A Proposal to Fix the Divide between Humans and the Wilderness

As time passes and societies grow, there seems to be a direct impact on the degradation of the wilderness throughout country. Specifically in the Midwest, the continuation of urbanization proves to harm wild spaces as its arrival means deforestation and the intrusion of society. Over the last 30 years, one of the biggest shifts I noticed on the Wildland-Urban Interface was the growing of urban land in northern Wisconsin. One of the challenges that come with growth of shared urban-wild space include an increase of roads which (among other things) leads to habitat fragmentation and thus a decrease of biodiversity. Roads also lead to increased edge habitats which invites new understory growth including certain invasive species paradise. Stripping forests also leads to similar effects with the end of old growth invites non-native new species with the shift in habitat as well as the end of new growth all together due to housing and other man-made systems.

    If I were a manager, I would enforce rules about what the suburban areas get to look like especially in northern Wisconsin. As of late, suburbs look like mass removal of forest to create a barren, perfect set of lots ready for homes and complete with a cul-de-sac or two. I would enforce the creation of homes build straight into the woods. If homes must be built, it would be better for less tree’s to be cut down and instead homes to accommodate the already/there woodland. That way, people who want to live in the woods will be happy and those that wish they could live in a cookie-cutter neighborhood can deal with it and just move south. Should communities persist in needing new urbanization, my last resort would be to develop land-bridges for wildlife to connect across roads which has proven successful in different examples throughout the nation (e.g. Yellowstone National Park) (2).

    I wonder if this intentional home building could be a healthy bridge between society and the wilderness. The goal would be to be extremely cautious that the effect you, as a human, have on nature and the exact place humankind biological has. Residents would live regular lives but must be respectful to the nature around them. This could be regulated in some way. I suppose the idea would be that if you didn’t love and appreciate nature, you wouldn’t want to live among it. Preservation and protection would be key and would be a top priority in the creation of the home or whatever form of neighborhood would eventually develop. 

    I don’t think it is possible to experience the wild without human influence being a factor; but the key part of this notion is that it isn’t all a bad thing. We are human and we can be wild if we change our views to understanding that we are a part of nature. I’m not talking about mass urban cities and especially not about the countless systems our society has built. I am talking about the simple man who just enjoys, appreciates and respects the wild for what it is. If you are that person, perhaps you can have your cake as well as eat it.

SOURCES

https://silvis.forest.wisc.edu/data/wui-change/

https://y2y.net/blog/how-do-wildlife-know-to-use-animal-bridges/