Sounds like an overpriced Zoo to me.

Says a lot about UK law if you can't house predator and prey together. We are treating animals to human ideals. Who cares?! Good on you Paul, I hope you get this project sealed, and better yet, I hope there are no fences to let these animals roam free. It should make for interesting walks through the Highlands. We are not the only species with a right to access this environment.

Good luck to Paul.About time some of these miserly,narrowminded people got their comeuppance.

Hello, I have just watch the program I think it is a fantastic idea. I am Scottish born and bred and this is one of the most inspirational stories I have heard in a very long time. I hope it is a success and that I will be able to come up and visit sometime in the future.

Shows how feeble minded the conservation agencies are

I have just watched the BBC 2 regarding Mr Paul Lister efforts in establishing wild life back into the scotish hills and it is a comforting thought to know that there are people out there trying to correct what man has almost destroyed. I have been close to wolves and bob cats to know that they are not threat to man if left to go about their daily routine. I would willingly pay to see wild animals roam free without having to travel half way round the world. Good luck Paul.

brillant idea - been to South Africa and understand what your trying to achieve in Scotland too - hope you can persuade other land owners to join you so you can take the fences down and make a much much larger wildlife reserve

great idea paul cant believe know one thought off it befor, iv always wanted to go to the canadian wilderness an see all the amazing wildlife now it could be on my door step. i dont understand what gives certin people the god dam right to be against the idea after all the wildlife was there a long time befor humans came a long so if any thing the land belongs to them. good luck paul iam backin you all the way.

At first glance it might seem like a Scottish Jurassic Park but think about it. This is not a zoo - the restored animals will be semi-wild in that they will be monitored and recieve treatment if injured. Yes their movements would be restricted but they would still have thousands of acres in which to move. But they will not be fed nor given shelter. Given time (and we're talking maybe decades here) the scheme could be widened. This is an ambitious attempt to restore large mammals back into a modern, developed first world country. If Scotland cannot achieve this - with all the money and expert advice available - then why should India protect its tigers? Or Africa its lions? What hope would there be for any large animal if it's existence supposedly threatens our own? I can see why there is so much opposition to the plan but I believe Lister is sincere in his efforts and should be supported. For animals to live natural lives they have to be protected from us. It would be a petty gesture to rubbish this scheme in the name of the right-to-roam.

The fence is unacceptable and would make a mockery of Scotland's access laws, one of the best pieces of legislation the Scottish government has passed and which many people fought for many years to achieve. Once one landowner succeeds in closing land to the public others will follow. It is not a petty gesture to oppose the scheme because of access restrictions it is a matter of principle. Lister's assumption that he can overturn the law is arrogant and offensive. I believe Lister is sincere and I am very much in favour of reintroducing wildlife and have been for many years. But not at the expense of access. The animals don't need protecting from us - the fence would be there to keep the animals in, to enable Lister to charge visitors (so the land becomes available to those with money but not to others - typical landowner elitism) and to assuage the concerns of neighbouring estates.

Those wishing him luck should understand that Lister is trying to destroy our access laws and remove the right of responsible access to the hills of Scotland. If you want any future for outdoor activities in Scotland, you should be ready to put up a stout defence. Lister thinks he is above the law, and is mounting a very powerful PR campaign. The furry animals are a tool to this aim.

How very convenient! We could rewild the moors and fells of England as well, populating them with a few toothy animals. We'd have to throw all the walkers out, but as Mister Lister said in the programme, why should people have access to everything? Far better to keep all these beautiful parts of our country in the hands of those (rich) people who know how to look after them. [smiley=shock]

Super, great idea. Wish Mr Lister lots of luck, many good, helpful friends and plenty of energy and persistence. I grew up with wild boars living in nearby fields and woods (Lueneburger Heide).When I was a 12 year old girl I roamed there often for miles and miles, never having nasty encounters, even with an adder. On camping holidays in Finnland (6 weeks in the wilderness) I saw beaver and heard many weard animal noises at night but was not a bit concerned. Only the bear would worry me. Fences: They make me fume when they obstruct my path unexpectedly. When I camped and cycle-rambled 6 weeks in Glen Affric I met serious, protective fencing. But I know their purpose and should have looked more closely at the map.

