With interests in science and nature, I explores topics from a unique and sometimes controversial perspective.
Rewilding North America
Pleistocene rewilding is as intriguing as it is controversial. At its heart, it is an ecological movement with good intentions. In practice, it may be unrealistic and even dangerous.
Few people would argue that working to improve the environment is a bad thing. This is particularly true when a habitat or species has been negatively impacted as a result of human activity.
There is little doubt that people have caused a fair amount of environmental chaos in the Americas over the past several hundred years. Unfortunately, this is a reality of which our ancestors were woefully ignorant. Only recently have we come to truly understand the damage we have inflicted on the natural world.
As conscientious stewards of the environment, most people agree that we should seek to right these wrongs where we can.
However, some researchers say humans knocked the natural world of the Americas out of whack long, long ago. They say the plants, animals and even the very ecosystems which surround us today are missing something important, and it's up to us to bring it back.
A Lost Prehistoric America
When the first humans arrived in North America over 13,000 years ago they found a landscape teeming with megafauna. Huge mammoths moved in herds, much like their distant African elephant relatives of modern times. Massive predators such as the short-faced bear and Smilodon, the saber-toothed cat, stalked equally enormous prey. It was, in many ways, a North American version of what we see in Africa today.
But at the end of the last ice age, many of these animals began to die off. Today, only a handful of the amazing mammals that once thrived in North and South America are left. Theories on the demise of the American megafauna range from climate change, to disease outbreak, to a comet or asteroid hitting the earth.
However, there is a strong chance that humans had something to do with it as well. Paleolithic humans were formidable hunters and strong competition for existing Pleistocene predators. Could they have pushed many prehistoric species down the path to extinction?
Subscribers to the concept of Pleistocene rewilding believe the loss of the megafauna at the end of the last ice age left an ecological void, one which still plagues us today. They propose a drastic and fascinating solution to the problem.
The Rewilding Concept in Action
Pleistocene rewilding seeks to recreate the natural world of the Pleistocene epoch as closely as realistically possible. In some cases, this means the expansion and reintroduction of extant species that have declined in numbers or have been driven out of their natural range.
More controversially, it means introducing proxy species such as the African elephant and African lion into the wilds of North America.
Rewilding has already occurred today, in some cases with a great deal of success.
- The California condor was on the edge of extinction in the late 1980s, with its wild population down to zero individuals. Thanks to a strong captive-breeding program the condor was saved, and eventually reintroduced to the wild in California, Utah, and Nevada. While the California condor is still critically endangered, this is one example of how humans can step in and work to fix what we have destroyed.
- The plains bison once numbered in the tens of millions in North America, but by the late 19th century human hunting had obliterated them in the wild. The several hundred bison that remained were kept on private land, and the massive herds that once roamed the plains were gone. Eventually, their numbers grew, and the nearly extinct plains bison were reintroduced to several wild areas around North America. Here is a Pleistocene herbivore recently driven to near extinction, saved and reintroduced to the wild.
- The gray wolf may be the most controversial example of a Pleistocene predator that had once seen a sharp decline. The gray wolf once roamed throughout most of North America. As Europeans began to colonize the land they saw the wolf as a threat, both to their safety and that of their livestock. As a result, farmers and ranchers exterminated the gray wolf throughout most of its range, leading to population decline. Today, the gray wolf has been reintroduced to some of its natural range. While in many cases this has been viewed as a success story, in some areas the presence of wolves is once again causing conflict with ranchers.
Expanding the Range of Important Species
The animals listed above, and many like them, have been threatened or endangered by recent human activity. It is easy to make an argument in favor of rescuing them, and even moving them back into their home ranges.
However, some advocates of rewilding argue we can do more to ensure the natural ecosystem returns to its intended state. In some cases, this involves expanding the territory of dangerous animals.
- The grizzly bear once roamed throughout most of western and central North America. Today, it is mostly restricted to Alaska and Canada, and small, isolated populations in the lower 48 states. This predator was once a threatened species but has seen a recovery in protected areas. There is a discussion of reintroducing the grizzly in California and other areas.
- Cougar habitat once ranged from the east to west coast of the lower United States, north into Canada and down to the tip of South America. Today, while the cougar is not a threatened species, its territory has been significantly reduced. In the eastern United States, aside from Florida, cougars are extremely rare.
- Elk once lived throughout most of the United States, but no longer exist in the wild throughout much of their historic range. These are large animals and, while not predators like the grizzly bear or cougar, still present a certain amount of danger to humans.
In these three examples, we can imagine a huge array of potential issues should these animals be suddenly reintroduced back into the territory where they once roamed. Danger to people, destruction of property and the potential for unforeseen ecological issues are seen by many as fairly logical reasons not to pursue such a program.
Establishing Proxy Species
Here we get to one of the most fascinating aspects of the Pleistocene rewilding concept. In many cases, important megafauna that thrived thousands of years ago have no living equivalent in the Americas. The solution, according to some ecologists, is to bring in proxy species from elsewhere in the world.
- The African elephant would be introduced into areas where the Columbian mammoth once roamed.
- The African lion would take the place of the American lion.
- The Siberian tiger would serve as a proxy for Smilodon, the saber-toothed cat.
- The African cheetah would replace the extinct (and only distantly related) American cheetah.
- The Arabian camel would serve as a proxy for Camelops, the extinct North American camel.
- The range of the wild mustang (an animal that has already been reintroduced to North America) would be expanded as a proxy for the native but extinct North American horses of the Pleistocene.
