Emma Marris introduces the debated idea of rewilding nature in chapters 3 and 4, a topic I have mixed opinions about. Although the general notion behind the idea seems both logical and optimistic, I fear that it is difficult to achieve in large scale and can have unforeseen consequences.
I agree with Josh Donlan, an ecologist, that the opposition against this idea should not solely be fueled by the dislike of humans managing nature. This critique is not specific to the idea of rewilding. He says that it is imperative we start “admitting to ourselves that we live in an intensely managed world” (64) and perhaps this is a healthier impact humans can have on the environment as it seems to be a way that man can work with nature. Although I understand why many oppose this idea and I also dislike the idea of humans managing nature, I do not believe this should be the sole platform on which the opposing opinion specific to rewilding is formed. I appreciate Donlan’s optimistic attitude towards the end of chapter 3, stating “we can make things on Earth better, not just less bad” (56). We must keep this optimistic attitude and do all we can to refrain from being idle and stagnant. Although rewilding may not be the ideal or perfect solution, it is more proactive than giving up and not embracing nature.
When we consider the idea of rewilding, I think it is imperative for us to pose a few questions that will determine if the process is a good fit for the area. Such questions might include: Is this process sustainable and feasible? What effect will it have on the environment, its species, as well as the people that inhabit nearby land? If we are successful at carrying out this process on a small scale, we could then move forward to see if the plan can be executed on a widespread, larger scale.
Aside from perhaps the financial or timing aspects, the ideas brought up by Frans Vera appear logical if carried out successfully. Essential processes such as “intensive grazing” and “population control” (62) would be facilitated, which could in turn have significant positive effects on the ecosystem. Vera’s suggestion of using rewilding as support for the necessary cycles that change land from forests to shrubs and grassland is logical. To see the impact of this process and determine its feasibility on an area of land, one would have to examine and study it for a long time.
Although the aforementioned effects of rewilding appear promising, there are a few possible downsides to the process. One such fear is the introduction of dangerous animals to habitats and the “threat of death” (64) to areas that are not accustomed to such “dangerous carnivores” (64). Another uncertainty regarding this process is brought up by ecologist Dustin Rubenstein who says “proxy animals…could become invasive pests, or escape their parks and cause trouble with local landowners” (65). I also understand this critique as Rubenstein explains “these ecosystems have changed” and “attempting to fill gaps that closed long ago with proxy animals could generate unpredictable results” (65). Prior to carrying out this process, we would need to be certain regarding the possible behaviors of these animals when introduced to a new environment.
Regarding the future of the environment and its precious species, it is often easier to be critical and harder to make feasible and practical suggestions. It is therefore important that we consider all options and thoroughly examine the respective pros and cons before coming to decisive conclusions.
