Over the course of the event, participants engaged in rich discussions on landscape restoration, regenerative agriculture, community-led conservation, and innovative financing mechanisms for nature-based solutions. Speakers shared not only their successes, but also the complexities and setbacks that are inherent to working in dynamic ecological and social systems. This openness created a rare and valuable environment: one where knowledge was not simply presented, but genuinely exchanged.

We were particularly encouraged by the calibre and commitment of those involved. From field practitioners working in remote and often challenging conditions, to scientists advancing our understanding of ecosystems, to entrepreneurs exploring new models for sustainable livelihoods — the conference reflected a growing movement of people determined to move beyond theory and into implementation. Many of the connections made during those days have already led to follow-up conversations, collaborations, and new ideas that continue to evolve.

At the same time, it would be incomplete not to acknowledge that the organisation of the conference was affected by a serious incident in the run-up to the event. These issues related to commitments and representations made outside the direct control and oversight of the foundation, and did not align with our standards of transparency, accountability, and good governance. Once these discrepancies became clear, we took immediate steps to distance the organisation from those involved and to prevent further impact.

If anyone has concerns that funds intended for the Foundation may not have reached the Foundation, including in cases where individuals may have acted or presented themselves as representing the Foundation, we encourage them to contact us directly, and where appropriate, the relevant authorities.

Integrity is not negotiable

The values that underpin our work – integrity, openness, and responsible stewardship of resources – are not negotiable. As a foundation working with grants, partnerships, and donations, we have a duty not only to deliver meaningful impact, but also to ensure that all processes leading to that impact are conducted with the highest level of care, transparency and honesty. Where this standard is not met, we act.

Across the world, colleagues working in conservation are threatened, attacked, abducted, and in some cases even killed because of the work they do. In that context, it is difficult to justify silence in the face of fraud or misrepresentation out of concern for reputational damage.

Failing to name or address misconduct does not protect the sector. On the contrary, it creates space for those who seek to exploit it. Transparency and accountability are essential if trust is to be maintained – both with partners and with the wider public. Silence risks normalising behaviour that should never be considered acceptable.

Turning adversity into opportunity

At the same time, we believe it is equally important not to allow such setbacks to overshadow the genuine achievements and momentum that emerged from the conference. The energy, creativity, and commitment of participants demonstrated that there is both a need and a strong appetite for continued exchange in this space. Many attendees have expressed their willingness to remain involved and to contribute to future initiatives, which we deeply value.

Looking ahead, we are committed to building on what worked, while strengthening the structures and processes behind it. This includes more robust due diligence in all partnerships and financial arrangements. These are necessary steps in ensuring that future initiatives are even stronger, more resilient, and fully aligned with our mission.

In doing so, we hope to bring together again the “first movers” – those who showed both courage and dedication in engaging people in rewilding. Their willingness to step forward, to contribute, and to help shape a shared vision is something we do not take for granted.

In closing, we want to express our sincere appreciation to everyone who participated, contributed, and supported the Rewilding our World Conference. Challenges are part of any conservation effort, but they do not define it. What defines it is how we respond – with clarity, with integrity, and with a continued commitment to the work that matters.

We move forward with that commitment firmly in place.

The post Rewilding our World Conference: Reflecting on Impact, Integrity, and the Path Forward appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

Across Ice Age Europe, herds of wild horses once thundered over windswept grasslands that stretched from the Atlantic coast to the Eurasian steppe. Their silhouettes – stocky bodies, thick necks, upright manes – are frozen in time on cave walls, from Lascaux to Chauvet. To modern eyes, they look unmistakably like the last surviving wild horse: the Przewalski’s horse.

For decades, that resemblance shaped a simple story: the horses of prehistoric Europe were essentially the same as Przewalski’s horse, just spread farther west. But science has a way of unsettling familiar narratives. Today, a combination of fossil analysis and ancient DNA is revealing a more complicated – and more intriguing—truth.

Reintroducing Przewalski horses?

The Przewalski’s horse is often described as Europe’s last truly wild horse – a species that never underwent full domestication and once roamed the vast Eurasian steppes. After disappearing from the wild in the mid-20th century, it survived only thanks to captive breeding programs, and has since become one of conservation’s most remarkable comeback stories. 

In recent decades, these hardy, stocky horses have been reintroduced into a growing number of European landscapes, where they play an important ecological role as natural grazers. By feeding on grasses, shrubs, and young trees, they help maintain open habitats, support biodiversity, and contribute to more dynamic, self-regulating ecosystems.

The illusion of similarity – Appearance ≠ ancestry

At first glance, identifying ancient horses seems straightforward. Paleontologists have long relied on bones: skulls, teeth, and limb proportions. Ice Age horses in Europe were typically robust, with strong jaws and relatively short legs – traits well suited to cold, open environments where grazing was constant and winters were harsh.

Those features match what we see in Przewalski’s horse today. It’s a tempting conclusion: same shape, same animal.

But evolution doesn’t always play fair with appearances.

Different populations can independently evolve similar traits when adapting to similar conditions, a phenomenon known as convergent evolution. In the steppe landscapes of the Pleistocene, survival favored a particular “horse design”: sturdy, efficient grazers built for endurance and cold.

The result? Horses that look alike—even when they are not closely related.

Bones can mislead

Fossils are abundant across Europe. Horse remains are among the most common finds at Paleolithic sites, often preserved alongside tools, hearths, and the remains of other Ice Age animals. Yet these bones rarely tell a complete story.

Subtle anatomical differences can hint at variation between populations, but they often fall short of distinguishing lineages. Two horses may share nearly identical skeletal features while belonging to entirely separate branches of the evolutionary tree.

For much of the 20th century, that limitation blurred distinctions. Many European fossils were broadly grouped under wild horse categories, sometimes assumed to be closely related to Przewalski’s horse—or even direct ancestors.

DNA rewrites the map

The real shift came with the rise of ancient DNA analysis. By extracting genetic material from fossilized bones, scientists gained a tool far more precise than morphology alone.

When researchers began sequencing the genomes of ancient European horses, the results were surprising.

Many of these animals did not belong to the Przewalski lineage at all. Instead, they represented a patchwork of now-extinct populations and lineages, some more closely related to the ancestors of modern domestic horses, others branching off in directions that left no living descendants.

In other words, Ice Age Europe was not home to a single, uniform kind of wild horse. It was a mosaic.

A lost diversity

This genetic evidence reveals a richer and more dynamic picture of the past. Rather than a continent populated by one familiar type, Europe hosted multiple horse populations, each adapted to local conditions and shaped by shifting climates (The genomic history of Iberian horses since the last Ice Age”, published in Nature Communications in 2025).

Some thrived during colder periods, expanding across the steppe-tundra. Others retreated or disappeared as forests spread and environments changed. Over thousands of years, migrations, isolations, and extinctions reshaped the genetic landscape again and again.

The Przewalski lineage, it seems, was only one branch among many—and not the dominant one in Europe.

The last wild horse

Today, Przewalski’s horse survives as a rare and remarkable remnant of deep evolutionary history. Once extinct in the wild, it has been reintroduced to parts of Central Asia, its dun coat and upright mane echoing the forms painted on ancient cave walls.

