John Burton is one of the most experienced and free-thinking of British conservationists. He was a founder and the first chief executive of the World Land Trust. He stood down from that position recently but will still be working hard for WLT into the future.
Defining Britain’s native wildlife is complex. The beginning of the 21st century is when ‘biodiversity’ became fashionable. Unfortunately the term also became synonymised with species diversity. The species diversity for a habitat such as Arctic tundra is dramatically smaller than that of a tropical rainforest. But the biodiversity is appropriate to the habitat. Britain’s species diversity 5,000 years ago was almost certainly significantly smaller than at present, but appropriate to the habitats of that time. Ever since the end of the last glaciation or Ice Age, ca. 12,000 BP/BCE the fauna and flora (biodiversity) has been evolving and changing. But one major geographical event has had the most significant impact of all: the floods which isolated the British. This occurred around 5,000 BC, at the time when the immense area of land, swamps and rivers, known as Doggerland, now submerged under the North Sea, was flooded as well. Britain became an island.
At that time a large part of the European fauna was still expanding northwards as the climate ameliorated, and in fact continues to do so, possibly accelerated by anthropogenic climate change. The majority of 21st century conservation biologists believe that conservation actions should strive to create ‘natural’, ‘native’ ecosystems. But in England there are virtually no natural ecosystems left, and all are influenced by humans in some wayThe entire agricultural, silviculture and pastoral landscape is manmade,the ‘weeds’ associated with agriculture are often of exotic origin, and non-native plants abound in the so-called British landscape.
But it is generally the reintroduction of vertebrate species that attracts the greatest controversy. Beavers (extinct in Britain from around the 12th century) have been successfully re-established (2009), while a population of Coypu descended from fur-farm escapees was eliminated at great expense by 1978. Wild Boar (or rather boar x domestic pig hybrids) have established themselves after escapes in the 1987 gales. Some conservationists are arguing for the introduction of Lynx – which probably became extinct before AD 400 when the habitats of Britain were far removed from those of the 21st century. Not only are the habitats very different (the west of Britain was a temperate rainforest), but the range of prey was very different. Within the existing range of lynx in Europe, the range of prey items are very different to those available in Britain – who knows, domestic cats might become the preferred prey of an introduced population; they certainly are part of their prey range in other parts of Europe.
There are also suggestions that Pine Martens (which are slowly regaining much of their former range) should be re-established in parts of England. But why not introduce Stone Martens? This species is widespread in continental Europe and appears to have failed to colonise Britain because of the English Channel. It is better adapted to anthropogenic habitats than the Pine Marten and would undoubtedly flourish in lowland Britain, leaving the upland forests to the Pine Martens. In fact in the 19th century many naturalists believed that both species occurred in Britain. However, to many conservationists it is ‘politically incorrect’ to even suggest such an introduction. So what about introducing the American Red Squirrel (Sciurus hudsonicus)? The American Grey Squirrel was deliberately introduced into England in the late 19th century and has since colonised most of England and Wales and much of Scotland, and in so doing displaced the native Red Squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris). The latter appears unable to co-exist with the ‘alien invader’ but the smaller (and equally attractive) American Red Squirrel co-exists with the Grey over large parts of North America.
These fairly random examples highlight an issue rarely discussed –that is that conservation is subject to fashion. It is simply not fashionable to promote the introductions of exotic aliens any more. But it was once very popular. But in the case of Britain, what is alien in an alien landscape?
Were it not for the English Channel (or La Manche when viewed from the other side), there are a couple of dozen vertebrate species alone, which would now be part of the ‘native’ fauna. These includes several bird, including Serin, Crested Lark, Melodious Warbler; mammals such as Garden Dormouse, Common Vole (as well as the already mentioned Stone Marten); as well as amphibians and reptiles, such as Fire Salamander, Agile Frog, Moor Frog and Wall Lizard. Bearing in mind that a significant proportion of the existing vertebrate fauna already only exists as a result of deliberate human introductions (including Mute Swan, Red-legged Partridge, Pheasant, Rabbit, Brown Hare, Midwife Toad and several North American terrapin species, and there are also numerous ‘accidental’ introductions such as Brown Rat, House Mouse and White-toothed Shrew). There are also some species regarded as native, which have strange distribution patterns which are almost certainly as a result of deliberate or accidental introductions – the Natterjack Toad in Ireland is a classic example.
