BY BERT BURNETT
While the UK boasts pockets of natural beauty, much of its terrain has been shaped by centuries of human activity. From the stone-clad mountains to the managed grouse moors, the idea of a ‘natural’ habitat is often elusive.
The Illusion of Natural Habitats in the UK
In the UK, truly natural habitats are rare. Even the most remote areas, such as the windswept peaks of the Scottish Highlands, bear the marks of human influence. Grouse moors, for instance, are often criticised for their intensive management practices, yet they provide a habitat for a range of species that thrive in these conditions.
Critics of rewilding argue that these managed landscapes, though not ‘natural’ in the purest sense, support a diverse array of wildlife, including some of the UK’s most endangered species. Yet the removal of traditional management practices, such as controlled heather burning, inadvertently harms the very ecosystems they aim to protect.
The ignorance of Ronald Greer
Rewilding: A Human-Made Intervention
Rewilding, often portrayed as a return to nature, is itself a human-made intervention. It involves deliberate changes to landscapes, such as reintroducing species, altering vegetation, and managing animal populations. While the goal is to restore ecosystems to a more ‘natural’ state, the process is far from passive. For example, the replacement of native browsers like deer with cattle can significantly alter soil composition and vegetation dynamics. Cattle, with their different grazing patterns and digestive processes, can change the pH of the soil, leading to a cascade of ecological effects. This raises the question: is rewilding creating a new form of unnatural habitat, rather than restoring an old one?
The Unintended Consequences of Rewilding
One of the most contentious issues surrounding rewilding is its impact on existing species. In areas where rewilding has been implemented, there have been significant declines in species such as curlews and other open-vista nesting birds. These species rely on specific habitats that are often lost when landscapes are transformed through rewilding initiatives. Similarly, mountain hares have seen tens of thousands of acres of their habitat disappear, yet these consequences are rarely acknowledged by proponents of rewilding. This lack of transparency has led to criticism that rewilding prioritises certain species and ecosystems at the expense of others.
The Fire Risk of Rewilding
Another critical concern is the increased risk of wildfires in rewilded areas. As vegetation grows unchecked, the fuel load accumulates, creating a tinderbox scenario. When fires inevitably occur—whether through natural causes or human activity—they can devastate vast swathes of land, destroying not only the vegetation but also the underlying peat and the wildlife that depends on it. This is particularly alarming in regions like Scotland, where peatlands play a crucial role in carbon sequestration. The potential for large-scale fires in rewilded areas underscores the need for careful management.
Cultural and Economic Implications
The debate over rewilding is not solely ecological; it also has significant cultural and economic dimensions.
Traditional land management practices, such as grouse moor management, are deeply intertwined with local communities and economies. Critics of rewilding argue that it often disregards these human elements, focusing instead on an idealised vision of nature. For example, the proposal to fence off vast areas of the Monadhliath Mountains, displacing local residents and halting farming activities, has been met with fierce opposition. Such plans, which restrict access to all but a select few, have been labelled as hypocritical and elitist, further fuelling the divide between rewilding advocates and those who rely on traditional land use.
The Rhetoric of Scarring and the Role of Media
The language used in the rewilding debate often reflects deeper ideological divides.
Terms like ‘scarring’ are frequently employed to describe practices such as heather burning, yet they fail to capture the nuanced role these activities play in maintaining certain ecosystems.
The rhetoric of divisive, outlying figures like Chris Packham and Ruth Tingay, prominent voices in the rewilding movement, has been criticised for its one-sided portrayal of traditional land management.
This polarised discourse can obscure the complexities of conservation, reducing it to a battle between good and evil rather than a multifaceted challenge requiring intelligent solutions.
The tension between traditional land management and rewilding highlights the need for a more nuanced approach to conservation, as well as the need for more players in the marketplace. The default position of bringing in the RSPB is no longer sustainable since they lost the plot as an organisation.
While rewilding occasionally offers possibilities for restoring ecosystems and enhancing biodiversity, it is not without its risks and unintended consequences. Traditional practices like grouse moor management, though often maligned by rewilders, play a vital role in supporting certain species and communities.
The key lies in finding a balance that respects both ecological and human needs, recognising that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the complex challenges of habitat management in the UK.
Bert Burnett is a retired gamekeeper of more than fifty years experience.