Assisted Migration

Most scientists consider “the biggest single thumbprint humans have put on this planet” (Marris Page 74) to be the resultants of global warming. The planet as we know it is changing dramatically. Species around the world are hazardously affected by it. Climate patterns become unpredictable and temperatures and precipitation vary. Because of this, many species have been forced or at least try to migrate to a more suitable environment. Scientists have thought of the concept of assisted migration. Assisted migration or assisted colonization is basically the notion of humans physically helping organisms on their path to a more suitable climate. Migration in this sense is to be read as species that slowly move in geological timescales based on climate changes. Many argue that this is the only way that human beings can save these species. Since humans were the ones to cause this dramatic climate change, we should be the ones to be held responsible of the consequences. However, there are scientists who gravely opposed this idea. Some problems of assisted migration include whether the organisms will possibly survive in these new areas or if they will flourish so immensely well that they become invasive species, pushing out the native species. Scientists are left with a ethical decision and a choice for the greater good. Assisted migration should only be performed when there is a high risk of extinction due to climate change, the possibility for transporting these species, and if the benefits outweigh cost and constraints. For example, performing assisted migration on seeds is one thing. To perform assisted migration on beetles is another story. The time, cost, and effort it would take to move an entire species of just solely beetles will take up much too many resources, with not much foreseeable success nor benefit. Some scientists also argue that putting different species that have never before have interacted with each could cause unprecedented extremities that could possibly wipe out all the species in the area. There are a great number of possible limitations and advantages to assisted migration. Most would imagine the movement of butterflies, however, if one were to imagine such in an urban context, the migration of trees can greatly benefit certain populations. Moving trees further north or south can benefit population growth in terms of building human architectural landscape. With population growth, more land must be consumed to house human beings. As species and in some cases, entire forests migrate to different more unpopulated areas, we may see more land for humans to live on. In addition, assisted migration can be very helpful in terms of utilization in ecosystems. Species that are near the verge of extinction can be possibly saved and possibly beneficial to the surrounding organisms. The problem again remains that we do not know of the outcomes that will arise from doing so. Also, the time, effort, and money it will take is quite large. Despite all these limitations, assisted migration has its benefits. We can start in our own homes and scientists can progress from there.

| Leave a comment

Assisted Migration

 

In Chapter 5 of “Rambunctious Garden”, Emma Marris introduces the assisted migration to the readers. This assisted migration refers to a process when the humans boost up the migration of the animals (80). The natural migrations of the animals happen slowly, and for immediate effects, humans assist the migration of the animals.  Climate change lays key role to the animal’s migration and since the changes are slow, it make the natural migration of the species slow as well. However, the species had to migrate due to urbanization in their natural habitat. Basically, what the ecologists and conservationists are trying to do is placing species in new natural habitat hoping it will adapt to the new environment and prosper.

So, the question is will the assisted migration work? I will say both yes and no but more to the no-side. The idea is feasible if the scientists do enough research and know the consequence of the assisted migration. If the assisted migration is carried out successfully, it will create ultimate way to preserve and conserve natural species. However, the consequence of the assisted migration is currently unknown.

It seems like there are more foreseeable negative consequence of assisted migration. I believe that the animals are capable to find new habitat by themselves. The birds change their migration sites when they know there usual site is unbearable for them. In Puth&Burns article, the authors agreed that the urbanization had so many consequences upon us. I think that current ecosystem cannot bear any failed conservationist project. We must be careful because the assisted migration will change the natural ecosystem of introduced site. “Organisms could die, because you don’t know exactly what they need to live-some specific microbes or microclimatic condition’”(77) Additionally, if the species failed to adapt to the introduction site due to food, climate, or other traits, it will create more problems in the ecosystem such as emergence of invasive species.

Humans cannot change the Earth. There are more regulation and consequences to change current ecosystem. As I always say, the most important thing is to avoid anymore further damage to the ecosystem such as extinction of species. The Earth and species will recover someday if humans do not damage it furthermore.

| Leave a comment

Assisted Migration

Assisted Migration is the process by which a species is taken out of its natural habitat and transported into a new ecosystem. This is usually done in response to climate shifts, due to the release of harmful gases such as methane and carbon monoxide in the original habitat of the species that do not provide it with the proper conditions necessary for it to survive and perpetuate. Scientists will therefore transport them to an environment with suitable living conditions as in their original habitat in the hopes that they will be able to continue on and succeed as a species.

When I first read about this process I tried to understand both sides of the coin. On one hand, I believe that by using assisted migration scientists will be able to combat the rate of extinction and ensure that species that are on the verge of extinction may be able to continue on. After all, there inability to cope with changes to their environment was all due to the releases of harmful gases by humans. However, on the other hand, as in Rewilding, there is no way to accurately predict the consequences that it may have on both its original habitat and the environment that it is introduced into. For instance, what if it acts as an invasive species to its new ecosystem and drives out native species or if it causes an unbalance in its native ecosystem and causes another species to go extinct as a result. These are all consequences that must be taken into account before assisted migration is conducted. Maybe we should just let nature and evolution take its course and refrain from interfering with the outcome of species. We should compel the species to adapt on their own to survive in their ecosystems.

Emma Marris, in chapter 5 of the “Rambunctious Garden,” touches upon this topic and provides certain examples that show the positive effects that assisted Migration may have. For example, she discusses the benefits it may have with a pika, which is an animal that lives in the mountains because they can only survive in cold temperatures. As there are shifts in the temperature patterns and the climate cools down they must move further up the mountain to provide for a livable environment. As you go further and further up the mountain there is less space and eventually they will run out of room and likely go extinct due to changing conditions. By using assisted migration, pikas can be transported to an environment where there population may be able to live and thrive.

Although assisted migration may be accompanied by many positive effects, I believe that it can also have many negative consequences, and therefore is not something that should be taken lightly. I believe that when it is absolutely necessary to save a species assisted migration should be used, however it must be accompanied by a detail analysis outlining the possible effects that may come along with it. The Puth and Burns article made it clear that over the years there was a decline in species richness throughout the Metropolitan area, and although we may use assisted migration to help the populations of certain species thrive, I believe that it should not be used unless proper research is done and the benefits will definitely outweigh the consequences.

| Leave a comment

Assisted Migration

At this point in time, one of the issues that plague conservationists is global warming.  As a result of global warming, earth’s climate temperatures are warmer than usual.  While humans don’t find an issue with this, other species on planet earth could possibly become extinct because of it.  For example, Chapter five in Emma Marris’ Rambunctious Garden, opens with the example of the “American pika…which curl up and die after a few hours in 78-degree Fahrenheit heat (73).  To avoid the rising temperatures the pika move to higher altitudes, but if they move to lower altitudes they risk death.  To help them with their transition conservationists recommend the idea of assisted migration.

 

Assisted migration is the process where humans take species and move them to new locations.  The purpose of doing this is help animals like the American Pika that have limited options in where they could live or transition to.  Once humans move the species and find a suitable place for them the belief is that the animals will be able to move slightly more freely and be able to survive and cope with the surrounding issues of global warming.

 

Similar to rewilding, assisted migration involves the relocation of species, which means assisted migration shares some of the issue as rewilding.  By introducing new species into an ecosystem, the future of the environment cannot be fully determined.  There could be variable non accounted for, which could end up altering the new location the species has been moved to.  “Simberloff said there are just too many unknowns.  ‘I would want to know a lot more about pathogens and insects before [he] moved things…there is very little evidence that it is going to help” (93).  Dov Sax states “the thought of planting a couple of hectares of trees far to the north where people currently harvest-that sounds a little scary to me” (93).  With his apprehension to plant trees, one could assume that he would be completely against moving animal species around at this time.

 

Another issue with assisted migration is that it seems like a short-term resolution.  Since assisted migration doesn’t seek to remedy the issue of global warming temperatures will continue to increase over time, which could cause the temperature of the new ecosystem to be unfavorable to the new species and possibly the species already living there.    With this predicament, the once relocated species will have to be moved once again and the processes that ecologists went through in their initial movement will have to be repeated.

The continuous movement of species could result in the need of high funds.  As a result, with the already low funding in conservation movements, “the benefits of translocation [must] outweigh the biological and socioeconomic costs and constraints” for assisted migration to be a plausible treatment.  “Even assisted migration friendly ecologists are worried about going too fast” (93).  Even though assisted migration has good intentions behind it, it might not be a plausible solution to the issues we are currently facing with global climate change.

| Leave a comment

Marris 5, Puth & Burns – Assisted Migration – 9/13

In Chapter 5 of Rambunctious Gardens, Marris introduces assisted migration to us. Anthropogenic climate change, caused by human emissions of gases, “is the biggest single thumbprint humans have put on this planet” (74). Therefore, species are expected to (and have already began to) move, as they cannot handle the escalating temperatures. Marris defines assisted migration as human intervention in helping species respond to climate change. Previously, species would “move around slowly, in geological timescales,” (80) but anthropogenic change is much more rapid that assistance is necessary.

To put this into perspective, Camille Parmesan “estimated that the average species’s range…moves 3.8 miles toward the pole every decade…spring events are occurring 2.3 days earlier per decade” (76-77). Assisted migration is an answer to prevention of early extinction, particularly the mountain species, such as the introductory example of the American pika. The Puth and Burns article on New York’s Nature may be an indication of this, presenting that 65% of long-term records “documented declines in species richness; this percentage rose to 77% when only studies describing native species were included.” The cause of this, as postulated by authors of the records, were a variety of “mainly anthropogenic causes, including development, exotic species, changes in land use, chemical contamination and recreational use of natural areas” (16). Several authors provided the following general rules for assisted migration: at a high risk of extinction, can be feasibly transported, and if the benefits outweigh the costs.

Two of the main arguments against assisted migration are the possibility of the organism dying or becoming invasive. In Marris’ words, “What is interesting about climate change is that it pits two common assumptions against each other: the pristineness myth and the myth of a correct baseline for each area” (77). As stated, the main argument for assisted migration is preventing early extinction. “Opponents are more worried about the integrity of coevolved ecosystems” (78). As is the problem with rewilding, the outcomes can be very unpredictable. Moving a single species can disrupt an entire ecosystem, as species rely on each other. The example that Marris provides begins with butterflies: they can move easily across a landscape, but they only lay their egg specific plants, which depend on insect or bird pollinators. Problems arise when pollinators migrate before the plant species, who may be “too slow to outrun climate change” (76), can. In other words, “though one species may be going extinct, the measures that could save it might endanger other ecosystems, might threaten the existence of the baselines that guide conservation efforts, and might piss off other conservationists” (81).

As with my stance on rewilding, I feel that the concept of assisted migration is a romantic one at most. I am not a firm believer in the future of it because of the unpredictable and possible negativities. I understand the reasoning behind why there are supporters who advocate for it. However, I am very much against assisting migration for commercial purposes rather than for nature’s sake. Further, there is a very selective group of species that assisted migration would work for, making it selective. That still leaves many other species vulnerable to extinction left behind.

| Leave a comment

Assisted Migration Response

In the chapter “Assisted Migration,” Emma Marris introduces the idea of helping species survive tough climate conditions by moving them manually. Her idea of assisted migration is based on the fact that since climate changes are brought about by human actions, such as the burning of fossil fuels, humans should be able to help certain organisms that cannot handle the changes in the climate and also cannot easily move to the right climate by themselves. She gives a good visualization for why assisted migration would be a helpful thing. “If you imagine a mountain as a perfect cone, you can easily visualize this effect. The higher you go up the cone, the less there is of it…you can’t make the mountain grow bigger, you could think about moving species to another mountaintop that is either higher or further north.” (77) This shows the reasoning behind assisted migration, which is that because certain organisms either cannot find their ideal habitat to live in by themselves or cannot move there by themselves, we should be able to move them so that they can live in the proper conditions. She argues that because humans are the reason for the climate changes taking place, we should be allowed to help organisms in need of help. There are a couple of benefits that I see in assisted migration. Unlike the idea of rewilding, assisted migration is done to help the organism rather than to create a pristine environment. It can help endangered species thrive by putting them back in the right type of environment, which they would not be able to get to naturally. Another benefit would be that we would be able to have greater biodiversity around the world since more species would survive. Climate change would not be a reason for the extinction of certain species anymore. However, along with all these positives from assisted migration are also negatives. By moving around organisms into other habitats, we are putting those habitats at risk since we do not know the effect those organisms will have there. This possibility of introducing invasive species into ecosystems is a big reason why assisted migration has opposition. I believe that just to possibly save a species, we should not put other species in danger. As Simberloff says, “there are just too many unknowns. I would want to know a lot more about pathogens and insects before I moved things…there is very little evidence that it is going to help.” (93) This shows that assisted migration can possibly be extremely harmful to some species since we do not know the effects that it would produce. I think that assisted migration is a better and more practical idea than rewilding, but there are still improvements that need to be made to the idea. We need to have more solid information about the effects of the species on the areas in which we migrate them to before we do it. I feel like it can be a possible method of helping species in the future, but for now, there are too many risks involved with assisted migration.

| Leave a comment

Puth & Burns + Marris’s “Assisted Migration”

In Chapter 5 of Emma Marris’s Rambunctious Garden, she talks about the idea of “assisted migration”. Compared to “rewilding” in the previous chapter, assisted migration seems more conceivable. In response to the degradation of habitats from human influence, some believe that moving a species to a different region may populate them and establish a permanent existence or presence. It would certainly help species like the American pika, a small mammal that dies in warm temperatures. According to Marris, “conservationists are increasingly considering moving animals [like the pika] in advance of climate change to places where they might thrive in a warmer future” (Marris 73). Although the notion of assisted migration may seem brilliant and harmless, I suspect that it will do more harm than good.

Species richness is declining. With “urbanization and its consequences occurring throughout the world” (Puth & Burns 18), we strive to save what we can of our depleting nature. However, we cannot use assisted migration as a method to do so. Existing ecosystems are complex – from microorganisms to microclimate. Humans cannot be too sure of how species interact with each other and its surroundings to live. By taking a species from one habitat to another,  “organisms could die” (Marris 77). Marris also states that assisted migration may create invasive species that would push out native species. It would harm existing ecosystems in unpredictable ways. In fact, not much research has been done on assisted migration. In this chapter, Marris primarily mentions flora as opposed to fauna. When scientists studied the Torreya taxifolia of Florida, no conclusions were made as to whether climate change affected the tree’s decline. In depth research would take years, too slow for global warming. Thus, we simply cannot just relocate the T. taxifolia to where we think would be suitable.