Most of the examples I have given are of non-volant species. Birds (and possibly bats) are still colonising and re-colonising Britain. Little Egrets are now a major part of wetland ecosystems and cranes have been breeding after an absence of several centuries. Avocets returned after a century or so of absence and Spoonbill will soon be a permanent re-colonist. All over Britain various birds are spreading and recolonising.
Amphibians cannot swim across the Channel, but Marsh Frogs were deliberately introduced into Romney Marsh in the 1920s and are still slowly spreading, filling a vacant ecological niche. The Midwife Toad was established in the early 1900s, and subsequently new populations have been established; Alpine Newt colonies already exist and across the Channel Tree Frogs, Moor Frogs, Agile Frogs, Yellow-bellied Toads, Marbled Newts and Fire Salamanders are all prevented from crossing the channel and enhancing the ecosystems of England.
Serins sometimes manage to fly across the channel and even breed occasionally, so why not give them a helping hand? It would be a very easy captive breeding programme – they are, after all, only canaries.
One of the concerns that conservationists have is, naturally and correctly, the impact an introduction would have on other species. An example of this is the Ruddy Duck. This species became established in Britain as a result of escapes from the Wildfowl Trust, near Bristol. The population grew until it also started to colonise mainland Europe, where a very closely related species, the White-headed Duck exists. This latter species was in serious decline in Europe, but hybridised freely with the Ruddy Duck. It was therefore decided that the North American alien should be exterminated; at a cost of millions of pounds this was achieved. There is now an ongoing cost of maintaining the fragile European population of the White-headed Duck; would it not have been more sensible to allow the Ruddy Duck genes to have mingled and produced a more vigorous European White-headed Duck? Plus, who knows, despite the extermination campaign there could still be some Ruddy Duck genes out there. In the same way, some of the undoubtedly British mammals may have ‘foreign genes’ – Siberian Roe Deer have been introduced and Red Squirrel have been re-introduced in the past following mass mortality from disease. In the late 19th century and early 20th century there were also huge numbers of ‘Edible’ frogs released in Norfolk (so many that by the end of the 20th century they were being claimed as ‘native’).
Humans have been moving wildlife around for thousands of years – it’s the only way that the distribution of some reptiles, amphibians and mammals on the Mediterranean islands can be accounted for. Similarly it was only when genetics could be studied that it was realised that the Wood Mice (Apodemus) on Hebridean islands were more closely related to Scandinavian mice than those on nearby mainland of Scotland. But they were sub-specifically distinct, so had probably arrived with Viking colonists around 1,000 years ago. There are conservation action plans for the Brown Hare, but they were introduced around the time of the Roman occupation of Britain. Rabbits, on the other hand (a Norman introduction) are almost universally treated as pests in Britain despite being an essential part of the ecosystems and food chains of the present day. Where is the logic?
In conclusion, I believe that there is little or no logical or scientific basis for the recent conservationist attitudes to the introduction of exotic species, particularly when it relates to species found to the immediate south and east of the English Channel. If maximising species diversity is a conservation goal, then an examination of the species potential for the largely anthropogenic landscape should be undertaken, and a programme developed to encourage appropriate species assemblages. I would also add that such an approach is only appropriate on islands, like Britain and most Mediterranean islands, which are almost entirely lacking ‘natural’ functioning ecosystems. I certainly would not consider suggesting it elsewhere. In fact I am not actually suggesting action, I am suggesting a rational examination of the facts.
Further information.
http://www.nonnativespecies.org/
[registration_form]
Species Introduction is a dangerous game of unintended consequences – to every action there is a reaction…
” Marsh Frogs were deliberately introduced into Romney Marsh in the 1920s and are still slowly spreading, filling a vacant ecological niche ” but in my part of Romney Marsh there are no longer Common Frogs, but the rare Medicinal Leech loves a Marsh Frog meal.
Most people love a Little Owl, but they do eat adult Little Terns and Storm Petrels.
Examples are almost endless…
There are no common frogs in Romney Marsh is probably more to do with the removal of their favoured breeding habitats, intensive land management and large scale flooding in the 1950s. The European water frogs are not the main drivers of the common frogs decline.
The release of water frogs into Norfolk lead to the extinction of our second native frog the Northern Clade Pool Frog Pelophylax lessonae which has been reintroduced.