Yet its resemblance to Europe’s prehistoric horses is, in part, a coincidence of adaptation. Those Ice Age animals may have looked the same, moved the same, and lived in similar herds—but genetically, they often told a different story.

Rethinking the familiar

The idea that “Europe’s horses were Przewalski’s horses” is appealing in its simplicity. It links past and present in a single, continuous thread. But the reality is more complex—and more interesting.

What once seemed like a single lineage turns out to be a tapestry of many, most now lost to time. Fossils give us the shapes of these animals; DNA reveals their identities. Together, they show that resemblance is not the same as relationship.

And in the quiet galleries of Europe’s caves, where horses still gallop across stone walls, we are left with a subtle reminder:

Sometimes, the past looks familiar—until you look closer.

Key recent studies

1. Large-scale ancient DNA study (2025, Nature Communications)

• The genomic history of Iberian horses since the last Ice Age
• This is one of the most relevant new papers.

What it found:

• Sequenced 87 ancient horse genomes from Iberia and the Mediterranean
• Identified a distinct, now-extinct lineage (“IBE”) in Europe
• Crucially: this lineage was morphologically similar to other horses but genetically very different 

2. Schöningen horse genome study (2025, Nature Ecology & Evolution)

What it found:

• Reconstructed DNA from a ~300,000-year-old European horse (Equus mosbachensis)
• Showed this was an evolutionary dead-end lineage, not directly ancestral to modern horses  
• Europe hosted multiple extinct horse lineages over time, reinforcing that:

• The continent was not dominated by a single “Przewalski-like” population
• Many European horses were genetically separate branches

3. Body size, dental pathology and maternal genetic diversity of ancient horses (2026 BioRxiv preprint)

What it shows:

• Ongoing work sequencing horses from the Baltic and Russia
• Focus on maternal genetic diversity and population structure  
• Przewalski horses carry very old genetic lineages that were already present in ancient Eurasian horse populations, reflecting a deep shared evolutionary history.
• Even regional datasets show high diversity and multiple lineages, not a single uniform wild horse population.

4. Complete genome of Przewalski’s horse (2024)

What it shows:

• High-resolution genome of the only surviving wild horse lineage
• Provides a baseline for comparison, allowing scientists to test whether ancient fossils belong to the Przewalski lineage
• Most European fossiles don’t.
• This reinforces that Przewalski’s horses are not a distant “wild ancestor” of European horses, but a sister lineage within the same wild horse species complex.

The post Europe’s Horses Weren Not “Przewalski” appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

Europe is witnessing what appears to be a remarkable wildlife recovery story. After centuries of persecution, habitat loss, and population declines, gray wolves (Canis lupus) are recolonising much of their former range. Today, the estimated population exceeds 21,000 individuals, and wolves are increasingly visible in landscapes across central and western Europe. At first glance, this demographic rebound seems to signal a conservation triumph. Governments and policymakers, interpreting these numbers, have even relaxed legal protections in some regions, granting more flexibility for lethal control and management interventions. However, recent genomic research suggests that the story of European wolves is more complex and far less reassuring than census numbers might imply.

A team of researchers led by Sara Ravagni and colleagues analyzed over 200 whole genomes from wolves across Europe and Türkiye, revealing a mosaic of genetically distinct, isolated populations rather than a single, recovering metapopulation. The study, currently available as a preprint on bioRxiv, highlights that despite the apparent demographic recovery, European wolves remain at significant risk of genetic erosion and inbreeding, which threaten their long-term survival. These findings challenge assumptions that European wolves are now secure and underscore the importance of incorporating genetic data into conservation assessments.

A Mosaic of Wolves

The study focused on five major European wolf populations: the Italian Peninsula, Iberian Peninsula, Dinaric-Balkan, Karelian, and Scandinavian wolves. Each of these populations represents a distinct lineage, largely isolated for thousands of years. Genetic analyses revealed deep divergences among these groups, most tracing back to the late Pleistocene. In practical terms, this means that what looks like a single, recovering species across Europe is in fact a collection of independently evolving lineages, each with its own evolutionary history, vulnerabilities, and genetic identity.

Using advanced genomic tools, the researchers examined effective population size (Ne), a key measure of genetic health that reflects the number of individuals contributing genetically to the next generation. For long-term viability, conservationists generally consider Ne ≥ 500 to be necessary, with Ne ≥ 50 as the short-term minimum to avoid inbreeding depression. Alarmingly, all five European wolf populations studied fell below this threshold, with some, like the Italian Peninsula and Scandinavian wolves, approaching or even below the critical short-term boundary. Inbreeding coefficients were high, particularly in isolated populations, and the proportion of deleterious genetic variants realized within genomes indicated emerging risks of inbreeding depression.

Why Census Counts Can Be Misleading

The findings reveal a key disconnect between visible population recovery and underlying genetic health. While census numbers in Europe are increasing, genomic recovery has not kept pace. Wolves may appear abundant in certain regions, but their genetic diversity—the raw material for long-term adaptation and resilience—is severely constrained. The Italian Peninsula population, for example, shows extensive signs of historical bottlenecks and prolonged isolation, while Scandinavian wolves, founded by just three immigrants from Karelia in the 1980s, display extreme genetic drift and recent inbreeding.

This genetic fragility has practical consequences. Populations with low genetic diversity are less able to adapt to environmental change, disease, or human pressures. Inbreeding depression can manifest as reduced fertility, higher mortality, and increased susceptibility to disease. Even if wolves appear to be recovering numerically, these underlying vulnerabilities make them precariously close to the brink in evolutionary terms.

Legal Protections and Natural Recolonisation

Despite these risks, the natural recolonization of wolves in Europe demonstrates the effectiveness of legal protection and habitat connectivity. Unlike in North America, where active reintroduction programs supported wolf recovery, European wolves have expanded their range largely through natural dispersal from remnant refugial populations in southern and eastern peninsulas. This natural rebound underscores the importance of maintaining legal safeguards, as well as the ecological versatility of wolves, which can thrive in human-modified landscapes when protections are in place.

However, the study warns against complacency. Relaxing protections based solely on apparent population growth could exacerbate genetic risks. Policies that allow increased lethal control or habitat fragmentation threaten to depress already low effective population sizes further, accelerating inbreeding and eroding adaptive potential. The recent extinction of the Sierra Morena wolf population in southern Spain serves as a stark reminder of how quickly isolated, genetically compromised lineages can disappear when conservation measures are relaxed.

The Role of Genomics in Conservation

The European wolf case illustrates the growing importance of genomic data in wildlife conservation. Traditional monitoring methods, including population counts and range mapping, provide only partial information about species health. Genome-wide analyses reveal hidden vulnerabilities that cannot be detected through census data alone. By examining genetic diversity, inbreeding, and the distribution of deleterious variants, scientists can identify populations at risk, guide management interventions, and prioritize conservation resources.

For European wolves, the implications are clear. Each of the five populations analyzed should be treated as a separate management unit, with strategies tailored to its unique genetic and demographic context. Measures could include facilitating connectivity between populations to increase gene flow, protecting critical habitats, and maintaining legal protections until effective population sizes are sufficient to ensure long-term viability.

