Slashdot Mirror


Why Did New Zealand's Moas Go Extinct?

sciencehabit writes "For millions of years, nine species of large, flightless birds known as moas (Dinornithiformes) thrived in New Zealand. Then, about 600 years ago, they abruptly went extinct. Their die-off coincided with the arrival of the first humans on the islands in the late 13th century, and scientists have long wondered what role hunting by Homo sapiens played in the moas' decline. Did we alone drive the giant birds over the brink, or were they already on their way out thanks to disease and volcanic eruptions? Now, a new genetic study of moa fossils points to humankind as the sole perpetrator of the birds' extinction. The study adds to an ongoing debate about whether past peoples lived and hunted animals in a sustainable manner or were largely to blame for the extermination of numerous species."

180 comments

  1. Probably because they were big and meaty by MarkTina · · Score: 4, Funny

    and tasty!

    I'm glad they are gone, as the Haast's Eagle would still be here if they were around ... and I'm not keen on walking about while a bird of prey with a 3 meter wingspan looked down on me as a snack!

    1. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      and tasty!

      I'm glad they are gone, as the Haast's Eagle would still be here if they were around ... and I'm not keen on walking about while a bird of prey with a 3 meter wingspan looked down on me as a snack!

      You can only imagine what the Wings people would make of these birds...

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      So when is someone going to clone a Moa so we can have tasty Moa burgers?

    3. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by Dave+Emami · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Can't get 'em,
      They've et 'em.
      They're gone and there ain't no moa."

      --

      "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    4. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still some Kakapo left .. they might be a bit stringy.

    5. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lunch?

    6. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by rossdee · · Score: 2

      I remember that song, by Paul Walden

      The B side was the legend of Hinemoa and Tutanekai

    7. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They were tasty, slow and us Maoris are big eaters.

      QED

      Why this is surprising news is beyond me. The extinction of the moa has always been portrayed as a human event ever since I was a kid. Glad they found definitive proof but hardly something I needed to know.
      What would have been newsworthy would have been the amazing coincidence of humans showing up and NOT having been the cause.

    8. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by riverat1 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I think it was because of the awesome omelets you could make with their eggs. No eggs hatching no chicks. (TIC)

    9. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      So when is someone going to clone a Moa so we can have tasty Moa burgers?

      What's the point? They just taste like chicken.

    10. Re: Probably because they were big and meaty by MarkTina · · Score: 0

      Not sure if mildly funny or just an asshole.

      Not sure if you have no sense of humour or just stupid. :-)

    11. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      But Moa so.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I also don't like it when science provides proof.

    13. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      Yes, I also don't like it when science fails to make me question my beliefs in surprising, original, fun and insightful ways.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    14. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      But think of the spiky umbrella manufacturers.

    15. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by flyneye · · Score: 1

      You are probably right. Moa werent too far from Emu/Ostrich. Emu is delicious. Makes great jerky.
      Of course, I thought of the outside probability of a viral/bacterial doom being brought by humans.
      Doubtless , they ate some before the birds dropped dead though.
      Mmmmmm, Emu jerky....

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    16. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by retroworks · · Score: 1

      Agree, I was just reading about the extinctions of Moas and Dodos a few months ago. The arrival of human-associated pests and pets (rats from ships, cats) vs. human hunting itself may be less settled, but there didn't appear to be any "news".

      --
      Gently reply
    17. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by geekoid · · Score: 1

      even better. That means they can process them the same way, but brand them differently.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    18. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I would love to live n the world with the Haast's Eagle.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    19. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by jfengel · · Score: 1

      We knew all along that we were the final cause. The question was whether they had been declining before that.

      That was the thesis of this paper, which concluded (based on diversity of mitochondrial DNA) that the species had declined considerably before humans arrived.

      That was in 2004; ten years later, a different analysis concludes that the moa were not in fact as numerous as the 2004 paper thought, and the number had in fact been pretty stable. It was only when humans arrived that the number dropped.

      Even the 2004 paper didn't let humans off the hook, but it suggested that moas were already vulnerable.

    20. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      You are a moron.

      I was commenting on the newsworthiness not the science.

      I assume you avidly read the 100's of thousands of articles from around the world that discover that things are as we thought them to be?

      Thought not..

    21. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      Again I say...

      Where is the interesting news here? It is not about whether this is valid science but whether it is worth reporting as general news.

      Why is this on slashdot?

      There are 100's of thousands of articles just as nominal as this and we don't reference those.

    22. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      That means they can process them the same way, but brand them differently.

      You want to scar a moa with a symbol by pressing a piece of red-hot iron into it's flesh.

      Go right ahead ; I'll be watching from over there, using this telescope.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    23. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Moa was the equivalent of KFC for Maori's.
      Too much for any human to resist.

    24. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moas may have been under some pressure from rats which humans introduced over a thousand years before beginning serious settlement.

    25. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by jfengel · · Score: 1

      There, I sure can't help ya. I found it pretty interesting; it's more relevant to my interests than much of what Slashdot has done of late. But you're absolutely right that there's a whole passel of science of equal interest that gets ignored, while fluff that I find uninteresting (or worse) gets there day after day.

      I originally thought that Slashdot had the most insightful scientific and technical commentary on the web. The articles of moderate interest were greatly enhanced by other scientists with a close familiarity. I've found that to be substantially worse for the past couple of years, and I don't think that's the usual rose-colored-glasses about "the good old days" that makes every popular web site seem to degenerate over time. I believe that the quality of commenters is worse.

      Which is to say... I have no idea why this article got picked out. I'd have liked to have seen better commentary that would put it in better context. I personally would rather see more like this, not less, but that's just my taste. I can't conceive of what's driving the editing selections, and I do think that they, too, are worse than formerly.

    26. Re:Probably because they were big and meaty by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      Well I guess it is good for you and not me in this instance.

      Also I come from NZ so we grow up learning this stuff so there is that also.

  2. Ran out of bird seed? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    Easy to hunt. Nests vulnerable. Virus brought in by the humans (in a classical reverse of bird flu!) Competed for similar resources?

