Slashdot Mirror
Reintroduce Megafauna to North America?
sneakers563 writes "A team of scientists is proposing reintroducing large mammals such as elephants, lions, cheetahs and wild horses to North America to replace populations lost 13,000 years ago. The scientists say that parks could be set up as breeding sanctuaries for species of large wild animals under threat in Africa and Asia, and that such ecological history parks could be major tourist attractions. 'Africa and parts of Asia are now the only places where megafauna are relatively intact, and the loss of many of these species within this century seems likely,' the team said."
The Wilds in Cumberland, OH has 10,000 acres with African, Asian, and North American animals.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Sounds like a zoo to me...
This sounds great in theory, but where in the US are we going to put free roaming lions so they will be no danger to persistantly encroaching civilization?
parks could be set up as breeding sanctuaries
vs
It's coming right for us! Quick Ned, shoot it
Do they not think that they would affect what is currently inhabiting those parks? I see that this can be a real problem. Not to mention the law suits that might come if some kids tries to feed a lion and winds up being a meal.
Reintroducing the modern relatives of the Late Pleistocene losers to North America could spark fresh interest in conservation, contribute to biodiversity and begin to put right some of the wrongs caused by human activities.
Those animals are dwindling in numbers for a reason and should remain as such. Believe it or not that's the nature of the Earth. Superior animals control populations of other animals and sometimes entire populations die creating chain reactions.
I am thrilled that we have advanced enough scientifically to help with animal populations but I really think that we should just let it go and let the Earth work the way it has for billions of years.
Shit happens -- let's work with the way the world works rather than trying to recreate how it was all the time.
Well, it'll start with their bringing diseases into the country that we weren't expecting, bugs under their skin, parasites in their stomachs, and then they'll reject our food and ultimately break out of the reservations and start attacking people.
+5, Truth
Has nobody seen Jurassic Park?!
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
More proof that being "educated" means squat.
Let us not forget all of the other misguided attempts at relocation. (Rabbits and cane toads in oz, anyone?)
Lets not forget how far south the North American winter pushes - sure, I can totally see a lion in Nebraska... with 50mph north winds and horizontally falling snow.
So 13,000 years after relatives of these megafauna disappeared from North America, they want to import their cousins?
Seems the continent has had 13,000 years for it's ecosystems to adapt to the current state of things, why screw it up with sudden introduction of species that weren't actually here in the first place? And if so why stop there? I'm sure Velociraptors wandered Texas long ago.
Now if they wanted to bring back to vast herds of buffalo, sure.
we had facilities where we could breed and look over endangered species here in North America.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
I'd Google for more references, but I have a plane to catch...
The existing species haven't lost their ability to handle firearms, so megafauna have no chance.
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
Elephants may be able to handle it through sheer size, but lions have no adaptations for cold. Nor do cheetahs.
Zoos and free-animal parks provide shelter that wild animals wouldn't have.
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
Then we can just let Darwin take care of the rest.
Because, you know, some people out there actually think this might be a good idea.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
If they all died out 13000 years ago it can't exactly be blamed on modern man. Even men of 13000 years ago wouldn't have been likely to systematically kill several species. There weren't that many people and they were still roaming around in small groups.
I like elephants, lions, ligers, and tions as much as the next guy. Nonetheless, I'd rather have a nuclear plant near me then a wild animal preserve. I'd definately be a lot safer! I've heard some of those creatures can even do magic.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/08/17/wild.am erica.ap/index.html
The AP story ends with this memorable quote:
Donlan concedes that lions would be a tough sell to Americans.
"Lions eat people," he said. "There has to be a pretty serious attitude shift on how you view predators."
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
Before adding to the North American wildlife, they might want to read Best in the Garden. Sure, they might try to contain these creatures in parks, but they will escape and learn to live with (or on) humans.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
We have enough problems keeping the native species alive. Yes, it's important to save these animals, but should we be putting more effort into saving the animals than we put into bringing animals here from half a world away? I'd be more interested in seeing them hunting free/tamper free zones for native animals.
