‘Rewilders’ need a balanced argument

IT is so disappointing to read (April 16) yet another advocate of rewilding (Guy Shrubsole, of Rewilding

Britain) implying that national parks should ‘restore nature’ because they are ‘ecological shadows’ of what they could be.

Are such voices unaware of the 10,000 years of cultural elements to be found in our national parks?

Our upland regions are predominately where, due to the relative lack of development, we can still marvel at the marks in the landscape that have been left by the ancestors of all of us.

Traces such as flints, religious structures, foundations of farms and field walls, mines and quarries provide a revelatory human story which, in many cases, we are only just beginning to unravel.

Their scientific, imaginative and instructive value to society, in terms of well-being, equals that which connection with nature provides. They are mostly evidence of men, women and children who, for thousands of years, made sustainable use of our upland resources for their essential needs.

Our hill farmers are the inheritors of this wondrous cultural continuity and tradition, and their animals are the best conservators of it, through grazing. Those who call for ‘rewilding’ must first understand what the land contains from both a cultural and natural perspective, and should always combine the two for a balanced discussion about the future. If nature is to be ‘restored’ then the emphasis should surely be on our urban areas and towns, with a presumption against any development on greenfield sites.

Tom Greeves, MA PhD Cultural environmentalist

Penzance, Cornwall