    Possibly the eggs or feathers made great hats.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Ran out of bird seed? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I hate people. Why do we have to ruin everything? This is why we can't have nice things.

    2. Re:Ran out of bird seed? by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      This is why our children are not being eaten by giant eagles.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    3. Re:Ran out of bird seed? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe if there were more giant eagles there would be fewer fat slow kids.

    4. Re:Ran out of bird seed? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Easy to hunt. Nests vulnerable. Virus brought in by the humans (in a classical reverse of bird flu!) Competed for similar resources?

      Possibly the eggs or feathers made great hats.

      My guess is that it's the same thing that happened to the dodo: rats and pigs (brought by humans) pillaging the nests.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:Ran out of bird seed? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      whaddayatalkinbout?
      they had nice things, nice tasty eggs.

      without people nobody would have nice things.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:Ran out of bird seed? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      You say this yet here you are choosing to live with all the comforts that humanity provide. Perhaps you should go live in a jungle for a bit then tell us who provides the most "nice things".

    7. Re:Ran out of bird seed? by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

      No. I think they would concerntrate on the sheep.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    8. Re:Ran out of bird seed? by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      Also, human hunting local predators (for food, for resources or for safety) might have detabilised exiting prey-predator balances, ultimately eliminating ecological niches for the moas. This is called the second order predation hypothesis and it seems to fit quite well for the megafauna extinction of prehistoric times, which may have some similar caracteristics to the moa extinction.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    9. Re:Ran out of bird seed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      So, fewer democrats then.

    10. Re:Ran out of bird seed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should kill as many people as possible to help the world, starting with yourself.

    11. Re:Ran out of bird seed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, keep guessing then

  3. Did past people hunt in a sustainable manner? by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One look at the current state of the world's ecosystems and a small amount of insight into human nature should answer that question easily.

    1. Re:Did past people hunt in a sustainable manner? by LongearedBat · · Score: 2

      Betteridge's law of headlines: No

      Nor did our ancestors farm sustainably.

      One would think that by now we ought to have learnt our lessons and that we'd now be more careful. Alas, apparently we seem to be a very slow learning mob.

    2. Re:Did past people hunt in a sustainable manner? by NReitzel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you kidding? The reason that "native americans" lived "in harmony" with nature is because they had no horses. They were hunter-gatherers, and would move into an area and kill and eat every single thing that they could reach by walking a few days. Then, when the game was gone, they picked up stakes and moved to their next place.

      Now, lest one think I'm attacking an ethnic group, let me point out that non-humans do the same thing. A species will move into an area, and eat everything they can catch or reach. It has - for eons - been a war between those that eat, and those that get eaten, and I'll include plants in this war, also.

      A few seasons of excellent rains and growth in a deciduous forest holding ungulates will result in extensive damage to underbrush, to the point where the next generation of animals is put under population control by that oldest of birth control methods: starvation. One of the reasons that the US states have licensed hunting seasons is to manage such populations of not-humans that can and do destroy their environment. In point of fact, humans are the very first animal who have the option to make a choice to not damage their environment.

      So for those who feel all puffy and bad about evil humans, you've missed the boat. You are sporting a ludicrous level of ignorance. Animals survive in the presence of humans only to the extent that they evolve to become stealthy enough, dangerous enough, or manage to breed even more wantonly than the humans who hunt them. The most common form of death, from time immemorial, is assassination with intent to ingest.

      --

      Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

    3. Re:Did past people hunt in a sustainable manner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean "are you kidding?"?
      It seems to me you are agreeing with the GP.

    4. Re:Did past people hunt in a sustainable manner? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Some did that, others built cities and farmed.
      Not that either was in some kind of mythical 'balance' but the native peoples where a very wide variety of culture types.

      Don't understand cuteness as an evolutionary survival trait. I mean if cats weren't seen as cute, no one would have them becasue they are assholes.
      Also, usefulness. Oh, and tasty is turning into a survival strategy because people will breed them for eating.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Did past people hunt in a sustainable manner? by operagost · · Score: 1

      No species consciously lives in a sustainable manner... except a few of us.

      The moa failed to adapt, thus it went extinct. Such is natural selection.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:Did past people hunt in a sustainable manner? by Benders · · Score: 1

      At the end of the day, human beings are just another species of animal that inhabits this planet. And just like any other animal that is able to feed itself and procreate we DO over-populate our geographic areas. We ARE like a virus. We take over the space we inhabit, and will continue to inhabit that space until it can no longer sustain our population numbers. Then we expand to encompass new territories for consumption. We only rule our domains because we have better weapons than the other predators that may want to inhabit the same domain. And all the prey has ever done when faced with a predator is run and hide, and hope the predator doesn't find them. That is what most wildlife does around humans. I particularly like the statement we are mostly all somewhat guilty of promoting assassination with intent to ingest.

  4. A new Study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Really a new study? The Thousands of Moa bones removed from Maori middens wasn't a clue? Or the stories passed down about the Maori hunting the Moa also isn't a clue? No need a genetic study to prove it, Maybe these researches could do a genetic study on JFK and tell us who shot him?

    1. Re:A new Study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come to New Zealand, those same Maori now claim to be great conservationists.

    2. Re:A new Study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea I know, I'm a New Zealander. Im still waiting for the conservation to happen.

    3. Re:A new Study? by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      700 year old Maori?

      I think we need genetic studies done to find out about their longevity.

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    4. Re:A new Study? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      They claim what? Land mostly.

    5. Re:A new Study? by PhilHibbs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really a new study? The Thousands of Moa bones removed from Maori middens wasn't a clue?

      RTFA. There was a credible theory that the Moa had evolved itself into a corner and was going to go extinct anyway. There's a similar theory about the giraffe now. If someone ate all the giraffes, people would say that it was that that killed them off, and in a literal fashion they'd be right, but the giraffe isn't going to last long anyway even without human assistance. It's way too specialised. For one thing, if anything threatens the acacia tree population, like a virus or a change in climate, they're screwed. And that's not the only problem they have. People say "oh, nature is balanced, humans are out of balance". Nature is not balanced. It gets messed up all on its own all the time. It's just that we mostly see the stuff that has survived, that currently is in a state of balance, and we assume that nature is this magical cohesive force that stays in tune with itself. Nonsense. We are part of nature, and we're just one example of how nature sometimes gets out of balance and creates a big mess for itself.

