Rewilding in Arkansas is a plan to restore a portion of our forests and some of its wildlife to what it was in the past.
When we look back 200 years ago, I am confident that we wouldn't recognize most of our state. We've essentially cut all of the massive virgin timber, drained the great swamps near most of our rivers, and killed off at least 90 percent of the animal life.
What now? Are we satisfied just to accept the disaster we have created? Or should we join a movement called Rewilding Europe? This is the concept: Certain large forested and lightly inhabited areas of the European continent would be selected to be rewilded--allowed to become as wild as possible. I know we think if a program such as rewilding was important, the United States would be leading the world in adopting it. Well, we're not leading the pack. We're not even in the pack. In fact, very few Americans even know what rewilding is, so let me bring you up to date.
Rewilding recreates an area or a species of wildlife as close as it was before it was inhabited by humans. And not just a national park, but a woodland where as many of the original animals that inhabited an area would once again live there.
Rewilding would be selective, and essentially that's what many of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission's programs are doing now, but it would be more extensive. Restoring the turkey and deer populations are good examples, but that's only a starting point.
Arkansas was once the Bear State because bears were so plentiful, and I would venture a guess that bears were in every county in the state. The re-establishing of the bear population has started, but it is confined and limited, and with a bear hunting season it seems as if the Game and Fish Commission is merely trying to recreate a token bear population.
Why not let the bear population increase until we reach a rewilding level equal to the turkey or deer population? I can't see how, if it's OK to have a bear population in a couple of northwest Arkansas counties and one southeast county, why wouldn't it make sense to have bears in all 75 counties again? If there is nothing wrong with having more bears, having a bear season is a stupid way to achieve that. Eliminate the bear season until the bear population has been increased by 300 to 500 percent. That would put the bear population at something over 75,000, and it would probably have a positive effect on reducing the feral hog population.
Why not let the elk expand their range? What's wrong with elk being in the Ouachita Mountains or along the Red River in southwest Arkansas? Having an elk hunting season to keep the herd along the Buffalo River at about the same size is just one step from having a hunting season at a petting zoo. Eliminate the elk season until we have substantial herds of elk throughout the state, and a substantial statewide herd of elk would be in the 100,000 range instead of a few hundred.
How many 12-foot alligators are left in the state after that big one was killed last month? Ten, maybe 15; and what is the alligator population in southern and eastern Arkansas? Somewhere from 1,500-2,000? Maybe you're not ready to see more alligators in south Arkansas, but how many beaver are there? Hundreds of thousands, and more are on the way, and the over-abundance of beaver has wreaked environmental havoc by flooding thousands of forest habitat acres.
We are overrun by beaver because we have eliminated all the predators that prey on beaver, and guess what helps control beaver? It's alligators, especially big ones! We should eliminate the gator season until we reach some equilibrium with the beaver population, and that would let the few thousand gators in the state expand to several hundred thousand.
Now before you start thinking I'm anti-hunting, consider the effect of what I propose. Allowing the population of elk, bear, and alligators to expand until those populations are as plentiful as deer, would create a much better opportunity to hunt. When I grew up in south Arkansas, deer were so scarce that just seeing a deer was a big deal. Now after rewilding the deer population, deer hunting is a huge part of the hunting season in Arkansas.
Having more wild game is only part of the rewilding we need. There is another large area of our state that needs more habitat restoration, and this area will surprise you. We should rewild a portion of the roadways and median right-of-ways especially on interstates and other major roads. The Arkansas Department of Transportation, which has done a super job of road construction, is probably responsible for more habitat destruction than any entity in the state.
I walk and jog on the 167 Bypass in El Dorado; the medians are mowed grass and the cleared right-of-ways are 40 to 50 yards of mowed grass on both sides of the road. Multiply that extra unneeded right-of-way by 5,000 or 10,000 and you will understand the magnitude of the loss. I believe the right-of-ways could be reduced by at least 50 percent without any appreciable hazard to drivers. I have driven on dozens of interstate highways where the right-of-way were a third of Arkansas' and have noticed the nationwide trend to plant trees and bushes in the medians and reduce the right-of-ways in surrounding states. Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi have tree planting programs to reforest medians and over-extended right-of-ways. By allowing part of the right-of-ways to have major vegetation instead of grass, it would save the state thousands of dollars in mowing expense.
Arkansas has already benefited immensely from rewilding, but if we will ramp up the process and rewild other species of wildlife and habitat, our state and our hunters will reap huge benefits.
Richard Mason is a registered professional geologist, downtown developer, former chairman of the Department of Environmental Quality Board of Commissioners, past president of the Arkansas Wildlife Federation, and syndicated columnist. Email [email protected].
Editorial on 11/05/2017