In chapters three and four of Rambunctious Garden, Marris introduces the concept of “rewilding.” Rewilding aims to restore ecosystems to a point before human interaction by introducing large predators similar to ones that once dominated the environment. Though rewilding may be a good idea, it does however have numerous faults and risks.

The main goal of rewilding is to restore ecosystems to their once fruitful existence by promoting the protection of species and biodiversity. It has been know that for the last few hundred years, humans have had a great negative effect on the environment. In the process, countless species have gone extinct. In order to restore some order and attempt to reverse the damages done to the environment, governments have implemented laws and programs and conservationists all over the world have been practicing their own methods.

Rewilding is one of the methods aimed at restoring an ecosystem to its pervious state. “Rewilding” is a term coined by Dave Forman and it proposes 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.” Essentially due to the fact that a number of the larger species have died off, there are now few predators to control the population of the middle-sized species, which results in the middle-sized species feasting on the smaller-sized and eventually eliminating in such a manor. Thus, by introducing larger sized predators into ecosystems, the population sizes of the other species can be controlled and all will be well.

One of the prevalent problems with rewilding is that after humans were introduced into the ecosystems thousands of years ago, we were essentially just another species. Ecosystems, since then, have evolved to adapt to us and so they will continue now. I believe that we are essentially no different from the lion or the shark, which dominate over their environments. Wildlife and sea life have adapted to them, so our environments are most likely adapting to us.

Though “rewilding” seems like a great idea and one that is destined to work, I believe there has to be some more studies and research before going forward and taking action. One must really understand what is actually a similar species and be aware of the negative consequences of taking such great risks.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 19^th and 20^th 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

In chapters three and four of Rambunctious Garden by Emma Marris, the concept of rewilding is extensively discussed. Rewilding is the process of reintroducing species to a particular ecosystem that they inhabited once before. The idea includes reintroducing predators to an area so they can regulate the food chain and maintain a diverse gene pool. Rewilding also involves relocating endangered species to ideal habitats to prevent extinction. Some proponents of rewilding support adding proxy species to certain ecosystems. These proxy species are close substitutes to extinct organisms that once lived in these ecosystems. People who support this view believe the proxy species will have the same effect on the ecosystems as their ancestors did. Another type of rewilding is Pleistocene rewilding. This type of rewilding was first proposed by Paul Martin and involves returning wilderness to the state it was in before any humans arrived. Martin goes as far as proposing to introduce proxy species of elephants, lions, and cheetahs to the reserves in the Great Plains to restore the ecosystems that once existed there. Of course, these views have been heavily criticized.

In my opinion, rewilding has many benefits, but it also can cause many problems. The problem with rewilding is that it is based on ideals. These ideals are uncertain to come to fruition in reality. For example, it is not definite that proxy species will interact with a certain ecosystem in the same way that their ancestors did. In fact, the proxy species might have adverse effects on the ecosystem. Rewilding is a relatively new concept that has only been tested on a small-scale. Although it has been effective in places such as Oostvardersplassen in the Netherlands, I do not know if it will be effective at a large-scale level. In order for it to be effective at a larger scale, it will require a tremendous amount of time, money, and regulation.

Another problem with rewilding is that it poses some safety issues. For example, if predators such as lions and cheetahs are introduced to reserves in the Great Plains, they can escape and terrorize Americans in the area. The goal of rewilding is to restore ecosystems to the way they were thousands of years ago. Unlike the pristine wilderness concept, which unsuccessfully tries to find land that has been untouched, rewilding allows people to create ecosystems that resemble the distant past. However, since species that have dominated the land have evolved to cope with the ecosystems they are currently a part of, rewilding might have adverse and unexpected effects. Therefore, it is not a good idea. I believe the only time rewilding should be utilized is when dealing with endangered species. If rewilding can help an endangered species prosper, then it will be beneficial. For example, it might be beneficial to relocate a species of endangered birds to an ecosystem that the ancestors of that species once inhabited if this will benefit the species.

Although rewilding is scientifically feasible, it would require an incredible amount of time, money, and regulation. Even if it is feasible, it is not certain to have the desired effects. Regardless, I do not believe that rewilding is ethically sound in most circumstances. Relocating species such as African lions, cheetahs, and elephants to foreign lands such as the Great Plains can harm the species. This is because they have adapted to life in Africa and their adaptations might not be well suited for foreign lands. Relocating these species to lands such as the Great Plains is also unethical to Americans in the surrounding areas because these wild animals can pose a threat to their livelihood. The only instance where I believe that rewilding is ethical is if it will benefit an endangered species that does not pose a serious threat to humans. It is quite clear from these chapters that rewilding is an interesting yet controversial concept.

