Can species reintroductions harm biodiversity rather than help it? Why might bringing back wolves or lynx create more problems than solutions? Are we using reintroductions as a distraction from the real drivers of our nature crisis? In conversation with Alex Lees, Reader at Manchester Metropolitan University, we explore these questions and cut through popular assumptions about rewilding.
Alex argues that many reintroduction projects might cause ‘de-wilding’ rather than rewilding, particularly when we rush to move species around instead of letting natural colonisation occur. He explains why the fossil record isn’t a menu for potential reintroductions and how our current biodiversity crisis stems from recent habitat degradation, not from species lost centuries ago. We also discussed the paradox of illegal beaver releases that succeeded alongside expensive official trials. Finally, we talk about the fundamental difference between fixing historical wrongs versus exercising ecological force with species translocations.
The evidence shows that most of our wildlife losses happened in the 20th century due to habitat destruction, agricultural intensification and pollution, not from the absence of wolves, lynx, or other large mammals that were lost millennia ago. Alex makes a compelling case that while reintroductions have their place, they risk becoming a political smokescreen that allows governments to avoid tackling the real causes of biodiversity collapse. Our focus should be on habitat restoration, reducing invasive species, and creating connectivity for natural recolonisation rather than expensive translocation programmes.
Leave a Reply