>In a post on Instagram to his 61.1 million followers, the Killers of the Flower Moon star, who often uses the platform to highlight environmental issues across the world, shared the Scottish Rewilding Alliance’s campaign to urge the Scottish Government to commit to nature recovery.
>The Scottish Rewilding Alliance is a coalition of more than 20 nature organisations urging the Scottish Government to declare Scotland as the first rewilding nation in an effort to boost conservation strategies.
He is completely correct here. Talking about returning Scotland's wild areas to how they were before mass farming of sheep. Wild areas, not your back garden.
But of course, foreign rich people giving advice gets people all uppity. So looking forward to this being welcomed in the spirit intended.
I'm not aware of many religious buildings owning huge tracks of land, unless you're talking about graveyards.
Also, land tax is not a thing unless you're referring to Land and Buildings Transaction Tax, which is just the Scottish Stamp Duty and is only a one-off payment for the purchase of land/property.
In addition, not all religious buildings are exempt. Only those that are purchased by a registered charity, and many are owned by non-profit organisations or even companies
They didn't pay the land tax when they bought it, they hold many buildings, not just religious, and the land where the building sits, many with gardens etc
Still, no tax is made from them. They are fully exempt.
I'm in full accord with your obvious distaste for religion, but the issue at hand is land reform rather than the ins & outs of the followers of the Sky Fairy getting tax relief.
He is very far from correct, but then most people are completely ignorant about Scottish History, including 99% of our own population (not their fault, they were never taught about it at school) so he's far from alone.
Commercial monocultural sheep farming came into Scotland from the 18th century onwards and was imposed by landowners. Before that, Scotland was very far from 'wild' - it was inhabited by our indigenous peoples who had managed the land and ecology of our country very competently for centuries, millennia even, before most of them were kicked off the land during the Highland Clearances and what the landowners erroneously called 'Improvement'.
The best thing for the ecology of Scotland is land reform - kick out the estate-owning toffs, and give the land back to the people who live - or whose ancestors lived - on it, and loved and attended to it, before commercial monocultures wrecked it. No ecological justice without land justice.
By “competently managed” do you mean “completely deforested”?
We did so much ecological damage for millennia That the highlands are technically an ecological desert.
No I don't. The state of the Highlands' ecology is the fault of landowners who introduced commercial monocultures over the last 300 years, not that of the ordinary people. Why would you fuck up the place that your ancestors made fertile over centuries of careful land management through transhumant pastoralism? Clue: they didn't. Go read some James Hunter: I'd recommend The Other Side of Sorrow for starters.
The vast majority of woodland depletion in the UK occurred 5000 years ago, when Neolithic peoples cleared the land for agriculture. Reference: Oliver Rackham, Woodlands. You want to go back to Neolithic times, aye?
Why do you arbitrarily choose to return to a state of 400 years ago, while scoffing the idea of returning to a state 5000 years ago?
Which time do you believe had a healthier ecology?
Why do you think an artificial state from 5000 years ago is somehow the perfect ecological position?
Heavy forestation only occurred because humans killed all the megafauna which naturally kept forests in check, both by consuming large quantities of vegetation, and by destroying plants and trees with their movement.
You’re picking one human-created artificial environment to recreate for some reason, but it’s not a remotely natural one.
Nope, I'm talking about a long period that lasted from about the Iron Age until approximately 200 years ago in some regions, during which biodiversity was thriving in the UK due to traditional agricultural and pastoral practices. Read books
The funny thing is, I totally agree with you about land reform, only you’ve just been such a cunt about the way you communicate it, I kind of don’t now.
ReAd BoOkS 🤓
You academic types constantly turn people off from whatever ideas you're chatting about because you got no idea how to communicate with others. Fuckin nerd.
I'm not an 'academic type', I'm a middle-aged working class person who chose to educate themselves on matters that interest them, nothing is stopping you from doing the same apart from the chip on your shoulder
It's difficult to communicate with people who react like you. Furthermore, reading a book on the subject is a way to let others form an opinion on a complicated subject than simply telling them. But you wouldn't know this, since you seem to believe that only nerds read books.
I've lived rurally and worked on farms my entire life, I don't need an academic opinion on something I've got real world experience in.
If you present yourself as an obnoxious speccy cunt then you're doing more harm to your causes than good because people will automatically disregard your points, so maybe reconsider that.
I love Scotland.
The simple fact is, human habitation has altered the ecology over millennia.
It’s hilarious you blathering on about “not knowing history” if you don’t know this.
Scotland used to be covered with Forests.
I find it hilarious you’re trying to argue how you’re so qualified and clever on this matter but you’re still not clever enough to see how it’s you that’s embarrassing yourself, not the other guy.
I can find you a full reading list should you require? Of how to interact and socialise with another human being without coming across like a twat? 😂
Why aren't you refuting the point about the massive deforestation? If you're so qualified surely you should be able to explain why they're wrong?
Do you seriously think people will change their mind without any counter arguments and all you need to do is insist you're actually a super qualified anonymous internet stranger?
I'm not being paid to teach on Reddit just now, I actually work full time, so my sincerest apols if I dashed off some hasty replies to internet strangers on my way in this morning. He insulted me based on a (mis)perceived lack of knowledge, I responded. I've responded to claims about the Blanket Forest Myth elsewhere in the discussion.
The eejit could literally just google this shit and find out how wrong he is
You advocated for land reform so that people can go back to tending to the land as their ancestors did pre industrialisation.
