Described in the fourth chapter of Emma Marris’ Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, ‘rewilding,’ articulated by Dave Foreman, is the notion “that the main factors necessary to keep ecosystems resilient and diverse are the regulation provided by large, top-of-the-food-chain predators; the room for these predators to do their work; and connections between predator ranges so they can meet, mate, and maintain a healthily diverse gene pool” (88). This concept is essentially the polar opposite of the conservation methods discussed earlier in the book – those that aim to achieve pristine wilderness. In the attempt to reintroduce large predators, rewilding may require an influx of invasive species as replacements for similar native species that are extinct and therefore no longer attainable. Basically, rewilding bears quite a significant resemblance to Marris’ proposal of the ‘rambunctious garden,’ for it would create manmade ecosystems to be heavily supervised and interlaced with human interaction. In my opinion, rewilding sounds fantastic. The logic behind it makes perfect sense; large predators will manage the herbivore population, which in turn will prevent the overuse of certain plant species and allow the revitalization of the greenery, and also potentially provide carcasses that support the survival of other species.
As for the issue of bringing nonnative species into the ecosystems, I don’t see why that is a problem. The disagreement stems from other conservation theories that advocate restoration to a truly original state, but at this point that seems practically impossible. The overall goal of conservation is to revive the nature of the planet, and conditions have gotten so horrid that any plausible action should be taken immediately. Introducing nonnative species to these ecosystems will definitely alter them, but they would be changing anyway, which Marris points out many times throughout the book. Furthermore, the new species are similar enough to the extinct native species that it probably won’t make too much of a difference anyway. It would almost be as if the native species had evolved and acquired some new qualities, which is an aspect of life that happens all the time. With regards to ethics, I agree with Josh Donlan’s perspective: “we killed ‘em once; we can kill ‘em again” (96). That’s pretty harsh, but it’s true. We need to do anything we can to save the Earth’s wildlife, and if that demands a failed experiment and the taking of animals’ lives, then so be it. Besides, it’s nothing that humankind hasn’t done before. Most people have never before thought twice about killing an animal, so what’s changed? Moreover, it doesn’t have to be a mass killing; rewilding can be done slowly and carefully on a small scale to test it out before committing to it.
Although I strongly support rewilding and can see how the project would be executed, I don’t believe the logistics of it can be carried out particularly well. We have no knowledge of the potential costs – to transport the animals, to oversee their wellbeing, to keep them away from humans whom they might injure, etc. – of such an endeavor. To add to that, who would be willing to fund something that might not even work? Rewilding might be possible if the world was full of wealthy conservationists, but for now it shall remain nothing more than a far-fetched dream.
