Pleistocene Rewilding vs. De-Extinction

Most of you guys reading the thread title may be asking what is Pleistocene Rewilding. It's a method that involves introducing animals to their historical range, which date back into the Pleistocene era. It also involves introducing non-native species to other regions to fill in certain niches once used by their now extinct relatives in order to restore an ecosystem back to how it originally was. A popular example of this method in the works is Pleistocene Park, a nature reserve on the Kolyma River south of Chersky in the Sakha Republic, Russia, in northeastern Siberia, where an attempt is being made to recreate the northern subarctic steppe grassland ecosystem that flourished in the area during the last ice age, as well as reduce the speed of climate change. It has proven to be a success so far, and there are plans this year to introduce bison into the reserve.

Pleistocene Rewilding has been met with controversy within the communities. You have one side who find it ethical and are all for introducing lions, tigers, elephants, and other megafauna into other regions out of careful research on how much of an impact they'll have on their non-native ecosystems. It would also help save these animals from extinction on their native regions. Then you have another side who find unethical for, aside from being invasive species, the fear of them interfering with local farm animals and human civilization. They also believe it is a waste of time and that these efforts should be focused on saving these animals in only their native regions. They suggest using de-extinction should they really want to restore these Pleistocene ecosystems.

De-extinction is exactly you think it is, reviving an extinct species of animals through use of cloning and selective breeding. So far, the only animals who are being revived are the wooly mammoth, the passenger pigeon, the Tasmanian tiger, the floreana island tortoise, the health hen, the quagga, the auroch, the gastric-brooding frog, the Pyrenean ibex, and the cave lion. There's consideration on introducing the wooly mammoth to Pleistocene Park, because of its ability to keep permafrost from melting, should the cloning process becomes a reality. But like Pleistocene Rewilding, it too is met with controversy. The side against de-extinction believes efforts should be focused on saving endangered animals and not reviving extinct animals. They also believe that the cloned animals will not act like the originals and fear that could be invasive species to current modern animals. The side for de-extinction believes it'll help support conversations to currently endangered animals because the technology used by then would be refined. They are also trying to bring back extinct animals whose niches haven't been filled up by other modern animals in their native ecosystem.

What I want to ask you guys is which scientific method do you believe is more beneficial to restoring ecosystems: Pleistocene rewilding or de-extinction?

Interesting topic!

De-extinction seems like the more reasonable course of action since we are not in a position to know if the animals in Pleistocene Rewilding would still be suited to their native habitats. Just because they once originated from that location does not imply that the environment at the location will still be suitable at a later point in time. There is also the problem of how the balance of the ecosystem will be affected with the introduction of new predators/prey which is rather self-explanatory.