The rewilding debate

I listened to the debate, and Ben Goldsmith’s arguments left me with the same queasy feeling of theoretical perfectionalism that comes out a lot from environmental arguments. The arguments can feel logical in a linear way A then B then C, but they miss the elements of multi-dimensionality, trade-off and balance – so the network of consequences and feedbacks that happen.
Nature exists in a state of competitive dynamic equilibrium. Enforced change shifts points of equilibrium in complex and non-linear ways. Humans attempt to manage this to reduce the adverse effects of nature and adjust nature for our advantage – that’s how we are able to feed ourselves for the size of population we have.
To give an example of adverse nature, forest fires are part of the natural state of things as cork, acacia etc prove. Preventing forest fires requires intervention to reduce the risk of natural adversity. That intervention reduces scrub, which then affects other species. But nature adapts to the competitive situation with other forms of plants and fauna which we then perceive as ‘natural’.
So from our understanding of warmer climates, that the presence of scrub is a fuel for fires. In the UK, scrub is reduced because of grazing. The grazed uplands also encourage meadow flowers and other forms of flora.. But it leaves the question that with less grazing do you get more fires? That’s a question of dynamic equilibrium playing out over a long time. We can’t know short term.
Rewilding seems to come with the idealistic theoretical perspective that nature is always good or better than what human’s would do. However rewilding seems to ignore the impact of its measures on the competitive dynamic that comes from any form of enforced change.
The A-to-B-to-C of philosophy students doesn’t work in a multi-dimensional space where outcomes are not easily predicted or and meander through local optima instead of following simple paths of logic. That requires learning, testing and tentative, evolutionary change accepting that, unmanaged, it can go wrong and lead to worse outcomes, not better.

John is a farmer, isn’t he? Much more persuasive than Ben Goldsmith in this aspect. Like another commentator mentioned- Enforced change shifts points of equilibrium in complex and non-linear ways. Really interesting debate more enjoyable than I had thought in an area I haven’t thought about. The sheep on the fields seem a nice permanent feature and the lake district certainly looks very charming, at least on my visit there. X

I did not listen to it – I wish you gave a transcript, I figured it would be too silly. In my life I have spent a couple decades in nature, and years in the remote wilds – tempered with decades in cities, and many in small towns surrounded by nature, such as it is; I also have a background in Biology.

Here s how I see it – Green people wish to have either ‘pets. or Zoos’ that run free and so the creatures and humans who see them think they are wild nature. But they are just pets maintained at expense, and the Greens have no actual idea of nature.

Nothing wrong with that in theory, as long as those who wish it bear the costs mostly, by not imposing excessive rules on everyone, and society to keep these exotic pets in the common lands.

The flip side is conservation and strongly mitigating destruction of nature – this is very good. Naturally there is overlap.

To these guys taking of this, conservation as the world knows it, began and was figured out by a group of wealthy USA city men who were passionate Duck Hunters. Ducks were rapidly heading to extinction at the time due to unrestricted hunting, including ‘market hunting’ and loss of breeding habitat – which were the great prairie ‘pothole’ ponds and lakes, lost to farmers draining them.

See – the ducks in America bred in the North Central Canada and USA States – migrated down to the Gulf of Mexico, then back up to breed and raise the next generation. If one of the many places killed them – then they deprived the other country, and all the states they crossed – the utility of then.

Ducks Unlimited – passionate lovers of all nature and wild things – as hunters and fishers are. (Duck hunters do not spend huge resources, time, and effort off in duckblinds to shoot a duck because they hate them – they do it because they can interact and be in nature they feel a consuming love and passion for)

DU also put into their concept that just seeing them was a Utility with actual value – like say the Mona-Lisa in the Luve – but, and this is key – That just knowing they still were out there raising their broods, migrating, swimming in the Louisiana bayous, then back – that just knowing this is a Actual value too.

Then – this Must be Federally Regulated because it crosses state lines yet is a National asset – therefore no state may unreasonably harm the population as it effects the rest.

Ducks Unlimited immediately added every native bird to their efforts, they just loved all birds, and all the nature which supported them.

These guys were rich and politically powerful. They set aside nesting lands by buying them – but mostly they got Washington DC – with their personal wealth and power (Most were New York Wallstreet guys), to address this. That it means every place ducks touched had to be regulated for the birds benefit, or really – to not be to their destruction – as they were a common asset and no one place may harm them as it deprives others from their utility.

