Europe – where I live. Although my own sightings of Olms, Musk Ox and European Hamster add up to a big zero.
There was great footage of Wolves hunting at night in Italy where they were chasing deer through the scattered dwellings on the edge of a town in Abruzzo. I wonder how long ago it was that a Wolf wandered along the ridge on which my house sits? It was certainly long before it was built in 1899 – probably by about five centuries. In Scotland Wolves hung on until the later seventeenth century or perhaps into the eighteenth. Maybe it’s time to have them back, in some of our remoter areas where they could chase our deer around?
The footage of Iberian Lynx was stunning – and I speak as someone who has had a decent view of this species in the wild. It sounds as if they have had a good breeding season and that things are on the up – I hope so. I’m glad that some of my UK taxes have helped EU projects to conserve endangered species on our own continent.
The programme ended on a slightly controversial note, but I doubt that many noticed it.
David Attenborough opined,
The continent has now been changed so much by humanity that much of its wildlife is under threat. Only by protecting the few wildernesses that remain, and creating new wild spaces, can we ensure a future for Europe’s precious wildlife.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000bqjg/seven-worlds-one-planet-series-1-5-europe
Well, maybe that isn’t so controversial but it touches on a live debate about ‘sparing’ or ‘sharing’ – should wildlife have its own spaces where wildlife conservation is a primary goal (eg National Parks where most human activities are greatly restricted) or should we make space for wildlife everywhere (eg by greening agriculture so that there is space for wildlife across the farmed landscape).
Seeing Wolves hunting through the houses of Abruzzo, and bringing down a Red Deer on the road, as well as an Iberian Lynx strolling under a busy road through a culvert made to make its life easier, and Barbary Macaques climbing around the built infrastructure of Gibraltar then the impression one had been given was that if one looked closely enough there was wildlife, and wonderfully surprising wildlife, living alongside people in this crowded continent. Well, it’s never quite that simple (and that viewpoint was not spoken out loud as I recall) but the Barbary Macaques clearly don’t need any wilderness to be created. And the declines of plants, birds, insects and mammals in the farmed environment around my home don’t require a wilderness solution to bring them back to their levels of my childhood. A mixed strategy is probably what we need: sharing our economically active land a bit more with wildlife and sparing some more land specifically for nature conservtion.
Watch this episode. Next week we go to North America (which will leave Africa for the last episode).
[registration_form]
I definitely agree it should not be either/or but both and also we can create small areas of ‘wilderness’ all over the place even in towns and cities.
As for wolves, beavers lynx etc I would also like to see them back in the UK. Wolves play a key role not only in controlling deer numbers by killing and eating them but also because they modify their behavior.
These effects are hard to replicate however similar behavioral impacts can be achieved using dogs. This can be a substitute for both lethal control and complete exclusion through fencing in some cases.
The impact of the hunting by canines of large herbivores can have a positive effect on bio diversity.
The wolf footage was amazing. With respect to sheep farmers concerns about losses of sheep to wolves it was impressive how effective the dogs were at seeing off the wolves. Wolves live more or less cheek by jowl with the human population in that part of Italy and life goes on happily enough.
@jonathan – absolutely agree – a perfect example of the use of dogs to effectively and humanely manage wildlife!
So here we have a great example where dogs are being used to deter an animal from a particular area where it might cause an undesirable effect allowing them to roam freely in other areas. The dogs by **chasing off** the wolves not only remove them from the vicinity of the sheep but also modify their behaviour in such a way that they start to associate sheep with dogs and therefore tend to leave them be and concentrate on munching there way through wild ungulates instead.
This in turn makes the wild ungulates start to associate particular areas with increased danger of wolf attack and also leave those areas alone – causing changes in the degree to which they predate upon the vegetation in those areas. And this effect continues down the trophic cascade like a mandlebrot fractal. Bio diversity is increased with multi level mosaic of different habitats not just by having more of everything everywhere. It is absolutely key to understand the significance of habitat structure. Complex mosaic habitats are far more resistant to diseases, climate change, fire etc.
There are numerous examples of this – see “free ranging dogs and wildlife conservation” https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Free_Ranging_Dogs_and_Wildlife_Conservat.html?id=mfgEAQAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
The dogs are of course very unlikely to kill the wolves unless one is seriously weakened in which case they would arguably be saving it from an even worse fate. The truth is the wolves could probably kill the dogs and the sheep but they don’t bother because they have other easier options to get food – by sinking their fangs into the rest of the local wild mammal population.
There are numerous examples of this:
* using dogs to protect trees and other horticultural crops from deer
https://extension.umd.edu/learn/use-dogs-contained-within-limits-crop-protection-system-reducing-deer-damage-orchards-and
https://markavery.info/2012/05/18/guest-blog-shoot-giles-bradshaw/
* using free ranging dogs in farm yards to protect farm buildings from badgers whose setts can undermine them
* using dogs to protect hen coops from foxes
All of these examples involve a certain amount of what one might call ‘hunting’ – basically dogs chasing wildlife – however they can all mitigate potential damage to the ecosystem and human wildlife conflict. When the hunting act was passed the Government backed by LACS RSPCA and IFAW insisted such ‘chasing away’ or ‘flushing’ of mammals by dogs was included in the law and therefore prohibited unless it was to protect livestock or crops and the wildlife was shot ASAP.
The dogs chasing away the wolves is a great example. If they were not being used like this what would happen? The reality is even if it were illegal you would get a lot more wolves shot. However because wolf pack territories can extend to hundreds or even thousands of square miles to fully protect flocks of seep from wolves one would have to completely eliminate them from a wide area rather than just deterring them from the vicinity of the sheep ands they move around the countryside.