    6. Re:A new Study? by geekoid · · Score: 0

      "Moa had evolved itself into a corner and was going to go extinct anyway"
      wow, that a pretty ignorant statement.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:A new Study? by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2

      "Moa had evolved itself into a corner and was going to go extinct anyway"
      wow, that a pretty ignorant statement.

      I said, there was a credible theory that said that. Turns out it was probably wrong. However, it happens all the time. Pretty much every species that has ever gone extinct has done so because it couldn't adapt to changing circumstances. Some new predator arrives that you can't defend against, some big prey you rely on is out-competed by something that you can't hunt, some volcano goes off and kills off the vegetation that you eat. The longer your lifespan, and the more specialised you are in what you do, the more likely it is that you will go extinct. Evolution is blind and occasionally goes down dead ends. Why is it ignorant to say that? I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I have a broad scientific education. I may be wrong on a few details but I'm pretty sure that the basic gist is valid.

      Also, learn to grammar proper!

    8. Re:A new Study? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no scientists should ever come up with new theories, as some guy on the internet might come along and call them ignorant.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  5. Never by m2shariy · · Score: 1

    Humans hunted something in a sustainable manner? Sure, if they could not exterminate it.

  6. Re:Please, keep California in your prayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol, over a 4.4? Come to NZ and experience 6 - 8's

  7. Are you kidding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    History is replete with examples of humankind's utter selfish stupid short sightedness. Is there really any doubt of this?

  8. Tell me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something that wasn't obvious already...
    We drove hundreds of species to extinction due to over hunting, this is nothing new.

  9. Rats by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 1

    tend to tag along with people and disrupt indigenous species.

    1. Re:Rats by cusco · · Score: 1

      The Maori watercraft weren't large enough for rats to hitch rides unnoticed. That took European and Chinese ships with large, dark holds, bilges, and closed storage spaces.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    2. Re:Rats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Maori brought along rats, not the usual species but one that they used for food. They also had dogs that they used for food. Other than that, there is not a lot of protein to be easily found in NZ, at least until Captain Cook gave them pigs.

    3. Re:Rats by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Like AC said, they brought rats here on purpose.

    4. Re:Rats by guises · · Score: 1

      Rats were mostly the companions of European explorers, not the islanders who extinguished the Moa.

  10. PETA Anyone? by triffid_98 · · Score: 2

    And by PETA, of course I mean People Eat Tasty Animals.

    Dodo, Moa, SSDD.

    "Like many animals that evolved in isolation from significant predators, the Dodo was entirely fearless of humans. This fearlessness and its inability to fly made the Dodo easy prey for sailors"

  11. Uh what? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The study adds to an ongoing debate about whether past peoples lived and hunted animals in a sustainable manner or were largely to blame for the extermination of numerous species.

    The tragedy of the commons ain't new. We call it human nature. Some indigenous peoples had it right, for example native Americans on the west coast and around that area; they had fairly strict rules on land management and engaged in regular controlled burns. On the other hand, just go to the middle of the nation and you've got natives burning down forests to make more plains land for more buffalo. Not exactly a carbon sequestration strategy. I've heard before that Europe would have been completely deforested if the black plague didn't put a crimp in various ambitions. Hooray for disease, I guess.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Uh what? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The New Zealand Maori (of which I am a member) sometimes claim that our culture promotes sustainability and care for the environment. This has always been revisionist bs, but it was useful into guilting the pakeha into giving settlement money (which our tribal elites pocket). This study on moa is useful to show that *all* humans have and will be destructive to the habitat. Being hypocritical for the purpose of guilt-tripping another ethnic group is false and immoral. My fellow New Zealanders should not fall for this scam any longer!

    2. Re:Uh what? by kenj123 · · Score: 2

      I'm skeptical that the 'tragedy of the commons' is solvable with privatization. If somebody owned the land and was trying to maximize output, they would probably kill all the birds and raise yams or something that had a better ROI. Mankind needs to come up with some better policies on what the planet should look like in the future. I've heard the author talking about the 6th extinction quite a bit in the media lately. They have talked indirectly about extinction triage, and it needs to be addressed more practically. I propose that organisms involved in the oxygen replenishment system get top priority.

    3. Re:Uh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "because your better than us"

      Well, he DOES write better than you do ...

    4. Re:Uh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh, tell us what choice we have...

        Maybe ask those tribal (asshole) elites who benefit at the expense of their people...

      Guess thats what you get for being the last incestuous and cannabalistic race to be thrown out of the Cook Islands.

    5. Re:Uh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The group in your first example simply reached an equilibrium. They certainly brought to extinction many animals before reaching that state. The plains Indians may have just left equilibrium by the time the colonists showed up, but could have lived in equilibrium for centuries.

      The real question is, how cognizant of their equilibrium were they? It's not enough to worship animals and talk-the-talk about living in balance. If you don't have a deep understanding of the ecology with the ability to make predictions about the sustainability of existing and novel practices, then it's just natural processes all the way down, often following a punctuated equilibrium mode.

    6. Re:Uh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orly?
      http://unews.utah.edu/releases/06/feb/birdbones.html

    7. Re:Uh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apologies, I was making a point. We have so many special projects promoting Maori Culture that own history and identity is being forgotten. We have a Maori Parliament, special fund's and grants for Maori's (including University /polytechnic education), Special healthcare, Discounts also Bias for Maori's getting into employment (From the Govt to employ Maori's) Just because of Race.

    8. Re:Uh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was surprised to learn that the Maori have been in New Zealand for about as long as white people have been in America. Though they didn't find an existing population that had to be killed off before the space was available; that's a small but meaningful distinction.

    9. Re:Uh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There was a seminal case study written over 20 years ago titled something like "A Case for Privatization: Africa's Elephants". It purported to show that areas that instituted a privatization scheme--whereby local tribes in Africa were given private property ownership over the elephants on their land--had far healthier elephant populations with significantly less poaching than elsewhere.

