this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2025
60 points (100.0% liked)
UK Nature and Environment
470 readers
77 users here now
General Instance Rules:
- No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
- No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
- No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
- Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
- Do not spam or abuse network features.
Community Specific Rules:
- Keep posts UK-specific. There are other places on Lemmy to post articles which relate to global environmental issues (e.g. slrpnk.net).
- Keep comments in English so that they can be appropriately moderated.
Note: Our temporary logo is from The Wildlife Trusts. We are not officially associated with them.
Our winter banner is a shot of Shotley marshes, Suffolk by GreyShuck.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes. You don't need many wolves to get going. And their territory is HUGE. Wolf packs have a smaller territory but wolves without a pack can have one that spans thousands of square kilometers. This means you can introduce 5 wolves over 500km and they'll find eachother and mate to a population of 167 in 10 years.
It being sustainable will mostly depend on their access to prey and area they can occupy.
You'd end up with a very inbred population though. Even starting with 167, wouldn't inbreeding be a risk? Animal biology is not my field, so I don't know how many individuals you need to sustain a genetically diverse population
Animal inbred risks are lower than humans. If you start with 5 and add a few wolves each 5-10 years, it should keep the genetics safe. Starting with 167 different ones would have a near zero percent risk of genetic problems.