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.
