快猫短视频

LEGEND has it that Isabella of France, consort of Edward II murdered her husband by thrusting a red-hot iron into his bowels. Her cold-blooded brutality earned her the title 鈥淪he-wolf of France鈥�. Fairy-tale images of the big bad wolf have been reinforced in the minds of children for generations, despite the fact that wolves tend to be shy and elusive and no documented evidence exists of an unprovoked attack on a human. Wolves have been persecuted to extinction in many parts of the world and little has been done to save them.

But now efforts are being stepped up. The United States Congress has given the go-ahead for an experimental reintroduction of the grey wolf in two areas in the northern Rocky Mountains, prompting bitter outcries from local farmers. And in Scotland, a long-simmering debate about the pros and cons of reintroducing wolves to remote areas seems to be coming to the boil. Now that the European Union鈥檚 1992 Species and Habitats Directive has become British law, the government has to consider the possibility of restoring lost species to their natural environments.

Rhum, a soggy, deer-infested island off the west coast of Scotland (see Map), was first suggested as site for introducing wolves some twenty years ago. Then it was a fringe idea; now it鈥檚 entered mainstream thinking, as became clear last October when conservationists and land managers from the Forestry Commission, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds met in Inverness to review the state of Scottish pinewoods. Overgrazing by the Highlands鈥� huge population of red deer is one of the reasons why the native pinewoods cannot regenerate. So why not reintroduce wolves to prey on the deer and ease the pressure, asked some conservationists? But the idea of setting up a pilot study on Rhum has yet to gain official approval. Critics say the island is too small and has too few trees to support a viable population of wolves. And if an experiment on Rhum fails, wouldn鈥檛 that scupper any future plans to release wolves elsewhere in Scotland?

But those in favour of wolf reintroduction need to disentangle their motives. To do so for the sake of the wolf, to restore an integral part of the ecosystem, would be feasible. However, even if wolves were to be reintroduced to the mainland, it is unrealistic to expect them to have much impact on deer numbers; packs will take what they need and no more. They might relieve grazing pressure from area to area by keeping the deer on the move. But only if an artificially high number of wolves were imported at the outset would deer numbers drop, and few conservationists are in favour of that.

There are estimated to be 300 000 red deer in Scotland, a number that has almost doubled over the past 30 years, and more than 9 million sheep. Inevitably, intense grazing pressure has taken its toll. Only 1 per cent of the native Caledonian pinewood remains and regeneration is minimal. In the Abernethy Forest Reserve, which is owned by the RSPB, heavy culling over the last five years has resulted in a 40 per cent decrease in the red deer population. The first indications are that the woodland is regenerating and, says David Beaumont of the RSPB, the deer are getting heavier because there is less competition for food. The number of seedlings and saplings increased by about 20 per cent in the three-year period up to 1992.

Question of survival

Wolves are believed never to have been native to Rhum as they once were to the Scottish mainland, where the last was shot in 1743. But then red deer, which humans hunted to extinction on the island during the second half of the 18th century, were only reintroduced there in 1845. Since then, their numbers have been controlled by culling. So the debate over whether Rhum could support an experimental introduction of wolves remains unresolved. SNH wants to restore the island鈥檚 native Inner Hebridean woodlands, which have been devastated by millennia of overgrazing by sheep and deer. It also uses the island to manipulate and study the dynamics of its red deer population. By selective culling, for example, the wardens can alter the sex ratio of a particular group and monitor the effects. To these ends, the SNH has traditionally set itself the target of culling about 16 per cent of the red deer population every year to keep the numbers in check. But culling is both labour-intensive and time-consuming.

鈥淲olf predation would be a far more efficient way of controlling the red deer,鈥� says Derek Yalden, a zoologist at the University of Manchester. 鈥淎nd it would be more in keeping with the management objectives of a National Nature Reserve.鈥� He estimates that the annual cull on Rhum produces over 25 000 kilograms of meat 鈥� enough, he claims, to sustain a population of 19 wolves. And separate, unpublished research led by Martyn Gorman at the University of Aberdeen says likewise. The researchers there have used a computer model to show that there are enough deer on Rhum to provide food for one pack of wolves (about ten animals).

