I READ with some frustration your editorial regarding the rewilding of the UK ("Reintroducing wolves is really not such a bad idea", The Herald, July 17).
It is common practice to cite the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone National Park as an example of the beneficial effects on the whole ecosystem. I have seen the effects this has indeed had but must point out this can in no way parallel the situation in the UK. The reintroduced wolves preyed upon the deer and this reduced the detrimental effect of the deer on the ecosystem. However, in the UK there is a much more easily hunted prey, namely sheep, which were non-existent in Yellowstone. Predators inevitably attack the easiest prey and this is certainly not fleet-footed deer.
Once again this appears to be an example of an urban mentality which considers the countryside as a tourist attraction rather than a place to live and work. Is anyone surprised that those proposing the reintroduction of the lynx are based in Oxford but want to reintroduce them in Northumberland? It would appear that these "experts" wish to turn back the clock to a time of their deciding. Are we to reforest the UK back to a time when it was completely covered in trees or perhaps we should reintroduce crocodiles whose remains have been found in various parts of the UK?
It would appear we are living in a theme park.
David Stubley,
22 Templeton Crescent, Prestwick.
I HEAR much talk of introducing the lynx and wolves. I can think of a few other things that should be re-introduced first. Integrity in public life, the state pensions for the Waspis (Women Against State Pension Inequality), and circuit training and competitive sport in schools. My personal favourite would be the return of macaroon bar salesmen at football matches. The football was better then. Perhaps others will tell us what they are missing.
John Dunlop,
9 Birnam Crescent, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel