I FOUND the “Calm down deer!” article by Emma L Armstrong in the Sunday National depressing, short-sighted and really lacking in imagination. I say this as somebody engaged in re-wilding a five-acre upland plot and I do, indeed, have to contend with damage from wandering roe deer now and again. I will, however, agree with Emma when she says that what the climate emergency really needs is sensible discussion.

Why, for goodness sake, is it frowned upon to release what Emma describes herself as “cool stuff like wolves and lynx” in areas where some people and livestock live? The answer to this question is the nub of the problem caused by an imbalance in deer population. It’s about time that petty nimbyism and the perceived divine rights of sacred cows, and sacred sheep, were seriously questioned. (What about over-population of cattle and sheep?!?) Wolves and lynx pose no threat whatsoever to the human population.

READ MORE: James Rainey: We must shoot more deer to save out Ice Age pinewoods

I would recommend that all patriotic, nature-loving Scots read The Last Wolf by Jim Crumley: it shows how elusive and shy wolves are when it comes to contact with humans. As for the lynx, it is even more timid of humans than the wolf. It will simply occupy its rightful place in the ecosystem and give us a very wide berth.

No Emma, killing deer – or culling, if you prefer the polite Victorian euphemism – is not the answer. Wipe the blood off your hands, put away your gun and join me in lobbying for the re-introduction of our lost apex predators: not only the wolf and the lynx but the brown bear and wild boar too. This would be nature’s way to correct the imbalance, and any other method is not only cruel but misguided and deeply anthropocentric.

Rhodri Griffiths
Alford, Aberdeenshire

I HAVE travelled along the north coast of Sutherland in both directions and appreciate the environment and scenery it provides. I have also driven the A9 close by to the Coul Links passing through Golspie in both directions.

However, unfortunately I know nothing at all about the Coul Links except the meaning of SSSI, “site of special scientific interest”. That wee bit of knowledge attracted my interest where a proposed golf course is apparently going to be built, and where the Coul area and SSSI sand dunes are concerned.

The earlier news of this proposal and the report in Saturday’s National (New golf course will ‘restore’ dunes) immediately reminded me of the Donald Trump fiasco for his golf course now gathering sand dust on the Aberdeenshire coast. Some success that has turned out to be.

READ MORE: Scottish Greens slam 'disturbed' Suella Braverman Rwanda images

From what I have seen from researched photographs of the dunes and surrounding environment, to build an 18-hole golf course there you could not escape from wrecking part of the SSSI area. These special sites have taken hundreds and thousands of years to develop into what they are today.

For the group behind the golf course proposal to suggest that they would “restore the area’s unique environment” is like trying to slow down the world’s glaciers from disappearing due to changing weather conditions. It just cannot be done. Do I remember Trump promising something similar?

These opportunist people bide in cloud cuckoo land in order to make some kind of financial profit.

More natural woodland is being planted to replace the so-called paper forests planted 30 to 40 years ago or more. These will take 20 more years before they even begin to make a difference. That said, you cannot replace damaged sand dunes and vegetation and creature habitats by shoving more sand to replace any destroyed or lost dunes.

I have signed the petition online to hopefully put a stop to this environmental madness once and for all.

Alan Magnus-Bennett

HUMAN rights matter a lot to me. I work with child soldiers and rape survivors in Congo, genocide survivors in Rwanda and orphans of civil war in South Sudan. According to Kelly Given (Privileged men, stand down: we know human rights don’t matter to you, Mar 19), because I don’t agree with her particular opinions, I am, however, indifferent to human rights.

Because I believe a child in the womb is a valued living person, I happen to feel huge compassion for the unborn – an emotion that Kelly Given obviously doesn’t share when it refers to babies in the womb. To stand on some moral high ground and declare with a shocking level of intolerance and misunderstanding that anyone not sharing her viewpoint is hideous and outrageous completely undermines any claim to rational and tolerant reasoning.

Has Kelly Given not realised that much of the non-white world, and many of those who live in hugely challenging and resource-poor conditions and could only aspire to her level of privilege, also believe in protecting the unborn and have different opinions to her concerning sexual behaviour?

I can assure Kelly Given that the non-white non-privileged world is not lining up behind her.

Callum Henderson
Director, Comfort International