There are benefits to local wildlife from species such as the European water frogs – otter, heron, bittern, Marsh harrier, Cranes, grass snakes, various aquatic invertebrates all predate on the different life stages of the frog.
Wall lizards are well established in over 30 UK sites which have given rise to studying evolution and climate change at Oxford University. These species are not all bad…
but the evidence for native pool frogs is in my mind very shaky. Not that this really has any bearing on the current discussion.
very surprised not to see a single mention to our most diverse part of our native wildlife – the insects!
Quite right — but there was a limit to what I could cram into one blog. Perhaps a follow-up book is needed!
Having worked in conservation in various parts of Australia (another island!) for a decade or so, I’m naturally a trifle nervous of species introductions, especially potentially novel ones. That said, where an ecological niche is clearly ‘vacant’ (e.g. medium-sized predators in the UK) and there is a strong scientific rationale, coupled with the required infrastructure to enable it to happen at pilot scales initially, then precaution begins to look a little like procrastination.
The risk of unintended ecological and socio-economic consequences is always going to be present and pre-release assessment and post-release monitoring and (if necessary) control should be mandatory of course.
The issue that tends to be too frequently overlooked, is in the case of extinct species reintroductions – there needs to be a removal of the threats that extirpated the species in the first instance, and there needs to be habitat of sufficient condition, extent, connectedness and tenure security that the species can persist in the future. Something similar applies to your suggestion of crested lark – a species heavily impacted by agricultural intensification to be introduced to one of the most agriculturally industrialised nations in the world, where its close relative the Eurasian skylark has plummeted in numbers? That said, there may be areas of the country where this could feasibly be done and managed through AES (should they persist post-Brexit, of course). Thought provoking article, thanks.
The Eurasian lynx, would be a reintroduction and not an introduction since it is a former native species. Please can you provide a link on lynx predation of domestic cats, as a study in Switzerland for example, recorded domestic and wild cats as each making up only 0.2% of prey items. Roe deer are by far the preferred prey species for lynx.
probably the same source, in the Jura. But my point is that we can’t know what would happen in UK. Moggies are more available in the UK than they are in the Jura. And the habitats are not comparable to what they were when Lynx became extinct
I think you are overstating the risks. Lynx are shy, woodland animals. The only risk to cats would be if they were in the woodland or on the edge. David Hetherington believes that lynx will actually benefit wild cats by predating feral cats, who will be more vulnerable to this. Anyway, the feasibility study for a trial lynx reintroduction is making sure that there will be enough of the preferred prey species – Roe deer in an area before a release.
I agree that lynx are more likely to predate feral cats in wilder areas where there is a risk of interbreeding with scottish wild cat. Feral moggies are more conspicuously coloured, a bit smaller and their behaviour probably makes them more susceptible to predation to lynx. I like cats, but the frequent site of somebody’s cat sitting near bushes waiting to pounce on fledglings and small mammals makes my stomach churn.
Lots of interesting (and I think very valid) points being raised about the risks associated with exotic introductions. Personally I would argue they can be done safely if you are careful about what you bring in and have a long study period before release. I would also suggest that many “reintroductions” are by now as alien as entirely exotic species – as John said the countryside now is very different now compared to when we had Lynx roaming wild. That doesn’t mean they’re a bad thing, they just need to be carefully considered.
A quick example of a beneficial exotic would be the introduction of non-native tortoises to Ile aux Aigrettes: http://www.livescience.com/13957-giant-tortoises-ebony-trees-introduction-extinction.html This does of course come with its own downsides (not least of which is a danger of seeing any species as replaceable) but does show that a broadening of thinking way be warranted in some cases.
The equally interesting point which wasn’t really touched on by this blog is the arbitrary nature of habitat restoration. Often we restore habitats to try and recapture what we saw in our childhood (or I guess in my parent’s childhood in my case). Restoration and rewilding are all too often attempts to create some past environment picked from a date that the restorer likes the sound of, rather than a full consideration of the ecological potential of a site. This becomes particularly relevant when you start to consider climate change mitigation. If we are going to have a Mediterranean climate in 100 years then should we not consider examining which Mediterranean habitats we would like to encourage? This does happen but has yet to really permeate the consciousness of popular conservation.
An interesting blog, thank you. I do however think that it misses a few important points.
