
Should we rebuild lost ecosystems through trophic rewilding? - nols
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/should-we-rebuild-lost-ecosystems-through-trophic-rewilding/
======
dalke
I do so dislike the term 'rewilding'.

There are many past ecosystems we could choose to attempt to restore.
Certainly Yellowstone had its wolf population. But it also had a native human
population, whose practices affected the ecosystem.

Do we want to "rewild" to before European settlement, so re-introduce Native
American land clearing practices? That would certainly help restore the
quaking aspen population. Remember, there was 11,000+ years of humans as one
of the top predators in that ecosystem.

Or do we return it to pre-human habitation era at the end of the last ice age?
That's what truly "wild" means, no?

Ars Technica appears to have forgotten. They write: "So when they
disappear—largely because of us—there are myriad negative effects, culminating
in a lack of biodiversity."

Who exactly is this "us"? It can't mean "humans".

To really rewild to pre-human times would call for a return of the megafauna
like the American lion, the short-faced bear, and the other animals that
disappeared some 11,000 years ago.

But that's not what most people mean when they talk about rewilding in the
Yellowstone context.

~~~
coldcode
I also find the word "rewilding" bizarre. You might be able to reintroduce a
few species but you can never completely eliminate all human involvement on
earth. Even if we all left the planet completely you would still never bring
the earth back to where it started.

~~~
dalke
This is true in the same sense that one can never step in the same river
twice.

This is an old debate in regards to artifacts. Should an old building be
preserved? Restored to some earlier state? And if so, which state?

Even there, we use the word "restore" when it doesn't fully replicate the
original structure. Eg, the older building probably contained old-growth wood
and didn't have any power or running water, or was handicap accessible or met
modern fire codes. It certainly didn't have the same isotopic composition,
given how we've added petroleum-based carbon (less radioactive) and nuclear
fallout to the building, and ecosystem.

Similarly, one might be restored to health, but it's not the same heath as
before, if only because of increased age.

So I don't think that people mean to 'completely eliminate all human
involvement' when they speak of rewilding, and I don't think that's how it's
usually interpreted.

For example, this piece says "The best-known example of trophic rewilding was
the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990s."
Since there is still all matter of human presence in the park, it can't mean
that rewilding means to get rid of human involvement.

------
anonymous_shoe
What's the objective of 'rewilding'? Biodiversity?

Why not emphasize ecological robustness in farming practices? Using ecology as
the basis for designing food production systems promote biological diversity
and resilience with the added benefit of healthy, clean food that doesn't harm
the climate.

