Yes, I would be. To be fair, I was always going to be easy to convince with my city-dwelling cat-loving lefty-liberal greenie leanings, but I like to hear both sides of an argument.

One point the chap made was that it’s a trial, and even if you think the scientific evidence to support reintroduction isn’t valid, then you should be in favour of a trial, which will provide the evidence it doesn’t work. OK, I imagine the farmers will only see the trial as a foot in the door, but you can see his point.

I can’t see how they can’t work it so that all the concerns against are addressed to the satisfaction of any reasonable person.

They will have to do a lot more than they have so far to convince me and a lot of others.  The main one is proper robust compensation for farmers which so far as far as I can see they simply gloss over

What so much sympathy for farmers? Sheep farming is an environmental disaster. It is destroying native woodland and wildlife.

Sheep farmers are already reliant on subsidies. Why not pay them to do something useful instead?

No issue with that Craig – apart from without some grazing all hillsides turn to impenetrable scrubland. However its a different question

Introduce Lynx they will kill sheep and the farmers need to be compensated.

I have a friend who farms in Sweden. His property is next wo an area with a high Lynx population he reckons that he has lost one ewe to Lynx in the 20 years he has been farming there.

What so much sympathy for farmers? Sheep farming is an environmental disaster. It is destroying native woodland and wildlife.

If destroying native woodland and wildlife is the problem, then that applies to every single aspect of human civilization.

without some grazing all hillsides turn to impenetrable scrubland

Otherwise known as re-wilding. I wonder how many other species would return and thrive once we got rid of a few more sheep and deer.

Introduce Lynx they will kill sheep and the farmers need to be compensated.

I agree. But it can’t be that difficult. The compensation needs to be adequate to cover genuine loss (including time loss, impact on breeding programme, etc.) and maybe then some. Given the (apparently) very low risk and the ease of weeding out fraudulent claims with simple technology, it doesn’t seem expensive – certainly in the context of even a modest estimate of the tourist revenue, job creation, etc. A trial will provide irrefutable evidence of the exact, location-specific risk.

Introduce Lynx they will kill sheep and the farmers need to be compensated.

Leaving aside the minor detail how much of the taxpayers cash they already get you are stating something as fact when the evidence is somewhat slim. Outside of Norway where  they keep the sheep around wooded areas the impact is minimal (as per beinbhan anecdote). Far lower than is lost by bad management.

Since our sheep farmers do their best to turn the local environment into an effective desert the chances of Lynxes bounding round the bare hillsides is somewhat slim.

Plus, if we are to believe some of the other farmer scare stories foxes really do go around savaging every sheep in existence. Which is something Lynx would help with by reducing the population of foxes.

thenorthwind – they need the robust compensation scheme in place first before the re introduction

Leaving aside the minor detail how much of the taxpayers cash they already

Yep – just switch it round. No lynx trial = no subsidy.

Craig ..you seem to be generalizing your comments ..my partner’s sister and husband are sheep & cattle farmers in the North Tyne Valley ..hill farmers if you will …their land borders the forest but I have yet to see any evidence of their farming impacting the local wildlife ..badger, fox , stoat , weasel abound plenty of bird life ..Osprey’s just a few mile up the road and more buzzards than you can shake a stick at ..the problem we have is in the forested area where there is a vast over population of deer ( the Lynx’s primary food source ) and in an area of 250sq.miles ..three quarters of which is woodland ..I fail to see how a trial of releasing 6 radio tagged Lynx is going to cause the mass devastation everyone who is against the re-introduction is predicting .

Your comments regarding sheep farmers in general are pretty offensive ..as land owners they can farm pretty much what they f**king choose..and I’m sure they probably work a great deal harder than yourself doing so..

my partner’s sister and husband are sheep & cattle farmers in the North Tyne Valley ..hill farmers if you will …their land borders the forest but I have yet to see any evidence of their farming impacting the local wildlife

It’s well known that sheep destroy upland environments by eating everything as it tries to grow so only grass can survive.  And as for lowland farms – what do you think was in those fields that are now just grass?  That list of wildlife you cite, that’s not bad by UK standards but the UK is really bad for wildlife, so it’s still bad.  Compare that to what should have been living on the land, and what still lives in other parts of the world.  All agriculture destroys the environment of course it does.  But then again, we need food so I’m clearly not arguing against farming.  Just be aware of what it is and what it has done, and what we require it to do simply by existing and procreating.

as land owners they can farm pretty much what they f**king choose

Legally – maybe; morally – not quite so sure.

thenorthwind – they need the robust compensation scheme in place first before the re introduction

Agreed. Given the calculated risk and the ability to minimise fraudulent claims, the number of payouts is going to be very small, so I think the Lynx Trust should be finding a way to underwrite a pretty generous compensation scheme, in part to appease farmers.

Molgrips ..fair comment .

Your comments regarding sheep farmers in general are pretty offensive

Whether it offends the snowflakes is different from whether it is true.

as land owners they can farm pretty much what they f**king choose

Not really. There are limits on what people can do in. For farmers there is also the minor detail of how much money they get from the taxpayer. When there is that much money flowing its not unreasonable to expect some sensible returns.