Biodiversity is not, and never was, synonymous with species diversity in the way that the blog asserts. Species diversity at a site or even a country scale is simply one way of measuring biodiversity. Another, and I suggest the more important, one is biodiversity at a global scale. The idea of introducing non-native species to places they don’t belong doesn’t have a happy history, to put it mildly. Ask an Aussie about those missing placental mammals someone kindly introduced, or even a Hebridean birder about how much they like having those lovely missing hedgehogs introduced at last. An increase in short term local species diversity yes, but a good idea? Perhaps not!
In a similar vein genetic diversity is also an important component of biodiversity. The fact that islands have different subspecies, or just genetically different strains, is an important part of what makes those (these) islands different and special. It makes them the engines of speciation – and the biodiversity crisis is also about the fall in rates of speciation as the world homogenises well as about a surge in extinctions because of, amongst other things, the impact of introduced species.
Another point is that the fact that islands have different fauna and flora is, in and of itself, important data about how the post-ice age world arose in a geomorphological sense, and about the human history of colonisation from the prehistoric to the recent. Why burn the library? And the history of older introductions, like hares, is part of that story as much as a biodiversity issue. Besides, unless you want to recreate mammoths, one has to have a pragmatic baseline somewhere. This isn’t an intellectual game.
Perhaps the most important issue that’s missing in a conversation focused on species is ecological process. One of the reasons why reintroducing ecosystem drivers like beavers, and top predators like lynx, is important is because they have large scale benefits that ripple through entire ecosystems. Of course that’s the same reason they’re controversial amongst some farmers etc who like things the way they are (not that that stopped the farming community reintroducing wild boar and introducing North American mink without any of the paperwork conservationists get lumbered with).
These examples illustrate another issue; if the (re)introduction turns out to have been a Really Bad Idea, in practical terms how easy is it to reverse? Lynx and beaver, all too easy. Wild Boar or mink – impossible. Remind the NFU of that when they object to beaver reintroductions.
There are, of course, many introductions that have done no harm at all – little owls and mandarin ducks are obvious examples. Look a little harder and the reason that they’ve had no adverse impact is because they haven’t disrupted the ecological processes driving biodiversity. A happy accident but not one we should blindly rely on. Introduced aquatic plants, in particular, seem to have caused no end of trouble and expense because they spread so easily and completely take over the ecosystems they colonise.
All this of course ignores the elephant in the room. Climate change may change the whole conversation. If we start to lose species because of climate change, but do not gain the equivalent southern species moving up through Europe because of the Channel, then there may well be a case for considering giving some of them a helping hand across the 20 odd miles of water at Dover. But I don’t think we’re there yet.
Actually we are doing pretty well on extirpating mink round here. Between a campaign of trapping and cleaning up the rivers enough for otters to return the mink are doing really badly and on the verge of local extinction. It takes money and effort, but provide those and it is pretty easy. Grey squirrels on the other hand, those are the real bugger to get rid of.
Grey squirrels are easy to get rid of once you have pine martens. That’s what you need. They are the only proven, effective answer (See Ireland). Also, you’ll probably find that the recovery of the otter has helped with clobbering of the mink to supplement the trapping.
Fully agree, and I’ve been told that raising otter numbers might be key to fighting the American Crayfish effectively too. No surprise that the places where American crayfish is hitting worst are also places where anglers and gamekeepers are killing otters the most too.
Nice to have some good news in these troubled times, Random! But I bet it has taken a lot of work over a long period. And from what I know, otters – effectively a reintroduction to the lowlands – have been key to restoring ecosystem functionality.
Maybe Lynx could recreate the same landscape of fear for muntjac?
Yeah, they’ve been working on my local river since the late 1980s when the mink finally turned up on it. Although work really only started in earnest in the late 1990s/early 00s for the pollution aspect. It takes constant work and no backsliding. A single season’s backsliding invalidates years of prior work. Animal for animal those last few mink cost a lot more to eradicate than the first few when it was a target rich environment, but if you skimp on the last ones then it is square one and a lot of wasted money really quickly.
and of course pine martens and polecats were more or less wiped out from huge parts of the country in the past. It is possible — but at what cost?
“the elephant”
Just the one?
A herd of maybe?!
