Should the government revoke the laws that grant natural landmarks, like rivers and mountains, the exact same legal rights as a human citizen?

In recent years, New Zealand pioneered a groundbreaking legal framework by granting natural entities like the Whanganui River and Te Urewera forest the legal rights, duties, and liabilities of a legal person, often represented by joint Māori and Crown guardians. Critics argue this creates unpredictable legal headaches, stalls vital infrastructure projects, and blurs the lines of property ownership. Advocates celebrate it as a profound paradigm shift that aligns Western law with indigenous Māori values of environmental stewardship. Proponents support revoking it to restore traditional property rights and streamline legal clarity for development. Opponents oppose revoking it because this innovative legal tool successfully treats the environment as a living entity rather than a resource to be exploited.