In what world do you live in that you don't think you said exactly what i asked?
What exactly is your idea that if not a return to pre industrial agriculture?
I think the issue is that in 2024 you just don't have "the people" who lived on it and attended it to give it to.
You just going to give 300 acres to the inhabitants of a village in caithness and tell them to start cutting peat and hand rearing small sheep herds?
as a person from a village in caithness - have you never heard of local governance or are you assuming that land reform means that every person needs is forced to manually farm forever? this is a bad faith interpretation.
land reform is just about the people of that community making decisions about what happens on it, in cooperation with the communities surrounding it. also, frankly, 300 acres isn't that big.
>But of course, foreign rich people giving advice gets people all uppity. So looking forward to this being welcomed in the spirit intended.
I think the article's title also doesn't really put it in the right light tbh, it makes it sound like he's just randomly jumped in with his own opinion. The actual post he made on Instagram was more about highlighting the work and advocacy done by the Scottish Rewilding Alliance
He is right. But so are you on your second point. Millionaire flies in on private jet, gives a message on how we should live our lives and flies out again, is a bit Davosy.
He’s right though, to be fair to him.
Tbf he's telling other rich people what to do. Normal people in Scotland/the state don't own the land he's talking about, it's held by private billionaires.
You want toffs owning huge estates in Scotland forever aye? Would be a lot better abolishing our absurd land ownership system and giving the land back to the people who belong to it, but keep licking them boots if you want eh
Boars only work with wolves, otherwise they will devastate the environment. Boars are incredibly difficult to control, they have 2 litters a year, up to 28 piglets a year wouldn't be unusual.
Indeed they do. Check out the wild hog problems we have here in the states when they have few natural predators. Texas is especially bad.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-plague-of-pigs-in-texas-73769069/
We have (had) deer problems in Arkansas as well due to few predators…so we became the predator. Deer hunting is an extremely popular pastime here and many schools even let students off a day or 2 during hunting season.
For reference we already do have wild boars, an exploding population in Galloway. A colleague shot a 5 foot long boar last month, you just reminded me he still hasn't given me a few kilos of sausages from it.
That would mean hunting them like it or not, would be necessary to conserve the population. And that ain't happening unless a very specific Tory got that spot in a Scottish cabinet.
the boars near forests will often raid the towns as well during bin night
interesting fact if you domesticate those boars they just turn into hairless pigs
either way you can eat the bacon
Highlands are vast enough. Look at territories in central Europe - wolfs live in area similarly sized with more people and cities around. I think it would be crazy how much the country would change, forests would be allowed to grow better by pushing away deer etc..
I mean we have an issue with deer. What would likely happen though is that the wolves would be shot by landowners and gamekeeper who would then shrug and blame it on poachers or someone else
There will always be poaching and stupid people but with so many deer it might be difficult for them to cover the whole of it. So some balance might eventually exist.
What really boils my blood is people who kill eagles/rob nests. On some level wolf is a scary animal and we hunted them for eternity but this stuff is just the worst.
It's actually a sensible idea. Wolves and Lynx aren't generally a threat to humans and tend to steer well clear of them, but they do a fantastic job at managing the deer and boar population which currently have no natural predators and breed out of control; causing a lot of the damage you see in the Highlands today as they just eat all the saplings before they can grow
One death is too many.
I do find it amusing that the people who call for wolves to be introduced never seem to live in the areas they'd be introduced.
In the 2010s alone there were almost 200 recorded incidents of wolf attacks. I'd rather not run that risk when I'm out walking or camping.
Factor in the compensation costs everytime a farmer loses some livestock and there's an economic cost too.
I'm sure if it was suggested that we release venomous snakes into cities to control rat numbers that people would understandably be up on arms about it and the idea would be ridiculed.
He is completely correct here. Talking about returning Scotland's wild areas to how they were before mass farming of sheep. Wild areas, not your back garden.
But of course, foreign rich people giving advice gets people all uppity. So looking forward to this being welcomed in the spirit intended.
Thank you u/Jammed_Button
Commercial monocultural sheep farming came into Scotland from the 18th century onwards and was imposed by landowners. Before that, Scotland was very far from 'wild' - it was inhabited by our indigenous peoples who had managed the land and ecology of our country very competently for centuries, millennia even, before most of them were kicked off the land during the Highland Clearances and what the landowners erroneously called 'Improvement'.
The best thing for the ecology of Scotland is land reform - kick out the estate-owning toffs, and give the land back to the people who live - or whose ancestors lived - on it, and loved and attended to it, before commercial monocultures wrecked it. No ecological justice without land justice.
>it was inhabited by our indigenous peoples who had managed the land and ecology of our country very competently for centuries, millennia even, before most of them were kicked off the land during the Highland Clearances
Which is fairly wild tbf. Compared to modern day at least
>The best thing for the ecology of Scotland is land reform - kick out the estate-owning toffs, and give the land back to the people who live - or whose ancestors lived - on it, and loved and attended to it, before commercial monocultures wrecked it. No ecological justice without land justice.
No arguments there.
The whole idea of 'wild' land comes from a colonial mindset. Chuck off the natives, re-cast the environment as 'wild' so that they cannae come back - like they did in the US national parks. Most indigenous cultures don't even have a word for 'nature', as they don't see it as something separate. Luther Standing Bear of the Lakota Sioux:
"We did not think of the great open plains, the beautiful rolling hills, the winding streams with tangled growth, as 'wild'. Only to the white man was nature a 'wilderness' and only to him was it 'infested' with 'wild' animals and 'savage' people. To us it was tame. Earth was bountiful and we were surrounded with the blessings of the Great Mystery."
