> "but would anyone wish (or be capable of) living like that today?"
That's not the only possibility. We could re-create some of the aspects, like fire clearing, without actually living that lifestyle. We do part of that already though hunting licenses as proxy other predators. But more people will pay to hunt, or get involved in hunting, than setting fires. (Fire is an easy example, which is why I mention it. Park policies before the 1970s were to suppress all fires.)
If my (uneducated) view is right, that means accepting that there is a required base level of required involvement, in perpetuity, while the rewilding articles I've read suggest that involvement will go to zero.
> Yet, what is omitted in these landscape descriptions, and what is too often overlooked in telling the story of Yellowstone, is the central ecological niche filled by humans.
I thought it would go into more of the actual ecology, but does no. It does describe how the Sheepeater history has been downplayed, and suggests that:
> Re-opening Yellowstone to full-time Native American presence would restore some justice to the history of the land as well as open up new opportunities to learn together about sustainable modes of living and stewarding the land in a cooperative way.
giving as examples "the Diné (Navajo) at Canyon de Chelly in the Grand Canyon and the Oglala Sioux in the Badlands."
So an answer to your question of who might live there, with limit on what they can do, might be the descendants of the Native Americans who were kicked out.
At this point I have no more to add. Thanks for the conversation!
That's not the only possibility. We could re-create some of the aspects, like fire clearing, without actually living that lifestyle. We do part of that already though hunting licenses as proxy other predators. But more people will pay to hunt, or get involved in hunting, than setting fires. (Fire is an easy example, which is why I mention it. Park policies before the 1970s were to suppress all fires.)
If my (uneducated) view is right, that means accepting that there is a required base level of required involvement, in perpetuity, while the rewilding articles I've read suggest that involvement will go to zero.
BTW, after a lot of searching, I found a paper related to this topic. http://www.academia.edu/9495040/The_People_in_Yellowstone_Re... . Based on this snippet:
> Yet, what is omitted in these landscape descriptions, and what is too often overlooked in telling the story of Yellowstone, is the central ecological niche filled by humans.
I thought it would go into more of the actual ecology, but does no. It does describe how the Sheepeater history has been downplayed, and suggests that:
> Re-opening Yellowstone to full-time Native American presence would restore some justice to the history of the land as well as open up new opportunities to learn together about sustainable modes of living and stewarding the land in a cooperative way.
giving as examples "the Diné (Navajo) at Canyon de Chelly in the Grand Canyon and the Oglala Sioux in the Badlands."
http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Presence-American-Yellowston... appears to also go into related details, but I don't know what.
So an answer to your question of who might live there, with limit on what they can do, might be the descendants of the Native Americans who were kicked out.
At this point I have no more to add. Thanks for the conversation!