ALMOST everyone – even farming and gamekeeping organisations – agrees there is some scope for rewilding in Scotland – the question is how much. The likes of NFU Scotland has, understandably, expressed concern about the idea of reintroducing the lynx or even wolves to the countryside, but now a coalition of campaigners says we should be going further than we are. Saving bits and pieces of nature is not enough, they say. Scotland should be rewilding on a massive scale.
The reason the organisations, which include Trees for Life and the Woodland Trust, are worried should be obvious: some of our most valued species, such as red squirrels and the capercaillie, are in serious decline or on the edge of extinction, and supporters of rewilding believe the large-scale restoration of natural ecosystems and, where appropriate, the reintroduction of missing species, could be the answer. According to Steve Micklewright, the chief executive of Trees of Life, Scotland’s wild places can flourish if we allow nature to work in its own way.
The evidence to support Mr Micklewright is compelling – there are many places around the world where rewilding has increased biodiversity. Scotland’s history of industry, shipbuilding, farming, two world wars – and our deer and sheep populations – have also taken their toll of our trees – only about four per cent of Scotland is native woodland. So clearly there is a problem to be solved.
However, rewilding should only go ahead on a large scale once there is an agreed structure for managing it and we are a long way from that. Farming, or some kind of land management, takes place in most corners of Scotland which would mean rewilding would have to happen in stages; there would also have to be a licensing system to allow landowners to petition to have some animals controlled or removed. Done in this way – cautiously but determinedly – rewilding has a lot to offer Scotland. There could even be chance of achieving its ultimate aim: working with nature, not against it.
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