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."

19 of 180 comments (clear)

  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 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."
    2. 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.

    3. 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.
  2. 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 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. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "because your better than us"

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

    3. 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

    4. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

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

    The Maori didn't use bows and arrows.

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.