Cecil

[Workingman]

Whilst the population is low, the impact would be like putting wolves in the Southern English countryside.

You have to be joking.

S.E. England is about the most densely populated area in Europe, N.W. Scotland is about the least densely populated area. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) is not against the reintroduction of the wolf so long as it is controlled. Beavers have been successfully reintroduced to Knapdale and are even wild in England.

[Suff]

Only slightly....

I'm trying to make a point. How do you control wolf populations? Shoot them? Humans are just about the only natural predators of wolves. Especially at high latitudes. Unless they get in the way of a hungry polar bear.

The point I'm trying to make is that once a country becomes totally domesticated, the way that that country is used changes. That use is incompatible with re-introducing wild natural predators who have the ability to endanger the lives of humans and not just human children.

It's all very well for some body of like thinking people to say "wouldn't it be good", but they won't be attending the funeral of the first victim who had no real clue that the country suddenly became unsafe. For me even 1 life in 50 years is too high a price to pay to have some "ecological" balance...

I just think people look at the Scottish hills and think "well nobody lives there so we can just reintroduce wild predators". It's not the case and will never be the case.

We have become inured in the western world to the real threat of wolf attacks specifically because we hunted them to either extinction or near extinction. That would not be the case in Scotland where they would be protected and safe from hunting. That would teach them that they would have nothing to fear from us.

Reading the wiki on wolf attacks on humans, tells me something I already knew to some extent but in greater detail. Since the advent of the rifle wolves have become significantly more wary of humans. However in Asia, where things are both less developed and the population are not generally armed, the largest number of wolf attacks in the world occur.

Some points from the document are important.

Nevertheless, they tend to fear and avoid human beings, especially in North America.[6] Wolves vary in temperament and their reaction to humans. Those with little prior experience with humans, and those positively conditioned through feeding, may lack fear. Wolves living in open areas, for example the North American Great Plains, historically showed little fear before the advent of firearms in the 19th Century,[7] and would follow human hunters to feed on their kills, particularly bison.[8] In contrast, forest-dwelling wolves in North America were noted for shyness.[7] Wolf biologist L. David Mech hypothesized in 1998 that wolves generally avoid humans because of fear instilled by hunting.[9] Mech also noted that humans' upright posture is unlike wolves' other prey, and similar to some postures of bears, which wolves usually avoid.[6] Mech speculated that attacks are preceded by habituation to humans, while a successful outcome for the wolf may lead to repeated behavior, as documented especially in India.

But we won't be hunting them and a few generations will remove the fears instilled by the hunters.

Provoked attacks.

Examples would include a captive wolf attacking an abusive handler; a mother wolf attacking a hiker who had wandered near her pups; an attack on a wolf hunter in active pursuit; or a wildlife photographer, park visitor, or field biologist who had gotten too close for the wolf's comfort.

Two of the four being most likely.

And worst of all.

Predatory attacks

Experts in India use the term "child lifting" to describe predatory attacks in which the animal silently enters a hut while everyone is sleeping, picks up a child, often with a silencing bite to the mouth and nose, and carries a child off by the head.[15] Such attacks typically occur in local clusters, and generally do not stop until the wolves involved are eliminated.

And we want to run this risk over time??? Because much as anybody wants to just dismiss this as wild theorising, when you introduce a wild predator into the landscape, then you have to take precautions. As I stated before, people wild camp in Scotland and enough times with the whole family, not just walkers or nature watchers.

[Workingman]

Yes, I see what you are saying. And I had forgotten that wild camping is allowed in Scotland.

There is an element of hearts over minds with the reintroduction of wildlife in all its forms and not just bears, lynx and wolves. I got the impression from the SNH piece that controls (hunts and culls) of wolves, especially, would be put in place.

However, thinking with my head, it would appear to be an introduction too far.

[Suff]

I just don't know where the SNH is coming from. They would replace hunts and culls of a species which does not move far and does not pose a threat with hunts and culls of a species which is far ranging and a predator.

That, of course, brings in an entirely different form of hunter and one which we really don't want.

I know they are thinking "ecology" but there is a reason why these creatures are gone. They pose a threat and cannot coexist seamlessly with humans. So we killed them all....

The Lynx would be the least problematical.