geographical issue essay_2[1]

8/6/2019 Geographical Issue Essay_2[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/geographical-issue-essay21 1/14

Will the reintroduction of native species to the Scottish Highlands be beneficial to

the environment and the surrounding communities?

Introduction:

Recently there have been a number of proposals for reintroducing native species to

suitable habitats in the UK. These have included beaver and predators such as lynx and

wolf. The Scottish Highlands are deemed the most suitable place to reintroduce these

creatures in Britain. Environmentalists argue that introducing these predators would help

control the out of hand red deer population. This would help the re-establishment of

plants and birds which are currently being affected by the over population of deer. All

over Europe and America animals such as the wolf are either returning unaided or being

reintroduced. According to surveys a majority of people in the UK feel positively towards

the reintroduction of animals, even wolves. If this is the case why hasn’t it happened yet?

One reason is the reaction of the Scottish public has not been all positive. Some people

believe that because these species have been extinct for a long time the Scottish

landscape will have changed too much for these animals to survive as they once did.

Farmers believed that predators such as wolves eat livestock and could attack people. It’s



not just the predators that are seen as the problem. Anglers and farmers complain that the

reintroduction of beavers would be against their interests. Are their concerns justified?

Source 1: Magnus Linklater is a Scottish journalist who writes for various newspapers.

His article “Let’s not go back to the Middle Ages” was featured in ‘The Times’ on

December the 10, 2008. He has posted many articles on the subject of reintroduction and

all off these are against reintroduction.

Source 2: The author is Dr Charles Warren. He is a senior lecturer for the school of

geography and geosciences in St. Andrews University. He has an MA in Geography at

Oxford and an MSc in Natural Resource Management at Edinburgh. He has published

various materials on Scotland’s environment and is a member of the Royal Geography

Society. This source is taken from a chapter of his book “Managing Scotland’s

Environment”.

Source 3: Charles J. Wilson is a lecturer in Napier University’s school of life sciences.

This article was published online on March 31, 2004 and in the Mammal Review Volume

34, Issue 3 in July 2004.

Summary:

Source 1: The arguments that Magnus Linklater makes are completely against the

reintroduction of any native species to anywhere in Britain, never mind Scotland. He is

unable to understand why people are considering reintroducing these animals and

compares it to the introduction of Grey Squirrels. His belief is that introductions won’t be

controlled and that these species won’t fit into the Scottish countryside. He leaves no

doubt about his opposition to the EU legislation on reintroduction. He argues that for

species that have been extinct for a long time, changes in land use make re-introductions

undesirable. However, he is willing to concede that a case could be made for more recent

extinctions. With regard to the reintroduction of beavers, he argues that the Scottish

environment has changed too much for beavers to live like they once did and disputes all

the potential benefits put forward by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). His ‘evidence’

consists of brief interviews with a farmer and a politician who agree with him. One of his



main opinions is that conservationists ignore rural communities. He expands on this by

using the reintroduction of sea eagles as an example, saying that even though the RSPB

knew that farmers were unhappy with their plans, they still went ahead. He considers the

RSPB’s response that sea eagles are more likely to eat fulmars than sheep as

“irresponsible” and his interpretation is that conservation bodies should not regard native

species as “little more than a larder for a newly introduced killer species.”

Source 2: Charles Warren categorises the arguments for and against the reintroduction

of lost native species into four main categories: social, ecological, economical & ethical.

He also explains the current situation of the reintroduction of wolves, for instance the

possible sites for wolf introduction and why these have been deemed unsuitable. This is

when he starts his main argument. His first argument being it is ecologically feasible as it

helps efficiently control red deer populations. He explains it would be ethical because we

were the cause of their extinction so we should aid their return. He then moves on to the

economical side of the argument which says that tourists will come to Scotland to wolf

watch and when there is enough wolves people could take part in big game hunting. He

moves onto people’s reactions to wolves’ reintroductions and his next argument acts as a

reassurance that wolves rarely attack humans. Even if they do attack farmers livestock he

gives the idea of compensation funds to keep them happy. However he feels these will

have to be taken up by volunteer organisations because the government are unlikely to

comply His conclusion is that wolf reintroduction is likely to create a gap between rural

communities and conservational bodies and make future reintroductions harder.

