Hacker News Reader

Killing livestock is an issue, but killing humans isn't really; it's essentially in the "freak accident" category, and less common than even most rare sources of freak accidents. So far, at least, the reintroduction process in the lower-48 U.S. states (which has been going on for about 20 years) hasn't led to any attacks on humans at all. If you include Alaska, which has a native wolf population, there's been exactly one wolf fatality in the U.S. in the entire period since WW2.

As for crocodiles: There's quite a bit of effort being expended to protect the declining crocodile population in Florida, so I don't think it'd be categorically out of the question.

Four fatalities in Australia last year for Crocodiles.. http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/northern-territory/record-year...

I didn't know Florida had crocodiles (I lived for a year in Tallahassee so I only saw alligators). Wikipedia tells me that there has only been one reported human attack in Florida ever. So pretty low risk.

I grew up in Canada and especially when I lived near Ottawa, I heard wolves fairly frequently. I never saw one. Personally, I'm quite happy to live near them. The risk is incredibly low compared to pretty much anything you would care to mention with respect to living in a man made environment. According to Snopes, on average 1 person a year is killed in the US by lightning hitting them through telephone lines.

Wikipedia tells me that 7600 people were killed by wolves in Europe... in the period from 1362 to 1918. I'm willing to believe that the numbers are under reported (damn middle ages where people were too illiterate to file a police report), but I think the risks are pretty negligable. I suspect that even if Scotland reintroduces wolves, you will still be at higher risk of dying by getting hit by lightning through the telephone lines.

Of all the predators native to the various habitats of Earth, the one I fear the most is homo sapiens...

> Deer don't kill livestock or humans.

Deer (and large herbivores in general) kill plenty of people. Statistically, they are more dangerous than any other animal (e.g. snakes, bears, sharks, alligators) in the US or Europe. The only thing I suspect might be more dangerous is insects such as bees and wasps that people have allergies to.

In 2012, deer caused $4 billion in damages and killed about 200 people in the US. Of course, many more than that were seriously injured.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/10/24/267...

They're spiky, grumpy, and they run in front of cars. People seem to equate predator with dangerous, but many of the world's most dangerous animals are herbivores.

Yeah, you see similar attitudes (on the part of Americans) towards maneating tigers in India, or lions in Africa. People don't get that the wolves are gone because we killed them, on purpose.

I actually read a history of China that contained the following nugget: tigers were, naturally, an object of reverence in the north and south. But feelings in the south were more mixed... because in the south, coming face-to-face with a tiger was a real possibility. Regardless of notional divinity, nobody wants that.

> People don't get that the wolves are gone because we killed them, on purpose.

The implication there is that we had good reasons to kill them which is very reasonable; but do those reasons still exist in the modern world that would preclude them from being introduced?

The main conflict is the same as it ever was. Many farmers hate them because wolves kill livestock. Though, perhaps we can more easily afford the losses now.

I found The Economist's 2012 special on the reintroduction of the wolf to be quite informative: http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568656-after-mille...

This is one reason why lynx are often suggested as a first big predator to reintroduce. They keep to forests, while sheep graze on open ground. Sheep can be protected with fences (keeping them from spreading too thin), livestock guardian dogs, and active shepherding. Farmers just resent the effort.

Predators are usually not that good for keeping animal populations in check. They often kill more than they can eat and leave the rest alone[1]. If you introduce predators for population control you would have to introduce scavengers as well. Otherwise rangers will have to clean up after them or the carcasses become a problem.

In the end you would need a whole and healthy ecosystem for this to work out correctly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing

Britain has scavengers. Foxes, crows, rooks, etc. In fact it's expected that the scrap that large predators leave will help revitalize those parts of the ecosystem too.

Deer are kept at artificially high levels in Scotland. A more suitable way to keep them "in check" would be to just let nature take its course on the deer population and on the countryside itself. But then that wouldn't sit well with the landed gentry who think it's a jolly good lark to go out shooting with the boys. Ho hum.

