Byron Pace needs no introduction to most of you. He is a man of many talents: a filmmaker, photographer, writer and the host of the excellent Into The Wilderness and Into The Anthropocene podcasts. Given that we share many topics, and even guests, on our podcasts I was delighted to talk with Byron. During our conversation, we discussed the importance of hunters and anglers for wildlife conservation and education about the natural world. We also delved into the subject of rewilding. Obviously, I didn’t forget to ask Byron about his road to becoming such a prominent outdoors content creator. For me, this truly is a milestone episode. Please enjoy Tommy’s Outdoors number 80.
This is yet another episode where my guest and I take on the subject of rewilding. This time our guest is the host of the discussion platform called Rewilding Ireland.
During the podcast, we talk in length about various aspects of rewilding but we also talk about the future of the Rewilding Ireland platform. And towards the end of the podcast, we spend some time discussing whether or not megafauna should be a part of our rewilding efforts.
Is it possible to use artificial intelligence to tell us how rewilding will look in any area where it is implemented? Is it possible to create a computer model that would tell us how the species eradicated from the landscape hundreds of years ago would behave when reintroduced? Listen to my conversation with Kilian Murphy where we talk about such models.
During the podcast we discuss the possibility of reintroducing wolves and wild boars to Ireland, and the difference in perception of rewilding between city-dwellers and farmers. We also touch on the role hunters have to play in rewilding projects and discuss the dynamics and density of the deer population in Ireland.
The European Federation for Hunting and Conservation, or FACE for short, is an international organization that represents the interests of European hunters. It serves as a bridge between the institutions of the European Union and hunters.
In episode 59 I talked with Dan Curley, the chairman of NARGC, the Irish member organization of FACE. Today, however, we’re going to talk about hunting from the European perspective, with our guest, FACE Secretary General, Dr. David Scallan.
During our conversation, we discuss the biodiversity manifesto, rewilding projects, hunting’s PR, as well as the ongoing process aimed at restricting the use of lead in field sports.
As regular listeners to the podcast might remember, in episode 47 we hosted Matt Cross, a field sports journalist, writer and blogger. At that time, we talked about yet another unlawful killing of a hen harrier. That episode was specifically focused on the issue of raptor persecution and we didn’t have a chance to tap into Matt’s vast knowledge about field sports.
Today we’re going to fix that as we discuss a number of topics including grouse moors management, rewilding, the ethics of field sports, the difference between the terms “shooting” and “hunting” in the UK context, and the move away from using lead in shooting. I’m sure you will enjoy our conversation.
There have been many things I have wanted to talk to Pádraic about since our last podcast, which was a year and a half ago. So today I am pleased to bring you another conversation with Pádraic. We talk about rewilding, reintroduction of wolves and lynx and, last but not least, if there is a connection between the coronavirus and biodiversity loss.
This episode of the podcast is going to take you back in time to the Pleistocene epoch of the Quaternary period, an epoch often referred to as the Ice Age. Our guest is Richard Doran Sherlock who has a particular interest in Quaternary science and megafaunal collapse. Over the years Richard has worked in many capacities including research for rewilding projects and not-for-profit groups.
Since I also have a keen interest in natural history I was really glad when Richard accepted my invitation to the podcast. So, it is my pleasure to present to you an episode where we talk about Pleistocene megafauna and have a healthy discussion about what might have caused its extinction. We also touch briefly on rewilding, a topic to which we may devote an episode of its own.
Cover photo by Ciaran McNamee
I want to add a few comments to a recently published blog post about fox hunting with hounds. The issue has to do with opposition to fox hunting. I hit on this briefly in that previous post because there is no way to talk about fox hunting without mentioning its opponents. I have had a few interactions online with folks who are wholeheartedly opposed to fox hunting and I have come to an interesting conclusion about their motivations.
I started it all by wondering aloud about how many opponents of fox hunting with hounds are also advocates for the re-introduction of wolves into the landscape. I was thinking that wolves inevitably kill foxes in the same way as hounds do. It is called intra-guild predation, or IGP. It is the killing of potential competitors within an ecosystem. IGP is a combination of competition and predation, i.e., both species rely on the same prey resources and one benefits from preying on the other. For example, the reintroduction of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in the United States caused a significant drop in the coyote population through intra-guild predation.
Since foxes and coyotes are different I wanted to find out what the interaction between wolves and foxes really looks like. So, I spent several hours trying to find relevant articles and papers. Unfortunately, most of the materials I was able to find were related to ecosystems in the United States. There the IGP looked like this. The greater number of wolves drove down the population of coyotes, which released the pressure on foxes, whose population then went up . Obviously, I am grossly oversimplifying. But, this seemed to challenge my original theory that the reintroduction of wolves into an ecosystem would drive down the fox population.
Then I found a paper in Nature magazine that described the European ecosystem. In Scandinavia, the lynx occupies the place between wolves and foxes. The dynamics between species were fairly similar with the exception that in places with no lynx, indeed, the presence of wolves caused a permanent decrease in the fox population . So this article supported my initial thoughts.
I thought that people who oppose hunting with hounds have foxes’ welfare first and foremost on their minds. To my surprise, it turned out they are completely okay with a fox being killed by a lynx or a pack of wolves. They claim that this is natural, contrary to the “unnatural” killing by humans hunting with dogs. In my opinion, this reasoning is flawed in a couple of ways.
Firstly, a natural killing by wolves isn’t any less painful than an “unnatural” killing by dogs. A fox, which is just about to be torn apart alive, is not any more at peace with its fate because it’s a pack of wolves, rather than hounds, that does the killing.
Secondly, hunting by humans is as natural as hunting by wolves. We are a part of nature. Unless, of course, someone thinks that we were dropped here by aliens. Mainstream science tells us that first stone tools and butchering marks on animal bones were found as early as 2 million years ago . Roughly the same time as the dating of the first fossil specimen of a modern fox, that was discovered in Hungary . So, human hunters have been here as long as these other species!
In the end, it was hard to avoid the conclusion that wildlife welfare does not matter to some who oppose fox hunting. They are just interested in imposing their own moral and ethical choices on others. “I don’t give a damn about the foxes, I just don’t want those blokes to go hunting”. This attitude is not productive. If we want to implement effective policies to protect wildlife and its habitat, we need to throw away emotional arguments and personal dislikes. The only way to get positive results is by looking at the scientific data and working with all stakeholders like sportsmen, ecologists and farmers.