He then tackles lynx reintroduction for which most his initial arguments are the same as

his arguments for wolves however he feels that the lynx is more likely to be accepted

because they have a better reputation than wolves. He also says that lynx will restore

missing ecological processes. On the down side he also has a concern that they might

start preying on rare native species. He concludes that lynx are a bigger possibility than

wolves but will not be reintroduced in the near future.

He splits the chapter on beavers into two main sections: whether beavers are desirable or

feasible? Again he uses an argument along the lines of it being our moral responsibility to

reintroduce them. He also states that they are a keystone species in forest habitat with

hydrological and conservational advantages. There are also economical advantages as



beavers would become a tourist attraction and a game animal. He then moves onto the

opposition made by forester and anglers and concludes that forester fears are valid while

anglers aren’t. He also claims that the benefits that beaver introduction will outweigh any

small local problems. The likelihood of beavers being reintroduced is high because they

have started trial runs. The outcome of these will decide the beavers future in Britain

Source 3: The author focuses solely on carnivores not considering beaver. He reviews

information on wolves, lynx to find out if whether enough of the required habitat exists in

the UK to hold a viable population of these species and to evaluate any potential risks to

human safety, lives stock and valuable wild life. He also briefly looks at the publics

attitudes the reintroduction of some other mammals are also briefly reviewed. Hisarguments all fit into three main columns: Do we have room for them? Are they a threat

to people? Would their impact on livestock or economically important game or wildlife

be unacceptable? He first evaluates where these predators could be reintroduced: he

concludes because of the large land range and low population densities large predators

require, the Scottish Highlands is the only part of the UK with the potential to support a

viable population. There are also fewer people living in the Highlands and the amount of

wild prey is higher than many places in Europe where large carnivores survive. Attacks

on people have been noted for wolves; however there are no reports of attacks by lynx.

Wolves and Lynx have been known to prey on livestock but prefer wild prey if it’s

available. However, mass kills of up to 100 or more sheep have been occasionally

recorded for wolves. He then moves onto the reactions of the public. The general public

doesn’t seem that bothered by the concept of reintroducing these predators, but people

who are more likely to be affected by these animals have a more negative view on the

matter. He concludes that the reintroduction of wolves is unlikely to happen anytime soon

because of fear for livestock. Reintroduction of the lynx may be more likely but

uncertainty about whether there is enough suitable habitat and potential damage to

vulnerable native species such as capercaille needs to be assessed. He also feels social,

economical and legal issues would need to be discussed before reintroduction can be

considered.



Analysis:

Source 1: We know Magnus Linklater’s opinion from the first sentence where he states

that conservation is verging on “lunacy”. However even though his disapproval of

reintroduction is clear he doesn’t give much evidence to back up his opinion.

Linklater’s first argument is fairly weak as it is irrelevant to the topic he is discussing. He

compares the reintroduction of the beaver to the introduction of grey squirrels. Although

he provides figures to back up the fact that the “alien” grey squirrels are out of control

and are wiping out the native red squirrels; they are not of much use given that the

introduction of an alien species and the reintroduction of a “native” species are

completely different: Beavers are able to survive in the Scottish environment and there is

some information on how they would react to living in Scotland, whereas grey squirrels

were brought over with no control and no idea about how they would react to the Scottish

environment.

He then goes on to criticise Scottish Natural Heritage saying that they should have learnt

that “alien species” aren’t easy to control. He again makes the mistake of classifying

beavers as an “alien species”; which they are not.

The Authors argument is weakened because he seems unable to understand the other side

of the argument. He opens the next paragraph proving this stating that “it is far from clear

why this is being done”, and then goes on to explain in detail why Scottish Heritage who

he claims to be “behind the project” (making it sound like an accusation) are taking up

this project. He claims that the language is obscure however, this just emphasises how

lazy his argument is as language is easily understood if it’s studied.