But there is more to survival than an adequate food supply. Evidence suggests that deer and wolf populations can only coexist if they have enough space. When two pairs of wolves were introduced to Coronation Island in Alaska in 1960, the experiment ended in spectacular failure. The island 鈥� never previously a home for wolves 鈥� supported a high density of Sitka black-tailed deer. But the area of the island is only 73 square kilometres, and the deer had nowhere to run to. The wolf population grew to 13 in four years and deer numbers simultaneously dropped. The wolves were eventually forced to feed on marine invertebrates, small rodents and birds until, by 1968, the population had dwindled to one. Analysis of wolf droppings on the island showed that the last survivors had turned to cannibalism. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game concluded that Coronation Island was too small to support both deer and wolves.

Yet at about 100 square kilometres, Rhum is not significantly larger. As Martin Mathers, Forestry Officer for Scotland鈥檚 World Wide Fund for Nature, points out, wolves are wide-ranging animals with very large territories. And the maximum number of wolves that the island could support in terms of food supply is too small to rule out a high degree of inbreeding. With less genetic diversity, the population would be less adaptable and its chances of survival would decrease. According to Gorman, one pack of wolves is not a viable population for many reasons, including inbreeding. But Yalden argues that, in practice, inbreeding is not a serious threat to survival. Large predators tend to live in small populations and inbreeding is therefore an occupational hazard. Take the population of about 20 wolves which established itself naturally on Isle Royale in Lake Superior around 1948. The founding population was probably a single mating pair of wolves, he says, but despite inevitable inbreeding the population is still thriving almost fifty years on.

There are other potential problems too. At the moment Rhum is mostly open ground with pockets of both relict and planted trees. It will not provide enough cover for wolves for at least another five years, says Martin Curry, Reserve Manager on Rhum. And although the management plan for the island comes up for renewal in 1997, SNH has as yet no official intention to include wolf introduction in the next 10-year plan. The northern European wolf 鈥� which is probably the closest genetic stock to the Highlands鈥� native wolf and therefore the most likely candidate for an experimental introduction 鈥� might be able to adapt to Rhum鈥檚 exposed environment. But only if it can dig dens for shelter, says Tim Clutton-Brock of the Large Animal Research Group at the University of Cambridge. The island鈥檚 waterlogged soil would, he believes, prevent that.

Even if a sound ecological argument could be found for introducing wolves to Rhum, the political odds are stacked against their returning to the mainland 鈥� for the moment at least. Sheep farmers and landowners who make money from letting their land for sport shooting are understandably suspicious. The Scottish Crofters鈥� Union will oppose any official proposal vigorously, says its administrator Fiona Mandeville. And Stewart Whiteford of the National Farmers鈥� Union of Scotland reacted to the idea of wolves on the mainland with 鈥渁bsolute horror鈥�.

Gaining support

Some mainland landowners are even worried that wolves released on Rhum could swim the narrow channel to the mainland. That is highly unlikely, says Yalden, although there is evidence that wolves swim between islands in southeast Alaska when the water is calm.

Regardless of such objections, the tide of official opinion may be turning in the wolf鈥檚 favour. In the light of the EU鈥檚 Habitats Directive, SNH is already considering carrying out a three-year study on the feasibility of reintroducing large mammals, such as the beaver, wild boar and lynx as well as the wolf, to their native mainland habitat. Although the wolf has received the most attention, some argue that mammals lower down the food chain, such as the beaver, should be brought back first. The top predators should wait until there is more forest cover. 鈥淭he wolf is an awfully big leap,鈥� says Mathers.

Not so, says Alan Watson of the Scottish conservation group Trees for Life. Watson claims that wolves, unlike bears and lynx, do not rely on a forest habitat. He expects to see them back in the Highlands during his lifetime. The area he has in mind is about 1500 square kilometres of mostly rugged and uninhabited terrain centred on Glen Affric, where he is involved in a reforestation project.

Watson believes that the Highlands鈥� natural biological wealth is disappearing because the sheep and deer that graze on the land are eventually slaughtered and their carcasses removed to be sold. 鈥淭hat represents a permanent export of the organic matter from our already impoverished Highland landscape,鈥� he says. 鈥淚f we get wolves back, we can actually begin to reverse that a bit. The wolves would kill deer and their bodies would be recycled on the land.鈥� But he agrees that wolves would have little impact on deer numbers. 鈥淕ood ecology says that the population of the prey determines the population of the predator and not vice versa,鈥� says Mathers. 鈥淗owever, the wolf does help select for stronger, healthier animals.鈥� In Latvia, he claims, the presence of wolves is one of the reasons why the red deer are almost one and a half times as big as their Scottish counterparts.

The wolves prey on the smaller, weaker animals which cannot run as fast and, says Mathers, there are fewer old deer in the forests of Latvia than in Scotland.