It is important to note that some of these animals had ancient ancestors living in the Americas. During the ice age, the same Bering Land Bridge that allowed humans to cross into North America allowed other animals an egress into Asia. In some cases, they or their relatives have continued to thrive until the modern-day, while their American counterparts vanished.
Pros and Cons of Pleistocene Rewilding
It is fascinating to imagine herds of African elephants, camels and wild horses roaming the plains of North America. The thought of lions and cheetahs stalking prey is equally amazing and terrifying. On some level, these are things many of us would love to see, if only for the sheer exhilaration.
Restructuring the population of large megafauna not only impacts those animals and those they closely interact with. The effects would reverberate down to the lowest levels of the food chain. Even plant life would be impacted by the inevitable flux in the herbivore population.
According to proponents of the Pleistocene rewilding concept, these changes would be for the better, and result in a stronger, healthier ecosystem.
However, it is easy to see the point of view of the opposition as well. Such a project would have to be undertaken with extreme care and planning. The price of a mistake could be the loss of human life or the inadvertent destruction of other parts of the ecosystem.
An Interesting Argument in Favor of Rewilding
Arguments Against Rewilding
For this idea to gain a foothold, many questions require solid answers. One key issue is: How would dangerous animals be contained to minimize the threat to humans and livestock?
For example, in some areas of Africa, elephants and humans are in constant conflict. How would such conflict be prevented should African elephants be introduced to North America?
If wolves make people nervous, how would be the public react to the introduction of a pride of African lions, or to a population of Siberian tigers? Would they ever support such a project?
The obvious and immediate answer is that this would have to occur in a contained nature reserve or park-like setting. But wouldn’t this be little more than a glorified zoo?
And finally, perhaps the most important question: Would this really help the environment, and restore the ecosystem to a healthier state? Or, would it simply create more problems than it solves?
We may know the answer sooner than later. Pleistocene Park is a controversial project currently underway in Siberia. On this nature reserve, Russian researchers are testing the Pleistocene rewilding concept and monitoring the results. There have been mixed results thus far, and the project has yet to be pushed to the extent of adding anything as exotic as an elephant or lion. Similar projects have been proposed in other locations.
Will we one day see elephants and tigers in America, roaming just beyond our backyards? It's an exciting idea, but a long way from reality.
Your Thoughts on Rewilding
cryptid (author) from USA on March 19, 2017:
Excellent points, adshead1994. Unfortunately, those who will be making these decisions do need to consider public safety in the equation. While I agree that I'd prefer to see the Earth to return to a more natural state, and I'd personally be willing to take the necessary precautions (and face the potential consequences) when venturing outdoors, other people think differently. They'd be more concerned about their kid getting mauled by a lion while riding their bike down the street.
adshead1994 on March 19, 2017:
I always finding myself rolling my eyes when I hear people talk about how 'dangerous' animals like Lions and Elephants supposedly are. Which species is the only species that kills other animals for fun? Which is the only species that blows up members of its own species in the name of 'God'? Which is the only species that goes on mass killings?
Pleistocene rewilding is a great idea and objections are mostly spurious and anthropocentric. Not only will it help restore balance to ecosystems like it will in Europe but it will also give a haven to majestic species that are facing extinction in Africa.
Humans have caused great damage to this Earth and made so many creatures go extinct for no reason (which is why I'm sick of being told by humans how dangerous some animals are) it's high time we stop being so selfish and give something back to this Earth.
cryptid (author) from USA on December 01, 2015:
Thanks Greensleeves! I agree that I don't think the proxy species thing would happen, except perhaps in specially selected nature reserves. I think its a pretty fascinating concept though. Thanks for a very insightful comment!
Greensleeves Hubs from Essex, UK on November 30, 2015:
An interesting idea cryptid, but I think you are right to separate the different forms of 'rewilding', as the merits of each are very different. I could certainly agree wholeheartedly with the idea of reintroducing bison, condors, elks, wolves and similar native species into wild areas - perhaps into national parks where their impact on the environment can be monitered. These are species which in many cases have existed across America in very recent times (the past few hundred years) and they have been and should be a natural part of the ecosystem. Where they have been eradicated, the ecosystem has suffered somewhat, but most of the other native plants and animals remain. I believe these species could therefore help to re-stabilise the ecology, albeit perhaps only in those wilderness regions where they will not or should not come into too much conflict with human interests.
But the idea of introducing 'proxy species' is not acceptable and I'm sure will not happen, and indeed it surprises me that any responsible ecologists would suggest it. Of course lions, tigers, elephants etc could be introduced into a large enclosed park in America but it would - as you suggest - be no more than a glorified zoo. To allow them to roam free in the wild - quite apart from the danger to humans - would be the height of irresponsibility ecologically, for two reasons. Firstly, it is many thousands - rather than hundreds - of years since their relatives last lived here, and the environment has changed hugely since then. Simply introducing a handful of alien species like these will not restore the complex ecology of the Pleistocene. Secondly despite superficial similarities, the behaviours of modern elephants and big cats would not be necessarily be comparable to the behaviour of their prehistoric counterparts ( there is no reason for example to believe modern lions and tigers would necessarily behave exactly in the way that American lions and sabre-toothed cats apparently once did).
Thanks. I really enjoyed hearing of these rewilding concepts, and with the reservations I've expressed, I do like the idea of re-establishing some of the natural environments we humans have destroyed. Alun
cryptid (author) from USA on November 19, 2015:
I tend to agree, Chantelle. It just seems like there could be far too many potential problems. However, it's also one of those ideas that, if it were really possible, if would be pretty amazing!
Chantelle Porter from Ann Arbor on November 18, 2015:
Really intriguing article. I don't know which way I go on this one. I'm thinking maybe we should leave well enough alone.