Slashdot Mirror
African animals to roam Australia ?
Invurt writes: "In a strange twist to the traditional conservation story, Media Magnate Kerry Packer has announced that he is planning to open a huge African game reserve, for reasons of conservation and endangered species breeding in Australia. This would basically replicate Africa in the Australian continent, on a huge scale. They are not sure if they'd leave the kangaroos there or not - always wondered what it'd be like with kangaroos roaming the plains with lions."
That, and the fact it's quite forbidden to 'import' any live animal or vegetal stuff downunder.
I mean, how are they going to contain the area? Even if you put high fences, they'll be eventually destroyed by rabbits or kangaroos, possibly resulting in yet_another_ecological_disaster. Australia has no natural predators for intruders, any introduction of a foreign animal has huge consequences (see rabbits).
The idea's nice on a species conservation point of view, but one has to make sure they don't ruin the host ecosystem.
/max
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
Why would one person feel it appropiate to fight nature and bring groups of animals from one region to a completely seperate land. This makes no sense in the fact that Australia has some of the most unique creatures and we don't want them to lose them because we want to save some other animals from a certain extinction. Why do we feel that we need to save all animals from extinction. Yes we may have caused them to dwindle much faster then they normally would. Moving them to Australia would be an ecological nightmare (especially if they got out).
The premise is noble, but in reality the idea is faulty.
Southern Africa has already implemented plans to create the world's biggest game reserve that spans three countries - Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe - and which will ultimately be 38,600 square kilometres in size. Within this game reserve, animals will be free to roam, the way they were able to in deepest, darkest Africa of the past before colonisation/civilisation. Due to the success of game parks, the wildlife population is springing back despite problems such as poaching and overcrowding. So while there is always a problem associated with "threat of eventual extinction of species", Africa is already doing the best it can to preserve its species. Australia should take care of its own problems first.
Visitors to game parks in southern Africa are very lucky if they get to spot "the Big Five" in the same day - that is, lion, elephant, buffalo, rhino, leopard; and when they do, it is at a very respectful distance, and always with an armed game ranger. These are not the tame and cuddly animals you see in zoos or sanitised environments like Disney's animal park.
What I'm saying here is that African wildlife is dangerous. Beautiful to look at, but dangerous. Forget Rudyard Kipling's stories about the lion being the king of the jungle (Africa isn't even a jungle, it's more of an arid savannah!) - here, each animal knows its place in the hierarchy.
Ignoring for the moment that there has to be a reason (whatever it may be) why kangaroos are not found in Africa, and the Big Five are not found in Australia, I'm very much afraid that in a pissing match between the two continents, the Australian wildlife will lose.
Kerry Packer's billions would be better spent at creating more game reserves in Africa, but bearing in mind the cliche "charity begins at home"....
The main reason Australia has the number of marsupial species it does is because it got seperated from Europe / Americas at a time when both mamals and marsupials were expanding - everywhere else the mammals won.
Given this, you have to assume that introducing some species of mammals will have a negative impact on the local populations. Larger animals such as lions, elephants etc may not have much of an effect by themseleves but what happens if you start to introduce dung bettles etc? If you dont you'll be neck deep in elephant crap within a couple of years as its unlikely that there will be any local species designed to break it down. How will the smaller creatures which bred very fast going to react? Look at the rabbits - only 6 were initially released and not there are millions of the damned things, not even myxamatosis has an effect on them anymore. So what would insects be like?
The sad fact is that ecosystems are far too complex for us to recreate properly at the minute and introducing african specials to australian will simply result in a new hybrid which adapts to the local environment and not what you started with.
My vote goes for keeping the local species in place and finding ways of minimising their impact of african farmers and ensuring a decent revenue stream to make it worthwhile for the African governments to keep them alive. ----- Before speaking first engage brain. Then stop and think again.
I support this wholeheartedly. Yes, the introduction of other species in the past has decimated Australia's natural wildlife, but what this guy is talking about seems to be very different.
There is a huge difference between inadvertently introducing small species such as rats and rabbits across the country (well, starting at coastal shipping ports), and introducing large mammals into a controlled region. Large mammals such as elephants and hippos are much easier to track, and more importantly will typically have offspring every few years (about every two years for hippos and rhinos, four years or more for elephants, and two years for lions, though the latter usually have a few cubs per litter), while rabbits breed like well, rabbits.
Personally I think he'll have a very hard time of doing this succesfully; it's not easy to create an African savannah ecosystem from an Australian outback, and megafauna are notoriously slow at increasing population (thats one of the reasons we need reserves in the first place).
Inserting endangered species in an already endangered eco-system is the most stupid idea i've ever heard, even if they are in a reserve with the great wall of China as borders.
... )
Everyone knows the effect of inserting foreign species in a balance eco-system and that already happened in Australia during the colonial days. These species are now making it harder for the native Australian fauna. ( That happened with rabbits, dogs,
Those who watch the croc guy on discovery know what i'm talking about, and i would certainly like to hear from Steve about this idea.
Sometimes, i just want to hit people with a buick! I don't know why, don't ask.
