I NOTE with interest Rog Wood's article on the subject of wolves ("Reintroduction of wolves to Scotland would be a threat to livelihoods", The Herald, August 18).
I am a keen supporter of the reintroduction of wolves to Scotland. The natural world is a poorer and less wondrous place without this keystone species. Jim Crumley in his book The Last Wolf expresses the advantages of the reintroduction of the wolf better than I can.
He suggests, and I agree, that the wolf should only be introduced in areas where it will not come into conflict with farming interests. He suggests Rannoch Moor. He suggests that the number of packs of wolves in Scotland would be controlled at a small number. I hope that Mr Wood would be able to agree that Scotland is a big enough place that we should be able to find a place for this majestic creature.
In some areas the reintroduction of the wolf would be overwhelmingly positive as it would reduce deer numbers, allow forests to recover and increase the tropic cascades within the ecology of the area.
The reintroduction of the wolf to Yellowstone Park in the United States has exceeded all expectations in improving the environment and fostering greater biodiversity.
I take issue with his comment that "abandonment of extensive grazing areas increases the loss of high-value biodiversity". When I look at most grazing areas they are less bio- diverse than a mixed forest/ancient woodland area would be. Farming has an important place and if farmers want to increase biodiversity then I suggest we reintroduce an old friend of the forest. The wolf, by acting as the top predator, controls the number of large grazers in better ways then we could ever hope to do. Scotland has a surfeit of deer and there would be no better way to control them than with wolves.
If we say that there is no place for the wolf anywhere in Scotland then I think we are being selfish and short-sighted.
Joe Heffernan,
70 Caledonia Crescent,
Gourock.
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 hereComments are closed on this article