Dissonance ….bullshit!

It may not be “unreasonable to expect some sensible returns ” ..as you put it..but the reality is that direct payments are not linked to production and neither are they told what they can or can not farm ..

Snowflakes eh ? ..You would hit the ground a lot faster than a snowflake saying that to my farming in-laws face 😁

I’m all for this, however, it does make me start to wonder about safety in the hills – not immediately but if the trial is successful then at some point in the future, we will effectively become a potential target for a hungry predator. UK is ‘good’ (I use the term incredibly loosely!) as we are the predominant predator so apart from natural terrain and weather affecting us, we are pretty safe out on the hills.

It isn’t all safe but it is certainly very safe – adders appear to be our biggest potential surprise, but there are certainly lots of wildlife who would be very prepared to defend themselves if they needed to.

I’m also for the idea of reintroducing the wolf – but again, my over active imagination then suddenly has me thinking that the hills would no longer be as safe.

I’m aware that the chances of attack are very low, but we are going from zero to small and typically, my brain suggests that is a worrying thing. After I give myself a shake I start to think sensibly and think it would be a good thing.

How likely would it be for an attack on a human? (genuine question as I’m honestly not sure)*

*This doesn’t stop me thinking reintroduction should be done though as I’m pretty sure it is just my brain being stupid and thinking as it does.

Dissonance ….bullshit!

If they want the cash then yes they are restricted in their choices. I am suggesting further constraints and requirements to ensure we actually get some value for money.

As for snowflake. I was referring to your outrage.

How likely would it be for an attack on a human?

As close to zero as you can get. There are no reported attacks by a wild lynx.

There is a possibility I guess if you managed to trap one in a corner and it had no other way out it would attack but they are pretty small animals and they are good at dodging humans.

Wolves do have some risks associated with them but for Lynx no one sensible considers there to be any proper risk.

I’m also for the idea of reintroducing the wolf – but again, my over active imagination then suddenly has me thinking that the hills would no longer be as safe.

If I offered you a nice bike ride in Canada or the US, would you accept?  Probably. They even have bears there, and they are actually dangerous to humans – some of them.  You just take bear precautions, that’s all.  It’s just part of outdoor life there.

If I offered you a nice bike ride in Canada or the US, would you accept?

I would but its not like for like. It comes down to population density and land usage. I wouldnt rule out wolves entirely but my main point was lynx arent in the same category. A case can be made against wolves with some validity. Not really against lynxes.

Ta, so my Lynx thinking is simply my stupid imagination deciding to mess with the rest of my head!

so my Lynx thinking is simply my stupid imagination deciding to mess with the rest of my head!

Probably a side effect of being on public transport near someone using way to much of it.

There is a lot of inaccurate propaganda about them with certain lobby groups make wild claims to try and get ramblers etc to take their side.

I’m in two minds – part of me loves Lynx (it’s easy fluidity), but we have to seriously consider the environmental impacts – roll-ons don’t contain the nasty gases after all, so I’m Sure all the way.

Beaver? I’m led to believe is attracted to Lynx, so all good.

I’m all for this, however, it does make me start to wonder about safety in the hills

This was something I was a bit worried about when I first heard about it. I love the idea of wild animals in the wilderness, but I’ve been for a walk in the woods in the northern US, and even with a very low chance of even seeing a (brown – smallest, least aggressive) bear (New England), I was surprised how on edge it made me. I guess you get used to it, but the whole experience was different.

But then the guy from the lynx trust explained how big they are and how incredibly unlikely you are to see one, and it really does seem nothing to worry about. Wolves on the other hand…

Ta, so my Lynx thinking is simply my stupid imagination deciding to mess with the rest of my head!

The Lynx effect.

😁..

Very good Boxelder..

dissonance and craigw went all full Partridge there.

[ video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxSbTlH0K4w[/video ]

edit- why do video links not work on here?

But then the guy from the lynx trust explained how big they are and how incredibly unlikely you are to see one, and it really does seem nothing to worry about.

It’d spice up those night rides though, wouldn’t it?  Even if you weren’t at risk, you’d be excited to see that pair of eyes in the bushes..

The glowing eyes of deer & foxes already scare me half shitless ..

Computer says no…

Linky

Booo!!

Sad news, but reading Natural England’s assessment of the application, it seems the Lynx Trust did a pretty piss poor job of putting it together. I mean you’d think they might have talked to the FC FFS?!

I agree with Northwinds assessment, the Trust let themselves down with a poor application which left refusal as being the only viable outcome.

For example:

No further technical reports or evidence were produced and much of the requested evidence post-application was in a narrative form or presented in a way which was difficult to evaluate or verify. For example: evidence that the project team have suitable capability and experience came in the form of photographs of the applicant and nominated vet holding wild animals and a list of projects they had previously been involved with; rather than details of previous licences held and professional qualifications

What a shame.