      This was supposedly because the tribes with ownership had a vested interest in protecting _their_ elephants for the long-term, whereas elsewhere protection of the elephants was left up to a small number of government rangers under-funded for the task. The central governments were too far removed from the problem, but local tribes knew their territory, knew their elephants, and were interested in protecting their own income stream derived from ecological tourism.

      There's been a huge amount of back-and-forth regarding the issue, but that paper was the genesis of the modern discussion. If you're going to have an opinion on the matter, it might be worthwhile to read the literature of both proponents and opponents, rather than entertaining vague, throw-away notions and gut feelings.

      Another similar model is fisheries. America and other countries have had stellar results with quotas. Here the model is that fisherman are given a property right (a legal right) to a specific portion of a yearly catch limit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_fishing_quota

      Fisheries that use this system or something similar are darlings of the conservation movement. In many cases you can effect a complete turn-around, from being on the brink of species collapse to a fishery that appears to be sustainable in perpetuity. The property right together with a catch limit creates something more than the sum of its parts. It reorients the way everybody acts and behaves, sometimes in completely counter-intuitive ways.

      A property rights system is one of the most amazing tools modern society has to improve sustainability. Of course, it's no panacea. And zealotry will get you nowhere. I'm not a fan of spectrum property rights, for example. But understanding how and where it works should be something every college kid is forced to learn.

    10. Re:Uh what? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Small price to pay. You stole all their land.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    11. Re:Uh what? by jrumney · · Score: 2

      The New Zealand Maori (of which I am a member) sometimes claim that our culture promotes sustainability and care for the environment.

      I suspect that when animals are hunted like moa, rather than gathered like shellfish, then it was more difficult for the tohunga to spot that there was a supply problem that needed to be addressed before it became too late.

    12. Re:Uh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some circumstances, yes land was stolen. And compensation for these past wrongs has been paid, via the Waitangi Tribunal.

      But in many cases land was brought. And future generations then decided the deal that was made with their ancestors was unfair, and should be revisited. And so more compensation was paid, via the Waitangi Tribunal.

      And in some cases the next generation has decided that this compensation was also not "fair", and they have gone back to the Waitangi Tribunal and got further compensation.

      So you tell me, who is screwing who?

    13. Re:Uh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the Maori were so fearsome as a warrior group that the white settlers couldn't subjugate them with all their technological might (guns). They had to signs peace treaties with the Maori in order to settle in NZ.

    14. Re:Uh what? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The real question is, how cognizant of their equilibrium were they?

      You need to remember that they lived in this region for at least ten thousand years. They were well cognizant of the issues regarding overfishing, overharvesting of shellfish, or failing to set fires yearly in the land of poison oak. If they weren't, they would have eliminated their natural resources long previously. There was enough food for them to grow their population much larger, but that wasn't one of their primary values.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Uh what? by kenj123 · · Score: 1

      "the tribes with ownership had a vested interest in protecting _their_ elephants for the long-term"
      I would say we have very different views of short and long term. The instant the tribes men that own the elephants or the fishermen who own the fish have the access to gmo versions of elephants or fish they will replace the old with the new. The long term goal of privatization is to maximize ROI. Privatization might work as a stop gap but its not going to save the natural world as we know it.

    16. Re:Uh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just read Mike King's History of New Zealand (great book by the way). He notes that sustainability became part of Maori culture before Pakeha arrived. The various tribes changed their ways after major food sources such as the moa became extinct, So when faced with adverse conditions (lack of food in this case) they changed their ways to suit. Wouldn't it be nice if modern cultures could do the same!

    17. Re:Uh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you need species punctuation training. Odd, most Kiwis know what an apostrophe is for.

    18. Re:Uh what? by taniwha · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've always thought that what happened in NZ sort of just proves human nature (not pakeha or Maori, just humans) - the Maori showed up with well developed cultural systems for managing fisheries, having island hopped through the Pacific for maybe 1000 years before they came to NZ - what they didn't have was rules, or experience managing moa, or forestry and as a result burned a lot of it down to get at those tasty moa - basically the same thing the Europeans would do when showing up somewhere new - exploit it like crazy - I'm sure if the moa had lasted longer, maybe if NZ was a bit bigger, people would have figured out how to manage moa - numbers would get low, a tapu would be proclaimed, after a while it would be lifted and the moa population would have stablised ..... by the time people figured it out it was probably too late

    19. Re:Uh what? by quenda · · Score: 5, Funny

      But in many cases land was brought.

      What!? The settlers brought land with them from Britain? How small was NZ originally then?

    20. Re:Uh what? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      The whites stole the Maori land that the Maoris stole from some birds? Kind of sounds like maybe the Maoris should stop being sore losers and get on with joining the modern world.

    21. Re:Uh what? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Probably bs just like the native americans here in the states claiming to be all sustainable and crap. they did their best to conquer but lacked the technology so they failed.

    22. Re:Uh what? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      So you're suggesting modern cultures wait until all the abundant resources run out before making any changes?

    23. Re:Uh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Him, personally? He stole it? Because I'm pretty sure he didn't exist back then, you fuckwit.

    24. Re:Uh what? by bunbuntheminilop · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting narrative you have there. The settlements were/are about the Treaty and nothing else. The cultural stuff is important, and it's possible for a culture to appreciate the importance of the environment around them, and also over succeeding generations, make a total mess of it.

      It doesn't sound like you've read 'The Penguin History of New Zealand'. It should be required reading in schools. You should do yourself a favour and find a copy, if only the read the first two/three chapters.

    25. Re:Uh what? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      they didn't almost wipe out the american bison through killing for sport and food like the white american almost did with their big thunder sticks.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    26. Re:Uh what? by Antonovich · · Score: 2

      Notions of land ownership (and ownership generally) were nothing like European ones, and that was a major complicating factor. Many didn't really know what they were doing - it was a new concept that wasn't well understood. That said, many purchases were made from distant relatives (like the second-nephew-twice-removed) of "the owners" (the chiefs?), not "the owners" themselves. It's like Bill Gates' wife's sister's kid selling a few hundred million Microsoft shares and pocketing the cash. How legit does that sound?

