Rewilding a reaction to human intervention
Sir, I read with shock Rory Stewart’s letter (Herald, 30th June). That our local MP should give such a biased and one-sided viewpoint on the subject of rewilding is propaganda beyond belief.
Rewilding is simply a concept which looks to let nature take its own course or to go wild. It can be done on a landscape scale (as in some glens in Scotland) or in much smaller aspects like leaving a small area of a garden or local woodland to itself and nature.
Sure, George Monbiot talks of bringing back key species like the wolf, which, incidentally, did live here before us. This is a well-known concept which on the whole ensures more ecological balance.
Humans have changed the landscape massively with their interventions. Often this has been done for personal gain and profit, grouse moors being a fine example.
When Rory writes of “our way of life”, who is he referring to? Before enclosure acts in the 1700 and 1800s much more land was in common ownership, with more access for everyone.
Humans lived in a more balanced way with nature, and rewilding is a reaction to human interventions which have decimated wildlife. Does Rory want generations to come to live on a sterile planet where there is no wildlife?
Surely our local MP should be advocating a more balanced discussion, rather than protecting his own interests and taking an extreme standpoint to act as scaremongering. Yours etc,
(Photographer, wildlife enthusiast and rewilding advocate)