England is one of the most nature depleted countries in the G7, principally as a result of habitat loss and fragmentation, with intensive agriculture a key factor. The English Lake District is a highly degraded environment for wild species, with some species ie the Golden Eagle, now locally extinct. The Lake District UNESCO ‘cultural landscape’ designation of 2017 over-simplifies and inhibits the ways we currently view and understand landscape, wild species, climate and environment here. With all that we know about our failure to protect Britain’s wildlife, there is currently a lack of in-depth joined-up reflection on the rights of wildlife. Threats from historic overgrazing and the impacts of climate change across the Lakes demand a far more nuanced approach to the futures of wild species. Set against ever-expanding tourist numbers and the consequential impacts of recreational disturbance on more-than-human-life, this paper asserts the notion of wildlife refuges from which humans are excluded, seasonally or otherwise. Safeguarding all habitats from being ‘roamed by humans’ acknowledges an implicit autonomy in wild species, together with the moral right that they may live without unnecessary human disturbance. Our recently published article asserts the principle of wildlife refuges as a fundamental part of nature recovery, yet this has been called ‘anti-human’ by some access campaigners. Elsewhere, for example the Netherlands and in Hungary, the refuge principle is accepted as a fact of life. Further, we extend the refuge principle to the right to darkness versus expanding Artificial Light at Night, even in places perceived as having ‘Dark Skies.’ Only through an ongoing exploration of mutually enhancing access mechanisms - founded upon upholding the rights of non-human and human animals alike – can genuine co-habitation for future generations of all animal-kind become realisable.