      But anyway, there is little debate about what happened in many places. Just take one - the Taranaki. Even coming close to paying compensation for what everyone agrees was theft would completely bankrupt the entire country. Suggesting "sufficient compensation has been paid" is simple dishonesty.

      My family is of European origin with 3-4 generations born in NZ. I was brought up to respect others and the law. A contract/treaty was signed and hasn't been upheld. Morally and legally, Aotearoa belongs to the Maori. My culture is not Maori, it's European. So I left and came home to Europe.

    27. Re:Uh what? by Maelwryth · · Score: 2

      Somewhat true to my current understanding. But, it seems to me that the current situation was brought about by not following the Treaty of Waitangi. For instance which version (language) was signed first? If the Maori version was signed second then we should take the Maori understanding of words, if the English version was signed second then we take the English version of the text (eg; later supersedes former). If only the Maori version was signed then why are the English (who obviously didn't speak Maori properly) bound to it if the tribes aren't bound to the English as well. At the same time this is the sort of legalise bullshit we need to avoid.

      Yes, I agree that the whole "I sold my land.......errr, that wasn't enough", stuff sucks. At the same time there are large amounts of land that was taken illegally that the government doesn't want to give back because it is in private ownership and would impact on peoples believed ownership of land. Probably both Maori and British. The whole thing is a screw up. It is a lie. It is insane. All human ownership is. But, it is a screw up that has stopped the population of NZ from being at it's own throat more than it already is.

      In my opinion both Maori and ...others (sorry, I loathe the word Pakeha) should come under common law. If it was stolen (Auckland for example) the it should be given back to the people it was stolen from and the government should reimburse the people of Auckland for selling them stolen land. If it was sold cheap then hard luck. As for traditional rights, I have no idea without plunging into the racism (IMO - depends on your definition of race which is an outdated concept to start with.) we have at the moment.

      In the end, look at NZ, and then look at Aussie and if you don't like NZ then move there. Thousands of Mozzies have. At least it rains here. :)

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    28. Re:Uh what? by AbsGeekNZ · · Score: 1

      But.....but we are riding the train already and don't know how to get off.....

    29. Re:Uh what? by AbsGeekNZ · · Score: 2

      How is it right that the current generation has to pay for the crimes of a past generation?

      If you steal something should your brother pay for it? How about someone you don't know but has the same colour skin? Or someone whos ansestors came from the same country as you did?

      As for your last line "Morally and legally, Aotearoa belongs to the Maori. My culture is not Maori, it's European. So I left and came home to Europe." I call bullshit, as a 2nd gen Kiwi I am a native of New Zealand as were my parents. My grandparents were born in the UK, but that doesn't make England home.

    30. Re:Uh what? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "they would probably kill all the birds and raise yams or something that had a better ROI. "

      Reminds me of the 'Highland Clearances' of Scotland. Landowners realised that they had farmer tenants living on land which would have a better ROI were it instead used used to raise sheep. Forceful evictions followed, leaving many families suddenly kicked out of their homes with almost no notice.

    31. Re:Uh what? by cusco · · Score: 1

      Anyone who believes that any fishery can be even vaguely "sustainable in perpetuity" knows nothing of fish, fishermen, or aquatic ecosystems.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    32. Re:Uh what? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Orly?

      I'm having trouble finding the paper. I want to see if I can figure out which birds were being driven out of existence, that is was it based on tastiness or nuisance value? Because I would kill any number of seagulls, you can't possibly step on more than a million.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    33. Re:Uh what? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Could you imagine Europeans adopting this policy, and demanding that all people of African descent leave the continent?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    34. Re:Uh what? by operagost · · Score: 1

      They wiped out a lot of forest land to create prairies for the bison, though.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    35. Re:Uh what? by amorsen · · Score: 1

      How is it right that the current generation has to pay for the crimes of a past generation?

      How is it right that the current generation benefits from the good work of a past generation?

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    36. Re:Uh what? by amorsen · · Score: 1

      In many cases you can effect a complete turn-around, from being on the brink of species collapse to a fishery that appears to be sustainable in perpetuity. The property right together with a catch limit creates something more than the sum of its parts.

      I would love to hear an example of that happening.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    37. Re:Uh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There was enough food for them to grow their population much larger, but that wasn't one of their primary values."

      Complete horseshit.

    38. Re: Uh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as they adopt and embrace the ways of the locals like many, many do, I believe everyone should be welcome everywhere. I didn't want to adopt the Maori way, so I came to where my people have lived for millennia. Imperialism has never been justified, but people should be free to move somewhere that better suits their worldview if they want. It is completely immoral to go somewhere and force your way of life on the locals - stay home otherwise.

    39. Re:Uh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldnt be to sure, they have no idea on pronouncing vowels.

    40. Re:Uh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I came across an idea that makes sense to me; Most societies induced a resource crisis at least once in thier history, those that survived it tended to become quite adept at managing the reduced resources available but some did not and died out. As support for this consider that the mega-fauna has been killed off everywhere except Africa, where humans and mega-fauna co-evolved. But Moa in New Zealand, elephant sized marsupials in Australia, the mega-fauna in the America's etc all died out soon after humans arrived. Then in most cases a more sustainable society evolved in those locations.

  12. Just a thought by erroneus · · Score: 4, Funny

    I know when other people are around, I cannot use the bathroom. Just too caught up in knowing there are other people around. What if the birds had the same problem and since the people never went away, they just died.

  13. debate? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The study adds to an ongoing debate about whether past peoples lived and hunted animals in a sustainable manner or were largely to blame for the extermination of numerous species

    There's actually a debate?

    The noble savage is a character of the imagination.

    1. Re:debate? by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      Not really. We had Macho Man Randy Savage. He was both noble and a Savage. When Q'uq'umatz was going to destroy the world, at the end of the Mayan Calendar, Macho gave his life to wrestle the world away from the grip of the great creator snake. What can be nobler than that?

    2. Re:debate? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      The noble savage is a character of the imagination.

      North/Central/South American tribes were slash and burning their way through the forests long before the European world showed up on their doorstep.

