I do so dislike the term 'rewilding'.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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?<p>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."<p>Who exactly is this "us"? It can't mean "humans".<p>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.<p>But that's not what most people mean when they talk about rewilding in the Yellowstone context.
What's the objective of 'rewilding'? Biodiversity?<p>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.