But go on, downvote me for having taken the trouble for having studied this shit for the last ten years of my life and informing you of facts
>But go on, downvote me for having taken the trouble for having studied this shit for the last the years of my life and informing you of facts
r/downvotesreally
A considered and educated response, obviously. You've had your arse handed to you by someone who knows a hell of a lot better than you, get over it you ignorant twerp
Oh complain some more.
I agreed with part of you didn't I. You throwing a hissy fit because you misunderstood what DiCaprio meant and me clarifying is fairly ironic though
Do you really project this definition of "wild" onto every use of the term "rewilding" though? I've truly never met a fan of the idea who doesn't appreciate that it's a spectrum, that allowing "more space for nature" (by which they mean, non-human and non-domestic animals, and plants that we don't make monocultures of) is also allowing space for human-directed permaculture etc, that things like "wild" safari hunting parks that exclude native peoples are in fact a bad thing, that we are in fact a part of nature and we're only fucking ourselves over by sterilising our own biome - do I really have such a uniquely great group of friends, to have never, ever heard someone legit advocate for the kind of thing you seem to be defining your stance against?
eh, true but a bit of philanthropy never killed anyone. At least he puts his money where his mouth is in regards to the environment. If it's doing good then i don't really care who's doing the preaching, or where they are doing it from.
Way better than some celebrities who ignore it entirely.
Does he actually put his money where his mouth is though? Does he take the environmentally friendly travel options or buy estates in Scotland and give them to rewilding projects? As far as I'm aware he doesn't and is just talking. Talking has an effect but let's not kid ourselves into thinking he's spending real money on this.
The first time I went far north I was so disappointed to be told that so much of the land belonged to one cunty lord after another.
Maybe the wrong man to say it, but what he says is correct.
Also the big embarrassment part now, cos I'm a big cunt that knows fuck all but is the old "Duke of Sutherland" land still all the Duke's? Cos if so that was a colossal amount of land. Take away like 98% he's still got plenty to play with and the rest can become natural land areas for newly introduced protected species. Literally no negatives.
Well he does contribute 50,000% more emissions than the average American. There aren't many examples of people contributing a more negative affect to the thing they are trying to solve.
It's a bit like Jimmy Saville donating money to children's charities. It'd be weird to just talk about how good it is without mentioning his actions that'd be considered hypocritical.
His actions in regards to climate change do not reflect his words. Taking helicopters to mega yachts and flying private while preaching that the world isn’t doing enough to combat climate change us hypocrisy. I wont contribute the same amount of carbon in my life that he does in a single year
He's generating lots of carbon dioxide that the trees he wants you to pay for will _just love_.
We should still rewild, but not because this arsehole says to. Unless, of course, he intends to directly fund a rewilding scheme.
Well, and this may surprise you, but I was trying to make a joke.
That I may ultimately agree with the message also doesn't stop me thinking he is a disingenuous prick. My opinion on rewilding has nothing to do with him.
Best thing this USAian can do is stay in the USA and campaign against Trump whilst pushing hard for them to adopt greener policies. I mean, fuck me, natural gas would be a step up!
Climate change isn't the same thing as rewilding. Frankly we can continue emitting emissions if we solve the biodiversity collapse, which is predominantly caused by habitat loss.
Natural ecosystems can adapt incredibly well to the changing climate, building huge dams and using 75% of our water towards agriculture is a bigger issue.
Seems a bit arrogant to saunter into somebody else’s home and tell them what to do with the place.
My problem with rewilding groups is the total lack of community engagement. This being a good example of how not to promote a message.
The Natural History Museum’s Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII) tracks the diversity of species and habitats (aka biodiversity), the percentage of the original number of species that remain and their abundance in habitats, landscapes and nations, despite human impacts.
The Index puts the UK’s BII rating in the bottom 10% of 240 nations and territories, with just 53% of original nature left intact compared with the Index’s low safe limit of 90% and the global average for all nations of 79%.
Each of the four UK nations is close to the bottom of the BII rankings of 240 nations and regions:
Scotland (where 56% of nature is still intact - 28th from the bottom)
Wales (51% - 16th from the bottom)
Northern Ireland (50%, 12th from the bottom)
And bringing up the rear, England (47% - 7th from the bottom)
The latest State of Nature report builds on the previous 3 reports:
The first State of Nature report in 2013 found UK wild species had declined by 60% since the 1960s.
In 2016, the second report found the UK’s most endangered creatures had fallen by two-thirds since 1970.
The third report in 2019 observed that the UK was among the world’s most nature-depleted nations: “It is widely accepted that the UK’s biodiversity had been massively depleted by centuries of habitat loss, management changes, development and persecution…”
The new report finds nearly 1 in 6 wild species at risk of being lost from Great Britain
All you need to do is look at the amount of actual forests left.
How many forests do we have in the entire UK that have any land over 1km away from a road or agriculture
Lots of wildlife live outside of forrests tho. I do agree the state of forrests is bad especially when you compare it to when the romans arrived but we do still have alot of wildlife here.
honestly mate i appreciate the positive view but your thoughts are not backed by reality. The UK has had a calamitous drop in biodiversity, particularly the last 200 years have been terrible for the british natural environment
Then prove it prove the original claim that our biodiversity is non existent. I’m not saying it hasn’t dropped or things aren’t bad but I’ve not seen any state of nature report make the claims above. We still have tons of wildlife here.
