Management of conflict-causing wildlife is a cornerstone of conservation, yet many definitions of rewilding ultimately require an absence of human intervention (1). Invasive alien species (IAS) are responsible for the extinction of numerous species and are a major driver of biodiversity loss (2). The restoration of fauna within the Chernobyl radioactive zone in Belarus has been upheld by rewilding proponents as a prime example of the benefits of passive rewilding (1). However, by lauding the presence of raccoon dog Nyctereutes procyonoides – an IAS actively introduced between 1927 and 1957 via the release of 9,000 individuals across the European sections of the former Soviet Union and causing major ecological problems - Perino et al. (1) welcome an IAS into the Chernobyl system. This highlights a problem faced by rewilding proponents who risk IAS becoming ecological surrogates in rewilded landscapes where human intervention has been avoided. The other end of this spectrum is that not only are IAS tolerated, but in rewilding's quest for restoring processes over individual, imperilled native species, with little understood functional value or societal support, would be devalued; potentially leading to their extinction. Thus, rewilding fails to address the global biodiversity crisis.
The emphasis on stochasticity, dispersal, and trophic complexity that Perino et al. call for (1) is accommodated through the frequent acceptance of IAS and often the active use of domestic species as surrogates of extinct wild species within rewilded landscapes, whereas species that may be regionally or globally threatened because IAS are not prioritized (3). Therefore, rewilding proponents seem willing to accept these problems within rewilded landscapes provided no management occurs. This contrasts with a plethora of legislation aiming to prevent the impacts of IAS. Unlike rewilding, restoration is not constrained by the need to restrict human conservation actions, which will be required in most rewilding projects.