To continue: Fences around the estate could have stiles (even 3m could be bridged by telescopic or swing ladders or what have you). The Right To Roam must not be interfered with. If I stood before that fence, reading an obvious but landscape-friendly notice board "Access 300m to South", I wouldn't grumble. If on the "inside" I would then stumble across a campsite like many in Finnland with sleeping platforms, fire/cooking place, earth toilet, stacks of firewood and a nearby brook for water (bucket supplied), I would happily pay a few pounds. But, dear Mr Lister, don't price me off your hills. I will be watching this space in hope and keen anticipation. Best of luck.

A shame. Scotlands access laws are fantastci all Britons should fight to make sure that aren't undermined.

This is hardly an example of 'unbiased reporting' which one would assume a 'news' item of this nature would be. My understanding of proper 'news reporting' is that it informs, reports facts, and allows its readers to decide for themselves. This piece is so biased that it's laughable. You might be more believable if you were at least factually accurate. Quote "His plans have sparked alarm and outrage from farmers, walkers and mountaineers. Farmers fear his wild animals will escape to wreak havoc on their stock;" The public meeting in Ardgay village, hall which attracted record attendance by local people, saw very very few voices against the proposed development, and an overwhelming majority with an open mind, and a lot of people in favour of the plans outlined by Lister. Your comment 'alarm and outrage' sounds like sensationalist tabloid nonsense. You state that "A night at the Alladale Lodge costs £3,500 per night, for sole occupancy in the high season." Yes, correct. And you might point out that thats for 16 people, which is actually £219 per person, less in fact than many hotels in your city charge. Again, poor 'journalism' which makes me think you're really propagandists rather than reporting 'facts'. Cameron McNeish's appearance on the documentary did the walking lobby no favours with what was a pretty rabid and equally ill-informed rant. Yes the proposed plans Lister has outlined present difficulties, and it will require some major and pretty fundamental compromises to see much of it come to fruition. But is that such a bad thing? Yes we fought hard for the Land Reform legislation and the right of access, but there are many places in the world with wild life that is managed where people have rights of access and both can co-exist. Mr Townsend (whose considerable experience I respect) states "The fence is unacceptable and would make a mockery of Scotland's access laws, one of the best pieces of legislation the Scottish government has passed and which many people fought for many years to achieve." and I agree it is (one of) the best piece of legislation passed in Scotland, but I disagree that Lister's fences make a mockery of it. Rather I consider his plans present a challenge to a maturing nation that it should rise to, and endeavour to find a way to resolve. A final comment regarding your statement "to fence off.........to allow lynx, brown bears and wolves to roam, and feast on prey such as the elk." I find this notion less alarming and repugnant than the recent sight of a walker on Alladle eating a Pepperami sausage, containing pork 'meat' obtained by dubious process which entailed a fair measure of suffering to the animals concerned. No such sense of outrage about that though!

I fear Cameron McNeish's comments on the BBC documentary may have been quite heavily edited, as he seemed so heated and aggressive. What Scotland really needs is for estate owners (like Lister's neighbours) to abandon the outdated practice of trophy hunting, and give some thought to the habitat regeneration that must come before a genetically viable population of large mammals can return. Lister needs to have a 200 year plan, not a 10 year plan. Unfortunately, the human lifespan is a little restrictive when it comes to 'rewilding' schemes!

I'm sorry to say I missed the TV show but reading the comments at the top of this list I'm wondering whether Paul Lister's pals have been prompted to comment favourably on his behalf. Chris Townsend gets so much of this right. The re-introduction of a number of genuinely wild species would be tremendous but not at the cost of access. The two can go hand in hand - and Chris has hiked through unfenced wildernesses that are still home to such beautiful creatures, and lived to pass comments on Grough! If Paul Lister wants to release these animals he's going to have to go many steps further than simply fencing out people from his cabbage patch and depriving them of their right to roam there; he's going to have to work much harder at the detail, get the full co-operation of his neighbouring estates, SNH and the other government agencies, and have a proper re-introduction. No-one ever suggests building a huge fenced roof when sea eagles or red kites are released, then charging to see them; the principles here ought to have strong similarities. What worries me though is that the way things work in Scotland these days - if you own a castle and want to ban ramblers, win a couple of pitch and putt games and want to get married in your own private National Park, or simply want to desecrate some great coastal landscapes with a golf course and hotel complex - all you have to do is flash your wallet at Alex and the power that be, and you're in.

