Rewilding and the John Muir Trust
I've come across a position paper by the John Muir Trust in which they explain what they think about rewilding, and that they prefer 'using words such as repair, restore and protect' because 'there are sensitivities around the use of rewilding'.
I get that. Rewilding is still a relatively new term and yes, sometimes definitions get muddled and there are most certainly those 'sensitivities'. In this time of outrage culture, of filter bubbles and echo chambers, people often no longer take the time to read, or listen - they simply get an emotional charge (either positively or negatively affirming their beliefs depending on bubble) out of a word or acronym. These days anything can trigger someone - mention D&I (or DEI) or ESG, for example, and an entire conservative swath of the United States goes into outrage frenzy.
I know about organizations in Switzerland (my home) that keep a low profile on the ongoing wolf slaughter here. The reason for it is the fear of alienating potential funders. NGOs depend on the good will of people, large and small donations and ideally many, many volunteers. So if, as an organization, you are seen as too connected with something 'sensitive' - it might get some people to withdraw their support. Like I said, I get that.
Read the John Muir Trust's position on rewilding (December 2023)
Yes, rewilding in Scotland has become a bit of a polarizing term. Certain lobbies use it as a front to pretend that there's an 'us versus them' there - which of course isn't true. It's not about nature OR people, it is about a new way forward with restored nature AND people. We know that, unfortunately, fearmongering and scapegoating has worked time and time again in humanity's history. But I'd argue it would have happened less if people had stood up and stepped up.
We should not cede the ground. We should not allow others to corrupt term 'rewilding' for their own purposes.
I'm thrilled by the many organizations and people in Scotland who proudly put rewilding on their flag and make the case for it, day after day after day after day. And I can see that the John Muir Trust is very much engaged in restoring nature by adopting rewilding principles. They just prefer not using the term - well, I wish they'd change course here. I wish they would use the term, strongly, proudly and all the time.
Again, the John Muir Trust absolute IS rewilding as part of their many wonderful efforts. As they write, they started out by buying land to protect it - but eventually broadened their focus to repairing and restoring. They explain that "Across all our properties – but particularly on Skye, Knoydart, Schiehallion and Glenlude – we are working to restore native woodlands, with the goal of establishing self-seeding mature trees and thriving ecosystems. As part of our work we monitor the growth of tree seedlings, the conditions of habitats and populations of wildlife on our properties."
Everything in their position paper affirms the fact that they are active and fervent rewilders. With regard to re-introduction of keystone species, they are pro beaver, lynx, wild boar - and they even believe that "there is no ecological barrier to their reintroduction into remote parts of Scotland." But they rightly make it clear that the road to wolf re-introducion is a long one. First the lynx, then public education programs, scientific assessments and public consultations. That's a solid and pragmatic rewilding view.
"The Trust believes that any consideration of further reintroduction of previously resident native species to the UK should be done within the context of a comprehensive rewilding or appropriate biodiversity strategy."
Oops, they used the word rewilding. They also use it when they outline their policy solution:
"Rewilding can go hand in hand with job creation, investment in training and education, environmental protection, improved health and wellbeing and nature-based tourism. We have seen the associated benefits first-hand around the land we care for."
I have recently written about my thoughts on the term 'conservation' and that it may have outlived its usefulness. John Muir features in it, of course - his was a different time, a time when he came across many places in the US that were arguably still wild and where the focus needed to be on keeping them that way, it was all about protecting the wild lands.
Especially in Europe it becomes increasingly rare to find nature that is not in some form or fashion degraded. Today the work is, for the most part, not about conservation, but about restoration - and how to do you restore? By either actively or passively rewilding. By the way, I'd suggest that the John Muir Trust's strategic objectives also need some updating - there's a great deal about conserving and protecting - the focus on restoring degraded nature should be front and center instead.
John Muir was a fervent nature ally, a protector, a preserver. He made a huge nature difference by standing up and stepping up when others simply saw nature as theirs to use as they saw fit. He made his case, time and time again and today many millions every year get to still enjoy that cherished nature because he did what he did. I'm convinced that, if John Muir were here today, he'd be a rewilder of the first order. He'd do what he did then, and seeing degraded nature everywhere, he'd focus on restoration efforts, just as the John Muir Trust does today.
But he would not shy away from using the term rewilding. I believe he'd love it, he'd embrace it and he'd lean into it. He'd talk with people trying to misrepresent the term for their own purposes: He'd listen, he'd clarify - that fervent nature ally would step up and stand tall and wild and well, or - dare I say - rewild and well.