Here's to losing my Karma Bonus again....
Evolution is great for wiping up species when conditions change. If conditions change back then the survivors may find that they are not very well adapted to the new conditions.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The Buffalo Commons is a proposal by Karl Popper and others to reintroduce buffalo on a large scale in a belt of counties that are depopulating from Texas to Montana/North Dakota. There are hundreds of counties here where 50% of income is either farm subsidies or social security.
They, for one, might welcome the new megafauna theme park overlords.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world...
So what you're telling me is that major extinctions happen without human intervention? Who knew? (Just don't tell the endangered species people.)
Ok, there are studies that show the impact of introduced wolf packs are having a positive impact on some areas in Canada.
..... (you get the picture)
On the other hand, it seems like every time we introduce a non-native bit of flora and fauna to the North American landscape we end up with those jumping fish in the Mississippi river or kudzu all over everything in the South or
Outside of a very restricted park environment I can see a serious potential for tragedy here.
ACK
In Scotland, there's a scheme in the offing to reintroduce bison, wild board and wolves to a reserve. ISTR bears may have been mentioned as well. The reserve will be protected by a 50 foot fence, but ramblers will be allowed free access! I hope they put CCTV cameras up so we can watch ramblers vs wolves in realtime :).
Oh no... it's the future.
How many human deaths will occur due to maulings once this is implemented.
Not nearly enough to justify the inevitable media outrage, but hopefully enough to severely reduce the number of stupid people in the country.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
What if the extinction of some species causes that "cure" species to evolve to fill the niche?
Let's stop the ecological guessing games.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
I think it should be fine as long as they don't bring in any gigafauna.
;)
Am I the only person here who's never heard of "megafauna" before, and thinks it's a funny word?
Nice try, but the real answer is reduction in human population. Both Africa and Asia have seen an explosion in their populations which have stressed animal habitats to the point of crowding species out. Oh by the way, did I mention that this would be good for global warming too?
The real question people don't bring up is whether you would like more lion or human babies this year. Every time we create more humans we're effectively saying that we don't give a shit about the lions. That's pretty much what it boils down to, lower quality of life for everyone.
Especially considering how well they are managing the nature wildlife such as deer in my area (NJ). I can hardly wait until I have hordes of Elephants eating my garden.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Good heavens, educated people a hundred years ago knew wolves were no threat to people. And Bergen Evans, writing in the middle of the last century, could not find a single authenticated case of a wolf attacking a human being in the wild.
However, I hope to Hell they don't introduce those wild boards you mentioned. The idea of Halliburton's execs, or Enron's, being allowed loose in the wild is truly frightening. Or did you mean savage roaming packs of 2 by 4s?
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
HIV isn't a passively transmitted disease. You have to do something to get the disease (unless you are raped, but how frequent is that?).
Rape is actually quite common in all cultures, especially in cultures that do not have a legal system with strong controls on sexual crimes or the ability to enforce them. Women are usually the victims of rape, partly due to culture and partly due to their lack of physical strength compared to men.
Condoms aren't so new and complex as to have currently active patents on them.
Unfortunately, in many cultures, condoms are strictly taboo. This is true even in some cultures in the United States.
What if the extinction of some species causes that "cure" species to evolve to fill the niche?
;)
I think we might need the cure a bit sooner than that
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
Funny how you failed to point out the reason:
As is often the case, the problem is simple -- though by no means necessarily easy to solve: control the pigs. What's really "funny" is that as the supposedly most intelligent species on the planet, humans actually create a problem (indirectly or not) then fail to address it. Let's hope that they can control pigs.
Sorry but I got to say it: the Tanzanians have made their beds, now they have to lion them.
"Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
Welcome to the United States of America, pop. 1.3 Million smart people.
Is this the same crew who was pushing for reanimation of that wooly mammoth a while back?
If these animals died out 13,000 years ago, doesn't the secular world view this as a mistake on the part of natural selection? Are we really going to second-guess that?