It’s notable that if one calls this ‘hunting’ one will get dislikes on here – I no doubt will below – whereas if one calls it ‘seeing off’ one will get likes.
The rightness or wrongness of this sort of activity does not depend on whether what the dogs are doing to the deer/foxes/badgers/rabbits etc falls within the semantics of the word ‘hunt’ – nor does whether it should be legal or illegal. One has to look at the consequences for the dogs, people and wildlife.
giles – that might be because there is a difference between seeing off and hunting.
Mark I think you’ve got to the nub of the point I am trying to make. So is “seeing off” not “hunting” then? How about “chasing away”? That’s the word the narrator uses…
“They have been bred to protect livestock by chasing away wolves”.
It does look very much like “chasing away” to me wouldn’t you agree? Of course in keeping with the point about “share OR spare” it could of course be both!
I am assuming that “chasing away” is “hunting” as undefined by the Hunting Act on the fact that when I enquired of Defra about “flushing out” in 2004 they first told me that “chasing away” wasn’t “hunting” but then changed their advice to be that it was. I was then asked to form part of the Human Rights case against the Hunting Act on the basis of defending my right to flush out and chase away deer with my dogs.
However maybe it isn’t after all! Maybe neither of us know, maybe the Government didn’t know either but then they’d not have been telling the truth when they insisted the law is ‘clear’ would they?
Irrespective of the technical definition of hunting – I’d be most curious as to whether you think what is going on in that video with respect to the wolves, deer and the dogs should be legal or illegal and on what basis. And do you think there is perhaps a grain of truth in what I am saying about some of the possible use of dogs for this sort of thing.
“Chasing away” is of course fundamentally different to “pursuing” is it not? Pursuing being with the intention to obtain, catch or kill.
Do you feel that the dogs “seeing off” the wolves in this video isn’t hunting because it isn’t an attempt to kill or catch the wolves?
In the UK, just as we can ramble in the countryside with little fear of wolves, bison etc, is is rare that dogs are more than annoying. Not as scary as shepherds’ or farmers’ wolf scaring dogs sometimes encountered in Spain, France etc. Imperfect though the Dangerous Dogs Act is, it does theoretically give some reassurance to footpath and trail users, and most farms don’t (usually) set their farmyard dogs on walkers. I certainly wouldn’t like to meet the deer scaring dogs mentioned here when walking in a field with young children.
I’d dispute that in my case – my current dog is a lovable farm collie bitch – she really wouldn’t hurt a fly. I’m 100% sure your children would be safer with her than a stalker with a gun. In fact one of the great benefits to my techniques is one can undertake them with very young children (I have with all mine and now grand children) and help them gain a respect for and interest in wildlife.
Cows with calves far, far more dangerous than any animal you’ve mentioned.
A definite situation where one should let dogs off the lead – let cow calf and dog sort out any differences naturally and stand well back.
I’ve tried, I’ve really tried, but the plodding commentary, intrusive soundtrack and scripted ‘jeopardy’ have sadly rendered the series unwatchable for me.
Fantastic detailed filming of brown bears, being able to see even the corners of the female bear’s eyes was stunning….uh oh here comes a big male bear to eat you all up…where’s the off switch. The same happened with the cassowary chick in the Australia episode.
It might be, clearly is, fine for many, many people but its a massive switch off for me.
Of course we need both approaches to conservation. However the amelioration of the human environment be that urban suburban or agricultural is not working for much of the UKs wildlife most is still declining catastrophically. To solve that problem we need lots of Knepps, plenty of upland farmers persuaded to get out of sheep especially in Wales and England, grouse shooting to be gone in its current form and a more natural habitat in its place with still some shooting some of it much better with bigger quarry, we need proper native woodland vastly increased, much of it allowed back through natural processes. Oh and yes we need Beaver, Lynx, Elk back and almost certainly Wolf and Brown Bear too.
As to the series I am thoroughly enjoying it. Bimbling I don’t seem to hear the unnecessary bits of commentary or the music soundtrack. I quite fancy seeing Musk Ox but Norway is SO EXPENSIVE, I plan to try and see more Wolves and Brown Bears.
Doesn’t have to be that expensive – I had great experiences in Norway having cycled up through Scotland then flying from Shetland Isles to Bergen – wild camped most of Norway living on just a few Krones a day – it’s stunning.
Giles I’m nearly 70 and don’t cycle and nor have I since I was a teenager. I rough camped and lived on very little money in Sweden with a colleague for 7 weeks after our A levels fifty years ago today I want a little more comfort at the end of the day.
Ah yes I can understand that Paul V Irving. One of the aspects of the trip that proved fascinating was the vast variety of mosquito bites one picked up. I didn’t spend long enough to accumulate enough to count as statistically significant but became convinced each sub region had a particular bite associated with it – ranging from a tiny itchy spot to 10 pence piece sized.
The wolf sequences were absolutely amazing and fascinating. Ive been fortunate to see wolves in 3 European counties on over a dozen occasions and really appreciated the filming. Superb.
Regrettably there is one less pheasant in this part of Europe. Poor damn cock pheasant bolt straight out of the hedgerow and then froze up dead centre of the lane right in front of me last night. Couldn’t have missed, couldn’t have braked in time (especially not with the milk tanker behind me sitting right on my back bumper either) and with a clunk and bump it went underneath. I feel so rotten about it.
Not just that I killed a poor bird for no reason, a bird that has presumably been turned loose and is wandering around lost, but that its corpse will attract other wildlife and run the risk of them being killed too.
@random22 Why not buy a copy of “carbeque” for your glove compartment? You could have ended up with a nice bit of roasted game by the time you got home.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Carbecue-Complete-Guide-Cooking-Engine/dp/0993075606