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."

Comments

Did past people hunt in a sustainable manner?

[olsmeister]

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.

Re:Did past people hunt in a sustainable manner?

[NReitzel]

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.

Uh what?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Uh what?

[SplashMyBandit]

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!

debate?

[cascadingstylesheet]

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.

Re:Do WOLVES hunt in a sustainable manner?

[rmdingler]

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.

Re:A new Study?

[PhilHibbs]

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.