'Cause if we are, I'm gonna lobby for bigger guns and trample-insurance.
Ya know, there needs to be just one "idiot" packaged with all these overeducated intellectuals to put the brakes on now and then. Remember GM corn- how the scientists thought 200 yards was far enough away from natural corn to be safe....while forgetting that the typical native honeybee has a cruising range of over five miles?
Ya never see these people trying to reanimate the sabre-tooth tiger....wouldn't that be earnest, thoughtful re-instatement of missing species? Hey! Let's make a dragon!....
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Invasive species rarely are good for a habitat, no matter how well meaning the people who introduce them (Think Bullfrogs in Arizona) or how screwed up the policy was that allowed them in (Think Zebra Mussels in the Great Lakes.)
Animals out of their natural habitat can only lead to chaos in my (Somewhat educated, vey biased) opinion.
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
Are we using the standard-gauge (.0011") or heavy-gauge tinfoil?
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
Christians and Lions, that's been done before.
but hopefully enough to severely reduce the number of stupid people in the country.
So basically you're planning on turning the Bible Belt into a wild animal sanctuary?
I'm down with that! 8)=
Jurassic Park involves dinosaurs. This involves moving modern mammals, no doubt including large numbers of apes, to the U.S. in an era when Bush has decided to restart nuclear weapons research and countries like Iran would rather put up with the sanctions than be denied the one sure thing that stops the U.S. deciding you're evil and invading.
How could apes and nuclear war be bad? There's plenty of planet for everyone.
"Just like rabbits in Australia -- but bigger! And carnivorous!"
I think it's the other way around, but whatever. And there isn't much point of being at the top of the food chain if we keep making the food chain smaller and smaller by eliminating other species, which even if we don't eat can hurt us by starving species that we eat which in turn would eat the extinct animals, etc etc
Go hug some trees.
I agree with you, this makes little sense. Importing cheetahs isn't going to necessarily result in their preying on pronghorn -- whose natural predators we don't really understand. (They're an evolutionary backwater: pronghorn are way fast, can run forever unlike cheetahs who only sprint... and it's unclear what they were avoiding. Mostly they lose fawns to coyotes and that kind of thing now, but they didn't develop into such a keen little athlete surviving against coyotes or wolves. They're more than an order of magnitude faster.)
In the US, we plant a lot of Honeylocust trees. You don't see too many female specimens (they're dioecious) in people's back yard, because they have long seed pods that people regard as a mess. (Suburban nature-as-a-carpeted-living-room values -- this is how we got golf courses.)
In Africa, related species of tree have their seed spread around by elephants, mainly, but there's nothing living here to reach and munch on those pods while they're tasty. Without elephants, or mammoths or whatever, to eat them, the trees' seeds don't spread in the same way at all. They tend to stay in riverbottoms and that kind of thing, spreading just by falling, instead of traveling with herds. Or people plant them in yards -- all males. Weird.
Even just restoring that one type of tree, honeylocusts, to its original spot would have all sorts of indirect challenges and consequences. Maybe we can wishfully hope elephants would put it all right again, but no way is that true.
These people would do better to concentrate on something like the American Chestnut -- the most important non-mast species of tree, in terms of wildlife, in the eastern US, an ideal lumber, and it's been wiped out by the blight people brought over on asiatic chestnuts for their gardens. That we could fix in real life. This is a fun premise for SciFi and Discover Magazine articles.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I love stuff like this. 99% of all species that ever existed are gone. One day man will be added to that list. I love how man somehow thinks they can change the course of evolution or hold back the constant change in nature. If a species can't adapt to the environment they go extinct. Welcome to evolution.
I don't see megafauna as reproducing all willy-nilly and doing so without people noticing. Not too hard to track a big cat the size of a pony or an elephant almost twice normal size and covered in fur. We're not talking insects or kudzu, we're talking big arse creatures.
