Topic Analysis: The Proposition that the United States Ought to Rewild Substantial Tracts of Land
I. Executive Summary: The Dialectic of Rewilding
Here we are with the November/December topic, and it is quite an interesting one, we are going to switch things up for our topic analyses and make two separate analyses (AFF and NEG) that you can use to build your cases or arguments instead of just one short general analysis. Now, the resolution that the United States ought to rewild substantial tracts of land is supported by an overwhelming ecological and climatological imperative, in which rewilding is an integrated solution to the global crises of biodiversity loss and climate change. Large-scale ecological restoration, particularly focusing on restoring trophic dynamics and self-sustaining processes, has demonstrated quantifiable potential for carbon sequestration, hydrological resilience, and species recovery [1, 2, 3].
However, the analysis of this resolution also shows a profound socio-political paradox. The implementation of scientifically necessary rewilding approaches, such as the restoration of large carnivores and the conversion of agricultural land to wilder use, directly conflicts with deeply entrenched American principles of private property rights, state sovereignty over wildlife management, and the cultural identity of rural communities [4, 5, 6]. The greatest potential ecological benefits (achieved through continental-scale connectivity and trophic complexity) are intrinsically linked to the most controversial actions concerning land use change and predator management.
So, for this topic, you are going to have to most likely wrestle between two major bodies, which are (1) the more obvious environmental and ecological consequences and (2) the rights of individuals and the government
Here, we’ll argue that the U.S. has a moral and pragmatic obligation to pursue large-scale rewilding. This imperative, however, is strictly qualified, such that, success requires a fundamental shift in conservation policy, moving away from expert-driven mandates towards a collaborative model that integrates principles of environmental justice, Indigenous sovereignty (indigenization), and economic strategies focused on local mutual benefit. The transition from traditional, place-based conservation to process-based, continental rewilding necessitates legislative reform to overcome current legal barriers in federal wildlife statutes and state-level governance.
II. Defining Rewilding and Substantial Tracts in the US Context
A. The Evolution of Rewilding Theory
Rewilding is defined as a comprehensive process of restoring or reintroducing wild organisms and/or ecological processes to ecosystems where they are either missing or dysfunctional [7]. This approach differs significantly from traditional conservation, as its ultimate aim is to create self-sustaining environments that operate with minimal human intervention, focusing on ecosystem resilience and function rather than merely protecting existing habitats [8,9]. The concept has evolved from early ideas of "wilderness recovery" in the 1980s, becoming a scientific flagship tool for ecosystem restoration by the 2010s [10].
Modern practice recognizes a spectrum of rewilding initiatives:
Passive Rewilding: Involves the minimal or total withdrawal of direct human management, allowing natural processes like vegetation succession to take hold
[7, 9]. This often means simply abandoning or retiring land.Active Rewilding: Involves direct human intervention, such as reintroducing species, blocking drainage, or removing human obstructions like dams
[7, 11].Trophic Rewilding: A cornerstone of large-scale US conservation, this strategy specifically focuses on restoring top-down trophic interactions and complexity, usually through the reintroduction of apex predators or large herbivores (keystone species) to regulate primary consumer populations and promote biodiversity
[9]. The reintroduction of the wolf into Yellowstone National Park in 1995 remains the leading example of successful trophic rewilding in the U.S.[10, 12, 13].
B. The Scale Requirement and the "4 C's" Paradigm
For rewilding to achieve its goal of creating dynamic, self-regulating ecosystems with near pre-human levels of species diversity, it must operate at a substantial scale [14]. The foundational framework for North American rewilding is encapsulated in the "4 C's": Cores (large, protected reserves), Corridors (connectivity), Carnivores, and Coexistence [14, 15].
The definition of "substantial tracts" is going to be based on ecological necessity. Landscape-scale restoration is required to support self-sustaining habitats and species interdependence [16]. Small areas, sometimes defined as less than 50 hectares in an urban context, are susceptible to "edge effects"(the impacts of human activities experienced at a distance) meaning they cannot support entirely self-organizing ecosystems [17]. Large reserves are essential for supporting minimum viable populations (MVPs) of species with large home ranges, such as large carnivores and herbivores, and for allowing natural disturbance regimes (like fire and flooding) to occur without human conflict [17]. Achieving this scale requires working across national and state boundaries to conserve habitat for wildlife on a continental scale, so for this case "habitat connectivity" and "wildlife corridors" will be integral [18].
A major hurdle for large-scale application, however, as highlighted by conservation experts, is the misapplication of the rewilding concept. The term is often inconsistently defined, misrepresented, and poorly applied, which has, in some cases, negatively impacted existing biodiversity [3]. To mitigate this pragmatic risk, policy efforts must standardize the approach, perhaps centering on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)'s ten principles, which demand scientific rigor and a focus on socio-economic opportunities (If you feel this does not work there are probably much more viable ways to standardize it. Choose whatever works for you), thereby validating the approach against radical, non-collaborative land abandonment [3].
