RAUK - Archived Forum - Posts by Richard2:

This distribution map shows records in Suffolk and Norfolk (which surprised me).

http://www.searchnbn.net/gridMap/gridMapLarge.

Sorry - that link doesn't work. One that does is here, message 4:

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/forums/reptile-and-amphibi an-forums/20127-sand-lizard-scottish-borders.html

The reintroduction of wolves is probably impracticable, but I like the vision. Wild boar have reintroduced themselves; what's wrong with that? Great, I say.

I don't see the conflict between these animals and reptiles.

But, getting back to East Anglia and Sand Lizards, we should know more about those records and whether they could constitute evidence of previous populations, enough to justify reintroduction. We should also think about why those populations, if they did exist, died out. The habitat seems relatively undamaged, from what earlier posters have said. Could it be that these populations were always marginal and vulnerable because of colder summer temperatures (those east winds from the coast)? If (re)introduction were ever considered, that possibility would have to be studied first.

The wild boar do indeed root up the ground, but I know of no evidence that this has ever had a damaging effect on reptile populations. Heathland isn't boar habitat anyway - not enough cover and not enough nourishing roots.

Why are we in favour of reintroductions, anyway, and why shouldn't we introduce creatures to places where they haven't been recorded before? Are we attempting to restore the ecosystem to some previous condition? In your view, Ben, the new wild boar aren't authentic because they aren't pure-bred, and therefore they shouldn't be here. Am I understanding you right? But ecosystems aren't stable even when left alone by humans; they are constantly evolving and changing, due to all sorts of internal and external factors. An attempt to restore wildlife that was once in a particular place is an attempt to freeze the ecological process at a particular moment. There is no ecological principle that justifies this. What we are doing with such introductions is trying to create an ecosystem that gives us pleasure. That's why we like the idea of introducing Sand Lizards in East Anglia, and that's why I like the new wild boar. I don't think we should hide this motive behind notions of ecological authenticity.

Thanks, Ben.

I suppose the eventuality you describe could happen, but it seems very unlikely to me. At the moment the boar are extremely shy. In an area of Dorset where I know they are present - quite widespread signs of rooting and fairly regular chance sightings - it is still exceptionally difficult to see them deliberately. They keep to dense cover. If the populations expanded in the way you describe, isn't it more likely that they would become a nuisance in crop fields, and be dealt with accordingly, long before they ventured onto heathland, which would always be very unrewarding for them as habitat? My impression is that hunting is already controlling the populations quite fierecely, though I've no figures on that. If they did begin to pose a threat to retile habitat, removing them would be relatively easy, I would think. And, of course, it's only true in one sense that they are new to the UK. Only a few hundred years ago they were widespread (or animals nearly identical to them were widespread, if we want to be strict).

I'd be interested in your views on my more general point - that we desire reintroductions, such as the Sand Lizard reintroductions we've been discussing, for our own pleasure, not for any good ecological reasons.

Ben,

You may well be right about the difficulty of shooting. I have been told by several people in that particular area that quite a lot of illicit shooting goes on - poaching, I suppose, though since the wild boar are not legally recognised as a native species, I'm not sure what their legal status is when it comes to shooting them. Anyway, given how difficult it is to see them, perhaps I was a bit too credulous. But, like it or not (and until there is real evidence that they are doing any ecological harm, I do like it), they are here, and it would take pretty drastic and appalling measures to exterminate them; not acceptable to public opinion, and perhaps not feasible at all.

I started all this because I was taken aback that you expressed such hostility to the idea of large mammals being reintroduced, while at the same time enthusiastically recommending Sand Lizard reintroductions. Does it really all come down to which particular animals, or animal groups, are our favourites? I prefer to think of enthusiasts for wildlife as all being on the same side, basically, whatever their particular wildlife interests. There are plenty of people indifferent or contemptuous towards the whole idea; we don't need to pick quarrels with each other. I like the thought of seeing a wild boar for the same reason that I love to see wild reptiles: the pleasure I get from their wildness, beauty and unpredictability.

Thank you, Ben, for this generous response. This sort of open-midedness and respect for other opinions is pretty rare in web and blog discussions. I appreciate it, and I hope I'm similar. And, now I look back, it was AGILIS, not you, who expressed such hostility to the mammal reintroduction plans; sorry about that.

As far as I know, there are no plans to re-introduce Wild Boar deliberately in England; certainly not on Sand Lizard sites. I wasn't advocating that. My view of reintroductions in general is to be enthusiastically in favour subject to two provisos - that on the basis of studies there is no threat to other species, especially endangered ones, and that studies suggest that the re-introduced colonies will be viable in the long term. This latter is the question about Sand Lizards in East Anglia, I take it. Is the climate such as to permit good annual breeding results? If there really were populations until the 1920s, there can't be any great problem with the climate, but it seems unlikely that we will know this for sure; the evidence seems too slight. So, studies will be necessary.

On 'pests' - the trouble is that the agricultural industry still seems to me to have a prevalent mindset of 'if in doubt, wipe it out'; a view that has changed little since the great post-war industrialisation of farming - hence the badger cull currently proposed. My own view - which I guess I would expect many to share on a site for wildlife enthusiasts - is that we should be moving to a presumption in favour of sharing our eco-system with other creatures, even those with inconvenient habits, unless the threat is of genuine magnitude (and not just a threat to profit margins).

Merry Christmas!