In addition, assisted migration seems to contradict rewilding and ecological baselines. The purpose of rewilding and ecological baselines is to bring ecosystems back to the past, unaffected by human actions. Assisted migration is furthering human intervention with nature. If we truly wish to save nature, we should not continue to meddle with it. Marris even states that “if ecosystems have a correct baseline to which we must return…then we absolutely cannot move species from one area to another” (77). The concept is also leaving it up to humans to decide which species to relocate and save. What will happen to the small organisms (beetles, mites) that depend on a specific tree species? Not only may relocating species be harmful to existing ecosystems by becoming invasive species, it may also harm the previous ecosystem.

For these reasons, I presume that assisted migration should not be a conservation tool. It is a tempting method to rescue extinct-to-be species, but we cannot predict how they will do or what they will do to new ecosystems. We also do not know how their previous ecosystems will hold up. Until we are sure and find a safe solution to all these problems, we should not use assisted migration and intervene with nature any further.

| Leave a comment

Rambunctious Garden Chap 5 & Puth and Burns

Chapter 5 of Marris’ “Rambunctious Garden” and the Puth & Burns article focus primarily on the concept of assisted migration. In a nutshell, assisted migration is taking species that are on the brink of extinction from the natural habitat, and moving those species to a new habitat in hopes that they will thrive there. Right off the bat, Marris discusses the hardships of the American pika, a “small flower-nibbling mammal” native to the North American West. As the global climate gets warmer and warmer, the pika “curls up” and dies. Their natural habitat, high peaks on mountains, is getting smaller and smaller by the day and the pikas’ have nowhere else to go. They can’t make it down the mountain by themselves, nor can they make it to the safe haven of a close-by mountain. But, Marris says, what if someone came along and provided the pikas’ with a refrigerated crate as their new home? It’s possible that they might just save a life or two. (73) For the pikas’ sake, assisted migration could be a potential life saver, much like the American beeches native to the North American east coast; spanning from southern Canada all the way to northern Florida. Like the pikas’, the beeches are victims of climate change. As the planet gets warmer, the beeches can no longer grow as quickly, nor can they reproduce as well. However, as colder areas of Canada subsequently heat up, beech seeds may be planted, and this small degree of human intervention might just give the trees a new home, and save the species in the process. Similarly, the Puth & Burns article discusses how increased urbanization has been severely detrimental to species native to areas such as New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Their findings have noted a dramatically decreasing trend in amphibian, reptilian, fish, bird, lichen, and plant life in the New York metro area. Now, assisted migration sounds like the savior conservationists have been waiting for, but will it really work?
Perhaps the most obvious question that arises when conservationist efforts are being pitches is, will it really work? Much like the idea of Rewilding, assisted migration has a dark cloud looming above it due to the lack of real testing in the field. Its virtually impossible to predict how certain species will react to being exposed to new habitats. Marris herself even validates this point by stating that there might be some sort of difference in the soil of the species’ old habitat. For these reasons, I’m not sure just how supportive I would be of assisted migration or rewilding as scientific tools; however, given the choice between the two, I believe assisted migration is superior. Conservation is an unpredictable field, so I’m sure the expert scientists are on the fence about this issue just as much as I am.

| Leave a comment

Assisted Migration and Urban Ecosystems

Assisted migration is a very controversial concept that has been hotly debated in ecological circles in recent years. As climates continue to increase in temperature as a result of global warming, species will naturally move toward the poles and uphill to cooler climates. This is an extremely slow natural process and some of the migrating species might not be able to migrate on their own. This can lead to extinction and the destruction of ecosystems. As a result, many ecologists and people with special interests have suggested assisted migration. Assisted migration involves physically moving species to cooler and more ideal climates so they are able to thrive and prosper. Opponents of assisted migration argue that the species might not be able to adapt to these new environments and that they may become invasive. Opponents also point out that only certain species that are aesthetically pleasing or economically valuable will be moved, which can destroy ecosystems. Although assisted migration is a relatively new concept, it was successfully applied for Florida torreya trees and is being utilized by foresters in British Columbia. While assisted migration has been used in rural forests, it has yet to be attempted in urban ecosystems.

I believe that assisted migration will be a very useful tool for urban ecosystems. First off, urban ecosystems are far from pristine and already have many invasive species, so opponents cannot argue that assisted migration will taint them. Secondly, assisted migration can increase species richness in urban ecosystems. As shown by Puth and Burns in their 2009 study, there have been major declines in species richness in the New York metropolitan area. Looking deeper, their article shows that species richness has declined in all urban habitats in the New York metropolitan area. Perhaps assisted migration can play a beneficial role and increase species richness in urban ecosystems, which will have a positive effect on the environment. Finally, assisted migration in urban areas can benefit endangered species. Endangered species that are native to climates that are similar in temperature to the urban environments where they are moved might be able to prosper. This can prolong the lifespans of these species.

One problem with utilizing assisted migration in urban ecosystems is that buildings cause urban areas to have elevated temperatures. Since the goal of assisted migration is to protect species against global warming, this is a variable that can have a negative effect on many species. Another problem with utilizing assisted migration in urban ecosystems is that there is limited space. As a result, there might not be many places to put new species. The final problem is that the results are unpredictable. Assisted migration might lead to harmful invasive species and pests being introduced to urban ecosystems. Therefore, assisted migration in urban ecosystems should only be used for species that are sure to thrive in their new environments and do not pose a threat to other species in the area.

Assisted migration can definitely restore some biological diversity to urban areas. However, it is unknown if all assisted migration will have a positive effect. In addition, assisted migration will cost a tremendous amount of money and require a lot of time and effort. Assisted migration needs to be attempted on a larger scale before it is carried out in urban ecosystems. More research needs to be conducted to determine its drawbacks and benefits.

| Leave a comment

Ch5 and Puth&Burns article

Since the Industrial Revolution there has been a rise in the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, which in turn causes global warming. One of the more obvious affects of global warming is climate change. In Chapter 5, Marris discusses the affect of climate change on various species in different ecosystems across North America. For example, she mentions how the “pika,” a small mammal that lives in the West, is slowly dying because according to an experiment conducted in the 1970’s these mammals are not able to survive in temperatures over seventy-eight degrees (Marris 73). With global warming, the temperature of the Earth is steadily increasing and a major concern for scientists is how to protect species like the “pika” from extinction. Over time the population of species who need to live in cooler conditions will decrease because given the cone shape of mountains, the higher up the species goes the less land they will be able to occupy. Consequently, scientists and conservationists introduced the idea of “assisted migration” as a way to “save biodiversity under threat from climate change…” (88).

However, this proposal is rather idealistic because there are many species that suffer from climate change and with “assisted migration” there is always the risk that the species might become invasive. Ecologist Hellmann has conducted a research experiment in British Columbia to determine whether or not the Garry oak will migrate further north in response to climate change (85). In conclusion, Hellmann was concerned about the extent to which assisted migration could protect biodiversity from climate change. She believes that people are only going to want to save the “important” species i.e. timber and wood, but other species like microbes or beetles will be left to fend for themselves. Ultimately, the determining factor behind what species to assist will be based on finance because there is a lack of funds for assisted migration. The only other way to get funds is through private corporations, which will most likely want to profit from the experiment.

Assisted migration for some species would be useful in an urban setting. More specifically, species such as trees or other small, harmless organisms would be valuable in cities. Given the large population of cities like New York City, if there are small and harmless organisms that need to be in a colder climate, it would be beneficial to move them to an urban area. Through educating communities about climate change and its affect on biodiversity, people will be more receptive towards those organisms. With the current green movement people in general would like to live closer to nature. However, one limitation of assisted migration in urban areas is the lack of space for organisms to live. If these organisms originally come from a wide, open area it would take time for it to adjust to the smaller space. Furthermore, as Marris pointed out in the chapter, there is also the possibility that this new species might become invasive and cause another species to go extinct as a result of its migration. In an urban setting there needs to be a specific plot of land set aside for the new species that closely resembles its previous ecosystem to make its transition easier. Then, slowly the species will be able to adapt to the new ecosystem and thrive there.

 

| Leave a comment

Rambunctious Garden Ch 5

Chapter 5 of “Rambunctious Garden” looks into the topic of assisted migration. Assisted migration is when humans move a species that is close to extinction in its current environment to a new environment, in hopes that it will thrive there. The book uses the example of the pika and the Florida torreya to illustrate how beneficial assisted migration can be.

The pika is a small mammal that lives on mountains. Pikas live on mountains because they can only survive in cold climates. Spending just a short amount of time in warm weather can kill a pika. Human use of fossil fuels has increased climate change, which has made many environments hotter than they usually are. As the pikas climate gets hotter, it has to move higher up the mountain to live in a cool environment. However, the top of a mountain has less space than the bottom so there might not be enough room for the pika to survive on the mountaintop. In addition, a pika cannot survive a trip down the mountain and up a higher mountain nearby.

Marris also discusses how assisted migration can benefit the Florida torreya tree. This tree is found on the east coast of the Unite States, starting if Florida. However as Florida gets warmer and drier, it is harder and harder for this tree to survive there. To prevent the species from going extinct, conservationists want to spread its seeds further up North, to places like North Carolina. In the northern part of the Unite States, the tree can grow and thrive in the climate.

Not everyone agrees that assisted migration is a good thing. The ones that support it argue that since humans are responsible for the climate change that is threating many species, it is their duty to assist them and find them better places to live. Opponents argue that introducing species to new environments is a recipe for disaster as they can become invasive and dramatically alter the environment that they are introduced into.

Assisted migration should be an option that conservationists use, but not often. While the move will hopefully help the species, conservationists are taking a huge risk when they move the species to a new place. In addition, if people want to create a pristine wilderness area, this tactic defeats the whole purpose as it involves a lot of human intervention. The best strategy would be to focus on finding alternative sources of energy for humans to use. That way we would reduce our burning of fossil fuels and slow the heating of the earth, which would allow many species to survive in their native environment, without the need for being transported to a new one.

| Leave a comment

Assisted Migration and Urbanization

In Chapter 5 of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris discusses assisted migration – a process by which “species move around slowly, in geological timescales, often in response to climate shifts,” and humans assist animals in their movement (80). Climate change has had severe effects on the Earth, causing species to go extinct in some places and relocate in others; we now have a world “in which some places get more rain, others less, and climate patters become, on the whole, less predictable” (74). While humans seek to protect some species by quite literally transporting them to more suitable places in terms of climate, assisted migration remains risky because the species could go extinct or become a “dreaded invasive species that takes over and pushes out native species” in their new home (72). In addition to being relatively useful as a scientific tool, as the world continues to urbanize at rapid rates according to Puth and Burns’s New York’s nature, it’s worth considering further protection and guarantees of existence for rare species.

Scientists remain split on assisted migration, for the most part: Marris writes that “scientists are pretty freaked out by the whole idea” (78). The assisted migration movement is led by people like Unitarian activist Connie Barlow, who went as far as to “put up a website” defending her stance along with other citizens (81). Despite citizen passion for the idea, scientists held off on debating it mainly out of fear and the lack of an established baseline; ecologist Mark Schwartz wrote in an editorial that without “a baseline we have no target…every kind of management, including those that result in lost native species, is arguably a success. I fear such success” (80). Yet, against scientists’ resistance, “British Columbia became the first political unit to start systematically moving its trees” because climate chance was causing destruction by forest fire and dangerous species outbreak in the form of pine beetles – clearly, “something had to be done” (91).

Measuring the good and bad of ecological change is difficult in British Columbia and other urban, densely populated places. Puth and Burns discuss this further and show the general declines in species richness in New York City, New Jersey, and Connecticut, but they mention that they “found relatively few studies reporting location-specific species richness data in the New York metropolitan area” (16). As is the case in British Columbia where trees “may have a vigorous first few years and then slow down, as the climate changes, to something it is not prepared for,” studies on species in New York City lacked much significant data, according to Puth and Burns (92). In other words, for scientists to better understand concepts like assisted migration, they must not only debate the idea but do more research, short-term and long-term, on urban environments across the world. Until this is done, the majority of citizens and scientists will remain hesitant on assisted migration, which may be useful as a scientific tool in limited circumstances but not yet for widespread future use.

 

| Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Assisted Migration

Assisted Migration is a hot topic of debate in the ecological community. The two sides can’t seem to agree on whether or not the moving of species to more desirable environments is a worthwhile venture. There are some clear positives to such a procedure. According to Marris, with the shifts in climate due to human induced factors such as carbon dioxide output, ecosystems are experiencing great changes that deeply affect the survival of its inhabitants. For example, if temperatures change significantly in the small pocket of land where T. Taxifolia (a type of pine tree) grows, this endangered species could face extinction. The idea behind Assisted Migration, is to move species like T. Taxifolia, that are in danger of suffering due to climate change, to areas that better suit their environmental needs. If the process to assist these species is a success, the positives are that a species is saved from possible extinction and the diversity of the ecosystem it was moved to increases. There are some dangers in this process that also need to be addressed. A worst-case scenario would be that the species being moved becomes an invasive species in its new ecosystem and hinders the development of the species already established there. To prevent such difficulties, extensive research needs to be done on the species and its needs as well as the new ecosystem in order to determine whether or not the outcome will be an encouraging one. Rushing into an Assisted Migration is apt to result in negative results and the subsequent damaging of both the species being moved and the species surrounding it. In my opinion, Assisted Migration is a promising practice that needs to be researched extensively before putting it into action. While it may result in saving a species, it also has the potential to wreak havoc on an ecosystem if conducted incorrectly.

This concept of sufficient research comes into play when talking about Assisted Migration involving urban ecosystems, in particular New York City. The Puth and Burns article focused on a study of available research on biological diversity in New York City and the surrounding areas. This information is key to determining whether or not Assisted Migration is something that can potentially benefit species as well as the ecosystems of the city. The article’s data specifically states the number of ecological studies based on habitat type and taxonomic group. This is key to determining if there is currently sufficient data on whatever species is being introduced and the environment it is being introduced to. For example, there were 48 studies on mammals but only 3 on reptiles. This shows that there is either a very weak population of reptiles around the city or there is a lack of research about them. In either case, if the goal is to incorporate a reptile into the city’s landscape, more research is required to ensure the endeavor is a safe one for all species involved. The Puth and Burns article is a wealth of knowledge when it comes to Assisted Migration in New York City.

| Leave a comment

Post 9/12/12: Rambunctious Garden 5

The idea of assisted migration, in which humanity plans and (eventually) moves certain species that are endangered by climate change into a more suitable environment, sounds considerably less preposterous than Pleistocene rewilding. It is not as extreme as rewilding; rather than moving species over continents, many advocates support the movement of species for the lesser distance of a few hundred miles, generally in the skyward or northward direction. The benefits of assisted migration are more obvious (and arguably a lot quicker), as the targets, endangered and useful species, give more immediate reasons to a call to actions. Cumulatively, one could theoretically garner a great deal of support from the masses.

