1/8 Three typical criticisms of #rewilding are: 1) Rewilding means different things to different people 2) We don’t know what will happen if we let nature lead so it is too risky 3) Rewilding excludes people from the landscape. Some of my thinking on these:
2/8 1) To me, most words mean different things to different people. Forest, farming, conservation are all words that conjure up different visions depending on context. The broader meaning unifies and the specific details vary…
3/8 … Same with #rewilding. General meaning: give nature back control by reducing human management. But that can be done in different ways. People will interpret differently in different contexts. We need innovation in conservation, so I see this as a good thing!
4/8 2) People/conservationists are understandably risk adverse. This makes sense when protecting nature. However, I think it can hold restoration back. Letting nature lead increases uncertainty about specific outcomes that could be managed for, but can we manage for everything?..
5/8 …I don’t think so. Letting nature take its course, in some places and some of the time can increase overall diversity of outcomes (and people’s and nature’s needs are diverse). It may also create more resilient ecosystems better adapted to current conditions…
6/8 …I think #rewilding can increase uncertainty about the specific outcomes but this doesn’t mean increased risk. Without better knowledge about the whole system, action and inaction presents risks. But a diverse approach can help reduce risks.
7/8 3) For me #rewilding isn’t about excluding people, however it is about minimising or excluding human control of nature. It’s our actions we need to be careful of rather than our presence per se…
8/8 …I hope where #rewilding is applied our control of nature will be reduced while our interactions with, experiences of, and connections to nature will be greatly increased! science.sciencemag.org/content/364/64…