Conservation Policy and Public Perception

One challenge highlighted by the study is the gap between public perception and biological reality. Wolves are often perceived as overabundant in areas where they are recolonizing landscapes, particularly when they come into conflict with livestock farming. This perception has contributed to political pressure to downlist protections, yet the genomic data indicate that these populations remain genetically vulnerable. Communicating these findings effectively to policymakers and the public is critical for ensuring informed decisions that balance human-wildlife coexistence with long-term conservation objectives.

The research also highlights the broader principle that demographic recovery does not automatically equate to genetic recovery. Wolves may be visibly thriving in terms of numbers and range, but without genetic health, these populations remain at risk of long-term decline. Conservation frameworks, including the European Union’s Habitats Directive and the Global Biodiversity Framework, increasingly recognize the importance of incorporating genetic criteria into assessments of favorable conservation status. This study provides concrete evidence supporting the integration of genomics into policy decisions.

Lessons Beyond Wolves

European wolves are emblematic of a broader conservation challenge: reconciling visible recovery with underlying genetic stability. Many species that have rebounded from historical declines may still harbor hidden vulnerabilities that threaten their long-term survival. Applying genomic tools can help conservationists detect these risks early, guide targeted interventions, and ensure that populations not only survive but thrive in the face of environmental change.

Moreover, the study underscores the importance of legal protection in facilitating natural recolonization. Wolves are recolonizing Europe primarily because of protections and ecological opportunity, not because of intensive management programs. This suggests that maintaining robust legal frameworks and connectivity corridors can be an effective, cost-efficient strategy for conserving wide-ranging species.

A Call to Action

The message from the genomes is unambiguous: European wolves have returned to much of their historical range, but they are not yet safe. Conservationists, policymakers, and the public must look beyond apparent population growth to consider the genetic health of these populations. Effective conservation requires protecting both numbers and diversity, ensuring that wolves retain the evolutionary potential necessary to adapt to future challenges. Failure to do so risks repeating the mistakes of the past, when isolated populations were lost despite seemingly stable numbers.

This research represents a critical step toward more informed wolf management in Europe. By integrating genomic data into conservation planning, Europe can ensure that wolf populations are truly viable over the long term. It also serves as a model for other species, illustrating how modern genomics can reveal hidden risks and guide more effective, evidence-based conservation strategies. The survival of Europe’s gray wolves—and the ecological roles they play—depends not just on their return, but on safeguarding the genetic foundations that will allow them to thrive for generations to come.

References and Further Reading

Ravagni, S., Battilani, D., Salado, I., et al. (2026). Misleading Success: Genomes Reveal Critical Risks to European Gray Wolves. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.20.713253

The post Beyond the Numbers: The Genomic Fragility of Europe’s Gray Wolves appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

For centuries, Europe’s landscapes have been defined by human hands. Forests were cleared, fields tilled, and grazing animals were herded and confined. This human-driven mosaic created an ecosystem where open grasslands and light-demanding plant species thrived—but only under continual management. When land use ceases, nature begins to reclaim it. Shrubs and trees spread, open fields darken, and many specialized plants and insects disappear. Today, much of temperate Europe is on a slow march toward dense, shadowed woodlands—a process known as vegetation succession.

Rewilding aims to reverse this trend. By reintroducing large herbivores, conservationists hope to restore self-regulating ecosystems reminiscent of those that existed before widespread human alteration. In northern Europe, this often means substituting extinct wild species like aurochs (Bos primigenius) and wild horses (Equus ferus) with modern cattle (Bos taurus) and horses (Equus ferus caballus). The idea is simple: these animals graze, trampling and browsing vegetation, keeping the landscape open, and creating opportunities for light-demanding plants and insects to persist.

Yet, the success of this approach depends on understanding not just that these animals eat plants, but how they move across the landscape, where they choose to feed, and how their presence affects vegetation patterns over time. Until recently, these questions were difficult to answer. But a team of ecologists in Denmark has brought new clarity by tracking GPS-collared horses and cattle and combining their movement data with satellite observations of vegetation productivity. The results, published in a recent study, reveal both predictable patterns and surprising behaviors.

Grazers Follow the Green—but Not Always

One of the key findings is that both horses and cattle are drawn to open vegetation. This is not surprising: grasslands and short shrubs provide easy grazing and minimize the energy needed to move through dense brush or forest. The animals’ movement patterns, analyzed across seasons, confirmed that areas with lower vegetation density and higher connectivity were favored by both species. Horses, it turns out, tend to roam more widely than cattle, exploring forest edges and patches of shrubs that cattle generally avoid. But both species diverge in their choices when resources become scarce, particularly during winter. Horses maintain a more varied diet, supplementing grasses with leaves from deciduous trees, while cattle rely more heavily on shrubs, especially brambles like Rubus species.

The study also revealed a less expected behavior: both horses and cattle were strongly attracted to a single artificial shelter in the reserve. Despite abundant natural alternatives, the animals repeatedly returned to this human-made structure, highlighting the influence of infrastructure on space-use patterns. It’s a reminder that even in rewilded systems, subtle human interventions can steer animal behavior in ways that may not always align with ecological goals.

Grazing Shapes Vegetation—and Resilience

Beyond movement patterns, the researchers wanted to understand how grazing affects vegetation structure at the landscape scale. By overlaying animal GPS data with satellite-derived vegetation indices, they discovered a clear correlation: areas heavily used by herbivores remained more open, with lower vegetation density, while lightly used areas experienced denser growth. In other words, the presence of these grazers slows the natural progression toward shrub-dominated or forested landscapes.

Interestingly, these highly used areas were also more sensitive to environmental stress, particularly the pan-European drought of 2018. Vegetation in grazing hotspots experienced rapid declines in greenness during the drought but bounced back faster than less-frequented areas once rains returned. This resilience suggests that grazing not only shapes plant structure but may also enhance ecosystem recovery following extreme events—a crucial insight as climate change increases the frequency of droughts and heatwaves in temperate Europe.

When herbivore populations declined by roughly two-thirds after the drought, the landscape greened, but this recovery did not correspond neatly with the previous intensity of grazing. This highlights the nuanced interplay between herbivore activity, climate events, and vegetation dynamics, emphasizing that managing landscapes is rarely straightforward.

Diversity Matters

One interesting outcome of the study is how the combination of cattle and horses—two species often considered ecologically similar—creates more heterogeneity than either species alone. While both are large herbivores, their differences in diet, movement, and seasonal preferences mean that together they influence a wider range of vegetation types. In periods of resource scarcity, the divergence in space-use ensures that some areas receive more intensive grazing while others are left to regrow, promoting a patchwork of vegetation heights and densities. This patchiness is a key driver of biodiversity, providing niches for insects, birds, and smaller plants that thrive in varying light conditions.

Rewilding advocates often emphasize functional diversity—the idea that different species perform different ecological roles. The Danish study provides a clear illustration of this principle. Introducing multiple types of herbivores increases structural variation across the landscape, supporting a broader array of species and enhancing ecosystem stability.

