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.
