Contrast Article- Arguments on Rewilding

DSC_0074 DSC_0101  DSC_3895


END Photography

I posted this article as a contrast to the ideology we are supporting here, although it makes several fair points. While “rewilding” is a noble and environmentally powerful ideal to hold onto, if not done correctly, it can do very little good for both naturally occurring ecosystems and also the human element. In restoring, or rewilding an area, the main goal should be to mimic those natural ecosystems which where altered previously; and, in natural systems, each organism has multiple functions fitting a variety of niches and filling several necessary roles.

Expressed in this publication is the idea that rewilding consists of simply taking away all agricultural crops and livestock from certain areas and upholding hands-off management plans to “restore” the area to its “natural” existence. This cannot be so, because land that has been changed by humans for centuries will not necessarily resume its original composition and production in a naturally formed ecosystem with the lack of nutrients and species it most likely faces after such time spent under taxing use of conventional agriculture. What should rather be done, is to think about the idea of changing the convention of monoculture livestock by integrating species such as sheep and cows more sporadically into overused lands and capturing their nutrients in the form of waste to return to the landscape and regenerate the soil, as well as introducing other native species to these areas slowly to increase biodiversity and encourage the re-establishment of a healthy ecosystem, not devoid of human involvement.

One of the most important things to keep in mind when considering the approach of rewilding is that “wild” does not necessarily mean “without human impact”- because there is no place that exists on earth that has not been touched by the impact, whether directly or indirectly, of humans.

Eve Drum

Skip to toolbar