Implications for European Rewilding

The Danish case study underscores the potential of trophic rewilding to maintain open landscapes without constant human intervention. By reintroducing year-round grazing, managers can curb vegetation densification, sustain light-demanding species, and foster heterogeneous habitats. This is particularly relevant in a European context where much of the natural landscape is no longer shaped by traditional land uses like rotational grazing or haymaking.

However, the research also points to challenges. The animals’ attraction to artificial infrastructure, such as shelters or water points, means that human placement of these structures can inadvertently concentrate grazing in specific areas. Thoughtful planning is required to balance animal welfare with ecological objectives. Similarly, understanding seasonal and species-specific behaviors is critical; a one-size-fits-all approach may not achieve the desired outcomes.

Perhaps most importantly, the study highlights how rewilding interacts with climate variability. Grazers not only shape vegetation structure but also modulate its response to extreme weather events. In a warming Europe, where droughts, heatwaves, and unusual precipitation patterns are becoming more common, large herbivores could play an increasingly important role in maintaining ecosystem function and biodiversity.

A Living Laboratory

Rewilding areas like the Danish reserve are more than just conservation projects—they are living laboratories, revealing how nature functions when allowed to self-regulate. Here, horses and cattle act as landscape engineers, creating open spaces and patchy vegetation that support a web of life far richer than any single species alone.

The study’s insights extend beyond Denmark. Across temperate Europe, many abandoned or minimally managed landscapes face rapid densification. Reintroducing large herbivores offers a tangible strategy to counteract this trend, preserving open habitats that have been vanishing since the end of traditional agricultural practices. Moreover, the nuanced understanding of space-use and vegetation dynamics gained from this research provides practical guidance for managers: which species to introduce, how to balance herd sizes, and how to integrate infrastructure without undermining ecological objectives.

Looking Forward

The Danish study also raises broader questions about the future of European ecosystems. As climate change accelerates and human influence continues to ebb and flow, managers will need to consider both ecological and behavioral factors in conservation planning. Grazers can be allies in maintaining landscape heterogeneity, but their impact depends on species composition, population dynamics, and the spatial configuration of resources.

Trophic rewilding is, in essence, an experiment in letting ecological processes govern themselves. By reintroducing species that were once lost, we can restore the interactions that shaped Europe’s landscapes for millennia. Horses and cattle may seem ordinary, even domesticated, but in the right context, they perform roles that no machinery or human management can fully replicate. They eat, they roam, they trample—and in doing so, they keep the land open, resilient, and alive with diversity.

As these herds wander the Danish reserve, they are writing a new chapter in Europe’s ecological story. One where wildness, in its broadest sense, is not just about animals running free—it’s about animals shaping the land itself, one patch of grass, shrub, or tree at a time. And for conservationists, scientists, and nature enthusiasts alike, watching this slow, subtle dance between grazers and vegetation offers both hope and a roadmap for rewilding a continent.

The post How Feral Horses and Cattle Are Shaping Europe’s Landscapes appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

Tool Use Beyond Primates

Tool use — defined as the manipulation of an external object to achieve a goal — has traditionally been seen as a hallmark of advanced cognition. Chimpanzees, certain birds like New Caledonian crows, and a handful of other species have demonstrated this ability in ways that imply problem solving and intentional action. Yet until now, no experimental evidence existed showing that cattle could independently use tools in a flexible manner.

Veronika doesn’t fashion tools the way a chimp might. Instead, she selects and manipulates objects in her environment — sticks and deck brushes — to scratch parts of her body that would otherwise be unreachable. In controlled trials, researchers presented a deck brush on the ground in random orientations and recorded how Veronika approached it. She didn’t simply swipe at it randomly. Instead, she consistently chose a functional end of the brush depending on which body region she wanted to relieve. For broad, firm areas like her back, she used the bristled end, applying a forceful, sweeping motion. For softer, more sensitive regions underneath her belly and around her udder, she strategically used the smooth handle in slower, more controlled movements. Across repeated sessions, her choices were both functionally appropriate and consistent, hallmarks of genuinely flexible tool use.

Multi-Purpose Problem Solving

What makes this discovery especially striking is not only that Veronika uses tools at all, but that she does so in different ways with one object, adapting her behaviour to meet specific needs. Until now, multi‑purpose tool use — the use of different parts of the same tool for different functions — had been convincingly documented only in chimpanzees outside of humans. The observation that a cow can display this kind of behavioural flexibility challenges narrow assumptions about cognitive capability and draws attention to how much we may be overlooking in species we have lived alongside for millennia.

Context Matters

This revelation raises important questions about how we assess intelligence in animals, especially those domesticated and managed within human systems. Cattle are among the earliest large domesticated species, shaped by thousands of years of human selection for production traits. Their behaviour — especially cognitive capacities — has largely been interpreted through the lens of efficiency, yields, and control, rather than curiosity, problem‑solving, or innovation. Many researchers suggest the lack of documented tool use in cattle until now reflects observation bias more than genuine cognitive limitations. As study authors note, most cows do not live as long as Veronika, nor do they inhabit environments rich in manipulable objects or opportunities for exploratory behaviour. In Veronika’s case, a long life, daily contact with humans who treat her as a companion animal, and access to a varied physical landscape likely created conditions where her natural capacities could emerge and be observed.

It is tempting to view Veronika as an exception — a cow with extraordinary smarts. But researchers emphasize that what is truly special may be the context, not the individual. Given time, space, and a stimulating environment, other cattle might well demonstrate similar behaviours. Tool use has likely gone unnoticed simply because the environments and interactions required to bring it out are rare in modern livestock systems.

Observing Natural Intelligence

This insight has profound implications for how we conceive of animal minds and the value of creating conditions that allow natural behaviour to emerge. In rewilding work, whether on a landscape scale or within innovative agricultural systems, the emphasis is not on training or engineering behaviour, but on restoring environments that allow animals to express the full range of their behavioural repertoires — from exploration and play to problem solving and choice. Veronika’s case illustrates that cognitive abilities are not fixed traits visible only in controlled experiments, but can be revealed when animals are afforded the time, complexity, autonomy, and diversity of experiences they would naturally seek out.

In a world increasingly defined by human control, moments like these remind us that we have much to learn from the beings we share the planet with. When we step back and observe with curiosity rather than expectation, we may find that intelligence — in its many forms — is far more widespread, nuanced, and surprising than we ever assumed.

Veronica’s owner, organic farmer Witgar Wiegele said: “Save the nature, then you protect yourself. And nature diversity is the key to survival of this planet“.

Source: Flexible use of a multi-purpose tool by a cow

The post Tool‑Using Cow Challenges How We See Animal Intelligence appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

A Trans-European Network for Nature

The project’s core ambition is to build a Trans-European Nature Network (TEN-N) — an interconnected mosaic of protected areas, ecological corridors, and semi-natural landscapes. While protected areas currently cover about 26% of the EU’s land, only a fraction enjoys strict protection, and many key species remain underrepresented. Using a method called Integrated Spatial Planning (ISP), NaturaConnect identifies where new protection can do the most good — especially for species and habitats in decline. The project emphasizes targeting protection where it delivers the highest conservation value, not just where it’s politically convenient.