It does seem fairly odd at first...but really, it's just like an extension on the "African Savanna" exhibit at your local zoo, right? If the "Park" is separate (and I'm quite sure it will be...lions are expensive...can't have them wandering off to Canberra to be hit on the freeway) they shouldn't alter the biosensitivity any more than the Bronx Zoo does. I do wonder what's being "displaced" in order to make this possible though. Protect endangered African wildlife--Kill Australian Wildlife!!! I agree, it must be a front for something. A four-acre Meth Lab masquerading as The Lion House? An underground nuclear weapons lab underneath the Giraffes of the World enclosure??
The thing is that humans have already introduced many species of animals to Australia, volountarily or involountarialy. And some of these introductions have had disastrous ecological effects (still, since this is biology, scientists disagree whenever they can), for instance the introductions of rabbits, cats and foxes. Add to this various invertebrates and plants affecting local species.
Actually, there is an ecological theory called "the tens rule", stating that approximately 1 out of ten imported species escapes and becomes introduced to the local flora and fauna. In the next step 1 out of 10 introduced species manages to maintain self-sustaining populations. And in the final step, 1 out of 10 established species becomes a pest.
So, if statistics are true even down under, there is a slight risk that the Australians will end up with pest elephants roaming the countryside and eating peoples grapes (they produce much but wine there, do they?).
Furthermore, even though insects are not the most important savannal grazers, they are still numerous enough to be of ecological significance. So they'll probably have to import them as well.
Ehh, not to mention the savanna itself of course.
:o)
My initial reaction was the same, but if you really think about it, as long as they only introduce K-strategist species such as the big mammals tourists are most interested in seeing, they shouldn't be too hard to contain. If the elephant species gets out of control, we can wipe them out easily, as we've seen all too well.
Rabbits reproduce quickly and don't have body parts that sell for 50,000 each.
It is the nature of life to strive to become as robust as possible. (see the example of rabbits in Australia that has been continually referenced as a part of this discussion for an example of that) This applies to insects the same as it applies to Sumatran Tigers. Things that humanity considers vile and indecent happens everyday in nature. Did you know that Lions will routinely search out and kill lion cubs that are not their own? They do this to protect their own bloodline. Humanity as repugnant as it in general views this activity, has still engaged in it. Of course, we just call it war.
The main difference between us and lions is that we're prolific enough for our conflicts to take place over large areas, not just an African plain, and we've developed weapons that are far more effective than a lion's claw and tooth.
However, I suspect that you are really calling humanity a cancer due to our seeming disregard for the ecosystem. We take advantage of our ecosystems; we don't merely co-exist with it. But such is the nature of being the 800 lb. gorilla. Our decision is whether to be a benevolent caretaker and to manage our resources in a way where every species benefits, or to be ruthless about it and horde resources for ourselves. In either case, you can rest assured that humanity's collective decision to this dilemma will be resolved by what benefits us the most at the time. It won't be because there are only 20 cats left in the world somewhere. The only reason we would save those tigers is so we can lock them up in a zoo so people can pay money to look at it.
Personally, I think we should be more responsible about how we treat our natural environment and resources - but only because we will be royally screwed if we don't.
My only problem with your argument about saving tigers versus saving all of America is this: you only want to save the cute animals. But you don't seem to have the first bit of sympathy for cancer cells. No... viruses, mold, mildew, maggots, fungus, weeds, e coli, bacteria, the crabs... none of those would make your list of the top 20 things to save. But then again, you wouldn't want any of those as pets.
I can sympathize with your conservationist leanings, but when your examples lean towards the cute, I have to wonder just how sincere you are.
And what are they going to do when mammalian parasites from the African animals start infecting the Australian wildlife? The Aussie critters will have no defenses to tsetse flies and the like. And there's no way they're going to get enough animals to Australia to make a stable population, but make sure they're all free from parasites, too. It's just going to make another big mess...
This type of thing is still going on. There is a plausible theory that BSE did not suddenly jump from sheep to cow but was introduced by a particular wilderbeast at a safari park that died with BSE type symptoms and whose body was sold for rendering. Wilderbeast in their natural habbitat are subject to a prion type disease similar to BSE.
The theory is still controvertial, the MAAF are ridiculing it. Unfortunately they have little credibility after it was discovered that three years of research into 'sheep brain' turned out to have been examining cow. The MAAF theory was used to reassure the public that BSE was the bovine form of scrapie, a disease of sheep that people have been eating for centuries without contracting CJD, the human form. However people have been contracting CJD so the 'scrapie' theory requires the emergence of a new form of scrapie prion while the wilderbeast theory does not.
Whether or not the 'wilderbeast' theory is true the risk of introducing exotic diseases is significant.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
There is already an African Wildlife
park in South Australia at a place
called Monarto. It is fenced off
from the world, and it contains Lions.
A couple of years back a Kangaroo jumped
into the park and foolishly entered an
area where the Lions liked to go. Result,
Lion attacks, Kangaroo leans back and kicks.
1 disembowelled Lion. 1 Kangaroo with a
damaged leg. Not the result you would
think.