      The theory is that Europeans actually promoted forest growth as they drove out the native Americans and broke the cycle of man made forest fires.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:debate? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Yeah.

      It's just like today. No difference.

      Fuck humans.
      If Slashdot had UTF-8 support: â"

    4. Re:debate? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      better than animals in my book. unless you are an animal then please do that only with other animals.

    5. Re:debate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The study adds to an ongoing debate about whether past peoples lived and hunted animals in a sustainable manner or were largely to blame for the extermination of numerous species

      There's actually a debate?

      The noble savage is a character of the imagination.

      Of course there's a debate.

      Noble savages aren't white Europeans, so despite them being half male they still have been put up on a pedestal and worshiped.

    6. Re:debate? by hey! · · Score: 1

      The theory is that Europeans actually promoted forest growth as they drove out the native Americans and broke the cycle of man made forest fires.

      Actually it was disease. The population of the Americas dropped by 80% or more due to diseases introduced by contact with the Europeans. That's why the Europeans were able to conquer the Americas relatively easily. Had there been 5x or 10x as many Indians the story might have been different.

      The native cultures of the Americas was extremely diverse, so it's hard to make generalizations about the ecological sustainability of their societies. There's clear examples of human driven ecological collapse in the Mesoamerican empires. On the other hand it seems likely to me that societies living in arid or arctic regions were organized more sustainably, given the limitations of their environments.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:debate? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " The population of the Americas dropped by 80% or more due to diseases introduced by contact with the Europeans"
      actually we do not know if it was caused with European contact.

      The largest population drop happened between observational visits, and in areas far removed for where the few Europeans had appeared.
      When the Europeans did arrive, they found empty cities and farm land. Could it have been European disease? yes, but we really don't know about that period. It could just as easily been a mutation of a disease they already had.

      There were other period will less of a population drop* that are known to have been caused by Europeans disease.

      *still bad.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  14. Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.

    1. Re:Man by Master+Moose · · Score: 0

      It's a Madhouse!

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
  15. Scummy Humans by MXB2001 · · Score: 0

    If in doubt always blame the humans. We need a good nuclear war. Sheesh.

    --
    01/01/01
  16. Prehistoric pals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh great, now creationist-conservationists can blame us for the extinction of the dinosaurs too!

  17. humans and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their dogs. I bet the dogs on their own could have done the job.

  18. "We didn't kill them all..." by Eloking · · Score: 1

    Oblig by George Carlin : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    --
    Elok
    1. Re:"We didn't kill them all..." by Eloking · · Score: 1

      Oblig by George Carlin : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

      Actually, this one is better : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

      --
      Elok
  19. We hunt cows and chickens sustainably by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's why we started animal husbandry to begin with. Animal wifery was started for a much different reason.

  20. Do WOLVES hunt in a sustainable manner? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 2

    Really, every other major predator can chow down to their heart's content, screwing sustainability with long, hard strokes, and they get a pass, because they are furry and noble-looking in posters.

    But humans? Nay! Once you become self-aware you have to be sustainable, stewards of the Earth, resurrect the mammoth, replant forests, self-flaggelate for our unending sins, yadda yadda.

    Here's a hint for you - humans are animals. Eat-Fuck-Kill. That has been our mantra ever since we first banged two rocks together. Now it is Eat (Vegetarian) Fuck (only our spouses, with condoms) Kill (never, unless the government says it is OK). $It's all our fault, for any value of $It.

    I wish I was a wolf.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Do WOLVES hunt in a sustainable manner? by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You're correct in that we are all animals and we share a history of surviving due to our past proficiency as killers, eaters, and, well, fuckers.

      What has not escaped my attention is our obligation to care for and about our environment now that we are self-aware.

      Perhaps we are the one species destined to rise above our savage origins to successfully micromanage the very environment that spawned us. If we're not, in another 200,000 years or so, the next big-brained alpha will have a run at it.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Do WOLVES hunt in a sustainable manner? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 0

      So...if I get a lobotomy and am not self-aware I can eat/fuck/kill all I want? Sign me up! Maybe I can just do it at home with a bottle of whiskey and a power drill?

      I could probably even manage to keep my current job if I use a sharp 7/32" bit...

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    3. Re: Do WOLVES hunt in a sustainable manner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ever seen a morbidly obese wolf?
      Ever seen a wolf or other animal that hunts massively more than it can eat just to let most of it rot away?

      No.

      You are writing absolute bullshit.

      No other animal than the human is so massively detached from the food-chain and the hunter-prey relation. Wild animals have to hunt/gather to eat. They don't farm, don't have meat factories (that includes fish trawlers who are nothing than death stars to the maritime wildlife.

      If there isn't enough prey, the hunter simply starves to death. If there number of hunters shrink the prey is able to blossom. That enables the hunters to have more offspring once more.

      Humans are the only creature to be not affected by biological feed back loops. That's why humans on a large scale (as a species, not the single individual) are a deadly disease on planet earth.

    4. Re:Do WOLVES hunt in a sustainable manner? by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Thing is, is that we (humans) have broken our Darwinian evolution template ... we (humans) can take and plunder and consume not just other animals, but all sorts of resources that also affect other animals in a negative fashion - straight up extinction, denial of use of breeding/nesting areas, wiping out food sources, etc. For a while, we (humans) can "get around that" by becoming better at taking the resources to consume, but eventually they will all be consumed.

      On top of that, our opposable thumbs along with our brain power and creativeness have allowed us to create all sorts of nasty stuff that has a negative effect on our environment and all the other life forms that depend on it.

      So... either we need to voluntarily reduce our population to about 1% of what it is today (but please make plans for the bodies first!) or we need to be stewards, 'cause if we (humans) don't then in a few hundred years it will be too late.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    5. Re:Do WOLVES hunt in a sustainable manner? by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Obligatory:

      I'd rather have a bottle of good whiskey in front of me,

      than a frontal lobotomy.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    6. Re:Do WOLVES hunt in a sustainable manner? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      *Clap* *Clap* *Clap* Well played sir.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    7. Re: Do WOLVES hunt in a sustainable manner? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      Boy, somebody musta peed in your Cheerios this morning.