Going Beyond Borders

One of the brief’s most striking findings is that EU-wide planning outperforms national efforts. When countries plan conservation independently, they often prioritize species that are rare nationally — but common elsewhere. In contrast, cross-border collaboration ensures attention goes to truly endangered and range-restricted species, maximizing biodiversity gains across Europe. Maps created through ISP show that shared planning leads to more cost-effective, complementary, and resilient conservation outcomes. “We can do more with the same space if we work together,” says Dr. Martin Jung, lead analyst for the project.

Strict Protection: Not One-Size-Fits-All

The concept of “strict protection” — areas where natural processes are left largely undisturbed — is gaining traction in EU policy. But NaturaConnect highlights a nuanced reality: different places require different strategies. Some sites may thrive under total non-intervention, while others, like ancient wetlands or species-rich pastures, may need active management to support biodiversity. The team is also exploring how strict protection could align with social and cultural values, ensuring that communities remain allies in restoration efforts.

Next Steps: A Living Plan for a Wilder Europe

Over 100 experts from 20+ institutions are contributing to NaturaConnect. Their evolving models will soon incorporate ecosystem services, climate change resilience, and socio-economic costs, aiming to deliver a roadmap that is scientifically sound and politically feasible. The message is clear: we can still choose a future where Europe’s landscapes pulse with wildness, resilience, and life — but only if we plan smartly, inclusively, and together.

🔗 Read more about NaturaConnect and the full science brief here.

📩 Contact the Rewilding Academy if you’d like to collaborate on transnational conservation planning.

The post Rethinking Protection: A New Map for Europe’s Wild Future appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

The return of the wolf to the Netherlands evokes powerful reactions—ranging from fear and awe to public debate and protest. This iconic species divides opinion. But what if we shift our perspective? What if we stop seeing the wolf merely as a predator or symbol, and begin to view it as a member of a broader community of which we are also a part? In her fascinating Master’s thesis, environmental scientist Sterre Broens explores how the African philosophy of Ubuntu can open new ways of thinking about nature, coexistence, and the narratives we use to understand them.

Ubuntu: I Am Because We Are

Ubuntu is a philosophy of interconnectedness, rooted in Southern African traditions. It holds that a person becomes a person through their relationships with others—not only fellow humans, but also animals, ancestors, and future generations. It emphasizes ethical responsibility, mutual care, and the pursuit of harmony within a shared community. In contrast to dominant Western frameworks that often separate or oppose humans and nature, Ubuntu views all living beings as morally significant members of a common world.

In the context of the wolf debate, Ubuntu offers a refreshing lens. Instead of asking, “Should the wolf be here?” Ubuntu prompts the question, “How can we share this space justly?” Not as competitors in a struggle for control, but as members of an ethical-ecological community where mutual interests, relationships, and interdependence matter.

The Wolf as a Mirror of Society

In this debate, the wolf is more than an animal—it becomes a mirror reflecting deeper questions about our relationship with nature. Through Broens’ analysis of policy documents, interviews with shepherds, conservationists, experts, and engaged citizens, a rich variety of narratives emerges. Some focus on coexistence and balance, others on boundaries, livestock protection, or the preservation of vulnerable species.

What makes Ubuntu unique is that it does not take sides. Rather, it invites dialogue, empathy, and participation. Not to force consensus, but to foster understanding and co-created solutions—ones in which the voices of both humans and wolves, directly or indirectly, are heard.

From Polarisation to Connection

In today’s culture of polarisation—where opinions harden and nuance gets lost—Ubuntu offers an alternative. Not by avoiding conflict, but by rising above it. By treating disagreements as opportunities for shared learning and growth. This comes through clearly in the stories shared in the study: of shepherds deeply connected to the landscape, of people who continue to show compassion despite losing livestock, and of the importance of listening, even in disagreement.

Broens suggests that Ubuntu can help shape a new narrative: one that sees diversity not as a threat, but as a strength. One in which humans and nature are not opposing forces, but partners in the search for equilibrium.

An Ethics for the Future

Ubuntu is not a quick fix, but an invitation. A moral compass urging us to take our relationships—with each other, with animals, with the landscape—seriously. In a time of biodiversity loss and social division, this philosophy can help us cultivate a more caring, inclusive, and sustainable way of relating to the world around us.

The return of the wolf challenges us. But as Broens shows, Ubuntu offers not just answers—but directions. Directions that move us beyond coexistence, toward a renewed way of living with the natural world.

Ubuntu and the return of the wolves: diversifying human-nature narratives in the Netherlands
Thesis author: Sterre Broens
Supervisor: Dr.ir. Kris van Koppen
Examiner: Dr. Hilde Toonen
MSc Thesis Environmental Policy Group
Program: Governance of Sustainability Transformations
Wageningen University
Thesis code: ENP80436

The post Wolves, Us, and the Wisdom of Belonging: Ubuntu in the Dutch Wilderness appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

Shaped by Shadows: Coexisting with Hominins in the Tropics

In Africa and tropical Asia, large mammals shared their ecosystems with hominins for millions of years. Early human ancestors hunted, scavenged, and shaped the landscape long before modern Homo sapiens emerged. Over time, this continual pressure acted like a natural filter. Species that were especially vulnerable to human hunting—whether due to their behavior, reproductive strategies, or habitat use—were eliminated early on. The ones that survived evolved under the shadow of human presence. They became more elusive, faster to reproduce, and better equipped to avoid becoming prey. This deep-rooted coexistence gave African and Southeast Asian megafauna a distinct evolutionary advantage: familiarity with danger.

Europe’s Vulnerable Titans

When modern humans arrived in Europe around 45,000 years ago, they encountered a very different kind of wildlife—one that had not known predators like them. Species such as the woolly rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis), the straight-tusked elephant (Palaeoloxodon antiquus), and the aurochs (Bos primigenius) had evolved in ecosystems shaped by climate, competition, and predators like wolves or sabre-toothed cats—but not by upright hunters with fire and projectiles. These animals were, in ecological terms, naïve. They lacked the behavioral adaptations to cope with human tactics. Many had long gestation periods and low reproductive rates, making it impossible for populations to recover once hunting began.

The Traits That Sealed Their Fate

A recent study analyzing 544 large mammal species—both extinct and extant—identified several traits strongly associated with extinction. Species with large body size were more frequently targeted for their meat, fat, and hides. Those living on islands or in isolated mountain ranges were especially at risk, as they had nowhere to flee. Plantigrade species—those that walk flat-footed, like bears—were also more vulnerable, possibly due to their slower, more deliberate movements. But most strikingly, species that were evolutionarily distant from those in Africa and Southeast Asia faced greater risk. Without the inherited adaptations that came from millennia of human contact, they stood little chance.

