder conflicts over wildlife conservation as a way to improve decision making. In particular, we should challenge the view that wildlife are willfully antagonistic to people while recognizing conflict among humans over how biodiversity conservation should occur.
    Pacific Conservation Biology 10/2013; 19(2):94–103.

Full-text

View
0 Downloads
Available from