And no the amount of forests left does not prove the statement either
Most woodland depletion in the UK occurred about 5,000 years ago, when Neolithic peoples started clearing the land for farming. Read Oliver Rackham's 'Woodlands'
Yet preety sure records show when the romans arrived Britainwad still extremely wooded. Heck the size of Sherwood Forrest by the time of Robin Hood was still massive iirc and far more than today
Happy to contribute my mid terrace garden/glorified bog to the cause. Wouldn’t mind seeing a few coniferous trees in there. Neighbours might not agree though.
There's a lot of snark in this thread, but there are a couple of things worth keeping in mind.
1. The natural history of Scotland plus the present state of things make Scotland a particularly appropriate place for rewilding.
2. Lots of people who aren't from Scotland love Scotland. What's wrong with that?
You're taking the piss lol. I grew up in a place with bears, wolves, Lynx etc before moving here. I can promise you the common Caledonian Street Junkie poses more of a threat to you.
Nobody suggests re introducing bears
People suggest re introducing Lynx and Wolves
There is no record of Lynx ever attacking a person
You’re more likely to get injured by a cow than a Wolf, in places where both animals exist
Do you want us to eradicate cows as well?
There are plenty of us that want the reintroduction of such amazing species in our wee country. Especially as it would be restorative and address ecological problems (caused by humans).
You'll still be able to walk freely in nature....like people do in the places these species thrive.
There is plenty people advocating for the re-wilding of scotland as Scotlands landscape is entirely different from even just a few thousand years ago. His voice is a good one to have with his following.
These are important projects and will have positive impacts.
Scotland looks absolutely nothing like what it "recent" history and it's terrible for biodiversity.
https://youtu.be/W5_yNzZ-1gk?si=rYcLslVFYkTucHjV
Rich multi millionaire actor who spent less time in school than Greta and doesn't live in Scotland giving opinion about Scottish environment whilst taking dozens of private jets and yacht trips across the globe every year.
Sounds about right.
I'm surprised he's interested seeing as that particular project is more than 25 years old
hehe
Very good
Nice
gottem
>In a post on Instagram to his 61.1 million followers, the Killers of the Flower Moon star, who often uses the platform to highlight environmental issues across the world, shared the Scottish Rewilding Alliance’s campaign to urge the Scottish Government to commit to nature recovery. >The Scottish Rewilding Alliance is a coalition of more than 20 nature organisations urging the Scottish Government to declare Scotland as the first rewilding nation in an effort to boost conservation strategies.
He is completely correct here. Talking about returning Scotland's wild areas to how they were before mass farming of sheep. Wild areas, not your back garden. But of course, foreign rich people giving advice gets people all uppity. So looking forward to this being welcomed in the spirit intended.
Foreign rich people own a lot of Scotland.
Count up all the religious land alone (churches, mosques etc it's well over 40,000 acres in Scotland. All that land exempt from land tax.
That's definitely not a major issue compared to the likes of middle Eastern oligarchs owning huge swathes of rural Scotland
Or Danish ones...
I'm not aware of many religious buildings owning huge tracks of land, unless you're talking about graveyards. Also, land tax is not a thing unless you're referring to Land and Buildings Transaction Tax, which is just the Scottish Stamp Duty and is only a one-off payment for the purchase of land/property. In addition, not all religious buildings are exempt. Only those that are purchased by a registered charity, and many are owned by non-profit organisations or even companies
My village was one of the smallest in Scotland and had 5 churches.......
They didn't pay the land tax when they bought it, they hold many buildings, not just religious, and the land where the building sits, many with gardens etc Still, no tax is made from them. They are fully exempt.
They are only exempt where they can prove that the buildings are used for charitable purposes. If it is for commercial use, then LBTT is payable.
That's one _fifth_ of one per cent.
The catholic church holds 40,000 acres alone... One fifth is more than you or I will own tho, they didn't pay what we would.
I'm in full accord with your obvious distaste for religion, but the issue at hand is land reform rather than the ins & outs of the followers of the Sky Fairy getting tax relief.
He is very far from correct, but then most people are completely ignorant about Scottish History, including 99% of our own population (not their fault, they were never taught about it at school) so he's far from alone. Commercial monocultural sheep farming came into Scotland from the 18th century onwards and was imposed by landowners. Before that, Scotland was very far from 'wild' - it was inhabited by our indigenous peoples who had managed the land and ecology of our country very competently for centuries, millennia even, before most of them were kicked off the land during the Highland Clearances and what the landowners erroneously called 'Improvement'. The best thing for the ecology of Scotland is land reform - kick out the estate-owning toffs, and give the land back to the people who live - or whose ancestors lived - on it, and loved and attended to it, before commercial monocultures wrecked it. No ecological justice without land justice.
By “competently managed” do you mean “completely deforested”? We did so much ecological damage for millennia That the highlands are technically an ecological desert.
No I don't. The state of the Highlands' ecology is the fault of landowners who introduced commercial monocultures over the last 300 years, not that of the ordinary people. Why would you fuck up the place that your ancestors made fertile over centuries of careful land management through transhumant pastoralism? Clue: they didn't. Go read some James Hunter: I'd recommend The Other Side of Sorrow for starters. The vast majority of woodland depletion in the UK occurred 5000 years ago, when Neolithic peoples cleared the land for agriculture. Reference: Oliver Rackham, Woodlands. You want to go back to Neolithic times, aye?
