Sir, – With regard to white tailed sea eagles, I have read Claire Taylor’s notable articles on WTE’s recently, mostly about what is being done and could be done about the situation.

But what troubles me is the lack of justification for their reintroduction in the first place. If anyone had done a realistic analysis at the start, the project should never have been started.

There would have been a time when WTEs were abundant and there would have also been an abundance of other wildlife, and suitable habitat for their target prey populations which would not have been materially affected, probably more kept in check by them.

But these times are no longer. We have a vastly changed landscape, with less natural habitat for most species, and intensive agriculture and sheep farming.

Sea eagles, with a lack of their natural prey, now present a risk. In short, they have been introduced into a landscape unsuitable for their re-introduction.

It is not for no reason that they were hunted to extinction as agriculture intensified and the landscape and their feeding patterns changed.

Rewilding for rewilding’s sake is wrong when there is no advantage to biodiversity. WTEs and other raptors are at the top of the food chain, even putting some endangered species further at risk not to mention crofters and sheep farmers.

Sadly, we are faced with the cost of all this undoubtedly to be added to by compensation. This is manpower and resources that would have been better utilised elsewhere.

The increase envisaged in Claire Taylor’s article to 900 pairs by 2040 is alarming and should surely be avoided at all costs. It puts me in mind of Alfred Hitchcock’s film 'The Birds'.

I am no expert in these matters and write as a bystander, however we do have woodland where pine martins are now becoming established with a noticeable reduction in grey squirrels.

This is a prime example of beneficial reintroduction, unlike WTE’s and, in our case, protected buzzards and badgers.

Iain Stewart

Gain Farm,