Rewilding, therefore, serves as a necessary policy innovation. Traditional conservation approaches have proven insufficient to halt the current sixth mass extinction [10]. By focusing on restoring ecological processes rather than simply protecting specific places, we can then make rewilding future-focused and adaptable to climate change [8, 9]. This would be a paradigm shift in conservation strategy that can’t be dismissed by usual objections from the NEG. [3].
III. The Ecological and Economic Imperative (The Case for "Ought")
The case for the United States to rewild substantial tracts of land rests upon its capacity to simultaneously address the existential threats of the biodiversity crisis and climate change while providing demonstrable economic benefits.
A. Biodiversity Crisis Mitigation: Restoring Functional Ecosystems
The biodiversity crisis extends beyond species extinction; it is heavily characterized by the rapid contraction of species' geographic ranges, which results in extirpation from large portions of historic habitat [19]. Many studied terrestrial vertebrates have been extirpated from 60% or more of their historic ranges. [19]. Rewilding directly addresses this issue by restoring imperiled species so they can fulfill their ecological roles across broad portions of their former ranges [19].
😁Quick help:
Extirpate- root out and destroy completely
Successful restoration depends on reinstalling the extinct or lost fauna and restoring the resulting ecological relationships [15]. Keystone species are fundamental to this process. For example, the American Prairie Reserve (APR) in Montana aims to fully restore the shortgrass prairie ecosystem by reintroducing native species, including American bison, black-footed ferrets, and large carnivores, maximizing the integrity, complexity, and resilience of the system, restoring the ecosystem function as it existed around 1800 [20, 21]. The success of such projects validates the principle that wildlife, in all its diversity, evolves and belongs where the land can support a resilient ecosystem [20].
B. Rewilding as a Climate Solution and Adaptation Strategy
The interrelation of the nature and climate crises necessitates integrated solutions [22]. Rewilding offers one of the most powerful nature-based solutions (NbS) available to humankind [1, 23].
The Wildlife-Carbon Nexus: Rewilding supercharges ecosystem carbon sinks. Research indicates that wild animals play a critical role in controlling the carbon cycle through processes like foraging, nutrient deposition, and seed dispersal
[1]. Protecting or restoring just nine key wildlife species globally (including the gray wolf and American bison) could facilitate the additional capture of 6.41 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually[1]. This figure represents 95% of the annual carbon removal required to meet the Paris Agreement target of keeping global warming below the 1.5°C threshold[24]. This substantial capacity for natural carbon capture also allows the AFF to argue that the rewilding of keystone is a mandatory component of national climate infrastructure investment. Furthermore, the functional role of animals has been shown to magnify carbon uptake by up to 12.5 times compared to static protection efforts[2].Restoration of Ecosystem Services (Adaptation): Rewilded ecosystems significantly increase resilience and adaptation to climate impacts. Restoring hydrological functions is also salient:
Rewetting wetlands and peatlands, which store five times more CO2 than forests, enhances water retention and slows water flows, thereby reducing downstream flood risk
[2, 22, 25].Expanding woodland cover increases ecological complexity, decreasing runoff and mitigating the risk of wildfire by promoting mixed, wetter landscapes
[22].The reintroduction of beavers, for instance, naturally re-naturalizes river channels, supporting effective natural flood management
[22, 26].
C. Long-Term Economic Rationale
The economic case for rewilding rests on revenue generation and substantial cost avoidance through the restoration of ecosystem services.
Financial Sustainability and Revenue: Rewilding investments are increasingly recognized for providing durable, long-lasting returns, primarily driven by diversified income streams such as carbon credits, eco-tourism, and sustainable resource management
[27]. The creation of wilder landscapes directly leads to economic benefits for local communities, including increased income from tourism and the development and marketing of high-quality local products[28]. These initiatives benefit from blended finance approaches, combining public and private funds, often supported by government incentives[27].Cost Efficiency: One of the most compelling arguments for large-scale rewilding is its potential to transition land management from costly, perpetual human intervention to self-regulation
[11]. Rewilding aims to restore natural processes that are self-regulating, reducing the need for continuous human management, thus lowering long-term input costs[11]. The greatest financial efficiency is intrinsically linked to the ecological outcome: if trophic complexity is successfully restored, the ecosystem minimizes the need for management inputs e.g. veterinary costs, population regulation, and infrastructure maintenance[29]. Moreover, the value of avoided costs associated with environmental hazards (such as reduced flood damage, soil stabilization, and public health benefits) provides significant returns on investment[3, 23]. In the European context, the cost per sequestered ton of carbon via rewilding is estimated to be highly competitive, around 25 to 50 euros[2].
IV. Constraints to Consider
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) Constraint: The primary federal policy instrument for biodiversity mitigation in the U.S. is the ESA
[6]. However, its utility for rewilding is severely compromised by agency interpretation. Federal services have, for the past two decades, consistently narrowed the definition of an "endangered species," asserting that the term "range" refers only to a species' current range, not its historic range[6]. This interpretation effectively precludes the use of the ESA to mandate or fund the restoration of species extirpated from vast portions of their historic habitat, limiting proactive recovery across the substantial tracts required for continental rewilding[6].NEPA Procedural Complexity: Large-scale species reintroduction, such as the Colorado gray wolf initiative, constitutes a major federal action requiring rigorous environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
[35]. The requirement to prepare a time-consuming Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is usually going to be triggered by the high level of public controversy associated with predator reintroduction[35]. Furthermore, recent judicial and administrative challenges regarding the rulemaking authority of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) have led to increased regulatory uncertainty. Without centralized, binding guidance, federal agencies are increasingly responsible for interpreting and implementing NEPA independently, heightening the procedural burden for complex, multi-jurisdictional rewilding projects. As the AFF you have to consider these systematic problems[36].
