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.