According to Marris, rewilding is essentially returning an area back to the state it would be in today if there were no humans. Although the intentions of rewilding are good, the idea of undoing the changed that humans have caused, the reality of creating such an environment is impossible and unrealistic, not to mention contradictory and unethical.

Firstly, creating recreating ecosystems that existed before humans existed in many cases is completely impossible. Since thousands of years have passed, the species that once existed during the Pleistocene may have evolved. If a species has been exposed to a different environment, they may have changed the way they behave. Though the species is the same as the past, its role and the way it interacts with the environment may have changed. Another common problem is that many of the animals that existed during the Pleistocene have since then become extinct. In order to overcome this, ecologists might introduce a similar species that would play the same role as that of the extinct species in the ecosystem. For example, introducing “Bactrian camels (from the Gobi Desert)” to America to replace the wild horses and camels that used to exist here (Marris 63). No matter how hard humans try, some ecosystems can never be replicated exactly, just approximately. Reintroducing animals also leads to many shifts in the ecosystem. According to field ecologist Josh Donlan, after the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone, “not six month goes by without a new groundbreaking paper… linking some unexpected ecosystem shift” (Marris 62). It is clear that bringing in a single species can drastically alter an ecosystem since the ecosystem would adjust to accommodate the changes. Changes to the ecosystem would also affect humans since the rewilded animals need to be separated from humans and managed carefully. In some areas, towns and farms would need to think about putting up fences to protect themselves from the new large beasts. Though these changes are not impossible, they create great difficulties for humans and could potentially create a great threat if they were not carried out. Recreating ecosystems from the past prove to be troublesome, difficult and scientifically impossible due to the state the world is today.

Rewilding aims to take away human interference with the environment, but by actively taking a hand in recreating environments, rewilding actually does the complete opposite of its purpose. Rewilding is self-contradictory and unethical. One of the criticisms of rewilding that Donlan points out is the idea of “playing god” (Marris 65). Although both introducing and removing species may be considered “playing god,” actually having to ship in animals to different ecosystems altering the ecosystem in a different way. Nature will always readjust itself to the given conditions, but since human effort is needed to maintain such an environment, it is no less natural than its current state. An artificially created environment, no matter how realistic it is, is no substitute for the real thing. The intentions of the ecologists are admirable, but completely misguided.

On the surface, rewilding sounds like a fantastic idea. Through rewilding, ecologists can study a natural environment free from human interactions. They can also examine how different species interact before the arrival of humans. However, rewilding is not very feasible and it is quite unethical.

According to Dave Foreman, the concept of rewilding comes directly from the food chain of the ecosystems. At the top of the food chain, the predators regulate the population of the other species. If there are fewer predators, the population of the other species decreases. This results into an overpopulation of some species and an extinction of other species. Marris summarizes this by saying that the ecosystem will end up with “fewer species” (60). By reintroducing species into an environment, ecologists hope to restore “evolutionary and ecological potential to populations of large animals… and to inspire people to support nature conservation” (62). It would also prevent the extinction of certain species.

The main problem with rewilding is that it is almost impossible to replicate nature into an environment that existed thousands of years ago.  Dustin Rubenstein points out that “placing proxy animals in a modern landscape could spell trouble” (65). These animals could generate unpredictable results and it could lead to an environment far from the past natural landscape. Furthermore, humans already touched this land thousands of years ago. In Chapter 3, Marris states that many people do not include the early humans because they are not considered “civilized.” However, Marris argues that “first people might have made greater changes to the landscape than the European arrivals ever did” (43). In fact, many large animals died because of the hunters from these early humans. Recreating a landscape with these large animals without the human hunters is arguably not a faithful representation of the environment in the past. Since we cannot recreate this environment, we are essentially observing a completely new environment.

In addition, rewilding is not very ethical. Despite what Donlan said, we are basically playing god since we can pick and choose which species can live and which species can die. In this case, we are basically picking and moving those species that we are interested in studying. Once the species are moved into the new environment, we give the species what it needs to survive. In addition, we can kill off an animal if we want to. In Chapter 4, Vera “called one of the reserve’s staff members to come and shoot [an abandoned calf].” Apparently, “[letting] an animal starve to death is too cruel to be allowed, even in the name of nature” (66). The fact that humans can control life and death of different species through rewilding makes it quite unethical.

Even though humans can create a landscape that looks “natural” to many people, it is not necessarily an ideal environment for studying the past. As Marris points out, “the whole place is cultivated, man-made, created” (70). The fact that it is man-made reinforces the idea that there is no baseline or pristine wilderness. Instead of recreating the past, these ecologists should just focus on the environment of the future. We can start by building a relationship between human and nature instead of separating it.