V. Normative Analysis: Ethical Debates and Justice Implications.
A. Fundamental Ethical Worldviews in Conflict
Anthropocentrism places humans at the center of moral concern, valuing nature primarily based on its utility for human benefit, for instance, supporting rewilding only because it provides essential ecosystem services like climate security and flood control [38]. Conversely, Ecocentrism expands moral consideration to ecosystems as a whole, so the intrinsic value of all living and nonliving components, independent of human needs [38, 39].
B. Rewilding, Decolonization, and Environmental Justice
Rewilding efforts risk becoming what some call a "reform ecology," wherein the failure of past environmental governance is leveraged by experts and policymakers to justify their continued authority, potentially leading to new inequities despite nominal commitments to inclusion [40]. The key justice issue is who defines "wild" and who holds the power to enact land use changes.
Indigenous Critique and indigenization: Rewilding must confront its potential to perpetuate historical colonial practices of land exclusion, given the devastating impacts the U.S. expansion had on Native nations and their traditions
[41]. The concept of rewilding is subject to critique, viewing it as an external "Abrahamic construct" seeking a "pristine purity" that fails to account for millennia of traditional human stewardship[42].
The alternative model is Reindigenization, which requires restoring the sovereignty, knowledge systems, and cultural practices of politically defined Indigenous peoples, coupled with rebuilding a relational ontology to ecological place [43, 44]. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) affirms the necessity of respecting Indigenous knowledge, cultures, and rights to their land for sustainable environmental management [44].
Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK): The normative pivot point for rewilding in the U.S. is the necessity of shifting governance to include Indigenous management, leveraging TEK as a foundational element of restoration strategy
[45, 46]. The successful return of bison to tribal lands, such as those of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Sicangu Lakota Oyate), illustrates this holistic approach. These efforts not only restore a keystone species to the Plains ecosystem but simultaneously renew cultural connections, reinforce food security, and spur localized economic development, achieving a comprehensive social and ecological success[47, 48].
The "ought" to rewild substantial tracts of land is contingent upon fulfilling this ethical transformation: rewilding must evolve from a project of imposed order or exclusion to one of collaborative coexistence [3].
VII. Conclusion: The Qualified Imperative
The resolution that the United States ought to rewild substantial tracts of land is validated by the ecological data demonstrating rewilding’s unique power to address the interrelated crises of extinction and climate change. The restoration of functional ecosystems, particularly through trophic rewilding, offers a highly efficient, long-term nature-based solution for biodiversity recovery and carbon sequestration, providing an integrated climate adaptation strategy that mitigates risks from flooding and wildfire [1, 2].
However, the current US governance structure and socio-cultural landscape are ill-equipped to facilitate this continental-scale change. Legal barriers, specifically the interpretation of the ESA and the fragmented nature of state wildlife management, currently impede the restoration of key species across their historic ranges [6, 34]. Furthermore, the deep-seated resistance from rural communities, driven by conflicts over land use, cultural identity, and the perceived imposition of "wilderness ideals," presents a critical threat to feasibility [4, 30].
Therefore, the imperative is conditional: the United States must commit to large-scale rewilding, but only through a policy transformation that prioritizes shared benefits and inclusive governance. This requires legislative action to empower recovery efforts on historic ranges, systemic financial incentivization of private and state land stewardship, and, critically, the commitment to Indigenous-led restoration models. Only by making the rewilding process collaborative, accountable, and intrinsically linked to local economic viability can the U.S. move successfully from the concept of preservation to the mandate of self-sustaining ecosystem recovery.
Sources:
1. Conserving Wildlife Can Help Mitigate Climate Change
2. https://rewildingeurope.com/impact-stories/climate-positive/
3. https://iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/benefits-and-risks-rewilding
4. https://mountainjournal.org/the-american-prairie-reserve-and-its-dustup-over-bison-and-property-rights/
5. https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1400&context=ulr
6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10755707/
7. https://www.mossy.earth/rewilding-knowledge/rewilding-vs-conservation
8. https://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/env212/rewilding-as-a-new-tool-for-u-s-conservation-policy/
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewilding
10. https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/planet/rewilding-a-new-approach-to-protecting-biodiversity/
11. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-0537/POST-PN-0537.pdf
12. Rewilding: Case Reports and Lessons for the 21st Century
13. 3. Literature review: main findings - Defining rewilding for Scotland's public sector: research findings - gov.scot
14. What is Rewilding? Dave Foreman and The Rewilding Institute Definition
15. Rewilding: a requirement for a sustainable future - PMC
16. Article Detail
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24,
25,
26.
27.
28.
29.
30
31.
