In message
(Larry Stoter) wrote:

Phil Cook wrote:

On 13/05/2015 22:24, Christina Websell wrote:
"Phil Cook" wrote in message
...
On 12/05/2015 20:56, Christina Websell wrote:
"Phil Cook" wrote in message
...
On 04/05/2015 21:58, Christina Websell wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...

I don't see the need for the re-introduction of species that have died
out from the UK, just because they used to be around decades or
centuries ago. Move on!

Agree.

Tell that to all the folk making a mint from the ornithological tourism
in
the Hebrides and West Highlands after the re-introduction of the white
tailed sea eagle.


Which is not quite the same as having lynx, is it? they will be a
perfect
nuisance around poultry and sheep. I say NO.

I've seen a white tailed sea eagle facing off with a ewe over a dead lamb.
Those birds aren't small.
--
and your point is?
There not room for lynxes (or wolves) to be reintroduced here and I just
wish people would stop banging on about it.
Yes once upon a time we had them, in the 17th century. i have enough
nuisance with foxes without lynxes or wolves being reintroduced.

People said (and some still do) that there was no room for white
tailed sea eagles either. My point is that the reintroduction of them
has resulted in a boost for the tourist industry. It is estimated that
the 6,000 people visiting the island of Mull to see the eagles created
a £2 million boost to the local economy in 2010.

Given that most people never see the 100,000s of deer that cover most of
the UK, I very much doubt that most people would ever see a Lynx.

And there are areas of the UK where there is plenty of room of Lynx as
well as people - Mid-Wales, Thetford Forest, parts of N England and
Scotland.

I imagine the first reintroductions will be with radio-tagged animals
which can be tracked and carefully monitored.

I would also add, that in my opinion, wild Lynx are going to be a lot
less dangerous to people and live stock than some of the dogs that are
running around our cities and countryside. Near where I live, the same
dog has killed and injured something like like 10 sheep and lambs over
the past couple of months. The farmer has, so far, restrained himself
from shooting the dog - many farmer would have shot the dog as soon as
they saw it worrying sheep.

Larry

If anything is to be introduced, I say it should be beavers. Cuddly!

On a more serious note, there is a letter from Iolo Owen of Bodorgan,
Anglessey, in Farmer's Weekly 13 March 2015 saying that grey squirrels
have been eradicated from Anglesey as an alien as required by EU
regulations enacted in November last year and coming into force 1
January this year. There's no doubt that grey squirrels are an alien
species, but he goes on to say that the red fox is *alien to
Anglesey*, being introduced only in the 1970s, and it should also be
eradicated under the same terms.

OH WOW!

Michael Bell


--

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

In article ,
Christina Websell wrote:

There not room for lynxes (or wolves) to be reintroduced here and I just
wish people would stop banging on about it.
Yes once upon a time we had them, in the 17th century. i have enough
nuisance with foxes without lynxes or wolves being reintroduced.

You are factually wrong as regard lynx. There is ample room; whether
there is for wolves is more debatable, but the answer is "yes, with
reservations." Also, your implications are nonsense. Even the
wildest of foxes are naturally scavengers, and do not avoid humans;
neither lynx nor wolves are, and both do. Furthermore, there are
plenty of places where lynx come into contact with human habitation,
and there is essentially no problem.

So far, I have never seen anyone argue rationally against lynx;
every single one has used purely emotional fury. I could provide
some (weak and dubious) rational arguments against, but opponents
don't seem capable of even that.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Larry Stoter wrote:
Christina Websell wrote:

No deer menace in my part of the UK.

There are100,000s of deer across the UK - most people simply never see
them or are aware they are there. Apart from dropping, the failure of
woodlands to regenerate is a clear sign of lots of deer.

And the absence of most of the woodland herbs, with the butterflies
and other creatures that rely on them. The evidence is clear across
most of the UK for those that have eyes to see.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
says...

"Phil Cook" wrote in message
...
On 12/05/2015 20:56, Christina Websell wrote:
"Phil Cook" wrote in message
...
On 04/05/2015 21:58, Christina Websell wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...