On the other hand, it will likely be costly, more than rewilding, though probably less than preservations. Critics are not unjustified in fearing invasiveness of some species, although that concern can be alleviated with sufficient time and research. Perhaps most significant, however, is that the majority of assisted migration research (insofar as this book and the article) is based on plants, many of which are ones that grow into mature trees, which are notorious for their longevity—as well as the time it takes to grow it to that age. The time-consuming effort to research the effects of migrating trees will take years, which may be some cause for alarm if climate change is encroaching as fast as some scientists believe. Furthermore, the lack of fauna data means transporting insects and animals is even more unpredictable with regards to the target ecosystem.

Nevertheless, assisted migration can be a great insight into how humans can help to save and tame their adjacent ecosystems. The Puth and Burns article highlighted the decline of species richness in the American Northeast, (vaguely) emphasizing the effects of the New York metropolis, among other areas including portions of New Jersey and Connecticut, on its neighboring habitats. Learning the effects of moving wildlife around may work to slow at least the destructive properties of urbanization, at best weaving through the inevitable political firestorm; at worst, the research will at least provide some foundation of how to prolong existing preservation and conservation projects. Of course, like the article said, an unfortunate lack in detailed surveying makes it difficult to consider the micromanagement of such ordeals.

Assisted migration will undoubtedly be a key in finding a relative equilibrium between the rural and the urban. If we are going to displace entire ecosystems—and since humanity is far from finished from expanding and excavating, we are likely going to continue down that path—we might as well understand how to mitigate the consequences that come with human invasions. Moving species by hand (or vehicle) is by far the most direct way to interact with nature to alter it, so assisted migration may be a nice vocal focus from which to project the necessity to face climate change, and perhaps even draw focus to other conservation techniques (like the aforementioned radical rewilding idea). Like rewilding, however, the idea is too new, the research is too sparse, and more consideration will be required before large-scale, government-backed acts are committed. In the meantime, spurring local initiatives, like the one citizen-backed one for moving the Florida terroya northbound, may be a good start.

| Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Assisted Migration

Assisted Migration, by definition, is the practice of moving a species from their natural habitat to a new region – usually in response to the degrading effects human presence has had on their original habitats. In theory, be definition alone, the idea seems to be more realistic, ethical, and plausible than the previously mentioned “rewinding” concept.

Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, the reason assisted migration sounds to me like a better scientific tool than rewilding is because there is actually a demonstrated need for it, and its main point is to help save species. In both Marris’ chapter on the issue as well as in Puth and Burns’ article, there are examples of species who have been dying out in their original habitat, mostly due to the anthropogenic changes in their ecosystems. Marris, for example, mentions the American pika, which cannot live in temperatures warmer that 78 degrees. The American pika has all but disappeared from lowlands and has been forced to make its way up mountains to stay in it’s comfort zone. However, even those mountains are warming up, and for the pika to go up another mountain, it must first come down – which it cannot do without dying. Similarly, Puth and Burns’ article mentions how many of the species studied in the New York, New Jersey and Connecticut areas have shown decreasing species richness as a result of urbanization. For situations such as these, assisted migration seems to be a logical and ethical solution to help try keep these species alive, especially when they cannot help themselves, as in the case of the American pika.

Whether this practice will be useful to ecosystems, remains to be an unanswered question. Like with rewilding, because the idea is so new, there is not a lot of predictability in its implementation. There is no way to know how a species will react to its new environment, and it is possible, as was pointed out in Marris’ chapter that, perhaps the species’ old environment had some sort of unknown soil microbe or something of that nature which the new environment does not have (79); there is no way to predict those sort of variables. Similarly, there is also the fear that the species may become an invasive species in its new habitat, driving out the native species.

Because of the uncertainty that comes along with toying with nature, I believe that these waters should be treaded carefully, and only be used when necessary to save a species, not just for experimentation purposes.

| Leave a comment

Assisted Migration

Although assisted migration may appear beneficial to those animals whose habitats have been significantly altered by global warming, there are undoubtedly downsides to the process of manually moving animals to a new habitat.
Those who favor the idea of assisted migration seem to solely be concerned with the threat that extinction is posing to specific creatures. We must, however, not overlook other factors that could also be threatening to the migrating species as well as those that are not the central targets of the process.
The only way for the process of assisted migration to become a feasible process that would gain the support of more scientists is to investigate the “unknowns” (conditions in the new environment, insects, etc.) that ecologist Daniel Simberloff fears. Prior to moving a species to a new environment, particularly a diverse environment like an urban area, we must make inventory of what is already living there and examine the role the migrating species would have in that new ecosystem.
Camille Parmesan, among others, published a paper that appears to sufficiently sum up the debated topic of assisted migration. If this process were to be considered, we must follow what the authors refer to as the “first-pass analysis,” stating “species should be moved if they are at high risk of extinction from climate change, if they can be feasibly transported, and if ‘the benefits of translocation outweigh the biological and socioeconomic costs and constraints’” (82). Prior to making such a drastic decision as moving animals to an entirely new habitat, such as an urban environment they have not previously been familiarized with, we must consider the effects it would have on both the species being moved as well as the environment to which it is being moved to.
Questions we must ask as part of this analysis include: is this new urban environment familiar with this type of animal or will it come as a complete shock to both the people and animals that already inhabit the region? Will this new species actually be able to thrive in this new environment or will it face another threat that could be just as detrimental to its existence as global warming? What will happen to the rest of the species it leaves behind that are part of the “coevolved ecosystem” that Marris mentions?
It is not enough to say that assisted migration is feasible because the urban environment we are moving the species to would have a similar climate to the one it was previously living in. Ecologist Jessica Hellmann also makes a valid point, saying “what makes climate change different from re-establishing from a glaciation is that these northern areas are already full” (88).
As is evident by Puth and Burns’ article, species richness is something that needs to be further studied. Although there have not been enough studies done, “most of those that did report data over time showed declines in species richness” in metropolitan USA (Puth and Burns). Although we must encourage more studies to be done in order to get a clear and accurate picture, extinction and declining biodiversity are both credible threats. Assisted migration, however, does not seem to rectify this situation nor impact all creatures equally, prioritizing those that have commercial purposes or intrinsic value, often at the risk of the remaining species.
To come to a conclusion regarding the risks and benefits of assisted migration, such studies as that conducted in British Columbia as well as those groups working to find scientific discoveries regarding assisted migration are essential. The only way I can see this happening widespread is if the “sentiment” that Marris refers to is strong and persuasive enough to fuel the movement as commercial gains are often prioritized when it comes to decision-making.

| Leave a comment

Assisted Migration

In a similar vein to rewilding, assisted migration aims to introduce plant and animal species to non-native ecosystems. The potential need of assisted migration stems mainly from climate changes caused by human activity. Carbon dioxide emissions in particular have increased dramatically since the Middle Ages (Marris 74). In conjunction with other gases such as methane and hydrocarbons, the atmosphere has been altered “such that it now retains more heat” (Marris 74).

The changes to the atmosphere play a crucial role in determining species’ need to move. Changes in temperature, for example, have already prompted some species to migrate to new areas while others try to adapt to the changes. For those species that have not yet migrated, either because they cannot relocate themselves or can still survive in the altered yet continuously altering climate, the option exists to proactively relocate such species to more suitable environment in the hopes of stabilizing the species’ population in the new geographical location.

While the notion has the best of intentions, assisted migration is not necessary. One of the arguments supporting assisted migration is the fact that “species richness shows declines” in the New York metropolitan area, as concluded from research done by Puth and Burns for Diversity and Distributions. However, assisted migration carries more risk than potential reward. There is no concrete evidence that moving certain species to certain new locations will ensure their well-being and survival. In the best-case scenario, the species will interact positively with its environment and the ecosystem will stabilize, successfully saving the migrated species. Ecologists opposed to the idea argue, “’organisms could die, because you don’t know exactly what they need to live-some specific microbes or microclimatic condition’” (Marris 77). The temperature of an area alone does not define the climatic conditions in which species live.

If a species’ living conditions is absolutely unbearable, it might find a way to a more suitable environment, just as birds often migrate south to warmer weather during the winter. For those species that are not as mobile, they may have the ability to adapt to the climate changes. However, prematurely moving them from their native ecosystems may jeopardize their abilities to adapt. Furthermore, that species may be vital to the balance of the native ecosystem and thus, removing it could disrupt the balance of the native ecosystem.

Another hesitation to assisted migration is the possibility of creating a “dreaded ‘invasive’ species that takes over and pushes out native species” (Marris 77). What if the assisted migration disrupts its new ecosystem enough that the native species cannot compensate for the new inhabitant? Scientists can only speculate how the ecosystem will react, effectively making assisted migration just a game of chance. Taking all of this into account, it is safer to just leave the species where they are and allow them to, hopefully, adapt to their environments while humans focus more on limiting the negative consequences of their actions.

Humans cannot save every plant or animal. Unfortunately, human activity has created a ripple effect on the Earth’s ecosystem that is now negatively affecting species around the world, directly and indirectly. However, there are too many variables in assisted migration that scientists cannot control, which may allow assisted migration to go awry. As a method of correcting the wrongs that human activity has done to the Earth and its ecosystems, assisted migration can have similar detrimental effects on the environment as human activity has already done, and two wrongs will not make a right.

| Leave a comment

Assisted Migration

The foundation for the idea of assisted migration stemmed largely from climatic changes, specifically anthropogenic changes. Scientists believe that human emissions of certain gasses–like methane, carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons–can be attributed to changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere so it now retains more heat. The results include a warmer climate, sure, but also climate patterns, predictability, and rainfall. In 2003, it was ecologist Camille Parmesan predicted that “the average species’s range… moves 3.8 miles toward the pole every decade” (76). The solution, in some ecologists’ eyes, is assisted migration. It is the notion of taking a species from one ecosystem and transporting it into another in response to climate shifts, in hopes of providing that species with better conditions to survive and thrive.

Initially, this idea of assisted migration might sound somewhat logical. The intention is pure and sympathetic to those species that are having trouble withstanding and sustaining within the anthropogenic-changed-environment. Scientists who are in favor of assisted migration are ultimately concerned with increasing rates of species’ extinctions. On the other hand, “opponents are worried about the integrity of coevolved ecosystems” (78). Either argument strikes a chord with me, though I find myself siding more with the latter. I am a proponent of  a laissez-faire environment, so-to-speak. I believe that evolution is the only force that rightfully should hold weight over the workings of the natural world. We, man, should not “intervene on [nature’s] behalf” (81). What really raises some skepticism is that there is “very little evidence that [assisted migration] is going to help” at all (93).

That being said, the usefulness of assisted migration in urban ecosystems is also in question. According to Puth and Burns, 75% of land area of New York City’s five boroughs has been developed for either residential, commercial, and/or industrial uses. Due to filling, dredging, and the like 80% of tidal wetlands and 99% of freshwater wetlands in the five boroughs have been lost. In a more general sense, out of 79 studies reporting location-specific species richness data, 26 of them had data from multiple time periods. Out of those 26, 17 showed decreases in species richness–a large percentage. The impact of urbanization proves to have been/be rather negative on the environment.

In this case, I tend to lean towards a regulated form of assisted migration. Camille Parmesan and Hugh Possingham provide a good guide for deciding when to move species. They “suggested that species should be moved if they can be feasibly transported, and if ‘the benefits of translocation outweigh the biological and socioeconomic costs and constraints'” (82). In my opinion, somewhat following these guidelines, candidates from those species that are categorized as both high-risk and feasible-transporters, can be relocated to a “target” habitat (so to speak) that, after being tested for conditions in all regards, are found fit for them. The importance, I think, is not complete and total special transportation, but only enough to try adapting and reproducing in the new environment. I, and many scientists, are wary of the unpredictable outcomes of moving species in fear of maladaptation–failure to adapt or becoming invasive species.

| Leave a comment

Rewilding

In Chapters 3 and 4 of Rambunctious Garden, author Emma Marris introduces us to a new concept, “rewilding” – proposing 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” (60).  In this way, radical conservationists in favor of rewilding intend to create ecosystems that resemble an extremely distant era without human interference. Rewilding as conservation is truly radical, in that in previous chapters, we learned of the pristine wilderness that conservationists have continually envisioned; yet, rewilding introduces a place of true wilderness, although it is paradoxically controlled by humans and scientists like an experiment.

Rewilding is a new concept to ecology, led as a movement by scientists and conservationists who adore a past when “nature lived wild and large, when hairy mastodons and elephantine sloths heaved their bulk around the continent, and when deadly predators were big, fast and ubiquitous” (61). However bizarre this may sound, rewilding has its appeal in reintroducing animals to the islands “they formerly inhabited” and preventing them from going extinct in their current location (61). Relocation of these animals assumes that one animal would play another “lost” animal’s part in a new place, where predators could regulate themselves as they would have in an ancient wilderness; yet, this is risky and precarious, as it relies on these assumptions far too heavily for them to succeed. One professor that Marris quotes says that “(a)ttempting to fill gaps that closed long ago with proxy animals could generate unpredictable results” (65).

Also, in order to maintain such a wild ecosystem, the “rewilded animals would be carefully separated from human habitation and intensely managed…the concept tends to reinforce the line between humans and nature, rather than blurring it” (63). Why should humans continue to interfere with animals if the purpose of rewilding is to go back to a time of no human interference? If anything, animals and ecosystems have adapted and evolved, as Marris showed in previous chapters. All this does is reinforce Marris’s point of working with an urban landscape and forgetting the idea of a pristine or wild wilderness.