      Here's a great link about how humans have developed their inner wolf. Cheer up champ!

      <a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/R2XKMDXZHQ26YX/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2XKMDXZHQ26YX"</a>

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    8. Re:Do WOLVES hunt in a sustainable manner? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      So... either we need to voluntarily reduce our population to about 1% of what it is today (but please make plans for the bodies first!) or we need to be stewards, 'cause if we (humans) don't then in a few hundred years it will be too late.



      Too late for what? The earth / Mother Nature doesn't give a damn. Humans went extinct? Shit...25 other species of critter snuffed today, and maybe another few evolved into being. 4 billion years of stewardship vs our several hundred? See the George Carlin links above; they really are enlightening.

      Humans aren't important. You and me are not important. We're walking compost food.
      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    9. Re:Do WOLVES hunt in a sustainable manner? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Very few wolves build boats to colonize islands, nor are they nearly as effective of hunters as people are. The wolf doesn't have to worry about sustainability because it's too inept to fully destroy its own food chain.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    10. Re: Do WOLVES hunt in a sustainable manner? by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      Ever seen a morbidly obese wolf?

      Yup. You just feed it grains, and it'll fatten up and eventually die of some cardiovascular disease. Much like humans, incidentally.

      You're conveniently forgetting that humans are the only creatures on this planet who can, and often do, anticipate the feedback loops you're mentionning and take meaures to prevent the "bad endings".

      We're not a "deadly disease", we're just more capable than other animals, and that high capability and efficiency applies to the good as well as the bad.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    11. Re:Do WOLVES hunt in a sustainable manner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you were sarcastic you missed the point.

      When wolves eat too much, they end up with too little prey and *drums* die of starvation.
      We sort of don't like that last part so coming up with some sustainable environment management is the only sensible solution.

      Oh and we are very far off from real sustainability. Currently we are actually on a feeding frenzy consuming more resources than the planet can provide.
      Unless we can come up with some very nifty new ideas, a hangover after the party is in our future.

      And if you think just any old wolf can fuck any female, have a talk with that higher ranking wolf. I'm sure he'd put you into your right non-fucking place.

    12. Re:Do WOLVES hunt in a sustainable manner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we (humans) have broken our Darwinian evolution template

      hahaha hilarious. Do you seriously believe this shit?
      Do you really think that evolution is some mysterious process that only happens to lesser animals?
      We may have developed selfawareness and changed the selection criteria by which we evolve, but we will continue to evolve.
      Evolution is a simple result reproduction of mortal creatures.
      Until humans become immortal and start reproducing through perfect cloning evolution will continue.

    13. Re:Do WOLVES hunt in a sustainable manner? by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Once you become self-aware you have to be sustainable, stewards of the Earth

      Screw the Earth. Once you become self-aware, you have to not cause lots of your fellow self-aware beings to die. That is what sustainability is really about, beneath the sugar-sweet crust.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    14. Re:Do WOLVES hunt in a sustainable manner? by amorsen · · Score: 1

      either we need to voluntarily reduce our population to about 1% of what it is today (but please make plans for the bodies first!) or we need to be stewards

      Or else? What happens if we don't do either? You failed to specify that.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  21. Read Jared Diamond's Collapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He discusses, in his view, that the idea of native or aboriginal humans living in perfect harmony with nature is a myth.

  22. I have a better headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why Does SlashDot Insist On Posting Fucking Stupid Stories?

  23. That picture is wrong. by Jason+Pollock · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Maori didn't use bows and arrows.

    1. Re:That picture is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Maori didn't use bows and arrows.

      I know. I read the caption below the picture.

  24. I thought this was, you know, settled science by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    New Zealand is so isolated that other than three species of small bat, no mammals whatever evolved in NZ until the day the Maori landed. So we have a Colorado-sized pair of islands inhabited by an assortment of species too ridiculous even for Australia, and with no adaptation to the presence of animals. There's the giant earthworm that glows in the dark:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n... ...the three-eyed lizard...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... ...the living bug zapper...
    http://www.waitomo.com/waitomo... ...and the 12-foot tall ground-dwelling bird - no animals to run from, remember, that was unfortunately delicious:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

    The Maori had no weapons more advanced than clubs, but that was all they needed. Think of it as the world's first, biggest, most environmentally-insensitive tailgate party, after which the species was no moa.

    1. Re:I thought this was, you know, settled science by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1


      <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&amp;objectid=10793961">http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n...</a> ...the three-eyed lizard...
      </p></quote>

      However, it later evolved into the one-eyed lizard, which became ubiquitous, much to the dismay of the female homo sapiens.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    2. Re:I thought this was, you know, settled science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Maori/Polynesians were incredibly advanced in many ways - they had fast boats - much faster than European until the 19th century, and astonishing navigational ability - sailed 6-8000km to south america, learnt how to cultivate sweet potatoes, then sailed back home (imagine trying to find an island in the middle of the pacific without GPS or cartographic maps). They also colonised Madagascar (sometime around 2000 years ago). They had very well developed methods of warfare, but they were pretty nasty by our standards - slavery, torture, fighting as a way of life.

      Within a generation of arrival in any area Maori ate all the moa (6 species), and wiped out all accessible seal and penguin colonies, this also spelt the end for the huge Haast eagle that principally predated moa. Moa were forest fringe dwellers, foraging grasslands close to the forest because of said eagle - so there probably weren't that many of them to start with.

      Maori also ate each other - a lot. Eg in 19th century a tribe from the populous North Island hijacked a whaling boat, sailed 700km to the isolated Chatham islands group and over short period killed and ate several thousand inhabitants who didn't know how to fight.

    3. Re:I thought this was, you know, settled science by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

      after which the species was no moa.