What gets to me is that this is the shotgun method of protecting wildlife. Reproduce it en masse and numbers will take care of it. Not going to happen. Impact on wildlife will be made less when we stop chowing up the countryside to put in homes because we want not only new houses but new land too. We've got plenty of cities and suburbs chock full of disused and underused land where new buildings could easily replace old, where we can easily with modern technology put in efficient dense housing that won't become slums if we truly don't want them to...
Instead we demolish farmland and forest, put in subdivisions, subdivide the properties over the decades and make it denser, then leave it behind as too old and we chow up some other forest or farm and put in another subdivision. In CT in the USA, the woods in the western hills are being sliced through at an alarming rate for the middle exec level wealthy who work in the white collar city jobs and commute home to $1M+ homes that are built up into the woods and across former farms. Meanwhile the cities they work in are falling apart and full of six-family apartments that are boarded up and with a little investment and hard work could be made into fairly spacious single-family townhouses right there.
Most of these people will as they and their kids get older simply move on the ever "newer" developments, fleeing from the cities while continuing to work in them or in office parks on the immediate periphery, fueling the developers who keep grinding the countryside up and leaving us with decreasing space for the wildlife.
Here, that is the major issue. That is what is destroying the environment. Clearing of wild places to put in expensive houses, all the societal support things that go with them, roads to get there, etc. Meanwhile we're wrongly concerned with old things like mining and so on. Those are fanciful targets of the usual socialist suspects. I'm not, I live in a city, and there's plenty of good space still here just waiting to be improved on for the good of anyone living here. But people refuse to even consider it, leave it to the poor, and move on to their formaly wild now suburban confines comfortably far from the "old places" but still near enough to make money off of them.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Evolution is great for wiping up species when conditions change. If conditions change back then the survivors may find that they are not very well adapted to the new conditions.
Evolution doesn't wipe out anything. Changing conditions or better competitors coming along does.
If conditions change back new spcies will evolve to fill the new conditions.
Geez. I have mod points and I have to give up moderating in order to respond to this. Thanks.
So, based on the fact that Mountain Lions can kill people, should we also go after dogs? According to this site, in the U.S. between 1979 and the late 1990s, over 300 people were killed by dogs. That means your family dog is much more likely to kill you than any "wild animal".
Mountain lions are moving in next door to everybody.Not me. I live in the suburbs. People can choose to live wherever they want. If you choose to live in a hurricane zone, you will have hurricanes. If you choose to live in an earthquake zone, you will have earthquakes. If you choose to live in an area where Mountain Lions, Bobcats and Alligators live, you will see those animals (BTW, there are relatives of the Mountain Lion in Florida).
If people can't handle living in an area where wild animals live, either people should learn to deal with the results of their choice in living arrangements...or they should move.
For the record, I think bringing elephants and lions here to the US is a bad idea.
Just because lions are now predominantly found in warm weather climates does not mean that they have no adaptations for cold weather climates. It could be the case that lions no longer inhabit colder regions for other reasons, such as being crowded out of their habitats by other species or being hunted to extinction.
Do note that many big cats, mountain lions and siberian tigers for example, inhabit cold regions. And in fact, lions ranged over most of eastern Europe and Asia up until the 2nd century AD. And cheetahs were once found as far north as northern Iran. The US certainly has some geographical areas with more temperate zones than along the coast of the Caspian Sea.
Mountain lions have moved into San Jose. You know, that wilderness just outside Milpitas and Mountain View. Coyotes have been seen in San Francisco. Nature has this habit of adapting.
And there are very, very few relatives of mountain lions in Florida. They're called panthers, and they're just about extinct. Count yourself very luck to see one, ever. However, there are alligators all over. Check out the University of Florida's campus sometime. Over 40k resident students and you'll still see alligators in the ponds. Even with the rampant drunkenness, people manage not to be killed.
These animals rarely cause problems. They're afraid of people. We're fairly large, loud, and travel in packs. You only need to worry when you're alone, physically hurt, or obviously frightened (before you see the animal).