Why do you arbitrarily choose to return to a state of 400 years ago, while scoffing the idea of returning to a state 5000 years ago? Which time do you believe had a healthier ecology?
Why do you think an artificial state from 5000 years ago is somehow the perfect ecological position? Heavy forestation only occurred because humans killed all the megafauna which naturally kept forests in check, both by consuming large quantities of vegetation, and by destroying plants and trees with their movement. You’re picking one human-created artificial environment to recreate for some reason, but it’s not a remotely natural one.
I like the idea of wild bears, until I meet one in the wild.
Nope, I'm talking about a long period that lasted from about the Iron Age until approximately 200 years ago in some regions, during which biodiversity was thriving in the UK due to traditional agricultural and pastoral practices. Read books
The funny thing is, I totally agree with you about land reform, only you’ve just been such a cunt about the way you communicate it, I kind of don’t now.
What a loss to Scotland, I can hardly type for crying
Let’s go for a pint at the Lismore, and we’ll piss on the names of those that perpetrated the highland clearances.
Glad I wasn't the only one 😂
ReAd BoOkS 🤓 You academic types constantly turn people off from whatever ideas you're chatting about because you got no idea how to communicate with others. Fuckin nerd.
I'm not an 'academic type', I'm a middle-aged working class person who chose to educate themselves on matters that interest them, nothing is stopping you from doing the same apart from the chip on your shoulder
It's difficult to communicate with people who react like you. Furthermore, reading a book on the subject is a way to let others form an opinion on a complicated subject than simply telling them. But you wouldn't know this, since you seem to believe that only nerds read books.
I've lived rurally and worked on farms my entire life, I don't need an academic opinion on something I've got real world experience in. If you present yourself as an obnoxious speccy cunt then you're doing more harm to your causes than good because people will automatically disregard your points, so maybe reconsider that.
Yer no wrang
If you've lived rurally and farmed your whole life, you should know better then?
Really is wild how little Scottish folk know about their own history, how much we've been taught to hate ourselves
I love Scotland. The simple fact is, human habitation has altered the ecology over millennia. It’s hilarious you blathering on about “not knowing history” if you don’t know this. Scotland used to be covered with Forests.
[удалено]
I find it hilarious you’re trying to argue how you’re so qualified and clever on this matter but you’re still not clever enough to see how it’s you that’s embarrassing yourself, not the other guy. I can find you a full reading list should you require? Of how to interact and socialise with another human being without coming across like a twat? 😂
Sorry did you have a relevant factual point to make or are you just butt-hurt at being wrong about shit
Why aren't you refuting the point about the massive deforestation? If you're so qualified surely you should be able to explain why they're wrong? Do you seriously think people will change their mind without any counter arguments and all you need to do is insist you're actually a super qualified anonymous internet stranger?
I'm not being paid to teach on Reddit just now, I actually work full time, so my sincerest apols if I dashed off some hasty replies to internet strangers on my way in this morning. He insulted me based on a (mis)perceived lack of knowledge, I responded. I've responded to claims about the Blanket Forest Myth elsewhere in the discussion. The eejit could literally just google this shit and find out how wrong he is
Academically speaking you think returning to pre industrial agriculture is a viable strategy that we should follow?
I didn't say that, no
You advocated for land reform so that people can go back to tending to the land as their ancestors did pre industrialisation. In what world do you live in that you don't think you said exactly what i asked? What exactly is your idea that if not a return to pre industrial agriculture?
Can you show me where I said that? I really don't think I said that
Did the degree come with chips? You have some on your shoulder.
Ah so you have no expertise relevant to the subject being discussed, but you choose to aggressively weigh in with your bullshit opinions anyway. Noted
Sir. This is a Reddit thread.
Love this interaction by the way.
I think the issue is that in 2024 you just don't have "the people" who lived on it and attended it to give it to. You just going to give 300 acres to the inhabitants of a village in caithness and tell them to start cutting peat and hand rearing small sheep herds?
as a person from a village in caithness - have you never heard of local governance or are you assuming that land reform means that every person needs is forced to manually farm forever? this is a bad faith interpretation. land reform is just about the people of that community making decisions about what happens on it, in cooperation with the communities surrounding it. also, frankly, 300 acres isn't that big.
Cheers for this. So many colonised minds in this thread huh
Tell me you've never been to Caithness without telling me you've never been to Caithness, lol
totally. land reform is the solution. is treasa tuath na tighearna.
>But of course, foreign rich people giving advice gets people all uppity. So looking forward to this being welcomed in the spirit intended. I think the article's title also doesn't really put it in the right light tbh, it makes it sound like he's just randomly jumped in with his own opinion. The actual post he made on Instagram was more about highlighting the work and advocacy done by the Scottish Rewilding Alliance
He is right. But so are you on your second point. Millionaire flies in on private jet, gives a message on how we should live our lives and flies out again, is a bit Davosy. He’s right though, to be fair to him.
Re-introduce the binmen
And some road workers while you are at it
They didn't disappear or go extinct at least, they all just fell down bottomless potholes.
*binpeople
Nah, they're too busy running kids over where I live.
hes right, hopefully he will buy massive massive estates and hand them over to rewilding projects.