Nevertheless, rewilding isn’t all bad. It encourages biodiversity and the protection of animals that are at risk of going extinct. In the Netherlands, ecologist Vera maintained a hands-off approach initially by successfully letting geese graze and cattle and horses mow to prevent the growth of a forest in the Oostvaardersplassen, a huge landscape that is controlled to look as it is supposed to look as it did 10,000 years ago. Certainly rewilding is a little bit redeemable, in how it intends to protect rare species – and it may be successful in doing so. However, the ultimate goal of rewilding concerns a warped world of nature conservation, where humans control and experiment with animal interactions – and what does it all prove?

| Leave a comment

Rewilding in the Modern Era

What will they think of next?  “Rewilding,” as discussed in Emma Marris’ Rambunctious Garden describes the strategy of reintroducing large animals to a geographic area, which they once dominated.  This practice is designed to restore nature to how it was even before the arrival of the Europeans.  There are various challenges that this project faces; many have doubted its effectiveness and have called the project unethical.

What prompts scientists to reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone? Or, better yet, cheetahs and other exotics into the US?  This “rewilding,” coined by Dave Foreman of Earth First!, has been in practice since the mid 1990s and brings back “top of the food chain” predators to their native environment.  The logic behind it is simple, because these large predators are not around, medium predators like raccoons and snakes eliminate smaller animals such as songbirds.  The end result is fewer species all together.  The problem with many ecologists who wanted to return America to pre-Columbian times was that many species are now extinct.  They thought a proxy, or replacement with similar characteristics, would suffice.  In 2004, 13 well respected scientists and conservationists discussed the idea of reintroducing these proxies of extinct megafauna to the US.  A problem with these proxies is that in many cases they are not the native species and can play a different role in the ecology of the area.

The ethical dilemma with this practice begs the question of should humans effectively alter these environments?  Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands is a perfect example of humans altering the environment to a natural state where there is no human involvement at all, other than killing weak animals who have wandered away from their counterparts.  The cattle “mows” the grasslands and therefore the forests that once inhabited the entire continent will be contained.  Vera’s project has seen great success because he has lured predators such as vultures and eagles back to their natural environment.  Vera, has let animals do the work instead of paying humans.  His project includes wild Konik ponies, red deer, and foxes.  Much of Oostvaardersplassen is quite the opposite of the preserved Białowieża.  Białowieża was always in royal control and served as a hunting ground for the elite.  It is heavily forested and in many ways considered as the pristine wilderness.

If Vera would have his way, humans would not interact with “natural” environments.  But this is scientifically impossible because humans have always interacted in their environments since their existence.  There is not one square mile on the inhabited earth that has not been touched by human hands.  It is impossible to go back to the days where humans never existed and when large predators roamed wild.  In Texas, there is a ranch where dozens of wild species are thriving.  There is much controversy behind this establishment because people can pay $10,000 to hunt an exotic breed there, but that is what conservationists, like Vera, are trying to avoid.  They want animals to exist because they should.

 

-Chandrapaul Latchman

| Leave a comment

Chapters 3&4 Rewilding

I think the concept of Pleistocene rewilding that Marris presents to us in the beginning of chapter 4 of Rambunctious Garden is one of fantasy. I found it comical that rather than merely trying to return an ecosystem back to a time period before substantial settlement, ecologist were working to reconstruct a time period even before the existence of humans. Immediately the city of Atlantis came to mind when Marris described the reservation area of Oostvaardersplassen- parts of which had been “underwater as recently as 1967” (57). Going into the chapter I wondered how reversing such a landscape to a time before humans, where many different extinct and unknown species lived cohesively would be possible. Because many of these environmental characteristics cannot be recreated, ecologists end up creating new ecosystems rather than old ones. There is also the issue of what natural life was actually like in these baseline eras. Because ecosystems are forever changing, seasonally as well as over long periods of time, there is no pinpointed time where one can say what a certain place was like on average thousands of years ago.

Despite my initially reaction to what I felt was a radical idea, Frans Vera’s experiment seemed to be doing well as it attracted numerous rare species to the constructed ecosystem. Thus, I find the main goal of rewilding in the non-pleisocene sense to be a plausible and possibly more beneficial effort than that of baseline reconstruction and conservation. Rewilding addresses the need of any ecosystem, which is diversified species. The more diversified species within a given ecosystem, the better off it will be in the face of adversity. Vera’s goal of obtaining a prehumen era ecosystem may not be so successfully accurate, however, by doing so he has brought together as well as attracted multiple species to the area.

There can be issues that arise when it comes to taking organisms from one habitat and placing them in another just for the sake of diversification. I am personally not sure whether it would be ethical depending on the case, nonetheless in the case of a reservation, I see rewilding as being more beneficial to the environment by adding to its sustainability rather than ripping away what it has with the hopes of recreating something new.

Going back to the case of Oostvaardersplassen, aside from the fact that rewilding helps with ecosystem biodiversity, Vera’s efforts to recreate a past time period is similarly paradoxical like that of the baseline remodeling. Both involve the alteration of an existing ecosystem in order to recreate something that was never truly there in the first place so that it resembles a time period before the human alteration of these land masses. In my opinion, ecologists should look to change their perspectives rather than trying to fit nature into a mold that they have made up in their minds as what true nature is to be. Like the grad student Joe Mascaro, referred to in the first chapter, I agree that nature should be appreciated for what it is. Nature is ever changing and continues to move forward despite human efforts to keep it the same. In the end both rewilding and baseline reconstruction are beneficial, I believe they are done in vain save for their purpose of increasing biodiversity in threatened areas.

| Leave a comment

Rewilding

In the third and fourth chapters of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris introduces the concept of Pleistocene rewilding. Pleistocene rewilding attempts to restore an area to its natural state before humans invaded it. Pleistocene rewilding does this by introducing species similar to those that lived in the area at that point in history. While Pleistocene rewilding does have its advantages, it also has many faults and risks.

One of the biggest reasons for Pleistocene rewilding is the protection of species and biodiversity. For as long as we have existed, humans have greatly influenced the ecosystems of our planet. We have caused the extinction of numerous species either directly by killing them or indirectly by impacting the ecosystem they adapted to so that they could no longer survive within it. Relatively recently, we have realized our impact and are now more careful about what animals we directly kill to avoid wiping out an entire species. However, we are still working on how to solve the problem of species at risk for extinction due to changes in their ecosystems. Rewilding attempts to solve this problem by restoring these ecosystems as much as possible.

In order to restore these ecosystems that have been drastically harmed by humans, rewilding involves introducing species to an area that are similar to those that once lived in that area but have since gone extinct. The idea is that these introduced species will take the roles of the similar species that they are replacing and the ecosystem will regain balance, allowing all species within the ecosystem to survive.

There are two major problems that I see with Pleistocene rewilding. The first is that the ecosystems have evolved since they were originally disrupted by humans and attempting to restore them to their pre-human state is not a viable solution as a result. The second is that the species that are being introduced, while similar, are not the same as those that were originally a part of the ecosystem and introducing a new species to an ecosystem can be very dangerous, even if precautions are taken.

Since humans first disrupted these ecosystems, they have been evolving to deal with the changes. Attempts to restore these ecosystems by reintroducing species similar to those that went extinct may not work well because the ecosystems may have evolved past their state in which that species was supported and needed. Even if it were possible to fully restore these ecosystems to their pre-human states, doing so may reverse any positive changes that have occurred as these ecosystems evolved.

The risks associated with introducing species are high, especially considering the evolution of the ecosystems. One of the ways humans harmed many ecosystems in the first place was by introducing invasive species. When a new species is introduced to an ecosystem, it may not be able to survive its new ecosystem or its new ecosystem may not be able to survive it. The species in a natural ecosystem evolved together and are therefore able to exist together. When a new species is introduced, this concept no longer applies. Although rewilding involves introducing species similar to those that were originally part of the ecosystem, they are not the same as those that went extinct and the ecosystems have evolved since those species went extinct. No one can know for certain exactly what impact the introduction of these species will have on the ecosystems today and it could actually lead to the extinction of some of the species we want to preserve through rewilding.

I believe that the downsides of rewilding are not worth the possible benefits and we should continue to look for better solutions to the problems Pleistocene rewilding attampts to solve.

| Leave a comment

Rambunctious Garden, Chapters 3&4 (Rewilding)

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.

| Leave a comment

Rambunctious Gardens- Chapters 3,4

Marris introduces this new and foreign topic to the common individual termed radical rewilding. In contrast to the previous chapters, which focus primarily on maintaining the pristine wilderness, rewilding is all about complete human manipulation to an ecosystem. This approach seems refreshing at first because of the success stories Marris lays out in Chapter 4, however there are also negative impacts of it that Marris indicates in her writing. I believe that rewilding is an fascinating concept, but too much of it requires sheer guessing, and the risk of that is simply too high.

The two ecologists Marris introduces are Frans Vera and Josh Dolan. They both utilize this concept of Pleistocene rewilding, where the baseline is set to “13,000 or more years ago, before humans drove any species extinct” (57.) Unlike baselines of pre-colonization, a Pleistocene baseline contains animals that are extinct, so ecologists use “proxies for those lost species” (58.) For instance in the reserve of Oostavaardersplassen, Netherlands managed by Vera, there are Polish Konik horses grazing the field, and genetically engineered Heck Cattle mimicking the extinct Auroch.  The second step to this type of rewilding is that their must be a “diverse, top of the food chain predators,” because through the competition of these predators there will eventually be a smaller more diverse group of predators, who allow for medium size predators, who then in turn create a smaller more diverse group of smaller predators and herbivores (60.) Through this process, even though there is direct human manipulation and control, the diversification of the species is naturally occurring and in essence is creating a true wilderness.

This may sound marvelous in concept, however so does the concept of flying sheep. Just because the theory exists, doesn’t mean it’s feasible. Even though Marris subtly says that perhaps this is an alternative to the relentless maintenance of the “pristine wilderness,” this does no better. For one this entire concept is based on the concept of assumptions and opinions versus fact and figures. Marris herself says that overtime the earth has changed regardless of human intervention and going back to an older baseline is both impractical and useless, and rewilding uses the baseline of 13,000 years ago. There is obviously no certain documentation of what the ecosystem was like then, and many ecologists such as Dustin Rubenstein believe that  “proxy animals could generate unpredictable results,” because simply put the outcome is unknown (65.) These introduced proxy animals could become invasive species in reserves and neighborhoods surrounding the reserve. Dolans solution of “we killed ‘em once; we can kill ‘em again,” sounds both unreasonable and morbid (65.)  Even though Vera’s Oostavaardersplassen has worked, who’s to say that there won’t be issues with that reserve in the future? Rather than moving backward to 13,000 years ago perhaps it’s more practical to sustain what we have now.

The second criticism is put perfectly by Dolans critics who say, “you are playing G-d” (64.) Ethically speaking the ecologists who control these projects are playing with the lives of many species, many of which are already endangered. The third part of this theory requires death, so that there are smaller subsets of diverse species, however if that goes wrong than many of these endangered animals that are introduced and attracted to these reserves may become extinct. Marris touches upon this morbid idea that animals are required to be killed, by giving the overly descriptive image of the red deer, whose “anus had been gnawed into a large hole by foxes ” (59.) Although this is the natural cycle of life, humans shouldn’t be the ones deciding an entire food chain based upon predictions and assumptions of how things used to be. On top of that, the animals introduced are proxies or genetically engineered. This concept is most definitely interesting, however this is an “egregious case of human intervention in wild landscapes” (64.) Dolan and Vera’s scientific theories should be just theories. It is wrong to play with the lives of thousands of animals, waste millions of dollars, cause potential harm to humans living in these areas to simply test out a theory. The result is not “ a garden about wilderness,” but a childish science experiment.

| Leave a comment

Rewilding- Chapters 3 and 4

In chapters three and four of Emma Marris’s Rambunctious Garden, Marris introduces us to the concept of pleistocene rewilding. This idea is drastically different from the traditional approach that conservationists follow, which is to return areas to their original baselines. During the Pleistocene era, big mammals such as the wolly mammoth and ground sloths would roam the earth. The number of these précises would dramatically diminish by the human race. Humans would drive these species to extinction such as the Maori bird that was easy to prey on for humans.  This huge bird that could grow to be over 15 feet tall and weight over 500 pounds would just stand there and be easy prey for humans. It took only 400 years for the Maori bird to be completely extinct after the introduction of the human.

This new concept of Pleistocene rewilding is the reintroduction of similar animals to areas where similar animals had gone extinct. Mostly, top of the pyramid predators were the animals chosen to be introduced into these environments. The reason behind this was to keep the ecosystem in check. Before predators, the only thing that would keep the ecosystem in check would be the battle for food. These environments were in need of another variable to keep the stability of the ecosystem, so that was the mentality behind introducing predators.

Initially, I felt that this new concept was too far fetched. I couldn’t understand why we would be introducing a similar species to environments where their supposed ancestors had gone extinct. It seemed cruel, unjust and in my opinion, done only for the reason of science, not to actually preserve life or environments. Human beings are playing the role of God in these events, which is something that gives them way too much power.

After Marris continues to dive into this concept some more, the results do seem to support that Pleistocene rewilding is working. It is a natural way of saving the environment, unlike conservationists trying to rebuild the environment themselves inorganically by burning forests down and replanting trees.  I believe that this concept can be positive if ecologists focus on how the new ecosystems are man made yet still nature rather than trying to preserve prehistoric baselines. By allowing nature to take its coarse and not fencing it off all the time, we can see how the rewilding approach truly impacts the environment.

 

 

 

| Leave a comment

Rambunctious Garden Ch 3+4

In the Rambunctious Garden, Marris describes Pleistocene rewilding as conservationists attempt to restore a pristine, natural world by taking the landscape back to its baseline. This idea seems good, and even ethical on paper, however for this project conservationist want to take the landscape back a good 13,000 years to a time when humans did not effect the extinction of animals. To do so, ecologist and conservationist plan to bring back all the early native species to certain areas. For the species that have already gone extinct, ecologists plan to use “proxies” who would take their place.

Though the idea of rewilding is meant to create more nature, its process seems the most unnatural. When humans changed the landscape, they did not have the intention of actually changing the landscape. They just wanted to take the resources they needed. Rewilding, instead, goes with the intention of changing landscape by introducing “new species” to an area where they had been extinct for many years. this plan sounds more man-made than settlers cutting down trees to build homes.

The notion of rewilding also seems impractical and unnecessary. Of course It would be great to have reserved areas on Earth of “true wilderness” where people, with the proper permission, could go to enjoy and experience a thirteen thousand year old ecosystem. It’s nice but impractical. Conservationist who support rewilding seem like they don’t realize that global warming, and dwindling supply of natural resources are perhaps more important issues that need immediate action, so dwelling on the past is not an option for us right now.