Wild pigs, on the other hand, are aggressive. They're non-native, invasive, and damned yummy. Whee!
And I don't believe the United States ever had wild horses: I think they were all brought here.
Belief is nice, but often facts smack it upside the ass. North America had mammoths, mastodons, sabre-toothed tigers, camels, and -- yes -- horses. In fact, horses evolved in North America and only later spread to Eurasia. The locals went extict 11,000 years ago.
As far as we know, native North American horses were never domesticated. The domesticable wild mustangs were just feral horses brought over by the conquistadors.
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
I'd like to petafauna myself, but they keep running away.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
in the U.S. between 1979 and the late 1990s, over 300 people were killed by dogs. That means your family dog is much more likely to kill you than any "wild animal".
No it doesn't. There are more than 300 times as many dogs in the United States than there are moutain lions. Dogs are more dangerous because there are more of them, not because they are more dangerous per animal. Your family dog is not more likely to kill you than a mountain lion.
Now that we've gotten past that part it would be safe to say that it would be very extremely unlikely to be killed by either a dog or a mountain lion.
As you can see, they don't look anything alike.
A moot point. I bet they both taste like chicken...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Ooh, cougars. When our family visited Turpentine Creek, a tiger and big cat sanctuary near Eureka Springs, *all* the big cats looked at my 8-year-old son like a housecat looks at a catnip mouse. But the cougars... they looked at him like a barn cat looks at a *real* mouse. No playful chasing along the fence for them -- they crouch, slink, and prepare to pounce. He caused one minor fight among the cougars, when one cougar in a stealthy slink ran into another cougar, who was also considering making a meal of my son.
He loved the place, by the way, though he much prefered the tigers' semi-playful chasing to the cougars' dead-serious stalking. The Bed & Breakfast stay is the best way to visit -- $100 a night is cheap for a B&B, and where else do you get woken up in the morning to lions roaring?
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Maybe they should move some of these elephants to Palestine, since the Israelis have built a 2-foot thick - 15-foot high wall around the place already.
Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.
Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?
Skinner: No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.
Hey, there are smart people here in the Bible Belt too!
(We're being held hostage -- help!)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
turning the Bible Belt into a wild animal sanctuary?
That would certianly be a step up from the current mushroom farm.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Why not protect and preserve the species that are still there, along with their natural habitats?
The big reason why these species disappear is because they are sold in parts to western kapitalistic megalomaniacs, and because we otherwise manage to screw up the world in a fantastically shortsighted way. Putting up parks accross another ocean isn`t going to solve either of both, so what difference does it make?
With great power comes great electricity bills.
This is total ridiculous.
Elephants and cheetahs never lived in North America. Are they talking about Wolly Mammoth and Mastadons? Because if they are that's not the same thing.
Maybe we should just go to the zoo to see elephants, instead of dedicating land for them. Next thing you know the friends of the earth freaks will let 100 elephants loose near a major city and the spca will have to shoot them all.
Man what a great idea! And to think what worthy causes your tax dollars go to...
All I ever seen mentioned is "the scientists". Who are these people, what training do they have? Do they have some agenda at hand beyond "conservation" (whatever that means these days). Do they have any legitimatacy, or are they just hacks?
Too many times the word "scientist" is banterred about to try to bring legitimacy to some wild claim. I'm no biologist, ecologist, etc, but I do know that just about every time we've intentionally or accidentally introduced species that aren't native to an area it's been a disaster. If you want examples, look no further than jack rabbits in Australia, zebra mussles in the great lakes, invasive algae in the mediteranean, and countless other examples.
About the only thing we have introduced to an area that hasn't been a disaster are the crops we farm. I suspect the only reason is that human influenced crops aren't hardy enough to survive on their own without us looking after them very carefully. Wild corn, or wild chickens don't seem to be taking over anywhere for instance.
Could the so-called scientists present some credentials please? This sounds more like media garbage than actual science.
AccountKiller