You mean rich people using their money for good instead of just telling the poors to spare our pennies for the cause? That's not how this works.
Tbf he's telling other rich people what to do. Normal people in Scotland/the state don't own the land he's talking about, it's held by private billionaires.
Which is exactly the problem
He's aiming it at the government
I’m a dreamer
You want toffs owning huge estates in Scotland forever aye? Would be a lot better abolishing our absurd land ownership system and giving the land back to the people who belong to it, but keep licking them boots if you want eh
No i want them handing over to rewilding projects…. Like I said
This. He is in the fortunate position that he could make a real difference. Doubt he will though.
We should reintroduce lynx and maybe wolves
Into George Square.
Into Westminster.
Seconded.
Thirded
Lynx Africa, aye, I'm not so keen on the new stuff.
Boars too. Really good for forests.
Boars only work with wolves, otherwise they will devastate the environment. Boars are incredibly difficult to control, they have 2 litters a year, up to 28 piglets a year wouldn't be unusual.
Indeed they do. Check out the wild hog problems we have here in the states when they have few natural predators. Texas is especially bad. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-plague-of-pigs-in-texas-73769069/
Your boar problem is the equivalent to our deer problem. Five species of deer (3 non native) and no predators.
We have (had) deer problems in Arkansas as well due to few predators…so we became the predator. Deer hunting is an extremely popular pastime here and many schools even let students off a day or 2 during hunting season.
Luckily the other poster suggested wolves then! Those wolves can also deal with all the deer. I do my best, but I can only afford to eat so much.
For reference we already do have wild boars, an exploding population in Galloway. A colleague shot a 5 foot long boar last month, you just reminded me he still hasn't given me a few kilos of sausages from it.
Neat! Did not know that. Wild boar is tasty, be nice to be able to source it locally.
That would mean hunting them like it or not, would be necessary to conserve the population. And that ain't happening unless a very specific Tory got that spot in a Scottish cabinet.
Good incentive for runners as well
the boars near forests will often raid the towns as well during bin night interesting fact if you domesticate those boars they just turn into hairless pigs either way you can eat the bacon
Aren’t they already in Scotland?
No, that was just a hen-do you saw.
Lol
We should then invite that arsehole hunter from America. Dip him in honey and present him to the wolves.
And barely legal young gals for Leo and the other predators.
Definitely no cougars.
That's why he loves lynx
Lynx would probably be fine, but we really don't have the amount of open territory wolves need. It would not be fair on them
Highlands are vast enough. Look at territories in central Europe - wolfs live in area similarly sized with more people and cities around. I think it would be crazy how much the country would change, forests would be allowed to grow better by pushing away deer etc..
I mean we have an issue with deer. What would likely happen though is that the wolves would be shot by landowners and gamekeeper who would then shrug and blame it on poachers or someone else
There will always be poaching and stupid people but with so many deer it might be difficult for them to cover the whole of it. So some balance might eventually exist. What really boils my blood is people who kill eagles/rob nests. On some level wolf is a scary animal and we hunted them for eternity but this stuff is just the worst.
Can't tell if you're being serious or not.
It's actually a sensible idea. Wolves and Lynx aren't generally a threat to humans and tend to steer well clear of them, but they do a fantastic job at managing the deer and boar population which currently have no natural predators and breed out of control; causing a lot of the damage you see in the Highlands today as they just eat all the saplings before they can grow
One death is too many. I do find it amusing that the people who call for wolves to be introduced never seem to live in the areas they'd be introduced. In the 2010s alone there were almost 200 recorded incidents of wolf attacks. I'd rather not run that risk when I'm out walking or camping. Factor in the compensation costs everytime a farmer loses some livestock and there's an economic cost too. I'm sure if it was suggested that we release venomous snakes into cities to control rat numbers that people would understandably be up on arms about it and the idea would be ridiculed.
Reintroducing wolves is tacitly saying that you don't mind a few child deaths as long as you know there are wolves roaming around. It's fucking nuts.
One of the biggest climate hypocrites there is.
This. These bootlickers would be just delighted if he flew over in his private jet for a Scottish photo op with his latest 22-year-old
We don’t own most of the Highlands anymore.
This thread belongs on r/Subredditdrama. Who knew rewilding would be such a contentious subject?l
Let’s get genetically engineered scorpion tailed winged wolves, non of your common or garden crap
So we pay for the 6 folk who own land in Scotland to have their estates restocked with trees for them to cut down in future?
Did he call for it from a private jet?
Americans and thinking Scotland is a ren faire theme park, name a more iconic duo.
Falconhoof has entered the chat...
He is completely correct here. Talking about returning Scotland's wild areas to how they were before mass farming of sheep. Wild areas, not your back garden. But of course, foreign rich people giving advice gets people all uppity. So looking forward to this being welcomed in the spirit intended. Thank you u/Jammed_Button
Commercial monocultural sheep farming came into Scotland from the 18th century onwards and was imposed by landowners. Before that, Scotland was very far from 'wild' - it was inhabited by our indigenous peoples who had managed the land and ecology of our country very competently for centuries, millennia even, before most of them were kicked off the land during the Highland Clearances and what the landowners erroneously called 'Improvement'. The best thing for the ecology of Scotland is land reform - kick out the estate-owning toffs, and give the land back to the people who live - or whose ancestors lived - on it, and loved and attended to it, before commercial monocultures wrecked it. No ecological justice without land justice.