“” domestic cats might become the preferred prey of an introduced population[of Lynx]; they c”
You promise? I mean seriously, you are not just getting our hopes up now are you? Because if you are serious about this then I’m renting a transit and heading to the continent while we still have time before we are banned from it in order to trap and grab some lynx. I mean, I have been skeptical of reintro-ing it on the grounds they’d just end up eating poison bait and dying horribly as farmers and gamekeepers love to see happen, but if they are going to chow down on domestic cat, to take on that bit of vermin, then I am in! If it helps cat owners keep their damn moggies indoors and away from my flower patch and bird feeder then I am calling lynx chowing down on them and not deer a feature not a bug. In fact, I’ll unload my transit of purloined lynx right in the town square so they get maximum opportunity to eat the moggies.
TL;DR The argument you have made against reintroducing lynx is not as strong as you think it is.
As John points out there is one hell of a difference between introducing a species from Turkey, America, East Asia,New Zealand and something from mainland europe that co-exists with the same species we have here and would have been here if the channel had stayed dry for a bit longer. Secretly I give a little cheer when I hear that an indigenous species west of the Urals,north of the Alps, Pyrennees and Carpathians has become established here. The midwife toad and alpine newt have been nothing but welcome additions to our fauna (as have little owl and brown hare),personally think it would be great if we had spadefoot toad, fire salamander and moor frog etc. Male moor frogs can turn blue in the mating season,imagine blue frogs in Britain! The Bullfrog on the other hand would be a disaster. I know more than most how destructive invasives can be as I’ve spent countless hours cutting them down,but that makes me appreciate why we need an intelligent discussion about ‘introductions’, there seems to be more interest in taking a violent knee jerk reaction to the word itself rather than dealing with genuine problems – my local woods are being smothered with snowberry, rhoddie, cherry laurel and I recently spotted a stand of Himalayan honeysuckle, and nobody seems to be dealing with it. The only european species I am aware of that is problematic is the cherry laurel,and that is from south of the Carpathians, moving towards the med which is definitely a different bio region. Yes John I think having the stone marten in the south would be a good move too, but they do have a habit of knobbling car engines!
Is himalayan honeysuckle that big a problem? I know himalayan balsam is, but I thought the honeysuckle was pretty much okay and non-invasive? Just another berry in the hedgerow was what I’d been led to believe?
It could be – I first noticed it a few years ago (genus name Leycestria – it has loads of English names) growing at the back of some gardens, obviously a throw out. The next year there were masses of it growing through and smothering everything else including bramble! I didn’t know what it was and did some IDing, turns out it is listed as a noxious weed in Australia and New Zealand. Well it can definitely form virtual mono species stands here as I’ve seen. Unfortunately another species waiting to join the list of invasives? I find that clearing one invasive, just means you are clearing space for another to take its place, but you’ve got to keep ploughing on with it. Why has Songbird Survival never publicised the fact that introduced invasive plants reduce woodland diversity and therefore bird populations – oh hang on that was a silly question wasn’t it?
“…but they do have a habit of knobbling car engines!”
I can personally vouch for that!
Excellent blog John, one of the best I’ve seen for a while.
I don’t understand the rational of this guest blog at all.
The only bit that makes sense is the Brown Hare.
Surely it is simple, we start conserving back into the most recent past and move backwards. If there are failures due to climate change so be it. If there are failures due to land use then maybe we can see it as a canary in the eco-system.
Eco-fascist that i am, if there was a magic wand to get rid of all introduced species, i’d wave it but there isn’t. I would miss Little Owls and Brown Hares but it would be worth it.
The challenge I would suggest you face here is that in moving backwards you’re going to have to pick a point in time to stop. If nothing else at some point you run into the ice age and get a bit stuck! As I said above, why not examine what the potential of a place is rather than just look at what happened to be there before? Perhaps your arable field was once ancient woodland, but could also quite happily be Atlantic heath, or maybe Mediterranean style scrub?
If we’re going to make any real impact I don’t think we can just stick to the principle of looking to the past for answer, we need to be more imaginative. I’m not saying we should start dumping stuff out there willy-nilly but we should at the very least consider whether what we are trying to preserve will be able to survive in its current location when the climate changes. If not then rather than spending lots of money to try and save some futile dream of what once was, why not spend it on building the best tomorrow we can achieve?
Go back far enough and all you have left are cyanobacteria.
Just had a female Mink with 4 young in the garden. The only comment I made was ‘Why did you not come yesterday so I did not have to dig up my spuds’. Yes they went to work on my rats due to my cat being killed by people who hate cats. [Some on here].