Mr Manning, with respect, if I suggested, in the spirit of your post, that all you enviroramblyjourno types had all got together over a glass of orange and decided to mount a concerted effort to slag off Mr Lister, you'd be outraged. But you seem to think it acceptable to adopt this approach when referring to any free-thinking individuals who might not share your particular view of this issue. The use of terms like 'cabbage patch', and the more emotive "feast" and " alarm and outrage", and "will escape to wreak havoc on their stock" at the top of the piece unfortunately undermines any weight these posts/comments might have had. I sat at the public meeting in Ardgay and watched an elderly lady hand out xerox colour copies of an image of a dead and partly eaten hiker, with some words underneath informing me that this is what bears do to people. No pictures were offered of the victims of cow attacks, those monsters of the countryside that kill far more people than bears, nor bees, the striped killers responsible for more deaths than cows. Aye, the last thing we need out there with those killers on the loose is a wolf or a bear. Would it be considered impertinent of me to ask if any of your "pals" helped with the photocopying? "No-one ever suggests building a huge fenced roof when sea eagles or red kites are released, then charging to see them; the principles here ought to have strong similarities." Leaving aside the nonsensical aspect of this statement I have to point out to you that huge sums of money are spent in these situations protecting these birds from harm until they are established (instead of a literal 'fenced roof' think 'red tape'). And entry to places like Gigrin Farm (red kites) costs, and lots of people pay. The Loch Garten site (ospreys) charges for entry, and on the Isles of Mull and Skye sea eagles generate over £1.5M annually, spent by willing visitors, helping to underpin the local economies in those areas. Access to many National Parks in the USA (to name one country) is not free. Or are you perhaps unaware of this? If so, I suggest you do some web searches and become more informed about these issues as they are more complex than you imagine.

Thanks for that, "Guest". Curious. The phrases "feast", "alarm and outrage" aren't mine in fact, though I can claim the credit for the light-hearted "Cabbage patch". As for sharing an orange juice with other "enviroramblyjourno", it ain't so - we're all capable of making up our own minds, thanks. And (sigh) I've no idea who did the photocopying of the dead hiker image though I think I've seen the picture described - it's certainly not an argument for putting a fence around the Canadian Rockies and charging entry. And I suspect that Mr Lister's estate is a tad larger than Loch Garten and Gigrin Farm put together. If the proposed releases didn't involve a fence and fees I'd be all for it, and more than happy to take the risk of being nibbled by a bear, gnawed by a wolf or pronged/trampled/licked by a cow (the latter risk is undertaken by most hikers most of the time on most grazing land, free of charge) as I have elsewhere in the world without paying an admission fee. And yes, I'm aware that National Parks in other countries charge admission though often it's for the vehicles in which folk enter the park. Perhaps not always, but often.

I didn't intend to imply you were to be credited with all the quotes - so sorry if that was misunderstood. Thanks for the light-hearted response - my tongue was firmly in cheek when I wrote, although I do take the issues seriously and an interested in how the whole proposal will work out. If it can find a way to accommodate the aspirations of both sides, and the substantial middle ground, then it will be a project that Scotland could be proud of. Or it might fail miserably, but I think it's well worth a go. Cheers - share an orange juice with you sometime!

I have long dreamt of the reintroduction of locally extinct species to Scotland. I am also fanatical about countryside access and the right to responsible passage and use of open spaces. The two must go hand in hand. If Mr Lister's plan requires the exclusion of people (walking into the area) to charge for the novelty of a 'wilderness' zoo, then it is the wrong way to reintroduce the ecosystems. If Mr Lister allows free access to the fenced area, through gates and access points, we have a workable compromise. If insurance and liability fears drive Mr Lister to fence out human access, we must look back to the trespass of Kinder Scout and to the upholding of a fundamental piece of access legislation. The law is too young and too vulnerable at present, in a country still heavily influenced by post feudal estate ownership. You can have your cake and eat it too. You can establish wildlife protection zones. We have many existing barriers to our freedom to roam, particularly deer fences. We can compromise and be the better for it. I doubt much revenue would be lost by allowing wild access points. However, until the area stocked with introduced wild animals is large enough to allow natural behaviour patterns and avoidance of human interaction, we have a wildlife park and serious problems about human interference and conflict of use. The loss of the MBA bothy (use of) is sad and serious thought must be given, if it has not already been done, to wild route access, under foot, and to responsible human use (transient) of this and all other outdoor spaces. There is a massive difference between the experience of living amongst nature and observing it through telescopic lens before retiring to the plush comforts of rich living. Allowing both lifestyles to coexist will be a master stroke of land management. [smiley=think]