I don't see the need for the re-introduction of species that have died
out from the UK, just because they used to be around decades or
centuries ago. Move on!

Agree.

Tell that to all the folk making a mint from the ornithological tourism
in
the Hebrides and West Highlands after the re-introduction of the white
tailed sea eagle.


Which is not quite the same as having lynx, is it? they will be a
perfect
nuisance around poultry and sheep. I say NO.

I've seen a white tailed sea eagle facing off with a ewe over a dead lamb.
Those birds aren't small.
--
and your point is?

His point is, that the re-introduction of wtse's was and is as
controversial to sheep farmers.

There not room for lynxes (or wolves) to be reintroduced here

Presumably you're referring to arable Lincolnshire, which afaik is not
the area where lynx would be introduced.

I suspect you haven't seen the amount of "room available" in the
Scottish Highlands. Or, the unnatural degree of damage done to the
native ecology there, by uncontrolled deer.

Janet

In article ,
says...


If anything is to be introduced, I say it should be beavers.

They already have been, in Scotland.

Janet

In article ,
says...

No deer menace in my part of the UK.


Then you really don't understand the extent of the deer problem in
wilder areas than Lincolnshire.

Janet

In article ,
says...

There are100,000s of deer across the UK - most people simply never see
them or are aware they are there. Apart from dropping, the failure of
woodlands to regenerate is a clear sign of lots of deer.


The first sign of deer here,is the triangle road sign warning to
tourist drivers (about 200 yards from my house) that red deer are a
hazard on all roads.

In the north of the island they are so numerous it would be very hard
for any road driver to avoid seeing red deer in broad daylight.
Driving there at night is far more hazardous as you won't see them at
all until the headlights light up their eyes. Gardens up there only
survive if surrounded by a 6ft deerfence.

Janet

Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article ,
Christina Websell wrote:

There not room for lynxes (or wolves) to be reintroduced here and I just
wish people would stop banging on about it.
Yes once upon a time we had them, in the 17th century. i have enough
nuisance with foxes without lynxes or wolves being reintroduced.

You are factually wrong as regard lynx. There is ample room; whether
there is for wolves is more debatable, but the answer is "yes, with
reservations." Also, your implications are nonsense. Even the
wildest of foxes are naturally scavengers, and do not avoid humans;
neither lynx nor wolves are, and both do. Furthermore, there are
plenty of places where lynx come into contact with human habitation,
and there is essentially no problem.

So far, I have never seen anyone argue rationally against lynx;
every single one has used purely emotional fury. I could provide
some (weak and dubious) rational arguments against, but opponents
don't seem capable of even that.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.


It is very interesting to see the completely different reaction on this
group to the reaction on uk.rec.natural-history.

Largely hysterical here, more 'yeah, so what" on uk.rec.natural-history.

Larry

On Thu, 14 May 2015 08:59:08 +0100 (BST),
(Nick Maclaren) wrote:

In article ,
Christina Websell wrote:

There not room for lynxes (or wolves) to be reintroduced here and I just
wish people would stop banging on about it.
Yes once upon a time we had them, in the 17th century. i have enough
nuisance with foxes without lynxes or wolves being reintroduced.

You are factually wrong as regard lynx. There is ample room; whether
there is for wolves is more debatable, but the answer is "yes, with
reservations." Also, your implications are nonsense. Even the
wildest of foxes are naturally scavengers, and do not avoid humans;
neither lynx nor wolves are, and both do. Furthermore, there are
plenty of places where lynx come into contact with human habitation,
and there is essentially no problem.

So far, I have never seen anyone argue rationally against lynx;
every single one has used purely emotional fury. I could provide
some (weak and dubious) rational arguments against, but opponents
don't seem capable of even that.

Well said, Nick!

Tina, as usual one might say, puts emotion way ahead of facts, when in
fact she should be supporting the introduction of lynx because in some
areas they prey on red foxes! Here's part of an abstract of a Swedish
study of the effects of introduced lynx on the existing red fox
population:

"The annual lynx predation rate was 14% on radio-tracked foxes and 4%
on snow-tracked foxes. The population indices of foxes in the main
study area decreased by about 10% annually during the study period.
The population decrease could potentially be explained by lynx
predation alone, but we acknowledge some alternative explanations. Our
results point out the possibility that red fox populations can be
significantly limited by allowing lynx populations to recover."

