‘Sheep friendly’ wolves

[Suzanne]

The Sunday Times - Ireland
July 04, 2004

Tycoon wants to breed ‘sheep friendly’ wolves
Kenny Farquharson

SCOTLAND’S richest man is to fund a scientific study to introduce “sheep friendly” wolves in the Highlands.

Paul van Vlissingen — the millionaire owner of the 81,000-acre Letterewe estate in Wester Ross — has been fighting a personal crusade to re- introduce wolves and lynx as a natural way of keeping deer herds under control. However, the Dutch tycoon’s plan has faced stiff opposition from sheep farmers who fear the wild animals would attack their flocks.

The 63-year-old entrepreneur now intends to use part of his 1.4 billion fortune to fund research into how a wolves can be bred or trained not to kill sheep. He said the idea of trying to curb wolves’ natural instincts came to him while helping to set up animal sanctuaries in Africa. He noticed that wild predators such as big cats would only attack certain types of prey. “I asked myself: why is it that the tiger and the lion don’t like sheep, and wolves do like sheep? And is there any way you could breed a family of wolves that have a natural aversion to sheep?”

Van Vlissingen, who moved to Scotland 27 years ago, has tried to make his estate a shining example of ecological management — releasing sea eagles, managing a deer herd, planting a hardwood forest and protecting rare birds such as the red-throated diver. “Man has to start to learn living with other creatures around him and not exploit them. The wolf was here in Scotland until very recently.” The last wolf in Scotland is said to have been killed in 1743 near the River Findhorn in Moray.

Leading European experts in animal behaviour are sceptical that Van Vlissingen will succeed. Serge Daan, professor of behavioural biology at the University of Groningen, in the Netherlands, said there were major flaws in Van Vlissingen’s plan. However, he conceded that it might be possible to train wolves pups not to kill sheep. “It might be possible on the basis of an individual animal,” said Daan. “Much of adult animal behaviour is influenced by conditions in early life. But if you released these wolves into the Highlands, you could not pick up every new puppy and train it as well. The next generation would revert back to the old way.”

(via the blatherskites)

[heretic]

Why the hell should anyone in this world need tamed, sheep-friendly wolves. The wolve is an predator, the sheep is prey. Thats an matter of fact. Thats nature. But the human think he must change something on this state. But its commonplace that man believes that it stands above all things. Otherwise they couldnt do all the gruesome things to the wildlife. Since the first human comprehends that he would face his end and die, he tries to make him better than the animals. In this sense they have created an "immortal soul, an eternal afterlife in heaven or hell". They convinced themselves to be overnatural, no part of the nature. They continue this belief although every informed human knows that we descend from animals, that we are animals. Sophisticated animals, gifted with an mind, of course but still only animals. We should use our mind not for the worshipping of false gods and infant ideas, but for the preservation of our environement and to create an better world for coming generations.

[heretic]

And if man cant cope with that, than im not sorry to say

Die Puny Humans

because we are the first race on earth that search for overdominance, as I say, and we will be the last if we dont do anything about it to stop the destruction of the environement.

[klav]

The wolve is an predator, the sheep is prey. Thats an matter of fact. Thats nature. But the human think he must change something on this state. But its commonplace that man believes that it stands above all things.

Isn't that his "nature", precisely?

In my humble opinion, invocations of "Nature" are of pretty much the same vein as religious ones. For instance, it does not come as a big surprise that homosexuality is often condemned as being against "God" and/or against "nature". The predator/prey rhethoric is also pretty close to the good/evil one - which is rather funny, because "Nature" as a whole is far from working in this only way. Both are human concepts and both tend to be interpreted absolutely, which eventually finds no unambiguous practical applications - and thus lead to useless if not bloody conflicts. In other words, as much as there are 1000s of different christian churchs/ways opposing themeselves on "TEH TRUTH", how would one be completely "natural"? By roaming around naked in the great plain?

I'm not advocating the disastrous pollution of our ecosystem (mainly due to decisions of a few instead of a random "human nature") and am a fierce agnostic myself. I just say that we should watch out not to condemn a particular way of thinking if we are to replace it by something alike.

[heretic]

That was not my matter klav.

Thats only my stance.

In my opinion everyone is allowed to believe in the things they want, be it an not feelable, seeable, proveable god( creature etc.), capitalism, communism or other forms of human beliefs. But I for myself have stopped to believe in an god, system or confession long time before because all of this named human mind-constructs was built for only one reason:

To controll the mind, behaviour and lifestyles of his followers.

Man, of course, is weak. And for that reason they succumb their minds and their freedom willingly to these dictatures.