Rewilding with Eyes Open

This history carries crucial lessons for today. As Europe looks to rewild its landscapes—reintroducing bison, restoring lynx, or imagining a future with elephants or lions—it must grapple with the past. Many of Europe’s lost species lacked the evolutionary conditioning to survive humans, but that doesn’t mean their ecological roles are gone forever. Rewilding must consider not just which species once lived here, but which ones can thrive now, in a world permanently shaped by human presence. Conservation plans should prioritize species resilience, ecological fit, and the social contexts of modern landscapes.

Echoes from the Ice Age

The mass extinction of Europe’s megafauna was not inevitable—it was evolutionary. Their bodies and behaviors told a story of survival in a world without humans, and when humans came, that story ended abruptly. But understanding why it ended gives us a new kind of power: the ability to reimagine a future where such disappearances are no longer the rule. In learning from extinction, we shape the path to restoration.

reference:
Lemoine, R. T., R. Buitenwerf, S. Faurby, and J.-C. Svenning. 2025. “ Phylogenetic Evidence Supports the Effect of Traits on Late-Quaternary Megafauna Extinction in the Context of Human Activity.” Global Ecology and Biogeography 34, no. 7: e70078. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.70078.

The post Why did so many large animals go extinct outside Africa? appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

There is growing concern among stakeholders such as livestock farmers, hunters, and land managers about how wolves navigate and feed within the human-dominated Dutch landscape. Understanding what wolves eat, where, and when, is essential to inform both public debate and effective policy. Robust, science-based insights into wolf feeding behavior can help predict trends and mitigate conflicts.

To that end, researchers carry out a comprehensive, multi-year dietary analysis of wolves in the Netherlands. They combine environmental DNA (eDNA) techniques with traditional microscopic analysis of prey remains—such as hairs and bones found in wolf scat—to build a detailed picture of their diet.

Scope of the Study

In 2023, 735 wolf scats were collected and analyzed. Of these, 624 were used to determine dietary composition based on frequency of occurrence (%FO), and 427 were used to estimate consumed biomass (%BM).

The findings reveal that wild ungulates form the core of the Dutch wolf’s diet. The most common prey species were:

• Roe deer – 59% FO, 35% BM
• Wild boar – 37% FO, 29% BM
• Red deer – 18% FO, 8% BM

Domesticated livestock also featured prominently, accounting for 30% of the scats by occurrence and 23% of the consumed biomass. Of this, cattle and sheep were the most frequently represented (21% and 8% FO, respectively).

Other prey included birds (12% FO), lagomorphs (11% FO), and small mammals (10% FO).

Spatial Variation: Veluwe vs. Drenthe

The study found notable regional differences in diet between wolf packs in the Veluwe and Drenthe:

• In Drenthe, cattle made up 37% of the consumed biomass.
• In the Veluwe, wild ungulates dominated, accounting for a striking 96% of the biomass consumed.

In Drenthe, the presence of cattle in the diet is believed to be largely due to calves or carcasses from free-ranging conservation herds used in nature management. However, due to the nature of scat analysis, it is not always possible to determine whether an animal was killed by wolves or scavenged after natural death.

These differences reflect the contrasting availability of wild prey. The Veluwe hosts a relatively complete community of wild ungulates, allowing wolves to rely almost entirely on natural prey. In contrast, Drenthe has fewer wild ungulate species, leading wolves to supplement their diet with domestic animals—especially where they are accessible in open, unmanaged grazing systems.

Seasonal Shifts in Diet

Seasonal variation was also observed. During the wolf birth season (April–June), which coincides with the birthing period of many wild ungulates, wolves shifted from consuming adult ungulates to targeting more vulnerable young animals, such as wild boar piglets and red deer calves.

Conclusion

The study underscores the opportunistic and adaptive feeding behavior of wolves and offers valuable ecological insights into how they function within fragmented, human-influenced landscapes. This knowledge can directly support science-based policymaking, reduce conflict, and facilitate informed dialogue on the future of wolves in the Netherlands.

Report: Onderzoek naar het voedingsgedrag van wolven (Canis lupus) in Nederland 2023 (in Dutch)

The post Understanding the Feeding Ecology of Wolves in the Netherlands appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

Rewilding Meets Reality

As wolves return to landscapes long emptied of large predators, tension often follows. Farmers worry about their herds. Conservationists worry about coexistence. And both sides search for facts amid fear and folklore.

Now, a groundbreaking study in Poland’s Warta River Mouth National Park sheds new light on what wolves really eat—and the results may surprise you.

Despite free-ranging livestock grazing unprotected across the wetlands, wolves in this region overwhelmingly preferred wild prey. In fact, over 80% of their diet consisted of wild ungulates like roe deer and wild boar. Livestock, including cattle and dogs, made up only 3.4% of the biomass consumed.

This new evidence challenges the assumption that wolves inevitably turn to easy livestock targets when available—and could shape how Europe manages wolf-livestock conflict in a rewilding era.

The Setting: A Mosaic of Wetlands and Wildlife

Stretching across 500 square kilometers of western Poland, the Warta River Mouth (WRM) is a tapestry of humid grasslands, farm fields, floodplains, and patches of pine forest. The heart of this landscape—the Warta Mouth National Park—is a haven for waterfowl and part of the Natura 2000 network and the Ramsar Convention.

But the park is also home to something larger, wilder, and far more controversial: the grey wolf (Canis lupus).

In summer months, some 4,000 cattle and 700 horses roam freely here with no fencing, herding, or protection measures. It’s the kind of scene that would seem tailor-made for conflict—except the data tell a different story.

Tracking the Top Predator

From 2020 to 2022, a team of Polish researchers led by Dr. Robert Mysłajek of the University of Warsaw deployed a mix of genetic fingerprinting, camera trapping, and field tracking to monitor the region’s wolves.

They identified two distinct wolf family groups living within the WRM. Over two years, they collected and analyzed 109 scats (droppings) to determine the wolves’ diet, comparing their findings with seven other regions in Central Europe.

Their results were clear: even in a landscape filled with livestock, wolves mostly ignored domestic animals, focusing instead on natural prey.

What’s on the Menu?

The roe deer led the list, making up nearly 60% of the food biomass. Wild boar followed at 20.5%, despite recent culls due to African Swine Fever. Wolves also consumed medium-sized mammals like European beavers and hares, which accounted for 14.5% of the diet.

Cattle made up just 3%, and dogs only 0.4%—figures so low they raise an important question: Why aren’t wolves eating livestock when it seems so easy?

Nature’s Nuance: More Than Availability

The study’s authors suggest several reasons why wolves may avoid livestock, even when it’s abundant and unprotected:

1. Behavioral Traits of Livestock:

Breeds such as Limousin, Hereford, and Red Angus—common in WRM—are muscular and often horned. These traits may deter wolves, especially compared to smaller, dehorned dairy breeds more common elsewhere.

2. Natural Herding Instincts:

Cattle and horses in WRM graze semi-wild and form defensive herds, mimicking behavior of wild ungulates. This natural grouping may confuse or challenge predators.

3. Dead Calves Left in the Field:

With limited human supervision, stillbirths and early calf deaths (up to 2.3% in some breeds) may result in carrion left unattended. Wolves may scavenge rather than hunt.

4. High Wild Prey Abundance:

The WRM region has dense populations of roe deer and wild boar, meaning wolves don’t need to risk attacking livestock.

