Rewilding:

Discussion in 'The Great Outdoors' started by hillsidedigger, Nov 4, 2006.

  1. hillsidedigger

    hillsidedigger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,565
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Location:
    NC/Blue Ridge foothills
    With other threads discussing the population explosion and resource depletion

    how about a positive issue (not regarded as positive by everybody)

    Rewilding.

    "Q: Is the Wildlands Project associated with any governmental or political groups?

    A: No. The Wildlands Project is an independently operated, non-political organization. However, our land protection methodology is occasionally recognized by political organizations and governmental agencies. The Wildlands Project was noted in a brief reference to its land conservation strategy in the United Nation's 1996 "Global Biological Assessment" document. The UN did not support the Wildlands Project in the document, but cited the Wildlands Project's Chief Scientist, Reed Noss, in its description of The Wildlands Project's network design strategy. Other Wildlands Project-affiliated projects, such as the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, have at times been endorsed or noted by federal conservation agencies in Canada and the U.S.

    Q: Will the Wildlands Project remove people or businesses from private property?

    A: No. Private landowners and businesses may voluntarily decide to alter management or ownership of sensitive lands based on available options and incentives. As a private, non-profit organization, the Wildlands Project has no authority to condemn or otherwise remove from ownership any private lands. Negative economic influences, such as rising costs of agricultural production and pressures from developers to sell private lands, pose a much greater threat to private land ownership. It is the goal of the Wildlands Project to assist private land owners in maintaining ownership through a focus on positive incentives and policies which further good stewardship of private property. This approach encourages continuation of traditional uses while at the same time providing a common sense solution for protecting native species."

    http://www.twp.org/cms/page1129.cfm



    Many threads on other boards try to link attempts to save and reclaim the wild parts of America with some misguided United Nations (and therefore bad) origin.

    There are many billions of dollars spent by the public and private sectors to further fragment the wildness of America each year with only small funds allocated to maintaining or possibly reclaiming said wild areas, so those who worry about rewilding need not worry to much, still, there are people who are striving to assure that a goodly part of 'what was' may 'continue to be'.
     
  2. hillsidedigger

    hillsidedigger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,565
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Location:
    NC/Blue Ridge foothills
    Some 60 or so species of lions, horses, camels, elephants, and other animals were made quickly extinct after the earliest humans showed up. Many of their relatives in Africa and Asia could not only act as modern ecosurrogates in North America, but those facing extinction might flourish in a new but familiar environment.

    This idea may be practical for animals, but is it meaningful to Americans? Do ranchers really want cheetahs around? Can elephants be contained in large parks, as proposed? Can scientists even accurately recreate the old "wilderness"?

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0830/p08s02-comv.html