I’m not sure I’m totally on board. The Midwestern united states used as an example in the article have current populations of deer. Our killing of the native predators have allowed their population to explode, and In more forested ecosystems at least, those excessive populations actually cause more risk of destructive fire as they prefer to eat native plants and tree shoots as opposed to invasive shrubs. This leaves a dense layer of bushes and no adolescent tree canopy, and as the old trees die, no fire resistant tree is there to take it’s place leaving a clearing of flammable understory.

That being said, the lack of roaming herds of bison trampling as they go also has an enormous impact and if we could pull fences and interstates to restore their habitat, it would almost certainly help our environment.

In Portugal, as well, many of the mentioned abandoned farms were eucalyptus, and many of the eucalyptus farms were cork oak before that. Cork oak is remarkable for it’s ability to withstand fire, that’s what the cork is for! Eucalyptus on the other hand is remarkable for burning so fast and hot, growing incredibly quickly, and spreading on it’s own. While again, grazing animals are absolutely missing and would help, they aren’t going to be able to fix this on their own. We are going to have to do a ton of manual labor.

Honestly, it sounds like the author would likely agree with all this, but I think it’s important to emphasize that in rewilding, we need to restore more than the obvious species. The wolves, beavers, and bears may be much more impactful than the deer or elk, and removing our infrastructure to make room for what should be there may be more impactful still.