Reintroduction–From the Outside

Reintroduction of an animal species is a subject that most people haven’t ever thought about.  Also, with so many people living in towns and cities, reintroduction of an animal species is something that won’t impact their lives.

Reintroduction isn’t something that would impact on me in any way, so with that said I can only put my point of view forward from the outside, neither being part of a reintroduction process nor someone who may be affected by it.

I’ve been aware of this subject for a few years.  The first instance I personally heard about was the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone Park.  This was brought about in 1995 and since then, the wolves are doing well.  The over population of elk is reduced but not overhunted, flora and fauna have flourished and the beaver population has increased.

The ecological balance has been redressed and the Park has benefited from it.  In addition, the grey wolf is now off the endangered list.

In relation to a non predatory species, beavers have been reintroduced into Scotland and last year the first wild beavers were born.  Salmon populations have not gone down as the opposition said it would, but then again, beavers don’t eat fish, they eat vegetation. 

Some reintroduction ideas will never work.  The idea of returning wolves to Scotland for example will never work.  For one, much of Great Britain is privately owned and so the land isn’t available and also, the country is too populated to consider reintroducing a predatory species.  But wild boar?  Why not.

I honestly believe that reintroducing animals species that have previously lived in the area is important, where feasible.   This can help in so many ways, from bringing animals from off the endangered list to bringing the ecological balance back into play.

After all, these creatures were here for a reason, and the only reason they disappeared was from hunting and eradication.  From us.  It is our responsibility to bring these animals back to where they should be again.

Delusional or Fame Hungry?

I, like thousands of others read the article Samantha Brick wrote in the Daily Mail yesterday Why women hate me for being beautiful.  The reactions to the article have been numerous and varied.

The majority of people seemed to have the same reaction of saying that she is not beautiful and that she is obviously deluded, vain and self obsessed.  I thought pretty much the same, and the article made me laugh at the fact that someone could rate themselves so highly, and be happy to publish it.

Today, after thousands of comments on the Daily Mail site and on Twitter she has written another article saying on the one hand, she is upset and disgusted at some of the comments received, but on the other, she doesn't regret it and she has been proved right.

Personally I have no problem with someone is extremely pretty or beautiful.  If you look like that, lucky you!  Samantha Brick however isn't beautiful.  She is nice looking but nothing over the top.  She said that if Angelina Jolie was quoted saying that she was beautiful, there would be a massive public backlash.  I don't think there would be, because after all, Angelina Jolie is beautiful.

I think it was last year that Katherine Jenkins said that her looks prevented her from being taken seriously. She said

“It’s hard being beautiful,” she says, “it can work against you. It creates a certain lack of credibility.”

There was no public backlash.  She is beautiful and I do expect that her looks may have worked against her in certain ways. 

I really don't know how to place Samantha Brick.  On the one hand, she does genuinely think that she is beautiful.  Her previous articles in the Mail are littered with photographs of her and are full of comments about her looks, weight, clothes etc.

If she is that naive then whatever anyone says to the contrary, she will continue to think that way.  It would be nice I suppose to be convinced that you were beautiful.  If that was the case, she would be a one article wonder, forgotten in a week.

I don't think she is a one article wonder however.  From that one article, she immediately had the "follow up" the next day, is now appearing on This Morning tomorrow and will no doubt have countless interviews, TV appearances and yes, more articles written about her.

I think what she actually is, is a woman who wanted publicity on a massive scale, to become an instant quote unquote "celebrity" and through this article she was able to get it.  On looking at her previous offerings, I think she was aiming for this when she wrote I use my sex appeal to get ahead at work. 

This woman has gone from a complete unknown to infamous in 24 hours.  I genuinely think that that is exactly what she wanted, and if she isn't on Celebrity Big Brother or I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here within a year, I'll eat my hat.

I Need a Favour

I am, I know, pretty opinionated on a lot of subjects.  But this subject, it's a passion, it's something I feel truly strong about.

So I'm asking a favour.  I realise that some reading this will dismiss what I say and do what they want, which they are entitled to do.  We all have free choice.

This is the favour I ask.  Please, please, please do not bet on the Grand National.  Ideally of course, I would be asking you not to bet on all horse races, but the Grand National is the pinnacle of horse racing in the UK so it's a good place to start.

This post should be read in conjunction with previous post Horses are not for Courses but here is the summary.

In the past five years, in excess of 150 horses per year have died as a result of horse racing in Great Britain.  At the time of writing my previous post on the 15th March, the total since the tally began 5 years ago was 804. It is now up to 809.  That's 5 horses in a week and a half.

I think that that figure would qualify horse racing as the most dangerous sport in the world.  For humans, no, but for horses, yet.

I imagine many people will watch the Grand National this year.  I'm sure many people saw the race last year, with the course diverted around the dead/dying horses which the BBC so coldly called "obstacles".

They aren't mechanical these horses.  They have feelings, they feel pain and they deserve to live.  Not to die as a result of a broken leg, a broken neck, at which point they become "commercially non-viable" and are destroyed. The results shown by Animal Aid are clear.  These races are clearly excessively dangerous.

Horses love to run.  They don't love to die.

So that's my favour.  Please don't make a bet.  In an ideal world I'd like to get #dontbet trending on Twitter.  That is far out of my reach.  But if you don't try to make a difference, nothing ever happens.  Please don't bet, please pass this post on.

Not betting on the Grand National won't save a horse's life on the day.  But like any big business, which horse racing is, if the money isn't coming in, things change.  Here is a link to a form letter drawn up by Animal Aid to use if you wish, asking that the Grand National be banned - Letter to MP