The Bialoweiza forest was used by humans for game and hunting to the point of some animals going to extinction, but the forest still had this pristine feel, according to Marris. So it doesn’t matter if humans used or shaped the land or not. When a certain animal dies out, more animals will continue to replace it and give an ecosystem its natural feel. Of course we should try our best to prevent flora and fauna from going extinct, but it does not mean we have to reintroduce to them to their ancestors home. Animals, like humans, move around to new places, new environments, and learn to make adjustments.

I do, however, like the idea of proxies, but only to a certain degree. The National Park Service plan to remove wild animals from the parks because they are not native is futile, and even perhaps harmful. They work like proxies because some “heavy-hoofed burros” in the parks were like the previous equids that lived in the area before they had gone extinct. So they have replaced a species that is no longer there, sort of like natural selection; they were probably more fit than the former species. However, wanting to take flora and fauna to another area to serve as a proxy does not seem like a good idea. Ecologist cannot predict the out come of introducing another species, and may just end up disturbing the whole ecosystem.

 

| Leave a comment

Rewilding

The concept of rewilding is to look at the past as a reference to create new ecosystems (68). It is not recreating ecosystems into how ecosystems were before Europeans arrived, as many ecologists believe. It is to recreate an environment into its condition before humans laid their hands on the environment. It is also called Pleistocene rewilding, restoring nature to the way it was 13,000 years ago before human caused any extinction. As Vera states, “the only thing man did was create the conditions, and nature filled it in” (71). Rewilding creates an environmental condition by introducing proxies that resembles long-extinct large predators in a particular area. These proxies include Heck cattle for auroch and konik horses for tarpan horses. These predators would conduct population control on herbivores and its preys. As a result, plants would remain their diversity when no herbivores would dominate to reduce the population of their favorite plants. The habitat would eventually evolve in a cycle of forest, plain, and shrubs as organisms in the ecosystem interact on their own.

I think the concept of rewilding is feasible in theory. It is restoring the nature using natural force. All human would do is to find proxies to put into the ecosystem for it to regulate and to restore itself to the condition 13,000 years ago. By restoring predators in an ecosystem and by regulating it for a sufficient amount of time, it is relatively low cost compared to the primeval conservation that plans to maintain ecosystems the way it was before its baseline. It is to keep in mind that ecosystems constantly urge to change because of climate changes and evolution, making primeval conservation difficult. Rewilding is also an alternative conservation method to achieve the goal of restoring the environment to as pure as possible. Setting a baseline before European arrived is useless because, according to chapter 3, inhabitants have changed ecosystems already by killing predators and causing many species to extinct. That baseline is not pure, thus rewilding should work better than primeval conservation if it is successful. Not only can we use proxies to restore our environment, we can help these proxies by giving them a wider range of habitats to grow their numbers and solve their danger to extinction. In the theoretical standpoint, I think it’s feasible.

Scientifically, rewilding is still an experiment. Although it had some initial success like reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone, which reported unexpected and significant ecosystem shift (62). Introducing predators can create substantial changes to an ecosystem. However, it takes time and many experiments to find out whether it would turn out to be the way as planned in the rewilding. Based on the initial successes in Oostvaardrrplassen and Yellowstone, I think it is scientifically feasible until experiments reveal the plan’s failure later on.

However, I don’t find rewilding ethical. I think the experiments are cruel because they would kill the introduced species if they become invasive or if they do not work they way as expected (65).  They are lives also. It is not ethical to kill them with our strategies and weapons when they are innocent and introduced without their own will. Although population control by introducing predators works great, it is cruelly forcing deaths upon some of the population of lower-of-food-chain species. Lastly, I think by connecting the rewilded ecosystem with the human world (less populated) and let farmers and residents to put up fences up their properties on their own wills to protect from wild invasion is irresponsible. Rewilding can cause casualties and destructions as non-specialized human population are not used to living with large species. Saying that the introduced predators will not become invasive to human population is irresponsible on ecologists’ parts.

| Leave a comment

Rewilding

As described by Emma Marris in her book, Rambunctious Garden, the idea of rewilding consists of establishing certain main factors and allowing nature to rebuild an ecosystem that is similar to one that existed in the past. While the idea is intriguing, it is also very unpredictable and based on many assumptions. Hence, it might not be scientifically feasible to recreate a wild that existed thousands of years ago.

In chapter four, Marris specifically discusses the concept of Pleistocene rewilding, where establishing a few necessary factors results in an ecosystem that is resilient and diverse. This idea was presented by Michael Soule, a conservation biologist who wanted to restore the entire pre-Columbian set of Carnivores in North America as a way of preserving diversity (Marris, 88). The idea was originally to inspire people to support conservation through restoration of long-lost processes such as intensive grazing or population control by large predators (92). However, in restoring ecosystems where nature once again “lives wild and large,” we enter a region of uncertainty. For instance, Marris reports that there is a groundbreaking paper every six months detailing an unexpected ecosystem shift in Yellowstone National Part due to the reintroduction of wolves (large predators). If these findings are not uncommon, it stands to say that the reintroduction of large mammals to any ecosystem will result in unexpected ecological change.

In addition, over the last 13000 years, many large North American species have become extinct. Consequently, scientists are finding animals that fit the same ecological function as the extinct species, proxies, and introducing them to ecosystems as part of the rewilding process. This adds yet another variable to the equation and assumes that the proxies will have the same or similar ecological impact, growth, and development as the original species. While it may be intriguing to ponder the possibilities of such rewilding and measure its effects, the idea that we can recreate a wild ecosystem that existed thousands of years ago is not scientifically feasible because there are too many loose variables.

Altogether, the prospect of rewilding can provide hopes of recovering the nature of old, but it is more likely that the outcome will be unpredictable. Yet, there is something very fascinating about pursuing the unpredictable. Even though I do not believe rewilding is feasible, I found myself captivated by the work of Frans Vera in the Dutch safari Oostvaardersplassen. It seems that whether or not Vera’s hope of recreating a natural ecosystem is fulfilled, the results of such an undertaking will be worth studying. Hence, the concept of rewilding should not be disregarded, but instead, it should shift its focus from recreating to simply allowing nature to create.

| Leave a comment

rewilding

It seems like my prediction was right. Marris had started with the premise that nature is not necessarily pristine so that she might dive into the argument that human involvement in making nature “better” is good and even wanted. She goes into depth about the concept of “rewilding”, which is very much “radical” like chapter 4’s title describes.
My intuitive response is that of my first post: it is folly to think that humans have enough wisdom to build ecosystems based on their own theories. I highly doubt fixing a situation that has gotten out of hand is as easy as “just killing all of them again”. There are countless factors that play a part in any ecosystem, such that our predictions of what may result from rewilding may be completely off. According to her, we will attempt to bring in species that will fill in what we perceive as “emptied gaps” in ecosystems left by extinct ones… but will we see the right niches and match correctly? It more feels like a child playing mad chemistry professor, experimenting as he wishes until he feels satisfied.
Even if the idea of rewilding was promising enough to try, I would still hold a critical view against Marris. She offers very little convincing evidence that rewilding is such a beneficial enterprise. On the contrary, I felt that the fact that it would be “cool” to have megafauna back in North America and Europe was more developed than any empirical perspective. Most of her reasoning is human-centric, rather than nature-centric.
I am honestly having trouble following some of her logic. She outlines a case against the ideal of “pristine nature”, claiming it is a manmade concept and silly because nearly no nature on Earth has been completely out of humans’ touch. (This is somewhat a non-case to begin with since she acknowledges several times that most, if not all, ecologists are aware of this fact…) Well, the idea that megafauna are “cool” and would be great to have around is also a very manmade, culture-based product. I have no qualms with calling the idea silly as well, because resurrecting the feel of the Pleistocene period is simply not ample reason for completing these actions. For me, the book offers no really satisfying proof that megafauna are worth more than what they will cost (both economically and potentially ecologically). Species are unique. Their specific genetic traits have been fine-tuned to match their environment, and the complex interactions of different communities within their ecosystem cannot be expected to magically “recover” because we have brought a “similar” species in. She seems to believe species are different brands of batteries, and as long as the voltage is the same, they may be replaced. This is ridiculous. What extinct North American cheetahs are to African cheetahs are not what AA Energizer batteries are to AA Duracell batteries.
Lastly, I think rewilding would be extremely difficult to execute sensibly. Would the large animals have to be contained behind fences? Then how much would the money would such a project cost? These are only a couple of the many questions that would need much attention.

 

| Leave a comment

Rewilding

In chapters 1 and 2, Marris presented us with conservationists and ecologists past efforts to conserve nature by attempting to return it to its pristine baseline before human interference, which frankly proved to be futile. And its failure was mostly due to the culturally engraved incorrect understanding or romanticized view of wilderness. In chapters 3 and 4, Marris offers another method focused on not only conserving what’s left of the environment around us but making more nature. Such approach is called rewilding. The goal of rewilding is to restore the “top-of-the-food-chain predators” back to the ecosystems they were part of 13,000 years ago and naturally the large animals will balance out the population of the ecosystem bringing the area to its “pristine” state. The idea here is that, yes, humans take the role of bringing the large wild animals from different parts of the world, mainly from Africa and Asia, but they don’t have a role in the actual work of restoration in the ecosystems. The animals do that. As Vera puts it, “The only thing man did was create the conditions, and nature filled in (71).” Predators in the top-of- the- food chain will preserve diversity and balance of the various prey species, ultimately restoring all aspects of the ecosystem.

As Marris puts it, rewilding sounds like a reasonable idea to many (61). Only nature itself can heal itself or restore itself. I mean after all isn’t that what all conservationists strive after? Nature that’s “untouched” by humans and isolated from civilization. But there are many concerns and “slippery steps” to this method. First, many of the large predators that inhabited the areas are now extinct, mostly because of overhunting. They are being replaced with proxy animals, similar to the extinct ones and they are being brought into the ecosystem. There are a few major problems with proxy animals. First, the “ecosystems have changed” since the extinctions. Second, no one knows how the proxy animals will adjust and behave in the new environment. Dustin Rubenstein from Columbia University expressed a deep concern on this matter saying, “attempting to fill gaps that closed long ago with proxy animals could generate unpredictable results (65)” Proxy animals “could become invasive pests, or escape their parks and cause trouble with local landowners…(65)” There’s a lot of possibility but also risk in placing wild large animals back in the ecosystems.

Not only are there risks but proxy animals raise questions about ethics. Donlan asserts that if the large predator he brings into a new area becomes a “runaway invasive species”, it is no big deal. He can just kill them. “We killed ’em once, we can kill ’em again (65).” Is rewildering ethical if we are choosing what species to protect and are introduced to the ecosystem and killing them if they don’t give us the positive results that we seek? The possibility of proxy animals successfully replacing the role of its extinct original will always be unpredictable.

Rewildering allows the presence of death in the wildlife. And despite its problems, has attracted rare species to the area that was rewildered. “Carcasses have attracted a pair of rare white-tailed eagles to the Oostvaardersplassen (59).” Without human involvement, animals are finding their way to the rewildered ecosystem themselves because it offers what they want. Vera is also expecting wolves to make its home in the Oostvaardersplassen. The idea here once again is that humans just set the stage for wildlife in America to find its way back to the ecosystems that is balanced and diverse. And so mainly for this reason, rewildering’s potential to naturally attract more rare as well as common but equally important animals to its environment, I believe, even with its problems, rewilding might just work.

 

| Leave a comment

Marris, Chapters 3 & 4

In chapters three and four of Marris’ Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris introduces the idea of pleistocene rewilding. This concept is different than the traditional views of conservationists, who want to return areas back to their baselines. Pleistocene rewilding is the reintroduction of similar animals to an environment in which those similar animals have gone extinct. The concept has a lot to do with reintroducing predators, also known as those which are on “top of the pyramid”, to these environments. These predators would be those who kept the cycle and harmony of the environment in check. Without predators, the only characteristic that would keep this cycle in check would be the competition for food. With only one option, the environment will end up losing its harmony and balance.

At first, while reading the chapters, I thought that rewilding was a more sensible and possible idea than returning an area to its baseline. Returning an area to its baseline is nearly impossible, while rewilding has a chance of working. However, while reading more and more of the bok, and having a moment to think about it, I realized that rewilding would not be the best investment. As read in chapters one and two of the book, nature is constantly changing. It will be nearly impossible to recreate the environment of an area 13,000 years ago today.

Another reason being is that how can we be sure the animals will adapt and thrive in the environment they are placed in? Although similar animals would be introduced to the environment of those that have gone extinct, we cannot say for sure whether they will live successfully, or die out like the other animals. To increase even the percentage of their survival, a lot of research will have to be allotted to this plan, as well as investments.  And even if the initial stage of finding the perfect animal to be moved into that area was accomplished, the animals and the environment would have to be constantly manhandled, making it lose it’s “pristine” definition. Even after it looks like the animals are striving in the area, who are we to say that they will continue to strive if humans took their hands off? Perhaps it might only be a temporary solution, until they start showing the same results as those before them.

Not only can it bring problems to those living around these areas who can possibly be harmed by large animals, but it also brings up ethical problems. Donlan quotes, “A big criticism of this is ‘you are playing god.'” And this is true. Although the intention of rewilding is for the better, it will also bring negative effects.

Instead of trying to figure out new ways to bring back ecosystems as they used to be, I strongly believe that conservationists should spend their time trying to incorporate the environment we live in now to their plans. Why try to take back everything that humans have made with their time and effort, when they can try to mesh together and create a plan that will benefit both parties?

| Leave a comment

“Rewilding” or “playing God”?

Before talking about the concept of “rewilding,” we should ask ourselves an important question: what exactly is “wilderness” and what ecological system is qualified as “wild”? Modern ecologists are starting to realize that many landscape features that were deemed “wild” were in fact “man-made” (Marris, 51). Even when we look back into the early American time, nature-appreciators like Thoreau and Muir sought out wilderness as a mean to get away from society and lounge in a vacation spot amidst lands, trees, and animals, they are the first ones coming up with the idea of “wilderness and humanlessness” (Marris, 51), a romantic idea without practicality. Thus, it is evident that “wilderness” is not really “natural” and void of human interference. If humans have long imprinted their footsteps in the ground and that the closest evidences to “pristine wilderness” also had men in them, to what kind of picture are we trying to “rewild” nature back to? “A single rusty hubcap tucked under the ferns, a wildfire observation station visible on the horizon, a species moved, an atmosphere heated, a forest felled two hundred years ago – it doesn’t take much to chase away “nature” if nature must be perfectly “untouched” or “pristine”” (Marris, 54).