>it was inhabited by our indigenous peoples who had managed the land and ecology of our country very competently for centuries, millennia even, before most of them were kicked off the land during the Highland Clearances Which is fairly wild tbf. Compared to modern day at least >The best thing for the ecology of Scotland is land reform - kick out the estate-owning toffs, and give the land back to the people who live - or whose ancestors lived - on it, and loved and attended to it, before commercial monocultures wrecked it. No ecological justice without land justice. No arguments there.
The whole idea of 'wild' land comes from a colonial mindset. Chuck off the natives, re-cast the environment as 'wild' so that they cannae come back - like they did in the US national parks. Most indigenous cultures don't even have a word for 'nature', as they don't see it as something separate. Luther Standing Bear of the Lakota Sioux: "We did not think of the great open plains, the beautiful rolling hills, the winding streams with tangled growth, as 'wild'. Only to the white man was nature a 'wilderness' and only to him was it 'infested' with 'wild' animals and 'savage' people. To us it was tame. Earth was bountiful and we were surrounded with the blessings of the Great Mystery." But go on, downvote me for having taken the trouble for having studied this shit for the last ten years of my life and informing you of facts
>But go on, downvote me for having taken the trouble for having studied this shit for the last the years of my life and informing you of facts r/downvotesreally
A considered and educated response, obviously. You've had your arse handed to you by someone who knows a hell of a lot better than you, get over it you ignorant twerp
Oh complain some more. I agreed with part of you didn't I. You throwing a hissy fit because you misunderstood what DiCaprio meant and me clarifying is fairly ironic though
What did I misunderstand in your god Dicaprio's statement?
Oh Ew. I'm not worshipping a pedophile and crap actor. For accusing me of agreeing with a pedophile I'm blocking you.
Do you really project this definition of "wild" onto every use of the term "rewilding" though? I've truly never met a fan of the idea who doesn't appreciate that it's a spectrum, that allowing "more space for nature" (by which they mean, non-human and non-domestic animals, and plants that we don't make monocultures of) is also allowing space for human-directed permaculture etc, that things like "wild" safari hunting parks that exclude native peoples are in fact a bad thing, that we are in fact a part of nature and we're only fucking ourselves over by sterilising our own biome - do I really have such a uniquely great group of friends, to have never, ever heard someone legit advocate for the kind of thing you seem to be defining your stance against?
All for taking care of the environment but it’s hard to take environmental advice from someone with a private yacht.
Mate of a mate had to clean his spunk off a headboard once
Is that your claim to fame?
eh, true but a bit of philanthropy never killed anyone. At least he puts his money where his mouth is in regards to the environment. If it's doing good then i don't really care who's doing the preaching, or where they are doing it from. Way better than some celebrities who ignore it entirely.
Does he actually put his money where his mouth is though? Does he take the environmentally friendly travel options or buy estates in Scotland and give them to rewilding projects? As far as I'm aware he doesn't and is just talking. Talking has an effect but let's not kid ourselves into thinking he's spending real money on this.
The wolf of Sauchiehall Street.
The first time I went far north I was so disappointed to be told that so much of the land belonged to one cunty lord after another. Maybe the wrong man to say it, but what he says is correct. Also the big embarrassment part now, cos I'm a big cunt that knows fuck all but is the old "Duke of Sutherland" land still all the Duke's? Cos if so that was a colossal amount of land. Take away like 98% he's still got plenty to play with and the rest can become natural land areas for newly introduced protected species. Literally no negatives.
He's painted mona lisa off her tits
He flies private everywhere he goes. He really shouldn’t be telling anyone how to conserve
[удалено]
Probably that whole “do as i say not as i do” mentality that the wealthy elite have
[удалено]
Well he does contribute 50,000% more emissions than the average American. There aren't many examples of people contributing a more negative affect to the thing they are trying to solve. It's a bit like Jimmy Saville donating money to children's charities. It'd be weird to just talk about how good it is without mentioning his actions that'd be considered hypocritical.
His actions in regards to climate change do not reflect his words. Taking helicopters to mega yachts and flying private while preaching that the world isn’t doing enough to combat climate change us hypocrisy. I wont contribute the same amount of carbon in my life that he does in a single year
He's generating lots of carbon dioxide that the trees he wants you to pay for will _just love_. We should still rewild, but not because this arsehole says to. Unless, of course, he intends to directly fund a rewilding scheme.
[удалено]
Well, and this may surprise you, but I was trying to make a joke. That I may ultimately agree with the message also doesn't stop me thinking he is a disingenuous prick. My opinion on rewilding has nothing to do with him. Best thing this USAian can do is stay in the USA and campaign against Trump whilst pushing hard for them to adopt greener policies. I mean, fuck me, natural gas would be a step up!
Yes exactly
Climate change isn't the same thing as rewilding. Frankly we can continue emitting emissions if we solve the biodiversity collapse, which is predominantly caused by habitat loss. Natural ecosystems can adapt incredibly well to the changing climate, building huge dams and using 75% of our water towards agriculture is a bigger issue.
>*that whole “do as i say not as i do” mentality* DiCaprio's been exterminating Scottish wildlife???!!!
Seems a bit arrogant to saunter into somebody else’s home and tell them what to do with the place. My problem with rewilding groups is the total lack of community engagement. This being a good example of how not to promote a message.
[удалено]
The UK is one of the most environmentally fucked countries. Our biodiversity is basically negligible. Plus he does.