Conflict—Or Coexistence?

Only three cattle calves were confirmed as wolf food during the two-year study, and even those cases may involve scavenging. No predation on horses was recorded. Despite the presence of domestic dogs in wolf scat, no formal complaints were filed, suggesting the dogs were strays or free-ranging.

These findings suggest that the wolf-livestock conflict in WRM is more perception than reality. In fact, wolves may be delivering unrecognized ecosystem services, such as reducing populations of free-ranging dogs that harm wildlife, or scavenging disease-carrying carcasses that would otherwise linger in the landscape.

Rewilding Implications: A Case for Caution and Context

As wolves recolonize parts of Europe—from the Netherlands to Denmark to Belgium—the WRM study provides a valuable case study. It shows that:

• Wolves do not automatically target livestock, even when it’s abundant and unprotected
• Ecological context matters—from prey availability to livestock breed and behavior
• Management decisions must be based on local data, not assumptions or general fears

This doesn’t mean wolves never attack livestock. But it does mean lethal control or fear-driven policies may be unjustified—and potentially harmful to long-term conservation goals.

A Model for Future Coexistence?

The WRM wolves may be doing more than surviving—they may be showing us how rewilding and agriculture can coexist, even in crowded European landscapes.

Their diet is diverse, their presence stable, and their conflicts minimal. If supported with adaptive management, continued research, and public education, this model could help rebuild trust between people and predators.

In an age when ecological recovery is as much about social acceptance as biological success, the WRM wolves remind us that nature can adapt—if we let it.

The post Wolves return—without attacking livestock appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

🔗 Full report: Turning Over a New Leaf – Interconnected Disaster Risks 2023

The Challenge: Knowing What to Do, But Failing to Act

Climate change is accelerating. Species extinction and ecosystem degradation are occurring at unprecedented rates. The world produces over two billion tonnes of waste annually, a figure expected to double by 2050. Scientists have repeatedly sounded the alarm: phase out fossil fuels, restore ecosystems, and shift to sustainable living. Yet, progress remains sluggish. The question is no longer what to do—but why aren’t we doing it?

Introducing the Theory of Deep Change

This year’s report responds to that question by introducing the Theory of Deep Change (ToDC). This new framework helps us understand why surface-level responses often fall short. It explains that real change requires addressing the root causes of global crises—our beliefs, values, and social systems.

The theory involves four core stages:

1. Observe current outcomes.
2. Identify root causes.
3. Envision a desirable future.
4. Explore transformations to achieve it.

Rather than simply preventing catastrophe, ToDC helps reimagine how we might live in a future that is abundant, resilient, and just.

Five Transformational Shifts

The report outlines five key transformations needed for deep systemic change:

1. Rethink waste – From trash to treasure
2. Realign with nature – From separation to harmony
3. Reconsider responsibility – From me to we
4. Reimagine the future – From seconds to centuries
5. Redefine value – From economic wealth to planetary health

These changes require moving away from reactive, short-term thinking to proactive, long-term systems redesign.

From Plastic Waste to Planetary Health

One practical example explored is our relationship with waste. Current systems are based on linear consumption: extract, use, discard. Even well-intended efforts like recycling struggle because they operate within a system that rewards overproduction and disposability.

To fix this, ToDC suggests changing our underlying assumption that material consumption equals happiness. Only by shifting our values to recognize resource finiteness and the value of durability can we build effective circular systems—supported by policies such as right-to-repair laws or design standards that promote reuse and longevity.

🔗 Technical report: Rethinking Waste – Interconnected Disaster Risks 2023

Inner and Outer Levers of Change

The report distinguishes between inner levers—changes in personal or collective values—and outer levers—changes in societal structures like laws and institutions. While inner levers deal with the “soil” (beliefs and assumptions), outer levers affect the “trunk and branches” (structures and systems).

When used together, these levers can reinforce one another. For instance, the global shift in attitudes toward smoking resulted from both public health campaigns (inner levers) and regulatory action (outer levers). This same interplay is needed to address climate and ecological breakdown.

A Global Responsibility: Moving Beyond Unilateralism

UNU-EHS also warns of the dangers of individualistic or unilateral climate actions, such as solar geoengineering. Though marketed as quick fixes, such technologies can have unintended global consequences—worsening inequalities and climate injustices. Instead, we must embrace global cooperation, based on shared responsibility and mutual care.

🔗 Technical report: Reconsidering Responsibility – Interconnected Disaster Risks 2023

Learning from the Past: The Montreal Protocol

The report highlights the 1987 Montreal Protocol as a rare but powerful example of successful global coordination. Through binding agreements, financial support, and shared goals, the Protocol reversed ozone depletion—a feat now guiding us toward full ozone recovery by 2066. It proves that unified global action is possible—and effective.

Hope Through Radical Imagination

While today’s risks are daunting, UNU-EHS emphasizes that human-made systems can be unmade—and remade. With bold imagination and deliberate action, we can cultivate systems rooted in planetary health and collective wellbeing. The report urges us not just to limit harm but to actively build the future we want.

🔗 Technical report: Redefining Value – Interconnected Disaster Risks 2023

🔗 Technical report: Reimagining the Future – Interconnected Disaster Risks 2023

🔗 Technical report: Realigning with Nature – Interconnected Disaster Risks 2023

Rewilding is deep change

In the technical report “Realign with Nature” (2025), rewilding is presented as a vital approach to restore ecological integrity and reconnect humans with natural processes. The report highlights rewilding as a means to support ecosystems in regaining their functionality by reintroducing keystone species, allowing natural succession, and reducing human control over landscapes.

Rather than managing nature for useful outcomes, rewilding embraces uncertainty and complexity, fostering self-sustaining systems that can adapt to change. This approach aligns with the broader transformation advocated by the UNU-EHS—to shift from dominating and exploiting nature to collaborating with it. Rewilding, in this context, is not just an ecological intervention but a cultural shift toward humility, participation, and coexistence with the living world.

Turning Over a New Leaf: A Call to Action

“Turning Over a New Leaf” doesn’t just diagnose the crisis—it offers a roadmap to deep, meaningful transformation. By rethinking what we value, reimagining our relationship with nature, and committing to both personal and collective change, we can move from crisis to opportunity.

This is not about returning to an idealized past—it’s about courageously creating a future where both people and planet can thrive. The time to act is now—and it starts with shifting our beliefs, our systems, and ultimately, our direction.

The post Turning Over a New Leaf: How Deep Change Can Tackle Our Interconnected Crises appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

Proponents of the rewilding effort argue that historical evidence, including ancient cave paintings from Spain’s Altamira and El Castillo caves, suggests that bison once inhabited the region. They view the bison as a potential keystone species capable of restoring ecological balance to degraded landscapes, particularly in rural areas where human presence has diminished. Advocates believe that reintroducing this species could help revitalize ecosystems that have suffered from overgrazing and land abandonment.

But a recent peer-reviewed article published in Conservation Science and Practice raises serious doubts about the ecological, legal, and historical basis of these efforts. The authors argue that introducing European bison into Spain may be not only scientifically unjustified, but also ecologically risky and potentially illegal under current conservation laws.