As for Himalayan Balsam it is one of the best plants in Britain. Why ? Because it feeds more bees and other insects than any other plant. A friend’s father last year kept his honey bees at home rather than take them to heather due to the money he could make with honey made from this one plant.
Debates are great things but I doubt you will get one with this government!
Just read through all the comments, and what a delight to have inspired some really interesting discussions. It made me dig out an article I wrote some time back (unpublished) about the Stone Marten — which I think might have been ‘native’ to England at one time. But thank you all for the comments and feed back. I write my regular (=sporadic) blog in Green Diary on the World Land Trust website. http://www.worldlandtrust.org/news/green-diary and float the occasional idea or comments
Finally I would remind everyone I was advocating informed discussion — I was not really making any proposal per se.
Thanks for this very interesting blog. The ensuing comments are confirm that.
Perhaps trees once mediated the introduction of plants and small animals to new places too.
Early sailing ships’ logs often refer to the hazards of large rafts of timber far out to sea. Some were so big that they supported growing vegetation and an assemblage of reptiles, amphibians and small mammals. The origin of these seagoing habitats can only have been coastal forests ripped apart by storms and floods.
Today, such forests have all but disappeared. But it’s easy to imagine in prehistoric times, before the start of the Bronze Age clearances, there would have been a steady production of floating menageries from within vast sylvan estuarine and coastal wildernesses. Then, it would have taken only a few fortuitous beachings every hundred years or so, to colonise many hitherto ‘pristine’ islands.
Those moments of serendipity must have led, in some cases, to some loss of biodiversity. But now deforestation has put a stop to that process. Instead a tsunami of relatively recent and highly destructive introductions has been unleashed onto thousands of tropical islands discovered and claimed by past seafaring empires.
John it was a brilliant post – thanks for it and all your other work. I hate the idea of ‘macdonaldisation’ you get pretty much the same species anywhere, biogeography becoming irrelevant which would be a crime – but within bio regions such as Northern and central Europe surely some scope for considering taking some species to new areas for conservation purposes and there are legitimate reasons for doing so. An awful lot ire directed towards the word introductions, but precious little activity to suppress genuine problems whilst ludicrously (re)introductions and well planned biological controls get attacked for being ‘introductions’. Would love to see your article on the stone marten, will you ever publish it?
Firstly, it’s great to see a blog piece from John Burton who, with Viv, have achieved more for global nature conservation through the World Land Trust, which they created, than anyone else I can think of.
I thoroughly disagree with much of what John has written here, though!
We in the UK have a) extirpated numerous previously native species and b) continued relentlessly to drive remaining species populations down. Our priorities must, surely, be to instigate the recovery of what still remains (an awful lot), and to re-introduce genuinely native species we’ve extirpated?
I can see only one context within which deliberately introducing a non-native species might be justifiable. That’s where it is an ecological surrogate for a globally extinct species. So, we might introduce proto-aurochsen (cattle back-bred to replicate functional traits of extinct aurochs) or some sort of wild horse like thing. Other than that, introducing non-natives appears to be meddling of the highest order – and a costly diversion.
Like the aurochs suggestion. A similar thing was done with the European Bison back in the ?1930’s in Poland.
But we are running before we can walk. It’s essential to prepare/repair the landscape first and re-introduce extirpated niches and plant communities:
Peat bogs; functioning flood plains; fens and riparian woodland. Above all, the uplands must be allowed to naturally regenerate via reduced grazing.
Beavers are already back. They should be encouraged; they are natural re-wilders.
In short rewet and re-disturb the landscape.
By the way we’ve all forgotten one animal:
Re-introduce people to the countryside ….
Reversing the Highland Clearances would be a great start.
We can’t bring back the Aurochsen (and no, Heck cattle are not proto-Aurochsen), but we can bring over, or bring back, the Wisent.
https://anewnatureblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/bring-back-the-bison-or-wisent/
But I did finish as follows: “!In fact I am not actually suggesting action, I am suggesting a rational examination of the facts.” Most of what I wrote was simply recounting facts and issues. So I am not quite sure what Messi disagrees with.
I don’t have a problem with ‘back-bred aurochsen’ but they would be no different to introducing gaur or any other wild bovid. Same as the Polish Koniks being used a replicates for Tarpans. Carl Jones (famous Mauritian conservationist has done a lot of work on ‘species replicates’ It’s an interesting topic. Perhaps a future blog
John – many thanks for your guest blog and following comments.