> It's also worth considering who would be liable if large-scale mammoth reintroductions went wrong. "The ecosystem has been adapting to the absence of mammoths

> It's also worth considering who would be liable if large-scale mammoth reintroductions went wrong. "The ecosystem has been adapting to the absence of mammoths since mammoths started going extinct," Lynch said. "What if there's an unintended consequence and something bad happens?" > Other experts echoed these concerns. "To get some impact, you need to have a lot of animals," Sophie Monsarrat, an ecologist and the rewilding manager at Rewilding Europe, told Live Science. The target species are all ones that humans (and exceedingly primitive humans, in the case of the mammoth) hunted to extinction, and inadvertently, at that. If there are unintended consequences, why couldn't we just hunt them to extinction again? The species listed in the article are all large, and all mammalian and non-flying avian (Dodo). It's not like they can hide or get away from us easily.