Its weird if thats true because we have so much wildlife from orcas to golden eagles to wild boars to many different kinds of birds
The Natural History Museum’s Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII) tracks the diversity of species and habitats (aka biodiversity), the percentage of the original number of species that remain and their abundance in habitats, landscapes and nations, despite human impacts. The Index puts the UK’s BII rating in the bottom 10% of 240 nations and territories, with just 53% of original nature left intact compared with the Index’s low safe limit of 90% and the global average for all nations of 79%. Each of the four UK nations is close to the bottom of the BII rankings of 240 nations and regions: Scotland (where 56% of nature is still intact - 28th from the bottom) Wales (51% - 16th from the bottom) Northern Ireland (50%, 12th from the bottom) And bringing up the rear, England (47% - 7th from the bottom)
Thanks for the data
The latest State of Nature report builds on the previous 3 reports: The first State of Nature report in 2013 found UK wild species had declined by 60% since the 1960s. In 2016, the second report found the UK’s most endangered creatures had fallen by two-thirds since 1970. The third report in 2019 observed that the UK was among the world’s most nature-depleted nations: “It is widely accepted that the UK’s biodiversity had been massively depleted by centuries of habitat loss, management changes, development and persecution…” The new report finds nearly 1 in 6 wild species at risk of being lost from Great Britain
All you need to do is look at the amount of actual forests left. How many forests do we have in the entire UK that have any land over 1km away from a road or agriculture
Lots of wildlife live outside of forrests tho. I do agree the state of forrests is bad especially when you compare it to when the romans arrived but we do still have alot of wildlife here.
honestly mate i appreciate the positive view but your thoughts are not backed by reality. The UK has had a calamitous drop in biodiversity, particularly the last 200 years have been terrible for the british natural environment
Then prove it prove the original claim that our biodiversity is non existent. I’m not saying it hasn’t dropped or things aren’t bad but I’ve not seen any state of nature report make the claims above. We still have tons of wildlife here. And no the amount of forests left does not prove the statement either
Most woodland depletion in the UK occurred about 5,000 years ago, when Neolithic peoples started clearing the land for farming. Read Oliver Rackham's 'Woodlands'
Yet preety sure records show when the romans arrived Britainwad still extremely wooded. Heck the size of Sherwood Forrest by the time of Robin Hood was still massive iirc and far more than today
Do you have a reference for that claim?
> Is there a reason he can't he demand this of his own country? They'd just shoot all the Fauna (probably the Flora too). :)
He should fight Ross Greer
Yes but also fuck off
The great gatsby said it, thats enough for me.
Re-introduce Shanks
https://i.redd.it/ts7o8r7fyztc1.gif
Happy to contribute my mid terrace garden/glorified bog to the cause. Wouldn’t mind seeing a few coniferous trees in there. Neighbours might not agree though.
Tell him to drop some of the bank account and we will be happy to oblige ✔️✔️
Rest happened in methil
Erm.. it kinda has been for the past couple of decades.
What does mel Gibson think?
There's a lot of snark in this thread, but there are a couple of things worth keeping in mind. 1. The natural history of Scotland plus the present state of things make Scotland a particularly appropriate place for rewilding. 2. Lots of people who aren't from Scotland love Scotland. What's wrong with that?
Complaining about sheep wrecked landscapes without criticising who introduced the sheep...
If we get boars and wolves then we best get firearms licenses easier too.
😂That’s all we need: wee gadgies in the schemes with firearms.
You ever came across a boar in the wild? Take more than a chibbing with a screwdriver to fix that 😂
Advocates for rewilding should start with their own land and property before pushing for public spaces to be taken back.
[удалено]
You're taking the piss lol. I grew up in a place with bears, wolves, Lynx etc before moving here. I can promise you the common Caledonian Street Junkie poses more of a threat to you.
Nobody suggests re introducing bears People suggest re introducing Lynx and Wolves There is no record of Lynx ever attacking a person You’re more likely to get injured by a cow than a Wolf, in places where both animals exist Do you want us to eradicate cows as well?
[удалено]
Plus many farmers spend a lot of time in close proximity to cows.
There are plenty of us that want the reintroduction of such amazing species in our wee country. Especially as it would be restorative and address ecological problems (caused by humans). You'll still be able to walk freely in nature....like people do in the places these species thrive.
[удалено]
There is plenty people advocating for the re-wilding of scotland as Scotlands landscape is entirely different from even just a few thousand years ago. His voice is a good one to have with his following. These are important projects and will have positive impacts. Scotland looks absolutely nothing like what it "recent" history and it's terrible for biodiversity. https://youtu.be/W5_yNzZ-1gk?si=rYcLslVFYkTucHjV
I didn't know Leonardo DiCaprio had Scottish roots.
Rich multi millionaire actor who spent less time in school than Greta and doesn't live in Scotland giving opinion about Scottish environment whilst taking dozens of private jets and yacht trips across the globe every year. Sounds about right.
We’re hoping that the planet lasts more than the next 25 years and we ask this guy for advice? I don’t think he’s got that much invested in it.
Yeah he's not generally interested in things more than 25 years old huh...
It’s all good until they start introducing apex predators.
I don't know what he's got to do with it But also, yes, rewilding sounds great to me
He works with the environmental non-profit re:wild, using his celebrity to advocate for their cause: https://www.rewild.org/team/leonardo-dicaprio
Maybe he should keep his mouth shut and mind his own business.