“Rewilding,” or scientifically termed as “Pleistocene rewilding,” is the idea of restoring the landscape not to any historical mark relating to human’s exploration of new continents, but 13000 or more years ago, “before humans drove any species extinct” (Marris, 57). In the project, the scientists have been trying to do the undoable, rising up the dead. They have been resisting the course of life by bringing back extinct species like the Heck cattle, a mimic of the extinct “auroch,” by introducing closely resembling species to replace extinct ones, like the flightless Guam rail replacing extinct Aguiguan rails, and by importing “proxies” for some other long-lost beats. There are mixed feelings from the public regarding this idea, from extreme positive feedbacks to assuming criticism such as “you are playing god” (64). I sympathize with ecologist Rubenstein’s critique of the project, where he found that “placing animals in a modern landscape could spell trouble” (64). He believes that attempting to fill the gap of thousands of years of evolution since megafauna extinctions with proxies could generate unpredictable consequences, such as the threats of their becoming invasive pests and causing trouble with local landowners, or since these newly introduced proxies are herbivores, without the monitor of predators, they would roam around and deplete their food resources, the trees and grass.

In conclusion, I think the idea of “rewilding” has no practical foot stand today since ecologists are yet to drop their ideal of “pristine wilderness” and some are trying to recreate a memory that has long passed through the “Pleistocene rewilding” project by bringing animals out of its time and place to the present, thus representing even more human disruption to the ecological system. The chapter ended with a paradox sprung from Vera’s vision of rewilding “the only thing man did was create the conditions, and nature filled it in” (71). What would be the output of his vision? Wilderness or a garden?

 

| Leave a comment

On Rewilding, Chapters 3 & 4

In keeping with her trend of introducing ecological and conservationist theories and views, Marris focuses on the concept of rewilding in the fourth chapter of the book. Rewilding, the brainchild of ecologist Dave Foreman and adopted by Frans Vera from the Netherlands, combines the goals to return ecosystems to a former baseline as well as the undisturbed characteristics of pristine wilderness that 19th and 20th century conservationists longed for. Together, they form a new ideal to transform areas of land to a baseline from a time far before humans had any major impact on the ecosystem. Vera defines the unaltered and untouched baseline as the closest way to way to achieve a pristinely resurrected wilderness.

The short term goal of rewilding is to utilize “regulation provided by large, top-of-the-food chain predators” (Marris 60). These predators would ideally eventually “meet, mate and maintain a healthy gene pool”  (Marris 60). However, one of the major drawbacks of this plan is that many of the plants and animals that inhabited the specific testing areas no longer exist. Instead, close relatives have replaced them, and these relatives become the new subjects for the reqilding experiment. The logic is that there are existing animals, like the Spanish-native horses, “aren’t that different” (Marris 61) from extinct species such as the Equus caballus.

The concept of rewilding seems flawed. Ecologists seem to be accepting multiple substitutions for their experiment, which can jeopardize the success of the outcome. By introducing substitute modern species of animals for similar prehistoric species, scientists are widening the margin of error for reaching the targeted ecological baseline. In some cases, scientists may find that the most similar animal species to one of the baseline no longer exists, or has adapted to vastly different conditions.

Marris also describes another potential flaw in the rewilding plan- the integration of uprooted and nonnative animals. What is even more disturbing is that some of the species of interest are endangered. The “Asian asses, wild horses and Bactrian camels (from the Gobi Desert)” (Marris 62) would be relocated to North America. All three of these species are endangered, but “could stand in for the wild horses and camels that once roamed the [North American] continent” (Marris 63).  All this would be done for the sake of the rewilding, but at the detrimentally high cost of potentially eliminating an endangered species.

Taking such an enormous risk without the reassurance of a positive outcome seems irrational and unjustifiable. Even if rewilding does become the new standard of pristine nature, is it worth losing countless species of animals over? Not to mention the plants that will be introduced to the alien ecosystem as well, which may suffer the same faith as the imported animals. The question to ask is, is achieving a centuries-old baseline and recreating a natural environment untouched by humans worth risking the ecosystems we have now? Surely not. The irony of creating an artificial human-free natural reserve will no doubt backfire, and leave us hoping for, but not experiencing and living with, yet another variant of pristine nature.

| Leave a comment

Rewilding

The concept of rewilding is essentially the reintroducing of lost wild-life back into an area to improve its ecological quality.

As discussed by Emma Marris, Rewilding, unlike several other forms of conservation sets a baseline for restoration far before any human interference or impact. It aims to bring back the world to the prehuman era and tries to recreate pristine and untamed wilderness. Theoretically, as proposed by Dave Foreman, the idea of rewilding provides the necessary factors to keep an ecosystem resilient and diverse by reintroducing top-level predators or key stone species and regulating their population. Such a technique allows ecologists to keep check on all other prey and medium-sized predator species, and essentially recreate the world as it appeared more than 13000 years ago.

The idea of rewilding does seem far-fetched and impractical, however rewilding like efforts have already started to take some shape. Oostvaardersplassen, in the lowlands of the Netherlands, is one such place where the idea of Pleistocene rewilding is not just a mad concept but has been implemented fairly well.

However, what are the real life implications? Is it not paradoxical to “manage” wildlife or fence open wilderness? Aren’t the proxies, which are being introduced as makeshift native ancient predators essentially the invasive species that ecologists greatly hate? Do humans have the right to selectively breed wildlife and decide which species have the right to thrive or deserve to fade?

The concept of rewilding appears to be a large scale scientific experiment which will face severe criticism if it was to be implemented at a large scale, especially in North America. Rewilding essentially takes us back to era prior to development of the great civilizations, on several instances the idea of rewilding basically derides the city life that humans have become so accustomed to for centuries and sort of posses a return to the time of where humans had not evolved.

Ecological conservation and preserving biodiversity is crucial and must be pursued, introducing invasive species to recreate an ecological balance is also fair and unquestionable, however rewilding is not as feasible as some of its proponents may suggest.  Having lost species reappear to help maintain biodiversity and even increase the aesthetic values seems quite favorable, but implementing the idea at such a large scale only seems to appear like an untested experiment which has several reasons to go wrong. It is unethical to counter balance thousands of years of evolution and essentially a way of synthesizing nature. In principle the rewilding approach is paradoxical and unpractical with costs that do not break even with the benefits. Human population has greatly impacted the ecosystems, and its activities must be regulated, however there is a reason why the megafauna and large predators in the Pleistocene have faded.

Conservation and preserving diversity is great, however rewilding may just be too extreme.

| Leave a comment

Chap 3-4

In this week’s readings, Emma Marris describes to us the idea that humans have affected the landscape long ago and the idea of Pleistocene rewilding. Back in the Pleistocene era, big mammals roam the earth such as the wooly mammoth and the ground sloths. However, their numbers were greatly diminished by one species: humans. Humans have driven many species to extinction such as the flightless bird the Maori as it was easy prey and had a lot of meat.

When the European explorers found the Americas, Native Americans were stated to have a population of 112 million people then. The reason why later European explorers only saw them in small tribes were due to the fact many have died off due the introduction of European diseases such as smallpox. That means before Europeans came, Native Americans have probably affected a great portion of the lands here before the Europeans settled. Thus, nature that we considered pristine may not actually be as pristine as it is thought to be. Humans have touched the land throughout time and history.

As the author stated, people who spend a lot of time on the wilderness, including the conservationists, don’t have the same standards of purity as those who merely dabble in wilderness do. People who explore and study nature thoroughly know too much about how things have changed to fool themselves into believing an area to be pristine.

To create an area with the characteristics, such as diversity, that conservationists and ecologists want, Pleistocene rewilding is introduced as a new idea. The idea is to introduce proxies for lost animals into an ecosystem to keep ecosystems resilient and diverse. The ones important to the diversity as the predators up top which can range from wolves to cheetahs. The areas would be regulated but it is the danger of predators coming into human dwellings that makes the idea controversial.

Honestly, the idea doesn’t seem too farfetched to me. If anything, there have been results that show this idea is working. There are arguments that since native species already live in certain areas, introducing proxy species might disrupt the ecosystems in unknown ways and create unpredictable results. However, if some people are keen to have biodiversity, I think the idea is worth a try.

Right now, conservationists and ecologists are merely slowly down the rate of loss of biodiversity. If some biodiversity can be created through this process, I am wondering why wouldn’t the ones who want it aren’t supporting it once they hear it. Although the predators can be scary, through strict regulation I believe it is a feasible idea.
The goals of protection of large mammals by expanding their range, biodiversity maintenance (if the theory is correct), tourism and aesthetic values are possible through this idea.

| Leave a comment

Marris: Rewilding

Rewilding, as discussed in Emma Marris’ book “Rambunctious Garden,” is an interesting concept. While it does not preserve the “pristine” idea of nature, it can create unique experimental reserves. Though rewilding is entirely “man-made” (70), it can be a way to study how an ecosystem adapts to human interference, as all of nature is already affected by humans. As Marris mentions, there are already large African mammals roaming free in Texan ranches, yet ecologists tend to “ignore any area that doesn’t look pristine” so “no one is studying the fascinating question of how these ‘Texotics’ interact wither their new environments” (64).

The Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands is a good example of a positive rewilding. Though the area is designed “to run as it did 10,000 years ago” (57), many animals are already extinct so it is essentially a “brand-new ecosystem” (58) which was designed when similar animals are introduced. The Oostvaardersplassen has a large variety of species, including red foxes and Heck cattle, and “life and death are plainly on display” (70). I agree with Marris, who writes, “the experimental reserve … is worth having” even though it might not be a correct depiction of the past because the interaction of nature is worth studying regardless if humans created it.

A large critique of rewilding is the concern that ecologists are “playing god.” In reply to such claims, Josh Donlan, a field ecologist says, “Well I don’t buy that. We are already playing god,” explaining how we already live in an “intensely managed world” (64). Rewilding should be viewed as a “cultivated, man-made, created” nature (70) and appreciated for that fact. It seems that some ecologists view rewilding the wrong way, creating a “seeming paradox” (71). Frans Vera, the ecologist behind the Oostvaardersplassen claimed to be creating a “natural ecosystem” which he considered to be a lot better than a “cultivated one,” yet the entire area is affected by humans: the animals were brought in, civilization is seen all around the area, and it is below sea level (70).

While rewilding can create interesting ecosystems of nature, it may also be very harmful to the original ecosystems as well as to humans inhabiting the surrounding area. The species which are introduced into the area could end up acting as an invasive species and wiping out many populations. As ecologist Dustin Rubenstein mentions, the results would be “unpredictable” (65). There is also the danger of introducing predators into a new environment. Predators could not only wipe out many native animal populations but they could also harm many humans as well.

Thus I believe rewilding to potentially be positive, if ecologists focus on how the new ecosystems are man-made yet still nature rather than attempting to preserve a prehistoric baseline. There can be a lot to study from ecological formations created through rewilding, it just seems there needs to be a different approach to how rewilding is viewed.

 

| Leave a comment

Rewilding Chapter 3+4

Is rewilding really worth fighting for? I doubt it while reading these two chapters of Morris’ book the Rambunctious Garden. The main concept of rewilding is about reintroducing similar species into the ecosystem where these species once lived before their extinctions. “Top-of-the-food-chain predators” are the main players in rewilding, scientists who support the idea of rewilding believe that the presence of the top predators will help to keep the ecosystem in balance. According to the book, “when predators are not around to kill the various prey species, the reasoning goes, the only check on their population is competition for food. Eventually this uncomplicated competition leads to one prey species squeezing others out until one is left with larger populations of fewer species.” (Marris, 89) When there are no top predators, medium-size predators will start to cause a bigger threat to the smaller species. Therefore, many conservationists who believe in rewilding think that we can rebuild an ecosystem back to the state where there is no human interventions by reintroducing similar species into the ecosystem. This idea sounds very rational, because if there were similar species lived in that area thousands of years ago, maybe by reintroducing them into the environment to replace the extinct species will actually work. These reintroduced species may be able to play the role as top predators and keep the ecosystem in balance. However, as I am reading through these two chapters, I am starting to question myself, is this whole idea really going to work? In order to reintroduce those species into the same area, there must be a lot of researches involved; sometimes scientists have to go across continents to find the species that were similar to the ones that were extinct. It will cost a lot of time and money to transport these animals into America. I agree with Dustin Rubenstein that, “placing proxy animals in a modern landscape could spell trouble. These ecosystems have changed, and existing species have evolved in the thousands of years since megafauna extinctions.” (Marris, 95) Reintroducing these species into the ecosystem may cause some unpredictable consequences because scientists can’t guarantee that these animals are going to behave in the way that they expect them to be; these foreign species may become a potential threat to the existing ecosystem, or they can become one of those invasive species and cause troubles with the local residents.

I don’t think that the concept of rewilding is feasible. Not only that it will take scientists a lot of efforts to be done to reintroduce the species into the ecosystem, there are also a lot of issues regarding ethnics. The book gives an example of how “African communities have to deal with large dangerous carnivores, and the United States doesn’t?” (Marris, 93) I agree that it is unfair for some people to live with their life in danger, just because the world needs lions.

| Leave a comment

Rewilding

The common approach to conservationism is characterized by the goal of achieving a “pristine” wilderness. However, as seen in chapter four of the Rambunctious Garden, there are more radical ways to restore nature; the concept of rewilding is a radical idea that aims to restore ecosystems and species by introducing proxy animals to ecosystems that their relatives used to exist in or into safer environments. Rewilding mostly suggests that top predators in food chains are required to regulate an ecosystem, creating a resilient and diverse ecosystem. Predators keep herbivore populations in check, which allows for more diverse plant and insect life in the ecosystem.

The rewilding idea seems reasonable and theoretically sound enough to create a wilderness that resembles a pre-human baseline. Frans Vera’s own project, the Oostvaardersplassen, shows the capabilities of rewilding in creating a stable ecosystem. However, Vera, and many others, believe that predators, such as wolves, may be beneficial to the developing ecosystem.

Initially, I thought this was a great idea. The current form of conservation is too conservative; people are just looking to enclose areas and essentially tend and garden the ecosystems. This method seems to be outdated in our current times. On the other hand, this idea of rewilding takes a proactive approach on saving nature by creating a wilderness that requires little human interaction within the ecosystem. The only main human influence is maintaining the borders of ecosystems and actually moving proxy animals.