The ducks were saved and exist in millions. From these amazing group of hunters all conservation came – they created the logical political, economic, intellectual template the whole world took up.

Hunters and fishermen are why 95% of global wildlife hangs on or thrives – their money, time, energy, and political clout. The rhino exists as hunters would pay for them to exist – and cared in themselves that they were still alive out in the bush – (and no – not so they could kill them because they hated them, but because they loved them enough to do all they could to ensure their survival)

Now as far as fish – in the freshwater the sport fisherman is why most water laws for conservation exist – why we have good waters – as fishermen love the fish, and the environment they are in. Why else do they sit out there all day in all weather – watching just nothing happening, yet seeing nature very deeply – understanding it – spending time and money – it is because they love it as your walker – your Eco-loon never can – as hunters and fishermen have ‘Skin in the game’ – they know and love it.

I did not listen to these guys but I am a true outdoors man – lived years in remote bush lands – and people now days – in UK most of all – do not give credit to the ‘sport’ hunters and fisherman that there still is nature – that they love the environment more than any other. I hope these guys read some on Ducks Unlimited – and Audubon – but just add a comment from the other end of things –

You have to value and love nature to save it – and very few do – they know nothing of it, they have no skin in the game – but they like the idea, and so they get NGOs to run it – but virtually all NGOs are corrupt and stupid. The kind they would use have no understanding – but they will be the ones running this thing – it will be a mess, l

Similar debates are happening in the U.S.. This article https://www.skyhinews.com/news/colorado-local-leaders-and-stakeholders-share-thoughts-on-wolf-reintroduction/ describes the re-introduction of wolves into rural Colorado as mandated by a state-wide Proposition supported predominantly by urban dwellers. I think “negligent homicide” would be the proper charge for these voters if their imposition of an apex predator on other people goes awry. Even if attacks on humans are rare, pets and livestock will certainly by killed as part of this romantic vision of re-wilding.
Animals as majestic as wolves like elk and moose are already prospering in the supposedly de-wilded environment. So much so, in fact, that recreational hunting is allowed. It is probably regulated such that those big game animals are not exterminated. I doubt the wolves will show such concern for the propagation of the Earth’s bounty to future generations.

This debate was so polarised it became tedious. In my opinion there no reason why with a better understanding of a gentler form than that discussed, the British landscape should not be returned to a state that is more wildlife friendly and sustainable. Though first something should be done about the stranglehold supermarkets have on farming production so the producers get a better deal for their hard and skilled work, and on the use of British farmland as assets for rich foreigners. The emphasis on wolves was unnecessary in my opinion and skewed the whole thing. It is a bit naive I feel to introduce wolves to control the huge population of deer currently in the UK. An exploding wolf population would cause all sorts of problems. Far better to wait and drastically control the deer population first so the build up would be slow and then trial it in areas where the wolf numbers could be controllable and their interactions with human needs in the current global trade influenced landscape better understood. However, like everything else in the UK at present there is limited resources to do anything.

With genetic engineering one can develop any needed animal to fill any empty niche. Extinct species can be replaced with climate modified African animals. Camels evolved in North America. Import Llamas and dromedary for this niche. It will take DE extinction to replace mammoth and ground sloth. Artificial wombs will be needed for large animals. Since real animals may go after undesirable prey a genetically modified animal may be superior to the real thing. Bison and musk ox and deer can be subjected to the domestication process with a few gene changes using genes copied from cattle of dogs. A long process of slowly selecting for tameness can be fixed at the embryo stage. With instant domestication one can turn a wild animal into a niche filler as well as an obedient slaughterhouse filler.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/740670/agri-bill-evidence-paper.pdf In the good old days before Brexit the United Kingdom used to spend £4 billion a year on agricultural subsidies with low value grazing being the most dependent sector. 21% of its income came from subsidies and it was completely unviable without them. Agriculture emits 10% of the UK’s greenhouse gases and is also responsible for polluting all our rivers with pesticides, nitrates, ammonia and phosphates. We are destroying our natural environment so that we can support a non-economic industry . Masses of supporting data in this old Defra paper. Using that £4 billion to repair nature is absolutely the right and unavoidable strategy.