Do you have a source for this?

Red deer have no natural predators just now and plenty of food - they will continue to increase in number.

You will also find that a lot of those that stalk deer are not "the gentry".

I don't believe they are kept at artificially high numbers, but their population is actively managed. Culls often remove poor specimens, such as switches, to improve the wild stock.

It does make sense to manage the Scottish red deer population through limited hunting of both stags and hinds in the relevant seasons. Red deer are a valuable source of revenue for the highlands, both in direct fees associated with stalking, but also from tourist Pounds invested in local communities and employment.[1]

I can appreciate why there is some concern regarding the potential introduction of wolves and their effect on the deer population. However, I think that also needs to be considered in light of the economic benefits of such a re-wilding. How much revenue would wolf hunting and tourism bring to the highlands?

[1] http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsh...

I think you may be thinking of game birds.

Huge areas in the Highlands are run as sporting estates for deer stalking, fishing and shooting - rather ironically these are called "deer forests" even though the deer have eaten most of the of the trees apart those fenced off or on islands in lochs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_forest

"Forest" used to mean hunting preserve before it was retconned to mean "a lot of trees".

They're run as sporting estates because that's the only way to monetise the area --- and they have to be monetised because the environment's so wrecked (mostly by the deer) they need to be actively managed, which costs money.

It's also worth pointing out that deer hunting in Scotland is a very, very different experience to deer hunting in America.

What happens in Scotland is that you get taken up into the hills by the gamekeeper, a specific animal is pointed out to you, and you shoot it with a high-powered telescopic rifle from a large distance. You pay very handsomely for this, and you don't even get to keep the animal. You're certainly not allowed to wander around on your own with a gun!

Whether you're accompanied by a gillie often depends on the estate and your experience. If you've completed the Deer Stalking Certificate (DSC) levels 1 & 2, there are many opportunities to wander around on your own with a gun, with the landholder's permission of course.

I agree this is unlikely to happen on many of the larger estates, but there are still opportunities, including joining an existing syndicate or leasing land yourself.

I'd also point out that generally you have the right to decline a specific animal pointed out to you by the gillie, but need to keep in mind it may be the only stag you're onto all day!

Also define "large distance." I'd contend there's not many deer highland stalking shots taken at distances greater than 200 meters and most more likely between 100-150 meters.

I'll admit to never actually done it myself (due to aforesaid huge sums of money).

If you do go out on your own, what do you do with the carcass? Phone in and get the keepers to come and pick it up? I assume it still belongs to them, and they've adequately briefed you on where you're supposed to go and what they want you to shoot.

It depends....

If you're unaccompanied on someone else's estate, then it's your responsibility to bring the carcass down off the hill. That usually involves tying yourself to the carcass and dragging it (or if the hill is steep enough, it will drag you) down the hill. At the bottom of the hill, or along the way a little, you are likely to have parked a quad or utility vehicle. The carcass remains property of the estate.

If you've leased land, or as part of a syndicate, then you still need to remove the carcass from the hill and transport it to a cool room, where you butcher it yourself and a game dealer will collect it the next day.

Carcasses are always gralloched immediately on the hill, and the entrails left behind.

Part of the training in DSC 1 and then much more thoroughly in DSC 2 is how to properly butcher a carcass.

http://basc.org.uk/sporting-services/basc-training-courses/d...

There are also specific basic carcass and butchery courses:

http://basc.org.uk/sporting-services/basc-training-courses/c...

In the Scottish Highlands a red deer stag isn't really prohibitively expensive, usually around the £450 mark. Hinds, later in the season, are much cheaper.

The real expense is everything that goes with it - the travel to the highlands, accommodation, appropriate clothing and equipment. I think you could probably cull one stag for £1,000 all included.

I'm not so sure deer doesn't kill (or at least injure) humans -- surely there must be many roadkill incidents in which humans are injured (as well as the deer)?