When examined more closely, the concept of rewilding seems a bit too unfeasible. The action of moving the proxy animals into new habitats is an easy procedure, but predicting the outcomes of the rewilding process is too hard. There are many unseen variables in introducing different animals to other animals and there are unknown effects of how animals react with new environments. Some consequences may be invasive animals and different diseases developing. The number of possibilities are unpredictable considering how many species have never interacted before with new environments or other species.

Ethics and general acceptance of this idea is a whole different problem. In the chapter, it stated that someone sent a complaint that the Pleistocene rewilding idea was essentially playing god. There is a great counterpoint stating that humans are already taking a god role in nature. I understand people saving endangered species as an ethical action, but rewilding seems to be a huge experiment that is no different than creating a hands-off zoo. Also, many people do not seem comfortable with the idea that carnivores and dangerous beasts could be released in places that were originally peaceful. Death the danger are not attractive to public opinion, which makes rewilding economically unrealistic when it comes to funding.

As many others have stated, rewilding is a great theory, but there are too many factors that make rewilding unfeasible. Examining how Vera’s own experiment fares if he ever introduces wolves will be a huge indicator of rewilding’s feasibility.

| Leave a comment

Rambunctious Garden: Chapter 3 and 4

Rewilding as described by Emma Marris is the idea to restore nature to the point before human interference. Rewilding is another method along with conservation to help restore the ecosystem to its pristine state. It is understood that nature constantly changes regardless of human interaction. The only problem with such a perfect sounding plan is that humans will always change the land. Therefore, it is almost impossible to change nature without any human contact.

Many species that lived during the “pristine” times are now gone. Ecologists decided that they would use these proxy animals which are in some ways related to their extinct relatives. Also, humans would have the choice in choosing which animals are introduced into this environment. I do not think humans have the right to choose which species are allowed to live. In a sense, how can this pristine ecosystem be “pristine” if humans are affecting it in some way?

Another issue is that it is almost impossible to create. The likeliness of creating an environment that is the same as one thirteen thousand years ago seems very unlikely. Like many other conservation methods, I believe that rewilding would be unsuccessful. I believe that trying to preserve nature is extremely important. However, such methods are very inefficient and would not produce the desired results. With such obstacles, I believe that rewilding would be a waste of time.

The selection of species is also detrimental to the “pristine-ness” of the area. Since the area is supposed to represent an area that lacks human interaction, how can the the introduction of certain animals allow the native animals to thrive? With such interference, native and original species may or may not be able to live in the area.

What is the purpose of protecting these areas? Aren’t humans a specie as well? Every specie harms the environment in some way. I think that instead of trying to change areas, humans should just alter their behavior to be more mindful of nature.

It would be useless to change nature now to have it affected by something else in the future. What is there to say that nothing else we do in the future can change these ecosystems that we tried so hard to protect? The effort and money required to complete these projects are just unreasonable. I think humans should continue to live as they have always and forget about what has been done. There is no use in crying over spilled milk my mother used to say.

| Leave a comment

The Paradox of Rewilding

Coined in the mid 1990s by a man named Dave Foreman, the essence of rewilding stems from the notion that “top-of-the-food-chain predators” can regulate ecosystems by keeping the number of prey, and thus lower-level species, in check. Without the proper predators, prey species would flourish, compete with one another for food, an ultimate prey species would survive and plant species would then suffer. The three main factors necessary for rewilding include: enough predators to keep prey species in check, adequate space for the predators to live and the ability of predators to meet and mate so as to maintain a healthily diverse gene pool. Marris takes the concept one step further to Oostvaardersplassen in which readers are introduced to Pleistocene rewilding, or the restoring of an area to a state before any humans inhabited it.

Although the purpose and process of rewilding may seem sound, criticism of the ideology has ensued due to the many resulting unknowns that plague the theory. “We can only guess how the ecosystem would change,” points out Marris. The process of rewilding—which involves reintroducing species into areas, relocating others, etc.—begins to seem like a large-scale science project. When dealing with the earth and all of its inhabitants, however, we cannot afford to perform experiments without facing negative consequences.

 

Perhaps humanity decides rewilding, albeit risky, is worth a try for the sake of conservation and reverting to a pristine baseline (although there is no such thing). Rewilding would mean “devising a brand-new ecosystem”—a project that requires human intervention in the course of nature. Take the Heck cattle that were developed by two German brothers, or the fact that Vera chose the species he wanted to have on his Oostvaardersplassen reserve so that he may control the way it looked. Does this not contradict the initial problem of humans interfering too greatly with their ecosystems? Furthermore, rewilded animals such as cheetahs would be heavily managed and separated from human habitation, creating a sharp divide between wilderness and humanity. The problem with this lies in the fact that humans are a part of nature; we cannot live disjointedly.

The scientific feasibility of rewilding has also come into question. With the technology and equipment we have today, there should be no problem relocating species to formulate ecosystems. Once introduced, nature takes over once again and the species may or may not flourish. The method of rewilding seems quite realizable. And if any species were to ever get out of hand or pose too great a risk, “We destroyed them once and we can destroy them again,” states Vera. The ethical standing of rewilding, however, seems to trouble many. We should not play the role of God because we cannot know the repercussions of such an act.

With the pros and cons weighed out, the concept of rewilding seems paradoxical. As Marris explains, “The Oostvaardersplassen was man-made to be wild, created from nothing to look like it had never changed.” It is as if we are trying to mold nature to our liking, to a way we think it ought to be. Instead of shuffling species around, we should focus on fostering the nature around us, however wild or tame.

| Leave a comment

Marris 3 & 4 – Rewilding – 9/11

Emma Marris credits Dave Foreman with coining the term “rewilding” during the mid-1990s. The idea is that it is the responsibility of the large animals at the top of the food chain to keep ecosystems resilient and diverse. The argument is that these predators keep a check on populations by providing food competition. Without them, one species will dominate in numbers, devour its favorite foods, lead to simplification of plant diversity, promote the growth of medium-sized predators who put pressure on little creatures, ultimately leading to fewer species (Marris 60).

Pleistocene rewilding, in a nutshell, is setting back the prehumen baseline to over 13,000 years ago, before any species became extinct, due to human interference. However, the problem of already-extinct species arises. To compensate, scientists use “proxies”, similar species that exist today. Marris describes that other scientists have developed a new species, “with the express intent of mimicking the extinct”. The example given is two German brothers who used a number of cattle breeds to create the Heck cattle. Marris writes that the “Heck cattle…are unaware of the history of their kind or the role they are called upon to play in the ecosystem” (59).

Though the theory of rewilding may at first seem like an interesting and optimistic solution, it is quite impractical to me. I understand that many scientists and environmentalists are curious of how nature functioned before human beings, but force-introducing new species to an environment and maintaining it carefully is a very strong example of human interference. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a species will be a good fit in an unfamiliar environment. I understand the theory of using proxies. However, we are all aware that the environment today is very different from how it was 13,000 years ago. There are different surrounding animals and fauna, as well as atmospheric differences. There is no way of telling if the introduced species will die or thrive to an extent as to alter the whole ecosystem.

In the first chapter of the book, Marris says that the reason native species went extinct was because they grew up in isolation. Foreign species were able to adapt to changing conditions better. Therefore, they survived whereas the native species went extinct (6). By introducing proxies that have evolved in other ecosystems, there is no guarantee that they can adapt to the new one. This goes back to having to maintain and watch the species to make sure they don’t die. If this is done, they species will essentially be sheltered and may die if left alone. Marris has stressed a mostly hands-off approach to dealing with nature, as well as looking to the future instead of focusing on the past.

Lastly, Frans Vera, the mind behind the great Oostvaardersplassen, even states, “a natural ecosystem is better than a cultivated one”. This is extremely ironic, as Marris explains, “the whole place [Oostvaardersplassen] is cultivated, man-made, created.” Vera combats by saying that all man created were the conditions and nature did the rest. (70-71). However, I see the introduction of species as altering nature, as well as conditions.

| Leave a comment

Rewilding. Only Good in Theory?

In the many attempts to find a way to preserve and restore habitats and species, conservationists have developed the method of rewilding.  Rewilding is essentially the idea that restoring species to an environment will help balance the population in that area.  If one were to return predators to a specific area, then one would hope that the predators would feed on the prey in that zone and keep the population in check.  If one were to place an endangered species on the other hand, one would hope that the species would repopulate and save itself from complete extinction.

In theory, this is a good idea because we’re simply restoring a piece of the earth to a point in time, where it was able to function and sustain itself.  By returning species and placing extinct species in specific areas, we could end up saving many species.  The act of balancing out an ecosystem is a very strong use of rewilding, however this issue comes when conservationists attempt an extreme form of rewilding.

An issue with extreme rewilding is trying to achieve a “pristine prehumen baseline and restore [the environment] to 13,000 years or more” (57).  First off, due “to many extinctions that have taken place in the last 13,000 years” (58), the possibility of returning to a pristine baseline is eliminated.  It’s impossible to return an ecosystem to an untouched state if the proper species can’t be placed there.  Then, if conservationists attempt to replace the extinct species with live ones, the different habits and diets of the live species could affect the location in negative ways.

Another issue with extreme rewilding is the notion that achieving an agreed upon setting at that time.  For example “ Vera’s project [receives many critics because] ecologists don’t agree that Europe looked like a Savanna 10,000 years ago.  If people can’t agree on the environment at that time, there can be no way of restoring that strip of land back.  Returning a piece of Europe into a Savannah goes beyond rewilding and simply moving species around, it enters a new area of human constructing and rebuilding.  This type of project, while being unbeneficial to society, would also need large amounts of money, which isn’t feasible at this time.

 

Also, if a piece of land at that time was completely uninhabitable, with the exception of a few species, then there would be no benefit to society in doing so.  Since many species have gone extinct, relatively few would be able to inhabit that area, and with the over population of humans, we don’t have the luxury of setting aside a piece of land only to make it uninhabitable.

Rewilding seems to be a principle only applicable in theory, but not real life.  We can never predict the outcome of moving species around, nor the affects they would have in the long run.  Also, given the low budget for conservation at this time, finding the resources to manage a rewilding project doesn’t seem feasible.  Finally, there’s a chance we might attempt to go beyond rewilding and create even more problems for ourselves.

 

| Leave a comment

Rambunctious Garden: Rewilding

In chapters 3 and 4 of The Rambunctious Garden: Seeing Nature in a Post Wild World, Emma Marris introduces the concept of Rewilding. Rewilding, as defined in her book, is an effort by conservationists and ecologists, in which they strive to recreate ecosystems as they may have looked 13,000 years ago. Through the use of this program they attempt to research how the different species and ecosystem interact with one another in their natural habitats, untouched by human interaction and development. This effort creates a more “pristine” environment because the biodiversity and different types of species would better reflect its original environment, before the interference of humans.

What the conservationists fail to realize is the fact that this effort of Rewilding contradicts almost everything that they preach. Many ecologists advocate for ecosystems free from human interference and contend that we should not intervene with nature, however, what they don’t recognize is that through Rewilding man gets the chance to play God, in a sense, and has the opportunity to create their own ecosystem. It doesn’t seem plausible that ecologists would strive to separate man and nature and create preserves and protected areas to keep man away from the environment, while at the same time focusing their effort and money to construct a man-made ecosystem. Marris mentions, “The whole place is cultivated, man-made, created.” Although it may seem as if this ecosystem is truly “pristine” and a natural environment this is not the case. In fact, it is actually on the opposite end of the spectrum and has been fully created by man. Furthermore, in my opinion this practice seems to be unethical and immoral. Man should not have the right to move different species around to create an ecosystem that they believe to be fit and we do not have the right to say what belongs and what does not.

Another fault that I believe accompanies this effort is the fact that nature has evolved greatly over the years and throughout that history many species have become extinct. In order to account for these extinct species scientists and ecologists introduce “proxies” or species that resemble those that have lived in the original environment. They would be taken out of their original environment and introduced into this new ecosystem to act as the extinct species. One problem the comes along with these “proxies” is the fact that they is no way for scientists to clearly know how they will react when introduced into this new environment. For instance, they can bring along with them invasive pests or they themselves can become pests in this new environment. Furthermore, due to the fact that this environment is not exactly as it was back in the day these animals may react differently and it may cause them to die out quickly as a result. Another major problem, there is no way for scientists to know exactly how the environment looked thousands of years ago. Most of their conclusions are based on assumptions.

I believe that the effort of Rewilding may be accompanied by many negative consequences and should not be practiced. Instead of opening the divide between humans and nature, ecologists should strive to bring them together and focus on an environment where man and nature can live together in harmony. This would increase the respect that humans hold for nature and the environment.

| Leave a comment

Rewilding

The term “rewilding” found in Chapters three and four of Rambunctious Garden, Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World by Emma Marris is an expression coined by Dave Foreman. The word “rewilding” explains “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” (Marris Page 60). This basically means that in order to save nature at it’s finest, we, the ecologically aware citizens of the planet must introduce predators into areas that lack them. Also, these predators must live in a peaceful land, at least for them, where they can properly meet, mate, and reproduce – a predator’s dream world. The ecosystem would only remain in balance due to competition over a food supply without these predators. Then, the ecosystems would falter as the dominant species overtakes the other inferior species and ravages the rest of the plant life that they most favor. Smaller predators will rise to the top – of – the  – food  – chain. This entire process results in a planet composed of fewer and fewer species. Another take on rewilding is the concept of taking species that have been moved from their historic homes and returning them to the lands their ancestors had once thrived. Also, rewilding can be used to relocate certain species that are very similar to historic species that lived in a certain area, and use them to act as proxies.

