In mainland Europe, lynx are proving more adaptable than we might have imagined, setting up territories among fields, copses and villages in Switzerland, while wolves have re-appeared on the outskirts of Rome. Large predators rarely need wilderness. What they need is a good supply of food and somewhere to hide, but most of all, they just need tolerance.

For too long, we have been asking the wrong questions about potential predator reintroductions here in Scotland. The focus has been on whether we have enough space, enough prey or enough habitat. The answer to all these questions is yes.

Switzerland alone has nearly twice as many people in little more than half as much space as Scotland, with fewer deer and no greater area of woodland, yet it is now home to more than 250 lynx and a similar number of wolves.

It's not even a question of whether reintroduced predators might kill livestock. They will. The key question is simply this: how much conflict are we prepared to tolerate? Sheep farmers will naturally tell you that even one lost sheep is unacceptable and certainly, any loss can be both costly and stressful. But losses are also part of life on a farm.

Farmers already lose livestock to many causes, including difficult births, starvation, hypothermia, disease, accidents and growing predation by eagles, foxes, badgers and corvids. So, the idea that a single extra loss is unacceptable might be considered disingenuous. On the other hand, there is always a point at which losses become unsustainable.

If we are going to have an honest conversation about where that threshold lies, all parties need to start by accepting that they might not get the answer they want. It might be that lynx kill several hundred sheep a year, but that we decide as a society that sheep farmers must live with that – albeit noting that they could and should be compensated for these losses, as well as being helped to prevent avoidable loss.

LynxLynx (Image: Erwin Van Maanen)

Such an approach is common in most countries around the world where coexistence with wildlife is managed, often it must be said, with less resources than we have in Scotland and with more challenging species, such as elephants, tigers or bears.

Alternatively, it might be that lynx kill thousands of sheep a year. Regular ‘offenders’ could be removed, but if too many lynx routinely killed too many sheep, we might have to accept that Scotland simply cannot accommodate a large predator. Switzerland only supports around 400,000 sheep. In Scotland we have 6.8 million.

In the case of wolves, unless there is a profound shift in how we manage our livestock, returning to a model of active shepherding and round the clock protection, we would almost certainly lose very large numbers of livestock. On the other hand, there are reasons to believe that lynx might not cause the same level of problems.

Firstly, lynx are less prone to killing multiple animals in single attacks, while cattle and horses are too big for lynx to tackle. Secondly, research suggests that in Norway, where wild prey is sufficiently abundant, lynx rarely attack livestock. Sheep might look like easy pickings, but lynx prefer venison.

Conflict with lynx in Scotland is subject to two conflicting drivers. Our hyper-abundant sheep population makes it more likely that lynx will encounter sheep more often than they do elsewhere. They might not seek them out, but if opportunities are presented too often, they may prove irresistible.

On the other hand, our abundant deer population provides lynx with plentiful opportunities to hunt their preferred prey. Elsewhere, where deer numbers exceed a threshold density that is commonplace in Scotland, sheep are rarely attacked.

Which one of these two drivers dominates is impossible to predict. We can only say that some level of livestock predation is inevitable. But then coexistence with nature always comes at a cost. The decision we have to make is: what costs are we prepared to accept?

Putting a price on the many benefits offered by an animal like the lynx is difficult. There may be a boost to tourism, or a reduction in deer management costs, but how does one monetise the benefits for biodiversity, or the awe and wonder one feels when walking in the footsteps of such an animal?

Nonetheless, there is always a price to pay. So, we either decide that we want to live in a nature-rich world where such inspiring animals still walk among us, or we say that there is no place for them anymore, because the price tag is too high.

Hugh Webster is Lead writer with SCOTLAND: The Big Picture, a charity that works to make rewilding happen across Scotland, as a solution to the growing climate and biodiversity crises.

www.scotlandbigpicture.com