Since BioLogos is increasingly turning it’s attention towards creation care I thought this might be an interesting place to discuss rewilding. It’s a term heard often across the pond where I live, less often in the states. It involves the restoration of habitats and biological processes to a state as they were before human intervention, to a state where humans can step back and let life find a way (I couldn’t resist). Examples would be the Oostvarderplassen in the Netherlands, Knepp in England, and the Danube Delta in Romania.
Ideally I would love to see Wolves roaming the wilderness of the British Isles once again. Britain has already successfully reintroduced the beaver, and plans to reintroduce the Lynx have been submitted. In Ireland, a politician recently brought up the topic of reintroducing wolves, though the topic was quickly shot down;
I personally think that Ireland, a country already struggling with the reintroduction of eagles, is far too early in the game to be seriously considering the reintroduction of wolves. Especially when around the same time, a Belgian wolf, the first in the country for over 100 years mysteriously disappeared:
So I should ask? In this day and age, would rewilding be a good idea? Or do countries such as Britain and Ireland need time for views to change?
It sounds like a good idea, but like all ideas involving nature this could come with unintended consequences. Still, European wildlife is so diminished that small steps sound like a good idea, but I’d agree that predators like wolves should not be rushed, especially if most of the population has no idea how to live alongside predators of that size.
My home state of Maine reintroduced wild turkeys in the 70s, more than 100 years after they had been gone from the state. You see them all over the place now. They’re kind of a nuisance, but there are two hunting seasons for them so that probably helps.
It’s funny how quickly things can change though. In some sense, bringing back an animal population is putting them back where they originally thrived and so it seems like they “should be” there. But once they’re gone, the rest of nature fills in the gaps, so in some ways bringing them back (especially after many decades) seems like starting all over again.
There is a need to be practical. Living around leopards is dangerous. But diversity of species is desirable. Unfortunately the nature that rushes in to fill the tiny opportunities we leave at the margins of the territory we claim for ourselves gets filled by a very few creatures who not only tolerate our presence but thrive when we suppress their competition. So, in the U.S. at least, we see rats, mice, squirrels, raccoons, opossums, skunks, coyotes, rabbits, various deer and a decreasing number of birds (due both to habitat loss for breeding and to predation by our domesticated cats).
Wolves, badgers,bears, weasels, foxes, bison, elk, moose, mountain lions, bobcats,and lynx are less frequently seen unless you travel far from human habitation. Ultimately we must refrain from living everywhere if there is to be anywhere at all for the mega fauna and those that tolerate us less well.
I wonder if there is agreement that creation care should include making room for a wide variety of other creatures to live in a natural state. If so does our species have it in us to make the sacrifice of not living in the remote places that are desirable to many of us?
Rewilding is an interesting topic. Especially when it means reintroduction of potentially dangerous large animals. I would be interested to hear opinions about such rewilding from a theological viewpoint.
I live in an area where wolves returned after being away for >70 years. Wolves were hunted to local extinction after a sick and starving female wolf learned that kids are easy prey. At that time there were not much wild prey in this area, so the wolves had to hunt sheep, cows and pets to survive. Now the situation is different, there is plenty of deer and wolves avoid humans. Yet, local people remember the old stories and adapting to life with wolves has been challenging.
Here’s an interesting article, claiming that calls for the reintroduction of large predators essentially give the rewilding movement a bad name, and that associating the rewilding movement with such beasts is a strawman:
What doesn’t help however, is that prominent rewilding advocate George Monbiot seems to be in the wolf camp, in his book Feral. His book Feral unfortunately takes swipes at the Biblical Worldview, veering at one point towards soft (and I assume unintentional) antisemitism, blaming the Old Testament for our negative view of nature, ignoring that this is not a historical Jewish view, but largely a Christian NT one.
Other than that, Feral has a lot to commend, though I feel as though he is also wrong to describe Britain as zoophobic, quite the contrary, Britain is probably one of the most nature loving countries on the planet. Also check out Wilding by Isabella Tree, to see an example of rewilding at Knepp. She is less bibliophobic (see what I did there?), even quoting the Bible at some points.
I agree that we shouldn’t approach it as all or nothing. While I’m all for finding room for as many larger animals as possible, for the predators at least, you must first have a viable prey population. So baby steps should always be the first steps. But my own preference is not to stop with those but to solve the problems as we go to include room for more and more shy and large, potentially dangerous animals to also share the planet.
Thanks for sharing – the article sounds like things are progressing with a clear-headed vision and wisdom, so I hope the best for them.
“The idea has been suggested that rewilding is another form of Highland Clearances, getting people off the land so we can bring back a wilderness. Rewilding isn’t that at all: humans are a vital part of the landscape and enabling rewilding.”
I think this quote is important as some see “environmentalism” of any kind as prioritizing animals/nature over people. This sounds like a more holistic approach.
I’m so fortunate to have spent part of my childhood in Scotland because it’s such a beautiful country. I already think of it as having a wildness of its own, even in the ditches and overgrown and overlooked portions of more developed land. We had so many “forts” in the underbrush of just a small area because there was so much growth to provide cover.