In article ,
Larry Stoter wrote:

It is very interesting to see the completely different reaction on this
group to the reaction on uk.rec.natural-history.

Largely hysterical here, more 'yeah, so what" on uk.rec.natural-history.

Actually, it's about equally balanced here - it's just that the
hysterics are, er, more hysterical.

There is ample room for lynx anywhere there is a large muntjac or
roe population, or possibly even rabbit!, and Lincolnshire is very
definitely among those places. The smaller deer are a serious
ecological problem almost everywhere. They will have spread even
further by now, but were reaching densities of over 100 per square
kilometre, and there is almost no rural or woody suburban area
without large a large population of either roe or muntjac, which
is causing havoc to our woodland plants.

http://www.bds.org.uk/muntjac.html
http://www.bds.org.uk/deer_distribution.html
http://www.mammal.org.uk/muntjac
http://www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys...mal-monitoring

But I don't expect mere facts to have any effect on the hysterics.

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:

But I don't expect mere facts to have any effect on the hysterics.

I must protest! Opinions were expressed for and against the
introduction of lynx, some strongly felt on both sides. Neither was
any more hysterical than the other, just different. To claim one side
was hysterical is reducing the argument to one of 'ad hominem', which
is second-rate and always best avoided.

Nonsense. A good half of the opinions against were purely emotional,
and the remainder used 'facts' that could readily be disproved (and
often were the converse of the truth). As I said, I could provide
weak and dubious rational arguments against, but I didn't even see
any of them. As a traditional academic-minded person, I regard any
opinion based on deliberate ignorance to be purely emotional.

Let's take one example: there is no room. Lynx are shy, solitary,
woodland hunters which prey on shy, solitary, woodland deer, and
(where present) have the effect of replacing some of the deer with
lynx. So it's obvious nonsense, and can be seen to be so by simple
data searches.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:

Let's take one example: there is no room. Lynx are shy, solitary,
woodland hunters which prey on shy, solitary, woodland deer, and
(where present) have the effect of replacing some of the deer with
lynx. So it's obvious nonsense, and can be seen to be so by simple
data searches.

No, not nonsense. The arguments against the introduction of lynx were
not strong, I'll readily agree, and in fact I found your
counter-arguments quite persuasive. But the arguments against its
introduction were not hysterical. To describe them as such is 'ad
hominem' and ill befits a academic such as yourself.

As I point out above, the argument that there is no room for them
IS nonsense, pure and simple. They would merely displace some of
the existing deer.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Janet" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...


If anything is to be introduced, I say it should be beavers.

They already have been, in Scotland.

Janet


Beavers are OK in Scotland where there is room for them. Lynxes will be a
nuisance. No lamb will be safe. Nor poultry.

On 15/05/2015 22:43, Christina Websell wrote:
"Janet" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...


If anything is to be introduced, I say it should be beavers.

They already have been, in Scotland.

Janet


Beavers are OK in Scotland where there is room for them. Lynxes will be a
nuisance. No lamb will be safe. Nor poultry.


But they may scare the sh.. out of the moles

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:

Let's take one example: there is no room. Lynx are shy, solitary,
woodland hunters which prey on shy, solitary, woodland deer, and
(where present) have the effect of replacing some of the deer with
lynx. So it's obvious nonsense, and can be seen to be so by simple
data searches.

No, not nonsense. The arguments against the introduction of lynx were
not strong, I'll readily agree, and in fact I found your
counter-arguments quite persuasive. But the arguments against its
introduction were not hysterical. To describe them as such is 'ad
hominem' and ill befits a academic such as yourself.

As I point out above, the argument that there is no room for them
IS nonsense, pure and simple. They would merely displace some of
the existing deer.


What deer? The only deer here are enclosed in Bradgate Park.