  Though Sylvan is uneasy using the term ‘wilderness’ “due to its long history of unfavourable associations and connotation”, he agrees with the broader point being made by Elliot and Katz—“ecological restoration is not an alternative to retaining wilderness, to remnant wildernesses” (Sylvan 1994, 75). However, they have overstated their case concerning the value of restored landscapes. Elliot was persuaded, admitting that he paid too little attention to the types of restoration that can be achieved and underestimated the value and degree of naturalness that can result. In a book-length response to Sylvan and other critics and fellow travellers, Elliot (1997) clarifies his argument. Its Preface acknowledged the enormous debt to Sylvan. He is, Elliot came to think, quite right. “Mucking with nature” can result in something of significant value and it is, Elliot argued, in many cases obligatory to try to undo the damage we have done.