      *Badum tish*

  25. Re:Please, keep California in your prayers by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Are you serious? We've had stronger earthquakes here in Oklahoma and there was damage to maybe two houses.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  26. Re:Please, keep California in your prayers by davester666 · · Score: 0

    maybe redirect ALL those prayers to Chile, with their 6.7 earthquake, which is more than 100's more severe than California's, and with probably 100 times less ability to deal with the effects.

    when the big one hits, and the ocean waters come flooding in to make all-new beachfront property, you all will be electrocuted by your electric vehicles.

    good riddance.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  27. Re:Please, keep California in your prayers by cusco · · Score: 2

    maybe redirect ALL those prayers to Chile, with their 6.7 earthquake, which is more than 100's more severe than California's, and with probably 100 times less ability to deal with the effects.

    when the big one hits, and the ocean waters come flooding in to make all-new beachfront property, you all will be electrocuted by your electric vehicles.

    good riddance.

    The one in Chile a couple years ago was 8.8, so 80 times the strength of the 7.0 one that devastated Haiti. My wife has been through a 7.9 in Peru, about twice as strong as the 1906 San Francisco quake. People in Peru and Chile don't even get out of bed for a 4.4 quake.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  28. Easy one... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    ...they were delicious!

  29. Well... duh? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    You introduce a carnivore to an isolated environment where a species or group of species' survived that went extinct everywhere else because of carnivores they could not outrun, outsmart or outbreed, and just survived because no such carnivores existed where they survived.

    Take a wild guess what's going to happen.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Well... duh? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Take a wild guess what's going to happen."

      I'm going to go with McMoas?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  30. I'm fed up with romanticized natives by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Over the last few centuries there has been a stereotypically romanticized view of the natives in the jungles and grass plains around the world as living in harmony with the nature, until the white man came. That pathetic misconception is perpetuated by their old wise men, typically alcoholics and in turn romanticizing anything from their grandfathers childhood. Good to see some white man high-tech arguments pointing fingers at the scum who'd better invent their own refrigerators before complaining. I'm fed up with romanticized natives.

    1. Re:I'm fed up with romanticized natives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. In school I was always taught that what natives did was the pinnacle of unsustainable farming (slash and burn).

  31. fuck beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ?nobeta=1 doesn't work

  32. "ongoing debate" by Swampash · · Score: 1

    The study adds to an ongoing debate about whether past peoples lived and hunted animals in a sustainable manner or were largely to blame for the extermination of numerous species

    Yes, in exactly the same way that the existence of fossils adds to an ongoing debate about whether the Earth was created 6000 years ago.

    WHAT THE FUCK

  33. Re:Please, keep California in your prayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think anybody here will be praying since we don't believe in your invisible grand skydaddy. So take your religious nuttery and shove it up your ass, you delusional fool!

  34. One minor point... by Viol8 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "So for those who feel all puffy and bad about evil humans"

    You've missed a rather crucial difference between animals and humans - we can reflect on the future and think about the consequences of our actions. we have NO excuse to hunt a species to extinction and destroy the enviroment because we know what the outcome will be. Animals pretty much work on instinct and even the ones that do apparently have some limited cogitation - its pretty damn unlikely they have the ability to think years ahead when they hunt for their lunch or reproduce.

    1. Re:One minor point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think the people(tribes) that hunted down the moas had ever considered the concept of extinction. Life was apparently simpler back then. Also, when a new specie invades a territory it tends to cause extinctions and other not so pleasant effects as the ecosystem balances.

    2. Re:One minor point... by amorsen · · Score: 1

      I think you are underestimating the intelligence of the people back then.

      However, it is one thing to notice that a species is going extinct. It is another thing to actually save it. Particularly if it means me going hungry now in the hope of more food in a year or two, food that likely goes to someone else.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  35. The myth of the environmentalist indigenous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Australian megafauna were similarly hunted to extinction when man arrived.
    We're just too efficient at dominating the ecosystem.
    The rabbits here are just as bad!
    Easter Island is a warning - beware the rabbit!

  36. Why Did New Zealand's Moas Go Extinct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet fried moa is better than chicken.

  37. Kasuari still exist in papua by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kasuari bird still exist on papua. But being hunted by papua people.

  38. What ongoing debate? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    It is well known the humans never hunted in a sustainable way.
    The only one claiming a debate are people that fall for the naturalistic fallacy.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  39. Re:Please, keep California in your prayers by geekoid · · Score: 0

    "maybe redirect ALL those prayers to Chile, "
    Or, you know, do something that actually helps.

    "when the big one hits, and the ocean waters come flooding in to make all-new beachfront property, "
    That can't happen, you ignorant fool.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  40. Re:Please, keep California in your prayers by geekoid · · Score: 1

    A) There are different types of earthquake
    B) There are different kinds of ground.
    C) Earthquakes happen for different lengths of time
    D) I am assuming he is not serious, but you post show a pretty ignorant view of earthquakes

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  41. Resurrection? by hawkfish · · Score: 1

    According to TFA, the work was based on extensive analysis of Moa genetic material obtained from bones. The evidence was that the Moa was in fact thriving (becoming more genetically diverse) until humans came along and ate everything Moa-related. Eggs, adults, you name it. This makes me wonder if the Moa might be a better candidate for cloning and reintroduction than something like a Mammoth. Use an Ostrich as the donor and then let them loose on the South Island. NZ is pretty eco-aware these days so it seems like they would do just fine.

    --
    You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
  42. Re:Please, keep California in your prayers by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

    Fuck off. You're basically saying there was a non event in California... get ready for the end of the world! You are right that the Richter scale is logarithmic, but even a seismic event 100x stronger would not be much concern.

  43. Re:Please, keep California in your prayers by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    Oddly enough, I was in bed when that 4.4 hit and I didn't bother getting up either.

  44. They were probably a "naive" species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they had no natural enemies, they would have lost all fear of other forms of life via evolutionary means, so when "man" came along, it was just another creature it didn't need to be worried about.

    There's the problem right there - even when they were being killed in front of other moas, they lacked the link in their brains that told them to get the hell out of there for their own safety.

  45. Moa not as tasty as Maori by aberglas · · Score: 1
    The Maori's favorite food was ... other Maoris. During the Musket Wars about a third of them became dinner.

    I have always been impressed by the way the great chief Hongi Hika could be born before significant European contact, then arrange to take himself all the way to England to bring back a boat load of muskets to feed his people.

  46. Extinct? by Meski · · Score: 1

    Yes, they don't exist Noa Moa.