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.