It is in the next paragraph he makes his first strong argument. He reasons that beavers

have not been in Scotland since the 16th centaury, and that the environment in Scotland

was very different: Scottish woodland was heavily exploited for timber, charcoal and tan-

bark during the 17th and 18th centauries and by the 1900’s people had lost interest in

woodland, leaving only 4% woodland area. Now only 1% of land surface is native

woodland [1][fig.1]



Figure 1: maps of woodland

He then brings local fishing and farming industries into the picture backing up his

argument against reintroduction: Farmers claim that wolves eat their livestock and he

claims that Fishing is disrupted by beaver damning; he refers to various articles [2] [3]

saying how beavers dam salmon spawning sites. Although they can hinder salmons

journey upstream, it is said that because beaver dams slow the rivers current it provides

an ideal area for young salmon to grow and hide from predators which would benefit

salmon spawning [4]. He feels that both industries are critical to Scotland’s economy and

they are the reason beavers were wiped out in the first place; so why would we want them

back?

Just when he’s starting to make strong arguments he puts emphasis on his lack of

research by stating he understood the reintroduction of Ospreys, even though ospreys

returned by themselves. Humans have been helping ospreys through stopping egg

collectors and moving some newly hatched chicks to England to establish a populationthere [5].

He then moves on to the reintroduction of sea-eagles. Claiming that the RSPB ignored

rural communities who said sea-eagles were seizing their sheep. However, as the nature

of sea-eagles is that of a carrion feeder they are only likely to scavenge sheep [6]. He also

says that sea-eagles are eating fulmars claiming that this is no better than them eating



livestock; however, although fulmars are beautiful birds they have a well established

population in the UK and their numbers are unlikely to be effected.

Source 2: He begins with a brief summary of where wolf reintroduction stands and what

plans have been made for their reintroduction. His first argument is an ecological one; he

states that wolves would be an efficient way of controlling the red deer population

referring to an earlier chapter of his book. Still giving ecological arguments he claims

there will be many ecosystem wide benefits like there was in Yellowstone. The predicted

transient population dynamics following the reintroduction of wolves to Scotland have

been modelled by Nilsen et al. (fig.3).

Figure 2 - Relationship between wolf and deer populations

Although this is a valid point and he gives reference to back it up it could still be

considered a weak argument as the size, environment and habitat of Yellowstone is

different to that of the Scottish highlands where the reintroduction wolves would have a

different impact. His next points are about it being ethical. Reintroducing wolves will

give us the elation of doing something morally good and we will be relieved of the guilt

we feel because we’re the reason they became extinct in the first place. Even though this

is a good foundation for his argument; alone it will never be sufficient enough to lead to

reintroduction. This leads him to consider economical benefits. He starts by stating that

wolf watching will attract tourists just like it did in North America referring to Panaman,

The dashed line represents hind (3

years or more) densities, the

dotted line trophy stag (more than

5 years) densities, and the solid

line wolf densities. Standard

deviations (thin dotted lines)

around the lines do not include

cases when wolves went extinct.

The grey points are wolf densities

in the northern range of

Yellowstone National Park following the wolf reintroduction

in 1995 (from Smith et al . 2003).



with more references and are given more examples. He then makes references to people

who fear that lynx would attack native species such as Capercaille and wildcats. However

because of the overpopulation of rabbits, foxes and deer it is unlikely that the native

species will suffer. Although the reintroduction of lynx is likely because of these issues it

is unlikely to be in the near future.

His next section is on beavers he splits his arguments into desirability and feasablity.He

starts with desirability first and kicks off with the same reasoning he started off the wolf

section with. He argues that beavers are desirable because many people feel it is our

“moral responsibility” to return them as we drove them out in the first place. This reason

comes in the form of a quote from Scottish Natural Heritage which makes it stronger than

the first time he mentioned moral “responsibility”. Knowing that this isn’t enough of an

argument for the return of the beaver to be accepted he moves on to ecological reasons

which he backs up with many quotes and referenced from/to different people and

organisations such as SNH, who believe the beavers have many conservational

“advantages” making his argument fairly strong. Economical reasons are tackled next and

they are basically the same as the ones for wolves: Tourism and game. While explaining

these reasons he always gives examples to strengthen his argument such as the several

countries in Europe who have also one through beaver reintroduction and are finding it

boosts tourism in certain areas, also sea eagles and ospreys have brought a lot of tourism

in Scotland.