Oftentimes the environment has changed to where reintroduction is not viable or desirable as Laura pointed out. And some areas have enough trouble with coyotes and wolf/coyote hybrids finding tasty snacks in people’s back yards.
Has been such as success that it has become a disaster. From the WIKI -
The cattle, deer and horses have multiplied in the Oostvaardersplassen. However, there is a limit to the number of animals the area can sustain. In the absence of natural predators the rangers shoot animals that are unlikely to survive. It is quite common for 30 to 60 per cent of the population to be killed in this way.
…
During a particularly harsh winter in 2005, many animals in the Oostvaardersplassen died of starvation, leading to public outcry against alleged animal cruelty and leading to the culling strategy.
I thought I responded to this a while back but did not see my comment. So I guess I never did.
I do believe that “rewilding” is a good idea. It’s definitely not a all or nothing approach. In the very beginning chapters of genesis I feel it conveys a few principles.
Humanity is to “co-rule”with God over the world. He made us in his imagine.
Genesis 1:28
28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
He mentions what seems to be moderation in eating. The paradigm that not everything is meant for just us but all creation.
Genesis 1:29-30 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.
I see rewilding as parts headed in one direction. One aspect is letting parts of nature go back to being wild. We do minimum work to maintain it. The other aspect is a artistic recreation of native habitats that provide ecological benefits in addition to being ornamentally beautiful and functional. That’s the bringing nature home “ Doug Tallamy” style approach.
I feel that we can use native plants in natural planting communities to restore the damage. Such as along power line poles they can used as a wildflower or grassland pathway. Along roads we can use ground covers. In yards, we can cultivate biodiversity using beautiful plantings.
I think the approach is the bottom up. Plants make the backbone of a habitat. Use the right plants and use the right maintenance practices and it will fill the gaps with the plants that fit. That will draw in the insects. That will draw in the birds and reptiles. That will draw in the smaller mammals and larger herbivores. That will draw in the predatory birds and larger predators. In the wild we let it get more wild. Not out of control but we don’t want bears and wolves in our backyard. But maybe we are ok with rabbits, a bobtail, snakes, and so on.
I believe we should be good stewards of the land. That there is a way to allow the wilderness to exist, and for civilization to harmonize with it.
Often in fall and winter people begin considering their spring garden designs and installs. Has anyone been considering these for their upcoming gardening plans?
Also has anyone considered the benefit to leaving flower heads, seed heads, and stalks for winter interest and for insects to overwinter in? Birds also use old twigs for their nests. Sometimes a bit of mess can be used subtly for beauty and ecology.
Absolutely. I’m not fussy by nature so that helps. But, for sure, letting spent flowers seed out can feed local birds and beneficial insects. Where I fall short is in not incorporating more native plants than I do. Making my garden started out with local wildlife in mind but then became my creative outlet of choice too. Aesthetically I like to invoke wild spaces in my contrivances. I know a number of garden designers who approach it with an emphasis on bringing the inside outside. When I walk out into the garden I’m not looking for a table, chair or hearth. I want to feel the presence of nature. But of course there are plenty of places to sit down and tables to eat on.
I usually leave stalks up over the winter so I don’t have to deal with them until spring, except for the vegetable garden. The one time I regretted it was when I left sunflowers up in my backyard, and I think it may have attracted mice to my house – something chewed all around the stem around one of my nearby shrubberies and killed it. We have had more problems with mice since. But otherwise, I try to leave things as they are. And even after that, we just carry it all to a large brush pile in the woods so the animals don’t have far to go if they need it. I like that arrangement – leaving things “wild” but also creating some distance between our house and the rodents.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
14
It’s like robot cars. They’re literally a million times safer than human drivers. But the moment some dumb kid jumps out in front of one…
Mi, I just saw photos on Facebook taken at a New York garden which immediately went on my bucket list. A fellow who is a gardener at Longwood gardens is a wonderful photographer and he travels frequently to a lot of gardens. These photos are not his but should give you a feel for the place. Perhaps this would be better placed in the Creation Photos thread?
Looks very beautiful indeed. There are so many I want to visit. But I’m glad. When I was in my early 20s and had very little care for nature and natural wonder , at least in comparison to now, I use to think to see anything cool I was going to have to travel abroad. Though I still will do that, I am glad to know that for like $400 round trip and $200 in hotels and food I can spend a weekend almost anywhere in USA and see gardens and natural wonders. That it won’t always have to be a once a year thing costing $5k+ but I can simply fly to Washington, arizona, New York, tip of florida snd so on on a Friday night and be back Sunday evening.
While i like seeing great gardens I’m also a home body and miss my own garden if I’m away more than a week. But when/if my wife is able we’d like to go to Spain and Portugal for the first time and England again. But gardens here in the states are right up there with any of them.
I’ve been eager to visit the Highline garden also in NY. So that will be the first trip we’ll take when travel and lodging become safe again. I also want to get back to Longwood to meet Karl and to re-visit my favorite public garden which is also near Philadelphia, Chanticleer. But the garden that made me want to make one too was a private garden near me made by Harland Hand, a landscape designer with a real eye for nature.
Been there a couple of times in my youth, not too far from home. The second time, though, was after dark, to see a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta, The Mikado, I think. Or was it Pirates… way back in the fog, anyway.
