From what I have read, the term
Rewilding means many different things to many different people. If it means turning over intensively farmed land to less intensively farmed land, or not farmed at all land, then I'm all for it. However, your article says it means "Instead of managing ecosystems to preserve particular species, rewilding is intended to reverse environmental decline by letting nature become more self-willed".
Some people think that you just leave it all alone and (in the UK) it all goes back to how it was before man cut down the Oak and Beech forests. That isn't how it works at all. (I'd like to see a proper study of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone as that is exactly what has happened there.)
When you leave land alone, you won't necessarily get the native plants and animals back again. You are much more likely to see invasive species take over, whether they are native or not. In the UK, we would have invasive plants like Japanese Knotweed, Himalayan Balsam, Giant Hogweed and Green Alkanet completely taking over. Sometimes the non-native flora will support native fauna, but quite often they are a disaster i.e. Himalayan Balsam dies back in winter exposing bare soil which is then washed away. Non-native flora do not support the same number of native species. The number of insect species supported by an Oak tree is astonishing when compared to other species, but they also take much longer to grow - 50 years before an Oak becomes mature. You would be much more likely to see self-seeded Sycamores taking over.
So, it requires management - the removal of some species to allow others to grow and the planting of trees. This is pretty much how things work everywhere now - we wouldn't have any nature reserves of acid grassland, heather-based heathland, chalk grassland and various marshes between pure freshwater and pure saltwater, if it wasn't for the very firm hand of man upon them. So, I don't know how
Rewilding as a concept could be any different and work.
Does Rewilding have to include wolves?
Just as you wouldn't necessarily see native plants and would see the most competitive plants take over, you would see the same with animals. it would be Grey Squirrels not Red Squirrels, Ring Necked Parakeets rather than Woodpeckers, and it would be lots and lots of Rabbits! Deer would be a particular problem because they eat all the vegetation including tree saplings. We have six types of deer in the UK (only the Red Deer are actually native). If we aren't going to shoot the deer and manage the population like they do in Richmond Park, then their population would quickly grow out of control. So, the Wolves are a necessary missing predator to keep down numbers of herbivores like deer. Chernobyl seems completely overrun with deer whenever there is a TV documentary.
Personally though, and where I agree with the article, is that we should start at the bottom up rather than top down. If you have healthy soils and rivers then the ecosystem is likely to be healthy, since the larger species feed upon the smaller. To do that means keeping people and their dogs well away from it. When even the streams in the Scottish Highland are polluted with pesticides from the flea collars of people walking dogs, who go swimming in the rivers, what chance have invertebrates got around our towns and cities, with industrial pollution and farm fertiliser run-off?
I'm camping next month in the
Knepp Castle Estate wildland. That is a rewilding experiment on a 3,500 acre estate just south of Horsham, West Sussex. So, I'm going to be quite interested in how that is managed and how it is working out, because people and dogs are allowed to camp and glamp in the wilderness, and it is heavily used by walkers, cyclists and jeep safaris. Which is pretty much the complete opposite of what I would have expected. I'll let you know.