As We Forecast

The process called "reintroduction" or "rewilding" involves reintroducing free-living species into a given area where they have previously been extinct. It appears that this process has gained the support of many animal protectionists (as well as the media) who see this process as somehow making good the damage previously done by the human species. In addition, it is a dogma accepted almost without question that this process can be justified by reference to the notion of "biodiversity."

As one of us has emphasised,

it is ethically questionable to reintroduce species unless humans are now prepared to tolerate them … the question has to be asked: what good does it do to the released animals if one is only setting up new conflicts between the animals and humans whereby the animals will always be the losers?"

(Linzey, 2013, p. 74)

The problem with rewilding is that it assumes that humans always know better than nature. It also assumes that there is a perfect ecological balance that can be achieved: "However much loved by conservationists, the notion of biodiversity is philosophically contestable if not vacuous. There never was a pristine biodiversity" (Linzey, 2013, p. 74).

Now what do we find? Since the reintroduction of beavers in Scotland in 2009, the beaver population has steadily increased, such that now NatureScot, the Scottish government's nature agency, says the beavers are causing "problems" and "pose a risk of serious damage to farmland" (Carrell, 2021). Thus, despite beavers becoming a European Protected Species in 2019, by summer 2021, NatureScot issued licenses to kill beavers, and more than 200 had been reportedly killed (Williams, 2021). This is but one example of what we forecasted would happen, namely, the snaring, shooting, or poisoning of reintroduced species.

The warnings we (and others) have given have simply not been heeded. The result is that scientists or "conservationists" now apparently have the right to introduce species when and where they think it may aid "biodiversity" without moral censure or ethical debate. As one of us indicated way back in 2013,

reintroductions need to be subject to ethical scrutiny. First, the likely ecological disruption, both short and long term, needs to be taken more rigorously into account. Second, there must be a genuine and demonstrable tolerance toward reintroduced species to prevent the repetition of previous attempts at extermination. Third, species should not be reintroduced into environments where they will inevitably be subject to harm from human beings. More fundamentally, the idea that we have an untrammeled right to manipulate, dominate, and control the natural world must be questioned.

(Linzey, 2013, p. 74)

With plans to reintroduce both wildcats and lynx into Scotland already underway (Carrell, 2021) and bison just reintroduced in Kent (Carrington & Davis, 2022), much more moral consideration needs to be given to whether humans are capable of allowing other species to exist before reintroductions are made.

This is not to say that reintroductions can never be ethical. The Whale Sanctuary Project (n.d.) is one example of relocating whales from captivity to Port Hilford, Nova Scotia, where the local community has been specifically consulted and chosen because they want the sanctuary and the whales in their community.

With exceptions such as these, animals are now being subject to a gigantic scientific experiment in their supposed best interests but that can only generate more conflict and killing in the long run. The often-forgotten point is that conservationists are not against the killing of individual animals—rather it is the sustaining of the "ecological whole" and animals as collectivities that is paramount. As Rewilding Britain (2022) maintains, "Culling in small numbers, which might replicate the action of natural predators (such as the wolf), shouldn't be a problem. We need a natural balance between healthy water and soils, vegetation, herbivores and carnivores." Indeed, Rewilding Britain (2022) only objects to the killing of the beavers "until their conservation status is clearly secured."

In the case of the Scottish licenses, animal protectionists have challenged the ruling, and the preference for relocating the beavers rather than killing them seems to have prevailed (Amos, 2022). However, this is not a complete victory. While...