The last "Guest" to comment there speaks a lot of good sense. But: re-introduction - Yes; fences & access points - no. I don't think access points are a way forward. A bold re-introduction programme shouldn't involve fences at all - who's going to decide how many and how far apart the access point should? If these animals were fenced in, I wonder whether there'd be more risk of an animal/walker incident, as they'd be concentrated in one area, effectively boxed in, increasing the chances of an encounter. And if folk are willing (and daft) enough to pay to be driven around such an open air zoo, would they perhaps pay a little more to see the wonderful, majestic, natural spectacle of a hiker being hunted, brought down and devoured by a pack of slobbering wolves? Oooh, I need an orange juice!

Funny how often "guest" supports the Allandale scheme!! To shy to leave a name? Aye, right!!! Guess who? Sorry, I meant "Guest 2"

I think that rewilding is a great idea, perhaps fences are not the best way to do it but if you had spent sixteen thousand pounds on a pair of moose would you want them to just wander off? Furthermore, alladale costs over a thousand pounds a day to run and for an investment of that size a return needs to be made; the only way this can be done is charging tourists to visit. Surely it is not fair that ramblers are allowed free access whilst everyone else has to pay. If ramblers do want the right to roam around the reserve they might consider spending money to do it. Finally I would just like to say that in all the hype over wolves being reintroduced it has been forgotten that it was a similar situation when they were reintroduced to Yellowstone and there have been no wolf related incidents there, in fact despite all the hunting of wolves over the past 400 years there have been no [b][/b]wolf related fatalities.

Im not sure how i feel about the fence i feel animals should all roam free! we have right to the land and so do the animals who live there. however iam glad [smiley=happy] that wolfs , bears, moose etc are coming back to the highlands. but i feel fences are wrong to cage any animal in. [smiley=sad] Surely it is not fair that ramblers are allowed free access whilst everyone else has to pay. If ramblers do want the right to roam around the reserve they might consider spending money to do it.[i][/i] i agree with guest number 25.

Nos. 26 &26 where are you from? We Scots have had the right to walk our hills for centuries for free!!! So now because of Paul Lister's "dream," the rest of us have to forfeit our right of free access? No one asked him to buy Alladale and turn it into a zoo! Read his web site...carefully. He speaks of his experience in Africa and his safari park there, 61,000 acres. He has 23,000 acres at Alladale. He needs to double that to sustain "his" wolves. Now lets compare the size of Scotland to Africa. 30,370,000sq.km. and 77,700sq. km. No Brownie points for spotting I got it the wrong way round!!! I only watched one of the BEEBS programmes on "his" dream. (Thats another sore point. Why are the BEEB spending MY money on free publicity on "his" dream?) In the opening credits he shakes his head, waves his wrists saying he doesn't like all the red tape!!! Oh, really? So you should be exempt then Paul? The law of the land only applies to us peasants not you? He says he is going to bring employment to the area. Ah, but from where? Now what was the nationality of the workers getting the shop ready in Ardgay? Thats right..... Polish! It's my opinion "you" are a bit like Madonna. She bought a house in England, then complained about a right of way running by it. Instead of finding against her, the judge found in her favour. In my opinion, yes I am opinionated, she should have been told to take a negligence case against her lawyer, not have a centuries right of way changed because of who she thinks she is. May I suggest you do the same? I mean, if you were led to believe you could fulfil "your" dream at Alladale by a lawyer, I would say you would have a good case against him. On the other hand, if this is your own idea, then it is my opinion you are an arrogant, selfish individual. If you really cared about introducing any of these species back into the wild, those last three words are the operative ones!! Whatever you call it, it's a zoo! A way for you to make more money. Why? Haven't you got enough? you can't take it with you!