Agilis,

You did say 'some twit wants to see wolves & wild boar bears etc
reintroduced'. That seems like hostility. I don't know how long you've been around, but I'm afraid I'm older than you think. I've known the Dorset heaths since the early 1970s, and in the 80s and early 90s I was involved in the 'rescue' of reptiles and amphibians from several doomed sites in the Poole basin - Sandford, the margins of Canford Heath and Hamworthy. So I do remember what those heaths were like, and it was for love of them that I did that work. Essentially we're on the same side. But, please, don't sneer at 'twits' and 'PhD wavers' (not that I've got one). A PhD in this field is just an intensive localised study of an ecological problem. We don't want to be less well-informed, do we?

About the damage to Stoborough I completely agree with you; I was shocked when I saw it a year ago. Was that really all down to cattle? There was some very heavy-handed gorse removal as well, wasn't there? Grazing is a way of keeping heathland from turning into scrub and woodland, and traditionally it was grazing combined with furze-cutting that maintained the heathland ecosystems, but the grazing has to be managed sensitively. Excessive grazing can be very destructive. One way of understanding this is to study it, even if that leads to a PhD.

Wildlife enthusiasts need to make common cause. Some like reptiles best; some like birds; some like mammals. There's no right and wrong in this. We all want to protect biodiversity. 

I'm sure you're right about that particular case, Keith. I've seen the results myself; it's very bad.

Richard

I think Tim is right that, strictly speaking, there is no ecological reason to contemplate reintroducing Sand Lizards. Their ecosystem services to human beings are small or non-existent, and ecology is not about attempting to freeze ecosystems at a particular moment; the 'climax' or 'steady-state' idea is out of date. But this doesn't matter, in my view. There are many other reasons for wanting Sand Lizards: emotional and cultural reasons. Edward O. Wilson's idea of 'biophilia' may be relevant here - his idea that human emotional welfare depends on having an environment rich in other forms of life. If Sand Lizards give us pleasure and do no harm, that is reason enough for reintroduction, in my opinion. If there were harm, then the question would be whether the pleasure outweighed the harm (as with Wild Boar, perhaps). I'm only saying all this, because it seems to me that when we suggest that the reasons for wanting Sand Lizards are ecological, we muddy the waters and sometimes deny ourselves the most solid arguments. Why does it matter whether we can find fossil evidence or reliable human witness that they were once in East Anglia? The question is whether we want them there now.

Thanks, Ben. That's interesting. My general impression from reading news coverage of this subject is that there is a lot of reason to doubt the effectiveness of culling, especially the long-term effectiveness. What happens when badgers from further afield move in to occupy the habitats vacated by culling? Does the TB level in cattle go up again? And how long would that take? Did the study you refer to look at the long-term consequences? You say that TB incidence is significantly reduced by culling, but is this a short-term effect only?

If it is, then the ethical case against culling is much stronger. We would be taking animals' lives away for the sake of only a short-term gain. Or would it be necessary to carry on culling for the indefinite future, in which case many more animal lives would be forfeit, and everyone in that locality would be deprived of having badgers in their neighbourhood? Gassing large mammals is a messy and miserable business - don't underestimate the extent to which it would shock. disgust and demoralise people who had to live with it on a permanent basis. That's why governments are wary of the politics of this. I think farmers ought to consider the politics too. Can they really win hearts and minds on this one, and will it hurt them if they can't?

At the heart of this is the question of what are the reasons that justify the taking of a sentient creature's life. Popular ideas about this have changed a lot in the last fifty years. We have, as a culture, moved on from the attitude prevalent in the post-war period of industrialisation of farming - the time when, for example, people generally thought it OK to 'control' rabbits by introducing myxamotosis. A cull would mean taking many animal lives, and doing so continually, as a permanent regime. I am sure you are right that many people in the dairy farming industry are themselves conflicted about this. As you say, they don't hate badgers and aren't indifferent to animal suffering, but are anxious about a threat to their own livelihoods. So the ethical question is how big does the threat have to be to justify this amount of killing, or that amount - and are there other ways of mitigating the threat (farmers do receive compensation, and the rate could be increased)?

Even better, vaccination - of badgers and cattle - may turn out to be a solution that relieves us of the dilemma. That's what I find hopeful in your post - it's good work that you're involved in. And this adds another moral twist to the argument: is it ethical to cull now when a humane solution may be just around the corner?

Interesting questions - and I agree that they touch on the larger question of the ethics of farming methods and meat consumption (I'm not a vegetarian, by the way), and on questions of ecological ethics. That's what brings us back to herps. A lot of people dislike and fear those animals, and would have no qualms about exterminating them. Near where I live there was a panic a couple of years ago about snakes that had been seen in gardens and on a popular grassy recreation ground. For some reason I never fathomed there was a small population explosion of Grass Snakes in that area that summer. Lots of people thought they were Adders. Mothers of young children said to the local paper that they wanted them all killed, whether they were a harmless species or not; they just didn't want the anxiety, and found the animals disgusting, and they weren't willing to believe the experts.

I am wary of any presumption that the killing of animals is anything other than a grave business and a last resort.  

Keith,

I take your point, but we have been discussing general principles that touch on questions of Sand Lizard reintroduction and the management of wildlife populations and habitats. The wider discussion arose from the specific one. Personally, I think it's a good thing for a conversation to be able to evolve in this way and open up larger perspectives.