Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
I am not really aware of any empty ecosystems which need filling at this time. Every species needs a place to live and reproduce, When one introduces a new species, it displaces something which is already there.

I am not real familiar with Alaska, but I would be surprised if introducing another invasive species would be a good idea.


That was old school thinking even here once. The main difference is that this would not be introducing new invasive species but rather reintroducing species that seem to have been prematurely killed off by something.
When the first bison herd was reintroduced we actually had missions to fly helicopters out to chase the moose away from the bison because they were attempting to fornicate with them. Eventually the hippies overly concerned biologist gave up protecting the bisons' virtue and the bison started doing even better. This caused more study into grazers and browsers having a beneficial relationship. This has spawned some theories about how the Pleistocene was able to support such a tremendous number of mega-fauna especially in Beringia. Basically the theory (that I like at least) is that there were different seasonal grazers as well as high and low browsers whose fairly constant migrations tilled and fertilized the now tundra soil supporting grasslands and trees where they cannot grow today due to moss taking over in the absence of grasses. The real invasive species was the tundra moss. Some people even suggest that this could reverse "global warming." http://www.beg.utexas.edu/indassoc/...ms/Cretaceous_climate_workshop_sched.pdf
Intentional and accidental species reintroductions "seem" to be working pretty well for the most part here and in the Yukon like the wild horses taking up where their extinct grandcestors used to live:
[Linked Image]
Some critters seem to be trying to fill these unoccupied niches in the ecosystem like: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=26