This is true in the same sense that one can never step in the same river twice. This is an old debate in regards to artifacts. Should an old building be preser

This is true in the same sense that one can never step in the same river twice. This is an old debate in regards to artifacts. Should an old building be preserved? Restored to some earlier state? And if so, which state? Even there, we use the word "restore" when it doesn't fully replicate the original structure. Eg, the older building probably contained old-growth wood and didn't have any power or running water, or was handicap accessible or met modern fire codes. It certainly didn't have the same isotopic composition, given how we've added petroleum-based carbon (less radioactive) and nuclear fallout to the building, and ecosystem. Similarly, one might be restored to health, but it's not the same heath as before, if only because of increased age. So I don't think that people mean to 'completely eliminate all human involvement' when they speak of rewilding, and I don't think that's how it's usually interpreted. For example, this piece says "The best-known example of trophic rewilding was the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990s." Since there is still all matter of human presence in the park, it can't mean that rewilding means to get rid of human involvement.