The landscape of Scotland

should be re-wilded:

bring back the wolf

 

Six papers by young thinkers

 

4. Alasdair Anthony

 

I once met a conservationist working for the John Muir Trust. Apparently, his job was to kill deer. Kill deer? I was shocked and then puzzled. Why is a conservation charity killing deer?
     In the absence of a natural predator the number of red deer in Scotland is high, unnaturally high. The grazing and browsing pressure exerted by hundreds of thousands of deer causes serious damage to the natural habitats of our rural landscape. And so land owners, including the John Muir Trust, have a responsibly to ensure that deer populations are managed effectively. In other words, deer are culled for their benefit and the benefit of the environment in which they roam. 
     The impact and scale of damage caused by excessive deer numbers has to be seen to be believed. In fact, the influence of deer on our so called 'wild' rural landscape is such that our common understanding of what a natural landscape looks like has been distorted. Only in small, fenced-off enclosures can we get a glimpse of what Scotland should look like. Here, saplings of native trees are allowed to flourish, uninhibited by the constant browsing of hungry deer.  And in these enclosures, pockets of the once vast Caledonian forest will eventually re-form. 
     But forests aren't just about trees. They support a whole ecosystem: plants, insects, fungi, lichens, birds, mammals and the European black slug. But instead of these wonderfully diverse habitats, vast tracts of our land are barren, dominated by just a few species of grass and heather. Scotland's uplands were once unflatteringly described as wet desert.
     Okay, deer may not have been responsible for the loss of the ancient forests. But they are the foremost impediment to its return. The John Muir Trust isn't killing deer for fun. The need for deer numbers to be actively controlled is not under dispute. So the question is: How can deer be controlled? Well, we could just fence off ever larger areas of land. But that's a solution that misses the point. Deer do belong on the land and ecosystems need to develop in the presence of deer. The problem is not deer as such; it's their dominance over the landscape in overwhelming numbers.
     The primary method currently used to control deer is shooting by stalkers. But culling deer in this way is unsatisfactory. Removal of the carcass often involves use of all terrain vehicles which, in themselves, cause further damage to the fragile upland environment. The whole process is very labour-intensive and, therefore, expensive. Now, it's true that private estates can and do make a reasonable profit from stag kills but they make a loss on the necessary but less economical culling of hinds. For other landowners the deer cull is simply a drain on already stretched resources.
     But economics aside, there is a much more fundamental reason that current methods of culling deer are unsatisfactory. Shooting deer has no lasting effect on their behaviour. The bullet comes out of nowhere, unseen, and kills instantly. Yes, it's humane but the skill of the stalker is such that other deer never know what to fear.

 

     In contrast, an attack on deer by a natural predator would leave a lasting psychological impact. The mere threat of attack by an animal such as the wolf would change behaviour. Deer wouldn't linger too long in one spot. And they would completely avoid areas where there's high risk of predation. And in turn these areas, free from intensive grazing pressure, would recover in a way that doesn't happen with current methods of deer control. Re-introduction of the wolf therefore offers the most convincing means of regulating the deer population. 
     Why, then, have wolves not already been re-introduced? One of the major obstacles to the re-introduction of wolves is the apparent incompatibility of wolves and sheep. But sheep are not as profitable today as they were 250 years ago when the Highlands were cleared of wolves, and people, to make way for wool production. In fact, most sheep farms now owe their existence to European subsidies. But EU policy is shifting: there is a move towards encouraging effective stewardship of the land, irrespective of flock sizes.
     A necessary prerequisite for the re-introduction of the wolf is public support. Surveys show that that support exists. There is even support from some farmers; bear in mind that deer damage crops and compete with sheep for grazing. Moreover, there is a direct economic benefit to be had from the re-introduction of wolves; the prospect of catching a glimpse of a wolf would be a compelling attraction for tourists.
      Wolf re-introduction is also favoured by the new paradigm emerging in conservation. Increasing emphasis is being placed on habitats, landscapes and ecosystems rather than on individual species in particular locations. As an apex predator, the wolf exerts influence over the entire ecosystem in a way that other species don't. And what's special about the wolf is that it would also exert influence over our own species, stimulating an increasingly insulated human population to re-engage with nature.
     The case for the re-introduction of wolves is clear. The damagingly high deer population would be brought under control and the John Muir Trust would no longer have to shoot them. Uneconomical sheep farming would be partially substituted by more profitable eco-tourism. And most importantly of all, the landscape of Scotland would be re-wilded, along with the minds of its population. 

 

Alasdair Anthony delivered this paper at last week's Young Scotland and Northern Ireland Programme organised by the Scottish Review team. He works for the National Records of Scotland