He now talks about whether it is possible. He show a lot of proof throughout the

desirability section which shows that ecologically and economically it will bring many

benefits. However many land users object and he now goes on to tackle the arguments

made by Anglers and foresters. He draws on Norwegian experience to validate their

arguments. Foresters fear over the suffering of broad leaf riparian forests are valid. But

according to Parker and al. “fisher’s fears are unfounded”. Concluding that there are

more benefits than concerns which is what SNH and Macdonald have said as well. This

concludes strongly that Beavers are likely to be reintroduced, this is a valid conclusion as

a trial is currently being run with positive results.

Source 3: He begins with the question: “Do we have room for them?” He begins by

giving us background information on the required amount of space to hold the minimum



viable population (MVP): MVP is the smallest possible size at which a biological

population can exist without facing extinction from natural disasters or demographic,

environmental genetic stochasticity. He gives various suggestions from other sources of

the MVP for wolves and lynx: Wolves estimated at 100 by Fritts & Carbyn, while he

states there are no published estimates for lynx and proceeds to give his own

approximations. However rather than just stating numbers he takes us through the process

he went through to get them providing many references along the way which strengthen

his conclusion: His results suggest 200-250 for both wolves and lynx. Through

comparisons to other European habitats which have no more than 200 wolves

(Breitenmoser, 1998) he shows that these are substantial numbers especially when a

majority of the habitats within continental Europe are much more extensive than the

Scottish highlands. He now moves on to how the MVP is affected by habitat and the

amount of land required to hold these species. He shows just how the range required can

vary through an example (all of Wilsons arguments are well thought through and prove

that he must researched a lot into the subject as there is almost a reference every

sentence): in North America wolf home ranges vary from 80km2 in Minnesota to almost

13000km2 in Alaska. He states that the further north you go the larger the range of lynx

and wolves get, he provides evidence for this in the form of a table which contains

Species, region (all are within Eurasia), home range in km2, Density per 100km2 (when

available) and his sources for each figure. He then goes on to make an estimate at the

space requires to hold the viable population which he concludes with an explanation for

the process in producing the number which is five times the size of the lake district. He

claims that there is substantial habitat to hold these numbers in the highlands however

because most of the land is under private ownership it is unlikely. Again he produces

another reason which makes the Scottish habitat suitable for reintroduction and provides

all the figures clearly and in an easy to understand way. This time its human population

densities and road densities which are significantly lower than in places in North America

and Continental Europe [fig 2,3], leaving the author for the time being with a positive

feeling towards predator reintroduction even though ultimately he is against it; this shows

that the Wilson has made sure he has a thorough understanding of both sides of the

argument before he made his decision



He now moves on to his next question: Are large carnivores a threat to people? He starts

of by investigating the wolves’ bad reputation for attacking people (especially children)

and immediately dismisses that wolves are “innate killers of children” (Valverde, 1975)

as Mech (1970) found there has been no scientific evidence to prove that there were

attacks made by healthy wolves in North America and concluded that attacks in Eurasia

Fig. 4 Population Fig. 5 Road Map



were exaggerated. He backs up the conclusion made by Mech by providing another

reference this time to Boitani (2000) who confirmed that there were no reliably

documented cases of non-rabid wolf attacks in Europe through the 20th Centaury. He feels

this reputation was created by one attack in Romania which killed 20 people (Pimlott

1975) he makes sure to provide a reference for this and any other assumption he makes.

He gives a conclusion from Breitenmoser et al. (2000) that the lynx posed no threat to

people and did not find anecdotal claims of a man-eating lynx. Any Injuries recorded

where accidents including injured, captured or rabid animals. The main worries about

lynx are for livestock. He even claims that females driven away from their cubs aren’t

dangerous. He provides another reference to prove what Breitenmoser states this time

from Yalden (1999) who noted that lynx that live and hunt around Stockholm without

being a direct danger to the humans living there. He now moves to his final question:

Would their impact on livestock, game, or wildlife be unacceptable? He starts by stating

the research he has done and laid it out in a table. He also named all the methods he used

so the reader can clearly understand this strengthens his arguments and the content of his

journal as it proves he actually did some work himself rather than just copying and

pasting other people’s research, this maintains a balance in his writing using his own

working and methods to come up with his own hypothesis providing his own figures then

proves them with various statements and percentages from other sources. He starts of by

analysing the importance of different foods in the diets of wolves and lynx. He creates a

table of his findings however he feels the methods in acquiring the figures in his table

overcompensate for prey which is completely consumed of unlikely to be found or

reported. He also feels that avian prey is underestimated in numbers in many dietary

studies so the impact may be higher than suggested in studies. While making these point

he refers back to the table which has a list of studies he researched for it, he also makes

reference to Reynolds & Aebischer thoroughly listing any research done. He gives

information from Ciucci & Boitani, 1998 and Vos, 2000 which suggest that wolf

predication of livestock is usually small but they can have a big impact on individual

landowners. He draws figures from Tuscany which suggested an average of 3 sheep were

killed per attack however in a small number of cases from 21 to 113 were killed. This

would be fatal to some farmers. Kills were most common when sheep where left to roam

freely in mountain areas, as most livestock in the highlands are kept through hill-sheep



farming this will strengthen the anti-reintroduction barrier. Although proven to not have

an impact on farming lynx they have been proven to attack game animals and rare native

species such as the capercaille: again Wilson provides a lot of evidence to make sure his

point of view is validated. He concludes that because of a bad reputation and opposition

from livestock farmers wolves are unlikely to be reintroduced, whereas the lynx he feels

could be reintroduced; however he feels there are still many things which have to be

considered like lack of suitable habitat before this could happen meaning it wouldn’t be

in the foreseeable future.

Conclusion:

Out of the three sources I analysed Charles J. Wilson (source 3) provides the strongest

arguments. He has obviously done a lot of research and backs up almost everything he

says with references and statistics. He manages to do this without appearing to have

copied and pasted everything; he uses the sources to analyse his own arguments. Another

way he achieved this was by working out many of his own figures and explaining the

processes as he went along. However, I found at times the number of references provided

could become quite daunting and drowned out whatever his actual point was. His work

was well researched and well argued and he successfully detached himself from his

writing, however he does this to such an extent he leaves the reader unsure of what his

opinion actually is. This emotional detachment contrasts completely with Magnus

Linklater’s article which is lacking in research and understanding. The main problem

with Linklater’s piece is that as a newspaper article it should be an informative piece of

writing written to give the public important information. Linklater’s ‘article’ is

completely biased with little information. Although Charles Warren takes the middle

ground and keeps emotionally in control he often referred to the situation in North

America for evidence (whose climate, habitat and land area varies drastically form

Scotland’s). The comparisons he made with North America should have been replaced

with European countries especially Norway (He does refer to Norway at one point). In all

I think his argument was well thought out, it’s arguments just lacked a sense of finish;

take “healthy wolves very rarely attack humans, but some attacks do occur” for example,

there is so much more which could have been said instead he just quotes a slightly

ambiguous sentence and leaves it open to interpretation. Even though I struggled to read



his journal I felt Wilson’s arguments in general where structured better, had sufficient

evidence and reflected his conclusions best.

Secondary Sources:

Websites/Online Articles:

[1] http://www.snh.gov.uk/land-and-sea/managing-the-land/forestry-and-

woodlands/history/

[2] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article5298702.ece

[3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article5102431.ece

[4] http://rocky.ess.washington.edu/grg/publications/pdfs/Pollock.pdf

[6] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1382014.stm

[7] http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/birdguide/name/w/whitetailedeagle/feeding.aspx

Maps and Pictures:

[Fig. 1] http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/09/23100015/12

[Fig. 2] http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-

line/designatedareas/nnrs/glenaffric/default.html

[Fig. 4] http://www.moray.gov.uk/census_2001/census4.htm

[Fig. 5] http://www.scotlandinfo.eu/scotlandroadmap.htm

http://www.snh.gov.uk/land-and-sea/managing-the-land/forestry-and-woodlands/history/


http://rocky.ess.washington.edu/grg/publications/pdfs/Pollock.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1382014.stm

http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/birdguide/name/w/whitetailedeagle/feeding.aspx



http://rocky.ess.washington.edu/grg/publications/pdfs/Pollock.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1382014.stm

http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/birdguide/name/w/whitetailedeagle/feeding.aspx

geographical issue essay_2[1]

Documents