Abstract Rewilding, although controversial, is increasingly presented as humanity's best hope of addressing the global biodiversity crisis, but it remains unclear how restoring nonhuman autonomy affects people's relationships with nature. We conceptualized 3 human–nature relationships (HNRs) that could occur when restoring nonhuman autonomy: human–nature dichotomy, human–nature compromise, and human–nature mutualism. Through 51 interviews, we then empirically tested the occurrence of these HNRs across diverse actors living and working in 2 longstanding British rewilding initiatives to better understand the place for people in rewilding. Actors’ HNRs aligned with the 3 conceptual framings, but these relationships were complex. Individuals often demonstrated multiple perspectives that transcended conventional actor categorization. The tripartite framing also revealed conflicting values across and within individuals, resulting in pluralistic HNRs. Our work adds to the theory and practice surrounding the place for people in rewilding by cautioning against a single preferred HNR when restoring nonhuman autonomy and advocating that a diversity of human interactions with nature should be integrated into the global rewilding movement.