By “untamed” I mean an expanse of land free of roads, livestock/civilization, hunting, and people who aren’t trained researchers or armed caretakers posted at the peripheries.
An opposing argument I recently encountered went something like:
-unfair to those who don’t have access to the publicly owned land
-too expensive to fund
-can’t keep poachers out
-hunters should be allowed if they obey DNR quotas (capping a few bears won’t hurt)
-we already have national parks anyway so this would be superfluous and restrictive
-it’s in our nature to dominate our surroundings, so such a park would be unnatural
From that arose a general sentiment of simply not caring about the health/existence of nature that exceeds the vibrancy of suburban forests (“tree areas”) and isn’t available for human exploitation.
I think most people here would rally behind the wholesale rejection of humans superseding the order to which we belong. I’m also guessing most recognize the necessity to kill "x" number of deer is a consequence of having destroyed most of the tertiary consumers – clearly not an example of the DNR’s ability to micromanage its conception of a healthy ecosystem.
Along those same lines, the restoration of natural parks like Yellowstone has continually illustrated a) how little experts actually know about complex food chains
and b) how ridiculous it is to pretend an ancient ecosystem will healthily adapt to minivans, beer cans and nearby cattle ranches.
That leaves the only legitimate claim made: outside of threatening trespassers with violence, is there anything that can be done to keep wilderness that large predators and their prey call home free of humans in a cost effective way?
All I can think of is a combination of retribution through strict trespassing laws (which necessitates private land ownership), fees/donations collected from accredited researchers to cover some expenses, and volunteers who accept extremely basic accommodations in exchange for guarding the premises, which would require a lot of disciplined manpower. Expansive fields to constitute the periphery along with nearby - but extremelely limited - vehicle access with checkpoints would also be necessary.
It’s pretty amazing that something as simple as leaving natural areas alone so they can continue to exist – as if that’s a huge sacrifice – is nearly impossible from a logistic and, for many, a conceptual standpoint. Interestingly, the guys who rejected the idea of largely inaccessible wilderness were more than willing to admit that any region with an ecologically vibrant, pristine, and poacherless web of life almost entirely devoid of human involvement would instantaneously gain respect and envy throughout the world. Can’t say I disagree there.