ROBERT HARDMAN: How happy-clappy rewilders, wilfully ignoring centuries of wisdom and experience, are making Britain a tinderbox
The article argues that recent wildfires across Britain have exposed weaknesses in how some rural landscapes are managed. Its author contends that, alongside hotter and drier conditions, rewilding policies and reduced hands-on land management can leave dense vegetation and peat more vulnerable to fast-spreading fires, while acknowledging the efforts of firefighters, farmers, gamekeepers and volunteers.
It cites fires at Dunwich Heath and Minsmere in Suffolk, Tintwistle Moor and Dove Stone in the Peak District, and the Cairngorms. The Suffolk fire reportedly damaged 371 acres, or about 210 football pitches, while the Peak District losses were put at 1,250 pitches and the Cairngorms at 3,500 pitches, roughly ten square miles; no homes or lives were lost in Suffolk despite evacuations from a holiday park. The piece frames the events as part of a wider dispute between advocates of active countryside management and supporters of rewilding.
- Wildfires have intensified debate over Britain’s countryside management.
- The author links fire risk to vegetation, peat and rewilding policies.
- Major fires affected Suffolk, the Peak District and Cairngorms.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of active land management argue that fire risk is reduced when vegetation is regularly grazed, cut, burned in controlled conditions where appropriate, or otherwise managed by people with local knowledge. They contend that abandoning these practices can allow combustible fuel to accumulate, particularly during hotter, drier periods, and that protecting habitats, communities and emergency responders requires practical prevention rather than relying on natural processes alone. Their case rests on stewardship, resilience and respect for generations of rural experience.
The case against
Supporters of rewilding argue that restoring more natural ecosystems can improve biodiversity, water retention and long-term climate resilience, including through healthier peatlands and more varied vegetation. They may say recent fires chiefly underline the effects of drought, extreme weather, ignition sources and inadequate public funding, rather than proving that rewilding itself is to blame; poorly designed or selectively managed schemes should not discredit the broader approach. Their case rests on repairing ecological damage while using evidence-led, site-specific fire planning rather than treating intensive traditional management as the default everywhere.