I recently heard of an organization that buys cattle ranges to convert them back to natural prairies, and it got me thinking; That is extremely shortsighted in terms of global biodiversity and ecological function. In theory it is an amazing idea, take the non-native cattle out of the prairie and return the Bison. More wildlife will follow, and just like that you are helping to restore nature. However, whether you support cattle farming or not, beef consumption is not going down anytime soon. So now in order to make up for the loss of cattle production on those former ranches one of two things need to happen. #1 being we will clear more natural lands in the U.S to either directly graze cattle on, or to use those now cleared lands to grow feed and forage to feed extra cattle now in a feedlot. Or #2, being we need to import more beef from another country, where the increase in demand will inevitably have the same environmental consequences. Whilst restoring the Great Plains to a “completely original” state that organization is now causing more of the Amazon Rainforest to be cut down for cattle production, because at the end of the day Americans still eat tonnes and tonnes of beef. So that’s where I introduce the second opinion of this article; When it comes to rewilding agricultural lands, we need to settle for as close to “original” as possible without losing production. If we completely kick the agriculture off the land we are simply moving the clearing of nature to somewhere else, much like the solution some politicians suggest for handling homelessness. Simply move them to another town. It does not actually fix the problem of homelessness, rather just puts it out of view for the currently affected town. Yet the ripple effect of the homelessness, or in our case the loss of agricultural/ecological, can be felt in that original town.