There are a few problems with the process of rewilidng. Rewilding seems like a great way of reintroducing predators into an ecosystem. This does not seem to be the best idea however. Josh Dolan’s counter argument against the possibility of Pleistocene rewilding’s carnivores to become invasive species is that ‘we killed ‘em once; we can kill ‘em again’ (Marris Page 65) doesn’t seem very comforting. Dolan believes it is best to bring elephants and cheetahs into the United States and keep them within reserves. I believe this may help the ecology of the land and preserve the historic nature of the planet several thousands of years back. The problem is that the world is constantly changing and so are its species – mainly human beings. Human population has been growing immensely over time. The expected lifetime of a human being has tripled over the past hundred years. With the introduction of new medicine and health studies, the lives of humans will only be prolonged. This can easily be seen in the population overgrowth in China with over a billion people living in one country. How can we dedicate such a large portion of land to several hundred animals when we have an over growth of humans in the billions to house and shelter? This plan would surely help nature, but what is the priority? There is always room for failure and it is not guaranteed that the introduced species will be able to co-exist in these new lands. Just because a mammoth may have thrived here does not mean that its descendant, the elephant, will enjoy its new home.

| Leave a comment

Rewilding Response

In “Rambunctious Garden,” Emma Marris suggests the idea of “rewilding” as an alternative method of conservation of nature amongst the human-dominated world. In its essence, “rewilding” is an effort to make natural reserves look and act like they are “pristine.” She describes it as “rewilding posits that the main factors necessary to keep ecosystems resilent 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 healthy diverse gene pool.” (60) She claims that “rewilding” would bring nature to a more “pristine” state because the biodiversity in the area would be more similar to its state before humans made their influence. She gives many examples of how this idea would be beneficial for nature and the ecosystem. For example, to make up for a large predator that is now extinct, “rewilding” would have similar animals put in the area to make up for that preditor. The goal of “rewilding” is to make the organisms move in a cycle in nature. They would be allowed to live and die without human interaction for the most part so this way; the natural cycle that they act in would be able to continue. Compared to other conservationists who aim to preserve nature in its original form by setting it back to a baseline state and then leave it to stay that way, “rewilding” takes into account that every part of nature has been altered by human interaction. Instead, “rewilding” is made possible by humans placing the right organisms in their natural habitats and let them naturally interact as they once did before. As Vera sees it, “the only thing man did was create the conditions, and nature filled it in.” (71) This sort of mentality about nature preservation seems a little more practical and possible than the idea of setting aside separate “pristine” land. However, I find that there are many flaws associated with the idea of “rewilding.” One – it does seem like an ethical way of creating “pristine” nature. I do not think that we should preserve nature by moving animals around the places we think they should be just for our own happiness. Essentially, “rewilding” is simply engineering nature the way we think it ought to be. This is unethical because animals are not for us to treat as objects and we cannot create natural ecosystems by modifying the ecosystem. Two – I feel that “rewilding” is just another example of having biodiversity for the sake of having biodiversity. It does not replicate the way nature was before humans so we should not try to make it appear as if it was. By adding predators and other organisms into natural habitats, we are interfering with natural cycles and making even more changes. The reason conservations work so hard to find “pristine” natural reserves is because everything else has been contaminated by human actions, but “rewilding” will only add to these human actions. I would not consider nature to be nature if it has been engineered to look a certain way by humans.

| Leave a comment

Rewilding? or Rewinding? chap 3&4

Emma Marris introduces the concept of “rewilding” in chapter 3 and 4 of her novel “Rambunctious Garden.” This idea of “rewilding” aims for the restoration of the nature to its wild days, when there were no human regulations upon the natural ecosystem. It is another idea derived from many conservationist and ecologists that dreams of pristine nature. Under the idea of “rewilding” extinct animals and organisms will be reintroduced to their old habitat, creating the “natural” food chains and cycles.

Theoretically, “rewilding” seems a good solution to current problems in the ecosystem. However, it is practically impossible and unethical. In the chapters, Marris shows the cheetahs of Arizona and elephants of Missouri as examples (61). Those two animals are clearly dangerous species to humans and it is preposterous to let those species to dwell near the human habitat. There is chance that those animals will escape their protected area and it is certain that wild cheetahs and elephants will harm the people. The ones who agrees with the danger of the species said, “we killed ‘em once; we can kill ‘em again.” (69) They are saying since humans wiped out cheetahs and elephants once before, if they create trouble once again, the animals will be wiped out once again. I think this idea is very unethical. Previously, the humans wiped out the cheetahs and elephants for the human greed. Then, the animals are placed in the natural habitat that is not accustomed for the animal’s survival for human’s greed. Later on, when they cause any trouble, once again, the animals are wiped out for human greed. The ecologists are trying to create “wilderness” due to human’s greed as they treat the animals unethicallyMy question is whether or not “rewilding” is intended for the sake of nature and animals or for the humans that feel bad for destroying the nature?

Moreover, the idea of “rewilding” is clearly impossible. First of all, the nature has evolved after much extinction of animals and organisms. How can the scientists measure and figure out the current nature with the extinct animals? Life and death is natural cycle and the ecosystem learns how to accustom to the absence of certain animals and organisms. Against the idea of “rewilding,” Marris argues, “the whole place is cultivated, man-made, created.” (70) The human existed in natural ecosystem for thousands of years. There is no way to predict the “wilderness” 10,000 years ago. Also, there may be natural disasters or climate changes that humans do not know about they could’ve altered the natural ecosystem in pre-human, or even in pro-human era.

Yes, having the most pristine nature sounds tempting. However, why waste time and money that is clearly unknown, unethical, and impossible? It is better to focus on what the nature has right now and learn how to preserve it. It is important to fix the mistakes the humans had done to the nature but it is after when we learn to preserve current nature so it won’t become any worse.

 

| Leave a comment

Rewilding Ch3 and 4

In chapters 3 and 4 of the Rambunctious Garden, Marris introduces a new concept called rewilding, in which scientists and conservationists attempt to recreate an ecosystem that predated human arrival by bringing native species back to their original ecosystem. However, further research suggests that humans are not solely responsible for the extinction of the “megafauna” or large animals that inhabited North America (Marris 44). As a result, scientists and conservationists introduced “Pleistocene Rewilding,” which refers to a baseline about 13,000 years ago (Marris 57). Ultimately, this baseline is deemed to be a more accurate indicator of how the land was before it was reshaped by humans and nature. Analyzing North America before the “megafauna” is a better approach because research shows that humans are not the only ones responsible for changing the land. In fact this claim is shown to be outdated, but using the Pleistocene era as a reference will provide scientists and conservationists with a better picture of the ecosystem. By researching the species that thrived on the land, scientists can then make inferences about the landscape and how it has changed over the past 13,000 years.

However, since these species have been extinct thousands of years ago, scientists and conservationists needed to use other similar species as “proxies” to determine how the ecosystem was during this era (61). The “proxies” are species that bare resemblance to the “megafauna” But this is controversial because it authorizes conservationists to move nonnative species out of the land and bring in the “native species.” Field ecologist, Josh Donlan, who worked closely with the scientists and conservationists behind “Nature,” an outlined plan for “Pleistocene Rewilding,” has actively been removing nonnative species (62). In fact, Donlan recalls working in Mexico’s Gulf of California, but because he was not able to remove all the cats on the island, the native wood-rat species went extinct. In this example, it is clear that rewilding is important to keep native species from going extinct.However, it still leaves the question of whether or not it is okay to remove a species from its habitat and put it in a new ecosystem that its ancestors have lived in thousands of years ago.

 Moreover, rewilding still enforces the barrier between humans and nature; Donlan mentions that when bringing native species back to North America they will be separate from human civilization. For some, this contradicts the idea of a “pristine nature.” A prime example of this is the Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands, which was designed to showcase “pristine nature” however, Marris argues that is “far from pristine” because the species are living on a plot of land surronded by Civilization (70). These animals cannot roam wildly because of the Oostvaardersplassen’s proximity to people.

Even though it is important for conservationists to prevent the extinction of native species, it is also difficult to determine whether or not removing a species from its habitat and putting it in a new ecosystem will do more harm or good. Given the lack of scientific information about the Pleistocene era, scientists have to rely upon a “few long-term ecological studies” (62). This will take scientists a lot of time to analyze and compile conclusions. Rewilding is scientifically feasible but because rewilding is a new concept, the only way for scientists to conclude whether or not the concept is the best approach is to conduct long-term research on the species in their new ecosystems.

| Leave a comment

Rambunctious Garden Chap 3 & 4

“Rewilding” essentially is taking animals, namely “top-of-the-food-chain” predators, that once inhabited certain ecosystems, moving those animals back to that ecosystem, and hoping that those animals can restore balance to said ecosystems and bring it back to a “pristine” state. Another aspect of “rewilding” is introducing endangered species to ideal habitats around the world in hopes that they will reproduce. The concept of “Rewilding” has garnered much support from eco-pundits in the scientific community and the general public alike. According to the text, many scientists believe that the survival of large predators specifically is imperative to the survival of certain habitats. The large predators keep the smaller predators in line, quite simply by eating them. This, in turn, keeps the population of the smaller predators at bay, leaving more green grass and plants to thrive in those areas.
Now, at first glance, the idea of “rewilding” seems quite plausible. However, scientists are presented with quite a few problems. A number of the animals that once inhabited certain ecosystems, are currently extinct. So scientists need to take species similar to those that once lived in that ecosystem and place them there. Scientists are also unsure of what the Earth was actually like before humans arrived. And without a doubt, the Earth’s current state is nothing like what it used to be. Introducing species to foreign areas could certainly not turn out the way scientists expect it too; as evident in the example of cheetahs in Arizon and elephants in Missouri presented by Maris. Simply assuming that any animal can survive and thrive in any habitat does not solve any problem. Nature is unpredictable; no one knows what could potentially happen by introducing species to an ecosystem. In my opinion, trying to enhance an ecosystem by isolating animals from humans, is not the way to go. It defeats the whole purpose of trying to restore the area to its pristine state. Several more questions can be asked when discussing the idea of “rewilding.” Is it ethical? How much manpower is needed? How much will it cost? Well, is it ethical…many would call “rewilding” unethical seeing as humans are the puppet master in this grand puppet show. Humans essentially choose which species survive, and which species can die (PETA would be heartbroken). Several quotes in Chapter 4 address some pressing concerns associated with this theory; with ecologist Josh Donlan saying “we can kill ’em again.” In conclusion, “rewilding” seems like it could solve a variety of problems that have tortured scientists for decades; however, not without sacrifice on the part of living animals.

| Leave a comment

Rewilding

Rewilding paves a new path in preserving nature. In rewilding, animals are introduced to the wild life in America. These animals are taken based on their ancestry or their habits. The point of bringing these animals into America’s wild life is to bring that area back to the baseline of a time before many animal became extinct–a time “before people came to North America.” The organisms are chosen to substitute for animals believed to have been there many years ago but are now lost to the ecosystem of the area. Although rewilding is a way to help rebuild nature, it seems a bit unethical.

Capturing organisms from different countries and bringing them to the United States in hopes of reestablishing the wildlife appears selfish on America’s part. We neglect to consider the consequences of taking these organisms from other countries. Will the animals’ population in its native country decline? Also, just grabbing animals to substitute organisms that used to live in certain ecosystems is inconsiderate of the animal as it will be separated from its family. Even so, this sacrifice is not much compared to how much these animals will help rebuild nature in North America.

Whether rewilding is successful or not is uncertain. Donlan is testing out rewilding with herbivores first to see if they will adapt to the environment and work as he predicted-replacements of animals once living there. For example, he brought Bolson tortoises to the Turner Ranch to take on the role of tortoises that used to live in New Mexico. He chose to start with tortoises because they will not be as harmful to the environment as other animals and can be easily taken away if they turn into invasive species. So, if rewilding does turn out well with the tortoises, that does not mean the same will happen for other animals. There is still a chance that other species will become invasive species in the new environment they are placed in, thus doing more harm than good. Also, there is also concern over species being dangerous and posing as a threat to humans. For example, if cheetahs were let out into the wild, will they escape into human society and attack humans? There are many questions and concerns about rewilding and for them to be answered, it must be tested out. From what is said in Marris’ observation, rewilding seems to be quite resourceful. It is a natural way of saving the environment, unlike conservationists rebuilding the environment themselves by burning forests down and replanting trees.

I think that rewilding would be the better option in saving nature. It allows for a natural ecosystem to occur and to rebuild America’s wildlife. The concept of rewilding does not attempt to start all over from the beginning. It attempts to shape the environment back to the beginning before humans came in contact with North America. Shaping the environment involves less handiwork from humans and less damage to the environment as well. This is because rebuilding nature from the beginning involves more death than shaping nature. This is why I believe rewilding is a better option.

| Leave a comment

Seeing the Forest for the Trees

“We must temper our romantic notion of untrammeled wilderness and find room next to it for the more nuanced notion of a global, half-wild rambunctious garden, tended by us.” This statement made by Emma Marris in her book Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World sums up quite simply the main idea she attempts to convey to her audience. Throughout the first two chapters, Marris provides a plethora of anecdotes and information supporting her claim that traditional views regarding untouched nature must evolve.

In chapter one, much of Marris’ focus is geared towards the fact that conventional ecologists have spent their lives studying pristine and unspoiled places, labeling these areas as true nature. At the same time, traditional conservationists channel their energy into trying to prevent nature from changing. Unfortunately, applying such static beliefs to something as dynamic as nature does not allow us to see the proverbial forest for the trees. Humans have already had such a profound effect on the environment – and for such a long time – that the pre-human baseline ecologists work so hard to revert to is becoming an impractical goal.

Marris also introduces her idea of rambunctious gardens being everywhere—parks, backyards, rooftops, traffic circles. As conservationists are becoming more receptive to this avant-garde idea, they can approach conservationism differently while still holding true to its values.

In chapter two, Marris addresses how our views of nature have changed over time. Before the 1860s, the wilderness was regarded as ‘savage’ and unsafe. It was not until Romantics such as William Wordsworth, Percy Shelly, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau lauded nature for its “awe-inspiring” and even spiritual characteristics. After the establishment of Yellowstone as a public park in 1872 and more importantly the emergence of the ‘wilderness cult’ in 1890, nature took on a more healthful reputation in the eyes of Americans. However, there were also people, such as Teddy Roosevelt, who saw wilderness as a beast to be challenged. This ‘challenge’ required hunting, making roads, and other means of diminishing nature. As these and many more individuals attempted to analyze the true meaning and value of nature, they did not realize that our ecosystems were changing faster than they could be defined.

I agree with Marris’ statement that we have “lost” nature in the sense that we are mistaken about what it truly is. Nature does not have to be untouched nor unchanging. In fact, Henry David Thoreau’s oft-quoted statement, “In wildness is the preservation of the world” strengthens the concept that if we continue to confine nature into park reserves, we are hampering its evolution and, therefore, its beauty. Contrary to orthodox beliefs, native ecosystems are not necessary any better than changed or changing ecosystems and perhaps the Yellowstone Model for preservation is a mere paradox. As Marris points out, human interaction with nature has not necessarily degraded it. Instead, as Thoreau alludes, we must try to find the middle ground between complete wilderness and complete civilization.

| Leave a comment