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.