That might impress deer-stalking enthusiasts, but it is the sheep farmers who might pay the penalty. 鈥淲olves are highly intelligent animals,鈥� says Aubrey Manning, Chairman of the Scottish Wildlife Trust. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 believe that any wolf is going to waste its time chasing deer when the whole landscape is heaving with sheep.鈥� That is another reason why deer numbers will probably remain high. Around Glen Affric, Watson claims, there is very little sheep farming and what there is only survives because it is subsidised. Why not compensate those people for damage to their flocks rather than subsidise the trade in lamb?

In the US, things are more advanced. Farmers are compensated for loss of livestock but the debate is more heated. Following the approval of its Environmental Impact Statement in June 1994, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is poised to release 15 grey wolves (Canis lupus) into the Yellowstone National Park area of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, and 15 into central Idaho (see Map). The wolves were captured in Canada in November and are being held in pens in the experimental areas until January, so that they can get used to their new surroundings. They will then be released with radio collars and monitored. And that operation will be repeated annually for three years. The FWS expects recovery to be complete by 2002.

Public image

The principal motive behind this reintroduction is to remove the grey wolf from the endangered species list. There is little doubt that the 30 000 elk in Yellowstone are damaging trees with their browsing, says Steve Fritts of the FWS, but there are far too many of them for the wolves to make an impact. A fund is already in place to compensate livestock owners for predator losses, which was set up by the charity Defenders of Wildlife. Hank Fischer, the charity鈥檚 Northern Rockies representative, says that $17 000 has been paid out since 1987, and he expects a doubling of compensation costs over the next two years. Moreover, the wolves will be legally classified as 鈥渘onessential experimental鈥� animals 鈥� which means they can be shot if farmers catch them preying on livestock or game.

But that hasn鈥檛 placated the farmers and ranchers. It will be almost impossible to catch a wolf in the act, says Larry Bourret of the Wyoming Farm Bureau. 鈥淭hey [farmers] cannot shoot a wolf one second before the act of killing, and if they see that wolf eating a dead animal, the federal government could contend that the wolf did not kill it but was just feeding on carrion.鈥� He feels that the Environmental Impact Statement has largely ignored the views of the public.

The issue is emotive. According to Fritts, the life of one member of the EIS team has been threatened. And the US government may yet find itself defending its policy in court. The American Farm Bureau Federation is suing the FWS for, among other things, violations of the Endangered Species Act. According to Bourret, the Northern Rocky Mountain subspecies of wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) has been extinct since at least the 1930s. The wolves being imported from Canada are not, he claims, of the same subspecies and so will be outside their historic range. If so, there are no grounds for a reintroduction.

But the differences between subspecies of wolf are negligible, according to Yalden. 鈥淭here is general agreement that taxonomic splitting, which resulted in the description of up to 63 subspecies of Canis lupus, has gone too far,鈥� he says. 鈥淢any of the supposed subspecies were based on too few specimens with no control over variability due to nutrition, sex and age.鈥� And Fritts agrees that wolves throughout North America differ very little. In the absence of the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf, the Canadian subspecies is probably the closest genetic stock.

Bourret is also concerned that there will be hybridisation between the wolves and coyotes, as has already occurred in Canada. That would prevent the recovery of a pure wolf population. 鈥淵ou鈥檙e taking a bunch of wolves that are doing fine up there in Canada, that are not on any list, and bringing them into an area where they are called endangered. We would contend that the Endangered Species Act was never intended to do that,鈥� he says.

Northern Minnesota already has a population of 2000 grey wolves and there are smaller populations in other states. Sightings of wolves have been reported in Yellowstone, although none has been proven. Fritts argues that they could have been coyotes or large dogs. But if the grey wolf is not extinct in these areas, it cannot be reintroduced there. The Canadian wolf is already making its way south and some critics believe it should be allowed to re-establish itself naturally as wolf packs are doing in Europe (鈥淲ho鈥檚 afraid of the wandering wolf?鈥�, 快猫短视频, 2 April 1994).

Would public opinion allow that to happen? In Scotland, certainly, the thought of wolf packs roaming free and their howls echoing through forests still evokes fear in some. Others are attracted by the thrill. Education is a large part of Fritts鈥� work and in North America, he says, public perception is improving. A survey of residents in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana in 1990 showed that around 50 per cent were in favour of wolf restoration and that visitors to Yellowstone 鈥渙verwhelmingly supported鈥� the proposal. Fritts is optimistic that this latest project will not suffer the fate of the four wolves relocated to Michigan in 1974. All were killed within a year.