Dear no. 27 I posted comment no. 25 and, in answer to your question, I am from Scotland (although no longer live there). I believe that through the obsession to uphold the right-to-roam law, many scots lose sight of the good work done by Lister - couldn't Alladale be the exception that proves the rule, there's hardly going to be many other situations like it, are there? Although not actually re-introducing any animals into Scotland, Alladale is involved in research on how the these creatures react to their new highland surroundings so could be the fore-runner of re-wilding. Also, as I have aleady stated, what is so wrong with Lister wanting to make money out of Alladale when its overheads are so great. Added to that, your statement directed towards Lister: "Haven't you got enough [money]?" suggests that you have not properly researched the situation as mfi is on the verge of bankruptcy. Furthermore, in your comment you stated that Lister only has 22,000 acres and that this is not enough to sustain a wolf pack, once again this shows a lack of knowledge on the subject as if just one of his neighbours agreed to go into business with him he would have enough land and some have expressed interest in doing this. P.S Why is everybody stating: "Lister's project is a zoo" as a bad point, the vast majority of zoos do excellent work in conservation, education and research - if I were Lister, I would feel complemented when people call Alledale a zoo.

My apologies for getting your number wrong 25, but you seem to be all the same "Guest" supports Alladale. We have one thing in common. I too am an exile Scot, but I'm intending/hoping to move back ASAP. Anyway, I digress. Very good of you to answer ONE question albeit an easy answer, you're from Scotland!!! You very conveniently ignored ALL the rest! You've also shot yourself in the foot, and had an inclination to waffle. Oh, and you're misquoting me and/or do not have a proper use ov the engurlish lanwage as it is rit!!! (Or maybe you're being pedantic!?) Let me explain. First of all, a brief summary of ALL the rest. When I stated Paul had 23,000 acres and would need double that amount , 46,000 acres. This is 15,000 short of his park in Africa. I then pointed out the differences in the respective areas of Scotland and Africa in relation to the park sizes. Sorry if I was being obtuse. I thought it was fairly obvious. While we're on the subject of acreage, you pull me up for "...a lack of knowledge on the subject as if just one of his neighbours agreed to go into business with him he would have enough land and some have expressed interest in doing this." Now I'm sorry if I appear to be pedantic, but that is not grammatically or factually correct. I quoted 23,000 acres and Paul would need double that. You whack 1,000 less than I state, then waffle about one of his neighbours coming in with him, BUT you DON'T say how much extra land he'll need!! You make no comment at all to the impression I got that Paul seems to think red tapes is for us, but not him. I have no axe to grind with workers of any colour, creed or religion. The point I was making when I referred to the Polish workers at Ardgay. was Paul gave the impression he was bringing work to the area. Which is true, but not necessary for the locals! On closer inspection you shoot yourself more than once. Your PS shows how little you know about the CROW legislation. I don't know it all either, but I do know regarding zoos/safari/game parks, call it what you will they had to be in existence before this (CROW)legistlation came into force. Alladale didn't!!! Thank you for informing me of my lack of knowledge, by my failure in not researching the financial situation of MFI. I'm sure the persons who are concerned with Paul's business plan for Alladale will welcome this information with open arms, as no doubt will Paul himself!!! Perhaps you should get in touch with him, in regards to being employed in a PR role?? If, in your reply to my post, all you can say is you're a Scot, and then ignore the points I was making, without coming up with some concrete facts, then you're just waffling. If/when you manage to get your head round that, then here's a few other points to get you're teeth into. Although you're "right" when you say"...Although not actually re-introducing any animals into Scotland..." its not from the want of trying! Dont take my word, listen to him on the BEEB! He also want to have prey and predators in the same enclosure, another law he seems to want to ignore! If I see you up by I don't do orange juice, mines a malt. Double or treble, if its someone else's round!! I'll have to stop doing my tight Scotsman. It's starting? to become second nature!

"I think that rewilding is a great idea, perhaps fences are not the best way to do it but if you had spent sixteen thousand pounds on a pair of moose would you want them to just wander off?"

Eh? are we talking about rewilding or ownership here? If you were seriously committed to reintroduction of several members of a large mammalian species would you really be concerned about about them wandering off? Wouldn't you rather welcome it? Isn't the freedom for the reintroduced species to roam at will what rewilding is largely about?
If the desire to rewild an area is based on an altruistic, ecological ideal then concerns for the welfare of the re-introduced animals and their impact on incumbent species would be paramount, not some notion of ownership of them.

"Added to that, your statement directed towards Lister: "Haven't you got enough [money]?" suggests that you have not properly researched the situation as mfi is on the verge of bankruptcy."

Numptiness abounds, Lister inherited his fortune from his father. His father sold his last remaining interest in MFI in 1985.

Why don't you have a look here!? I think Mr.Lister deserves all our support. After all we need people like him, with a vision and deterrmination, since too many of us only look as far as their car and TV.