At the heart of the debate lies a deceptively simple question: Are European bison native to Spain?

Echoes from the Pleistocene

At first glance, the case seems compelling. Ancient bison-like figures dominate Spain’s prehistoric art — some drawn with such detail and motion they rival the expressive power of modern sketches. To many, this is compelling visual evidence that bison once thundered across Iberian valleys.

But scientific scrutiny paints a more complicated picture. The authors of the article highlight a key point often overlooked in popular narratives: The bison species represented in those cave paintings is almost certainly Bison priscus, the extinct steppe bison, not the modern Bison bonasus — the European bison.

The steppe bison was part of a now-vanished ecosystem known as the “mammoth steppe” — a vast, treeless, cold-adapted grassland that once stretched from Western Europe to North America. When this ecosystem disappeared at the end of the last Ice Age, so too did the steppe bison. The European bison evolved later and adapted to a more forested, temperate environment — and crucially, there is no strong paleontological evidence that it ever lived in Spain.

In other words, even if bison-like creatures once walked Iberian soil, they were not the same species that conservationists seek to introduce today.

Steppe bison in mountain areas

While the term “steppe” typically refers to vast, treeless grasslands, scientific research indicates that steppe bison inhabited a range of environments, including mountainous regions like those in northern Spain.

Fossil evidence supports that steppe bison thrived in these regions. For instance, the Kiputz IX site in the Basque Country has yielded well-preserved remains of steppe bison, including a nearly complete skull, indicating their presence in the southern Pyrenees. The skull from Kiputz IX aligns with the characteristics of the extinct subspecies Bison priscus mediator.

The cave paintings in Altamira and El Castillo, located in the mountainous terrains of northern Spain, prominently feature bison imagery. These artistic representations align with the fossil record, suggesting that steppe bison were indeed part of the local fauna during the periods these caves were inhabited. The presence of steppe bison in these areas indicates their adaptability to different environments within the broader “Mammoth Steppe” biome.

Bison priscus mediator was a later subspecies of steppe bison that emerged towards the end of the Pleistocene, exhibiting adaptations to changing environmental conditions. As the Ice Age drew to a close and the climate began to warm, the ecosystems of the northern hemisphere started shifting from cold, open steppe landscapes to more varied and forested environments. Bison priscus mediator likely adapted to these new conditions by modifying its diet and habitat preferences, making it more suited to a broader range of environments, including areas with more woodland cover. This subspecies represents a transitional phase in the evolutionary history of the steppe bison, bridging the gap between the cold-adapted forms of the earlier Pleistocene and the more temperate conditions that followed, which may have contributed to its eventual survival and spread across a wider area of Europe.

Rewilding or Reinventing?

The term “rewilding” evokes powerful imagery — untamed landscapes, ecological restoration, and charismatic megafauna reclaiming lost territory. But when does rewilding cross the line into ecological invention?

The article warns that introducing European bison to Spain would be a “non-native species introduction” — something that contradicts core principles of conservation biology. Without clear historical evidence of the species’ presence, such an action risks disturbing delicate ecosystems rather than restoring them.

Spain’s landscapes, particularly in regions like Andalucia and Extremadura where bison have already been introduced in private initiatives for ecotourism purposes, are significantly different from the mixed forests and meadows of Eastern Europe. The climate is drier, summers are hotter, and the vegetation is not the same. These differences raise questions about whether the bison could thrive — or whether they would overgraze sensitive habitats, compete with native herbivores, or suffer from poor health and condition.

Moreover, the authors point out a critical oversight in many of the pilot projects: There is often little or no scientific monitoring, no published environmental impact assessments, and no adaptive management frameworks in place. In essence, the releases are happening in a data vacuum.

Substitute species

Bison bonasus, or the European bison, could serve as a potential substitute species for the extinct Bison priscus in certain ecosystems. As a close relative, the European bison shares many ecological characteristics with Bison priscus, particularly its role as a large herbivore that shapes landscapes through grazing. Reintroducing Bison bonasus into areas where Bison priscus once roamed could help restore key ecological functions that have been lost with the extinction of the latter. The European bison is known for its ability to graze on a wide variety of vegetation, which could contribute to the control of overgrown or invasive plant species, promote biodiversity, and create open habitats that benefit other wildlife species.

Although not a direct replacement for Bison priscus, Bison bonasus can still fulfill many of the same ecological niches in modern European ecosystems. Bison bonasus’s grazing behavior influences the structure and composition of plant communities, promoting habitat diversity in woodlands, grasslands, and wetlands. Its presence can encourage the growth of specific plant species while suppressing others, which in turn supports the regeneration of certain ecosystems.

Ecological boundaries

In areas like the southern parts of Europe or even parts of Spain, where Bison priscus once roamed, the European bison could help in the restoration of a more natural balance by reintroducing this large herbivore to forested and grassland areas, even though it is not native to the Iberian Peninsula.

The concept of Bison bonasus as a substitute species is part of a broader ecological restoration strategy aimed at compensating for species extinctions, helping to restore lost ecological functions and balance. By focusing on the ecological roles that Bison priscus played, Bison bonasus could effectively take on these responsibilities.

This approach is seen in various rewilding projects across Europe, where, for example, semi-wild cattle take on the role of the extinct aurochs. While Bison bonasus may not be a perfect match in terms of genetic lineage, its similar ecological impact and ability to thrive in temperate habitats make it a viable candidate for fulfilling the lost ecological roles of the extinct steppe bison.

However, the hotter and drier climate in the southernmost parts of the Iberian Peninsula, particularly in the southeast, presents significant challenges for the European bison, a species more suited to the milder temperatures and higher rainfall typical of northern and central Europe.

Reintroducing European bison in southern Spain is unlikely to be viable from both a species and ecological perspective, as the region’s arid conditions, limited vegetation, and lack of suitable habitats would not support the species’ survival or its role in maintaining ecological balance, which depend on cooler, more temperate environments.

Conservation Priorities: The Bigger Picture

At its core, the debate over European bison in Spain is about more than just one species. It’s about how we define conservation success and the kinds of stories we tell about nature.

The authors of the study urge caution and reflection. Conservation resources are finite. Rather than investing in questionable introductions, they suggest focusing on the protection and recovery of native Spanish species and habitats — from the Iberian lynx and Spanish imperial eagle to the fragile cork oak forests and high mountain meadows.

They also emphasize that rewilding should not become a license to “import” charismatic animals without clear ecological fit. If poorly planned, such efforts risk discrediting the broader rewilding movement, which has the potential to play a meaningful role in restoring degraded ecosystems — when done right.

The European bison’s journey from near-extinction to cautious recovery is a powerful conservation story. But the desire to expand its range must be balanced with ecological realism and respect for historical evidence. The authors of this recent study offer an important reminder: Not every attractive idea is a good one — especially when nature’s balance hangs in the hands of human ambition.

More information:
Rewilding through inappropriate species introduction: The case of European bison in Spain

The post Rewilding European Bison in Spain: Native Species vs. Ecological Substitutes appeared first on Rewilding Academy.