It feels as if for a long while now the wolf has been at the door. This month it’s there again, pacing and pawing, in the form of a report by Vashti Gwynn and Elias Symeonakis of Manchester Metropolitan University, which finds that “in terms of habitat availability”, reintroduction of the wolf into the Highlands of Scotland “should be feasible”.
When it comes to rewilding we often focus on the wolf, above all other animals. It has a hold over us that other smaller, less “charismatic” or totemic species don’t.
It’s as if we see in this species some story about our relationship with nature. The wolf occupies a special position that the beaver and lynx don’t – as threat, rival and familiar echo of our companion, the dog. For many the wolf represents an idea of wildness and something lost, especially in these times of biodiversity crisis. But all that is not enough to make a case for reintroduction. It’s studies like these that do that.
“Evidence is growing,” write Gwynn and Symeonakis, “that apex predators provide a range of ecological benefits, most stemming from the reduction of overgrazing by deer – something from which Scotland suffers.
READ MORE: Both sides of rewilding debate are wrong, says author
“In this study, we build a rule-based habitat suitability model for wolves on the Scottish mainland. From existing literature, we identify the most important variables as land cover, prey density, road density and human density, and establish thresholds of suitability for each.”
Their modelling finds that an area of “between 10,139km2 and 18,857km2 is shown to be 80 to 100% suitable” and could support “between 50 and 94 packs of four wolves.”
Those figures may send a chill down the spine of many who live and work rurally. 94 packs of four wolves? Even across that vast territory it seems a lot – far more than the single pack that was originally let loose in Yellowstone Park in 1995, and which began the oft-cited transformation that is frequently used now as a case for predator introduction. At Yellowstone, where there are now around 94 wolves, there were so-called “trophic cascades”, in which an apex predator suppress the abundance or changes the behavior of their prey, altering the entire ecoystem and food web.
Wolf reintroduction also comes, as is mentioned in the Gwynn and Symeonakis study, with economic arguments. These include tourism and also the proposition that wolves would remove the economic burden of the deer cull. Such arguments are increasingly convincing, especially given the gathering evidence that if we are going to bring back Scotland’s forest and its carbon sink, we need to reduce deer population. The authors note, “Nilsen et al. predict that if wolves were present in Scotland for 60 years, deer densities would decline to 7/km2, with >50% reduction in some places. This is in line with the Deer Commission for Scotland’s target of 6/km2.”
But the problem remains that there is a significant kick back from those who live and work rurally. An element of the habitat is the presence of humans. Can we talk about wolves and not mention them?
One 2007 study found that on average rural respondents felt less positively than urban people. “The lower score for the rural population was due to the negative attitudes of the subsample of farmers.”
NatureScot has said that there are no plans to consider the wolf’s return. “Reintroduction projects are complex and need very careful consideration and planning to ensure national and international guidelines are met.”
But the call for it is repeated. It comes back so often, and accompanied by research, as well as significant landowner backing, that it seems that it is not so much whether, but when – even if that when is many decades from now. Species reintroductions are like stepping stones. One of the reasons many are sceptical of the lynx, which is also mooted for reintroduction, is because they know the wolf may come next.
The real question is whether such calls can persuade rural sceptics. It’s those who live on the land and work on it, after all, who will have to experience the wolf at their door. The wider rural community need to be recruited, and that’s unlikely to happen via another set of figures and graphs.
When I interviewed reintroduction pioneer Roy Dennis, he emphasised the need to convince locals. “You need to be able to demonstrate that you can do it properly to those who live and work there. And the farmers and landowners and foresters should have the respect that you know what you’re doing and you get on with them.... Do I think we will have wolves back in Scotland sometime soon, or at any time? I’m not sure. What I do know is that, unlike in other countries in Europe, they cannot walk here. If we want them, we have to intervene.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel