Is it best to 'rewild' nature?

Faith & Science Conversation
1

I am a layman conservationist based in the UK. I discussed ‘rewilding’ in a previous thread. It can mean three things:

  1. The reintroduction of keystone species such as beavers and wolves. I am for this 100%, though Wolves should not be reintroduced in countries such as the UK before widespread land reform.
  2. The rewilding of human life, the restoration of our relationship with nature. Again, I am 100% for this. We live in an era where children would rather search for Pokemon than minibeasts.
  3. ‘Stepping back’ and allowing life to find a way (sorry) without human interference. This I see as a problematic system, which 1) requires evictions of indigenous people, and 2) does not work.

See this excellent report by Survival International to learn more:

Simply put, indigenous peoples such as the Native Americans and Australian Aborigines have carefully managed the land for millennia to increase biodiversity, and prevent wildfires. Lo and behold, it works.

Shifting cultivation, also called “swidden agriculture”, refers to
a technique of rotational farming in which land is cleared for
cultivation (normally by fire) and then left to regenerate after a
few years. Governments and conservationists worldwide have
long sought to eradicate swidden agriculture, often pejoratively
calling it “slash-and-burn.”
Scientists now realize that shifting cultivation systems can
“harbor astounding levels of biodiversity.”41 Communities that
practice this form of agriculture, such as the Kayapo of Brazil,
actively manage the plant species found in forest areas, which
positively affects biodiversity and creates important habitats.42
Shifting cultivation systems also contribute towards a greater
diversity of species by providing a “mosaic” of different habitats.43
Research into the subsistence activities of hunter-gatherers in
the Congo basin, for example, has demonstrated that they lead to
significant improvements in the forest environment as a habitat
for wildlife, including forest elephants.44
Yet in spite of the increasingly recognized ecological benefits of
shifting cultivation, in most cases either the practice has been
banned or the communities who rely on it removed. This has
also had serious impacts on the communities affected, including
their nutritional health.45
In India’s tiger reserves, villages inside the reserves create special
grassland habitat for grazing animals that are important prey
species for tigers. When these villages are removed, the Forest
Department has to find ways to maintain these grasslands or
face a decrease in biodiversity. Although forest villagers lose
some crops and cattle to wildlife, most have lived with wildlife
for countless generations and would far rather be on their lands
in the forests than outside. Forest Department officials often
claim that relocations are “protecting” people from wildlife, but
this masks the fact that people are forced to move rather than
voluntarily relocating

…

In Australia, there is increasing awareness that the ways in which
Aboriginal peoples managed their land decreased the risk of
large, devastating fires.49 Over the last 90 years, wildfires have
cost Australia almost US$7 billion.50 Similarly, in Amazonia the
incidence of wildfires is lower in indigenous territories.51

Furthermore, my country, the UK has been altered beyond recognition by human activity since the stone age. Forests have been replaced by heather moorland, and the native species have evolved to flourish in such an environment. Yet this environment would quickly disappear into forests if left alone, and species such as the Red Grouse, Lapwing, Godlen Plover and Curlew would suffer for it. This is not to say I agree with the ‘Grouse Moor’ Management, which meddles with the environment by killing protected predators such as the Hen Harrier and Golden Eagle to encourage Grouse populations to expand to unnatural proportions so they can be shot for sport. Some legal predator control, and limited heather burning is necessary, but not killing protected species.

Thoughts?

2 Likes
2

You may be on to something! I believe it is part of our commission from God to steward the earth. This is such a monumental task when you think about the intricacies of the created order and its codependencies that we are unable to do it properly without God’s guidance. There must be a balance between unregulated natural growth and the hubris that is trying to change complete ecosystems because of our greed. This balance must hold in tension human dignity and the fact that we all rely on the finite earth for our sustenance while on this side of eternity.

We have erred on the side of abusing our earth in the past. However, now we must think about future generations. The challenge is to not let the pendulum swing too far back in the other direction as we seek sustainability. We mustn’t cause unnecessary suffering to our fellow humans in the pursuit of righting the wrongs of the past. The ends did not justify the means then and they shouldn’t now.

3 Likes
3

I think it’s something we should strive for. God as mentioned first commanded us to protect and maintain the garden and I believe whole earth by extension. I think the first things we need to do is focus on the habitat which is using native plants that fit the natural archetypal landscape.

1 Like
4

The parksneedpeoples-report highlights real problems but simplifies the wicked problems too much.

Human activity is one type of disturbance. The intermediate disturbance hypothesis states that diversity peaks at intermediate disturbance. Too much disturbance is bad for most species, too little disturbance is bad for species that are poor competitors. Yet, for some species even intermediate disturbance is too much.

The effects of slash-and-burn agriculture depend on the area and interval of burning. Species dependent on old-growth forests are lost rapidly but other species may benefit if the interval of burning is long and the affected areas relatively small (intermediate disturbance). As population density increases, the interval of burning tends to shorten, which may have a devastating impact on biodiversity. Some species benefit but many will be driven to local extinction.

Indigenous people with traditional cultures may protect areas from illegal deforestation, maintain habitats needed for certain species, etc. but have also driven species to extinction. The beneficial impacts on biodiversity may depend on low population density, inefficient weapons and a culture that bans the use of sacred sites. With population growth, improved tools and changing culture, the tribes may overexploit their environment.

In this context, missionaries may play a part in a crucial cultural change by introducing more efficient tools and introducing Jesus. When the worship of ancestors and idols stops, the previously sacred sites lose their importance and protection. Missionaries usually come with a message about Jesus and salvation, seldom with a teaching about our role as caretakers of this planet.

I believe that we have been given the task to spread the gospel about Jesus Christ. In the context of global change, it becomes increasingly important that our teaching covers the whole Bible. Including the task to care for both people and the Earth. Full gospel, in a global sense.

2 Likes
5

If that is understood to mean returning humans to a state of nature, i.e. free of technology and specialization, I don’t think that would actually be natural for us. However to find ways to let the natural world be present in people’s lives would be a great benefit for us and for the rest of nature if that meant increasing and preserving more tracts of land as habitat for creatures which don’t naturally coexist well in our midst,

Allowing indigenous people who have not been westernized to go on living in otherwise undisturbed areas should be allowed. There is no need to evict the few uncontacted tribes in the amazon for example where humans live in low density dependent on undisturbed habitats. There is probably no going back to a state of nature for the rest of us. However there is no reason not to set aside as many large tracts of land as possible for nature to find its own way free of our interference. That would be a very noble thing for us to do. Politically unlikely of course, but something to be celebrated if humans ever become so high minded.

6

I [quote=“Reggie_O_Donoghue, post:1, topic:40994, full:true”]
I am a layman conservationist based in the UK. I discussed ‘rewilding’ in a previous thread. It can mean three things:

  1. The reintroduction of keystone species such as beavers and wolves. I am for this 100%, though Wolves should not be reintroduced in countries such as the UK before widespread land reform.
  2. The rewilding of human life, the restoration of our relationship with nature. Again, I am 100% for this. We live in an era where children would rather search for Pokemon than minibeasts.
  3. ‘Stepping back’ and allowing life to find a way (sorry) without human interference. This I see as a problematic system, which 1) requires evictions of indigenous people, and 2) does not work.

See this excellent report by Survival International to learn more:

Simply put, indigenous peoples such as the Native Americans and Australian Aborigines have carefully managed the land for millennia to increase biodiversity, and prevent wildfires. Lo and behold, it works.

Shifting cultivation, also called “swidden agriculture”, refers to
a technique of rotational farming in which land is cleared for
cultivation (normally by fire) and then left to regenerate after a
few years. Governments and conservationists worldwide have
long sought to eradicate swidden agriculture, often pejoratively
calling it “slash-and-burn.”
Scientists now realize that shifting cultivation systems can
“harbor astounding levels of biodiversity.”41 Communities that
practice this form of agriculture, such as the Kayapo of Brazil,
actively manage the plant species found in forest areas, which
positively affects biodiversity and creates important habitats.42
Shifting cultivation systems also contribute towards a greater
diversity of species by providing a “mosaic” of different habitats.43
Research into the subsistence activities of hunter-gatherers in
the Congo basin, for example, has demonstrated that they lead to
significant improvements in the forest environment as a habitat
for wildlife, including forest elephants.44
Yet in spite of the increasingly recognized ecological benefits of
shifting cultivation, in most cases either the practice has been
banned or the communities who rely on it removed. This has
also had serious impacts on the communities affected, including
their nutritional health.45
In India’s tiger reserves, villages inside the reserves create special
grassland habitat for grazing animals that are important prey
species for tigers. When these villages are removed, the Forest
Department has to find ways to maintain these grasslands or
face a decrease in biodiversity. Although forest villagers lose
some crops and cattle to wildlife, most have lived with wildlife
for countless generations and would far rather be on their lands
in the forests than outside. Forest Department officials often
claim that relocations are “protecting” people from wildlife, but
this masks the fact that people are forced to move rather than
voluntarily relocating

…

In Australia, there is increasing awareness that the ways in which
Aboriginal peoples managed their land decreased the risk of
large, devastating fires.49 Over the last 90 years, wildfires have
cost Australia almost US$7 billion.50 Similarly, in Amazonia the
incidence of wildfires is lower in indigenous territories.51

Furthermore, my country, the UK has been altered beyond recognition by human activity since the stone age. Forests have been replaced by heather moorland, and the native species have evolved to flourish in such an environment. Yet this environment would quickly disappear into forests if left alone, and species such as the Red Grouse, Lapwing, Godlen Plover and Curlew would suffer for it. This is not to say I agree with the ‘Grouse Moor’ Management, which meddles with the environment by killing protected predators such as the Hen Harrier and Golden Eagle to encourage Grouse populations to expand to unnatural proportions so they can be shot for sport. Some legal predator control, and limited heather burning is necessary, but not killing protected species.

Thoughts?
[/quote]

 I don’t believe that returning to a primitive lifestyle is realistic for humanity. Even if the indigenous tribes never faced colonization I don’t have any reason to believe that as a whole they would not have eventually made the same breakthroughs or similar ones and caused just as much disruption.  They did cause a lot even then when we were all less advance. They still clear cut land, they still faced issues that any other tribe that had a aspect of living off the land. There were people in Russia, Europe, Asia, and so on who all lived off the land and could track animals and knew what mushrooms to eat and ect... I think romanticizing or demonizing any group of people under blanket concepts is harmful and that the idea that the only way to live environmentally and ecologically sound through primitive lifestyles is false. We can be very technologically advanced, and even slightly overpopulated, and still find ways to be at peace with nature. Especially as people following the God of Abraham we have a mission to.

I believe that that we must be realistic in what we can accomplish at this time. We won’t ever turn over 50% of the world to wilderness. We will keep cultivating civilization at the cost of wilderness. But we can try to seriously limit the impact and these are a few real ways I think that we can all do. Things that don’t cost millions of dollars of thousands of hours and miles to handle.

  1. We control what we do with our yard as home owners. We know that science can explain, and historical accounts, to what kind of habitat evolved to dominate your area. Was it a prairie, woodland, forest, and ect… once you know hat you can harmonize your landscape design to that. You can add native trees and create a canopy and use native shade loving plants, ferns and mosses. If it was a grassland you can use a lot more annuals and perennials, scatter a few larger shrubs, but mostly leave it all open and sunny. You control of you learn the invasives and pull them. You control if you keep it turf and spray all kinds of pesticides.

  2. Most of us have significantly more power to your opinion and actions that get more done locally than at a distance. I have very little control ofer a man 3500 miles away who decides to cut down 100 acres of rainforest and turn it into a farm or exotic plants nursery. I can’t make a president sign this or that EO or leave this or that regulation alone. But what I can do is get involved with the public schools, and private schools, and explain why natives need to be used. I can go to my city convention center and vote for or against rezoning local land. I can call the city about why it’s ok to allow grasses to grow along powerpole lines. I can decide to go and volunteer one Saturday for 4 hours a month to pull weeds at local nature preserves. I can tell my neighbors about bringing back nature and ect…

  3. The best last is about the first two. I can be a example by doing those things and motivating others to do it as well. Same way I preach the gospel. Be a living example of the concepts I teach.

  4. You can still invest time and money into things like saving the rainforest thousands of miles away and so on. That’s important as well and helps motivate them to stay strong.

  5. Relate to people on their level. A country guy who thinks scientists are all liberal goals probably won’t listen to you about climate change. They or only want get the significance of natives vs no natives and biodiversity. But what they may get isnthst every year there is less land to hunt and some
    Friends of theirs already has to pay $2000 a year get hunting rights on some land. They can understand how the fish are not as big and taste a little worse and the water can be smelled from their house.

Those are my TLDR thoughts xd.

1 Like
7

Interesting BBC article on the unique case of rewilding Ireland, which was at one time mostly temperate rainforest. Thanks.

2 Likes
8

It’s interesting and think of that needs to happen but for the most part I doubt that large predators will ever really be allowed to grow to significant numbers for habitat control in more urbanized areas.

About the best thing people can do is get more involved with their local community. Fight to keep public land more wildlife friendly, fight to get the local HOA to allow ecologically and biodiversity to dominate their designs and for people to use more native plants on their property.

So volunteer to help adopt a river or wetland in your town. Get 5 friends and focus on a different one every few months. Use less one time use items. Teach your kids to love nature. Practice “ Guerrilla Gardening” where you plant native plants in different places. Me and a few friends a while back , like 3 years ago planted some american hollies and a witch hazel in one of those “mulch islands” in a Walmart parking lot towards the back of the parking lot by a large retention ditch and added various native forbs to it. Same for the ditches. Often I buy like 20lbs of native seeds to my area and toss them out along roads and even now many years later, in spring, summer and fall, lots of native “weeds” pop up all over. Especially keep your pets like cats inside. Lots of small things we as individuals can do. 25 million people doing small things consistently is better than 10,000 doing large things once every few years.

3 Likes
9

I feel the same way. Setting land aside which is already unoccupied to remain that way is the easiest way to keep the planet from becoming a human monoculture. If we manage not to devolve to a state of mob rule perhaps our population can stabilize at a less precarious level eventually.

10

I read once that the stabilization rate is estimated at like triple our current rate. But perhaps something will work out.

11

That is what I’ve heard as well. I’d prefer a future world with a greater number of species surviving but at least our ‘explosion’ does seem to have a bound.

1 Like
12

That’s part of the reason I started looking to the future now. I am buying up cheap land with lots of forest around it. Not a lot , just 15-20 acres in south Alabama near wetlands within water sheds. Then on that land I’m building a few small houses so snd I will do my best to burn my conviction into my kids snd hopefully my grandkids. Talk about this bleak future. My goal is that long after I’m dead in this overpopulated world with dying nature my grandkids and their grandkids will have land with wilderness still on it. I’m trying to pick land thst I believe will be harder to be taken by the government.

I have more detailed thoughts but I’ll post it later. It’s about thinking through trying to counter higher property taxes through developing a sort of private nature preserve hybrid. It’s not completely figured out yet. But I believe it’s the unfortunate fortune. If you don’t plan for it now to help give your kids and grandkids a better chance then they will be stuck with overcrowded highly urbanized nightmares. It’s also why I often believe “privileged” can be better understood as better planning out by your parents and grandparents.

2 Likes
13

This topic brushes up against how forests are managed in the western US with respect to forest fires. We have this strange attitude that we have to manage the forests in order for them to survive. If you think about it for just 5 seconds you realize how silly this is. Who managed the forests before Europeans moved in? Fire is a natural part of forests, but we feel the need to intervene. We have done the same with some species in the past, such as the wolf. I can’t help but flash back to my childhood when my grandmother used to yell at me, “Just leave it be!”.

14

Here is the issue with it.

For one before Europeans came here for thousands of years indigenous people preformed fire ecology. Not just in the eastern plains but throughout north America.

The second issue goes back before humans even got here. Prior to humans wilderness was not fragmented with roads, cities, and deforestation. So over a period of a few years an area would cultivate debris that would then catch on fire during a lightening storm in summer and burn through miles and miles and miles of forest. So much so that many species, fauna and flora, became dependent upon it.

But when civilization begin to develop, especially modern civilization, we broke up all these areas. They don’t often get the chance to burn like they should.

In western USA the problem was that they limited burning. Burns are dangerous and inconvenient for humanity. Lots of woodland has houses all through it and so the areas was kept cleaner and and fires that started was quickly put out. The areas beyond urbanization was not cleaned as much but still was fragmented to some degree and we prevented fires from breaking up.

So the reason why humanity has to intervene is because we have already shifted it from its natural processes. We have to do control burns because we can’t allow massive wildfires to burn through and destroy things.

We have to do things like allow hunting permits and tags to be sold because we drove away the majority of big predators any places have an over population of deer. The deer are over populated for their area because of several reasons.

  1. Their natural range of forests have been severely undermined because of cities. They have less areas to live in.

  2. We pushed away the majority of their predators. There are far less wolves, bears, and coyotes around the forests of urban cities due to hunting them off. Without these predators, the deer face less loss of life.

  3. Because of those two factors the deep will over-browse on immediate foliage. They will over eat saplings with tender shoots leaving a gap in the future canopy. You see it now often in the woods when you hike and see massive older trees, and almost no trees in various stages and then you see saplings. That’s because the saplings keep being eaten before they grow so there will be a gap in the canopy. They will also overfeed on many herbaceous forbs and grasses. This cuts down on the available host plants for local insects. So now there will be less caterpillars. This reduction of chick feed results in more dead birds and because there are less birds there is less of them foraging on all these overcrowded plants and so they are not dispersing seeds through their waste while flying. So less plants are popping up.

The eventual outcome of us not intervening based on the evidence on how we should try to correct these issues will be major canopy gaps, decline in biodiversity, and if we stopped fire ecology practices like the west was doing for a while, it will result in more forest fires.

1 Like
15

I don’t know the forests you are talking about but fires in natural forests tend to differ from those in managed forests. Two main differences are humidity and the presence of large trees that can survive a passing fire.
An ancient forest has usually a humid microclimate that makes the forest less likely to burn. When fires spread in such forest, vegetation suffers but fires do not consume everything. I have seen living old pines that had scars of 2-3 past forest fires visible.

Most forests are not ancient natural forests, so I understand the need to stop fires before houses burn. Although in many cases the main reason for the vulnerability of buildings is that the houses have been built in areas where fires are a normal disturbance. Its like building houses in areas where floods are common.

16

Exactly. Forests are meant to burn. In fact, many species have specific adaptations for forest fires.

In a different twist of fate, the introduction of cheatgrass from the Mediterranean has been hard on high desert ecosystems. This exotic species promotes intense wildfires that it can survive but it often kills native species that are not adapted to these higher temperature and more intense fires.

1 Like
17

My point was that we have to do control burns because we have fragmented nature to the point where instead of more frequent quicker burns areas build up for many times longer before a wildfire starts that burns differently that what everything evolved to handle.

So we can’t just step out of the picture snd allow wildflowers to naturally pop up because we created a unnatural fire system that’s not consistent or workable with wilderness broken apart by roads and houses.

1 Like
18

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.