This is interesting.

[Guest]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8983461/

Its unteresting both for the idea it self and because its a rather dramatic shift from more classic conservation ideals.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Cheetahs, lions, camels and elephants would roam wild in the United States under a new proposal to re-introduce large animals similar to those that humans hunted to extinction long ago.

Yeah, sure, you betcha. Look how well the reintroduction of grizzly bears and wolves has worked so far (I can hear the Wyoming rancher's screams here in Seattle).

Besides, ". . . humans hunted to extinction . . ." is only one theory of how those animals died. Climatic stress and changing environment are much more likely. Those same humans hunted the bejezus out of the buffalo and deer -- so much so that the 'surviving' members of those species formed herds that stretched to the horizon. Wasn't till the railroads put a bounty on those 'inconveniences' that the herds nearly disappeared. I don't think the people around at the time of those particular extinctions (of 'Cheetahs, lions, camels and elephants', that is) had Sharps rifles. I may be wrong, but I think the Clovis point preceded the Sharps ;)

--Pete

[Doc]

For crying out loud this is a damn Greek Tragedy waiting to happen.

You can't introduce a species like that.

Here were I live, we have a serious problem with people getting big cats as pets when they are cute, little, and mostly harmless, and then releasing them in to the wild when they are to big and dangerous.

Idiots.

[Minionman]

For crying out loud this is a damn Greek Tragedy waiting to happen.

You can't introduce a species like that.

Here were I live, we have a serious problem with people getting big cats as pets when they are cute, little, and mostly harmless, and then releasing them in to the wild when they are to big and dangerous.

Idiots.
[right][snapback]86431[/snapback][/right]

That's why you get a guard elephant to protect you from the cats. :)

Or you could do the wild idea in the back of my mind of getting a pet zergling.

[jahcs]

Haven't these do-gooder environmentalists learned there are ALWAYS unintended consequences for this type of thing?

Predator-prey relationships, foraging patterns, native wildlife and fauna vulerabilities, instinctive migration patterns, suceptability to climate change from native lands, immunity to regional diseases, parasite and insect hitchikers...

The Great Plains area is not a Zoo and management of the new species alongside native species, while coexisting with man, is a complicated subject at best.

[eppie]

For crying out loud this is a damn Greek Tragedy waiting to happen.

You can't introduce a species like that.

Here were I live, we have a serious problem with people getting big cats as pets when they are cute, little, and mostly harmless, and then releasing them in to the wild when they are to big and dangerous.

Idiots.
[right][snapback]86431[/snapback][/right]

People that do that (take those animals as pets), should be caught and used as food for the big cats in the local zoo.

[Mirajj]

Here were I live, we have a serious problem with people getting big cats as pets when they are cute, little, and mostly harmless, and then releasing them in to the wild when they are to big and dangerous.

Idiots.
[right][snapback]86431[/snapback][/right]

People that do that (take those animals as pets), should be caught and used as food for the big cats in the local zoo.

I am one of those who'd like to have a large cat (preferably a siberian tiger, or a black panther) as a "pet". However, I have worked with these animals, and understand that it's not, under any circumstance, be a house pet. Given the laws and situations required to keep such a "pet", if you have and don't know what you are getting into, you deserve to become lunch.

I doubt (more due to circumstances than anything else) that I will ever have a tiger or panther for a "pet". But I'd sure like one, all the same.

[eppie]

People that do that (take those animals as pets), should be caught and used as food for the big cats in the local zoo.

I am one of those who'd like to have a large cat (preferably a siberian tiger, or a black panther) as a "pet". However, I have worked with these animals, and understand that it's not, under any circumstance, be a house pet. Given the laws and situations required to keep such a "pet", if you have and don't know what you are getting into, you deserve to become lunch.

I doubt (more due to circumstances than anything else) that I will ever have a tiger or panther for a "pet". But I'd sure like one, all the same.
[right][snapback]86456[/snapback][/right]

Yeah I also would like it to have such an animal. But being too much of an animal lover I would never actually take one in my house.
A lot of people confuse liking animals, with being good for animals. You see this on a smaller (size of the animal) scale a lot. People in my appartment building that have dogs , they for sure like their dog, but for the animal itsself it is rather boring and uncomfortable.

Taking endangered species, is even on a whole different level. I think laws against this are much to soft. Laws against animal cruelty in general are ridiculously soft. (in holland at least)

[Guest]

In their defense this isnt likely to be a problem. The intro duced animals wont hurt the the cuurent systems likely and if if they do its extrmely easy to remove animals of this scale(we have done it before.)

Worrying about the health of the intriduced populations is also silly. Chances are they will adapt, on the freak chance thay they dont nothing is really lost. The oiunt is to expand the animals habitat so nothing is lost for the animals if it doesnt succed.




That said I am not promoting this idea. Im just critiquing your critisism.

[Minionman]

In their defense this isnt likely to be a problem. The intro duced animals wont hurt the the cuurent systems likely and if if they do its extrmely easy to remove animals of this scale(we have done it before.)

Worrying about the health of the intriduced populations is also silly. Chances are they will adapt, on the freak chance thay they dont nothing is really lost. The oiunt is to expand the animals habitat so nothing is lost for the animals if it doesnt succed.
That said I am not promoting this idea. Im just critiquing your critisism.
[right][snapback]86465[/snapback][/right]

Well, considering all the wierd ways that other species movement has caused problems, I wouldn't expect just nothing ot happen.

[Mithrandir]

In their defense this isnt likely to be a problem. The intro duced animals wont hurt the the cuurent systems likely and if if they do its extrmely easy to remove animals of this scale(we have done it before.)[right][snapback]86465[/snapback][/right]

What makes you qualified ro make such a statement? I find it very difficult to believe that re-introducing elephants and lions will have anything but a huge impact on the ecosystem. The ultimate decision of whether the reintroduction "helped" or "hurt" would ultimately be subjective, depending upon who who asked and what their favorite Great Plains animal is.

Worrying about the health of the intriduced populations is also silly.

Why would we attempt to do something for the benfit of these animals if we weren't worried about their health? :huh:

Chances are they will adapt, on the freak chance thay they dont nothing is really lost.

Nothing lost except that now the ecosystem has been permanently and irrevocably impacted?


I think that ultimately Pete makes the best points here - we've tried this numerous times in the past and it never seems to work out the way we intended it. I think we just need to accept the fact that we need to stop screwing with nature and let it take its course. Is it a tragedy when a species goes extinct? Sure. But billions have species have gone extinct already and billions more will go extinct by the time Earth is finished, there is a certain inevitability that we just have to accept. I'm not saying that we should just give up on all the creatures of Earth, but making last ditch grasping-at-straws radical moves is most likely just going to screw up more than it fixes.

[Doc]

The problem here is really rather simple.

The Carolina Panthers.

Some fat stupid toothless redneck somehow winds up with a panther kitten. It's a Carolina Panther fan thing. They want the animal that is the team's mascot. People buy these panthers. You can purchase them down at the local flea markets.

People get them, and keep them for a while, usually till they start wrecking the bloody house. Then, they either, chain them up outside in a cage, till they become completely unmanageable, or, just skip this stage and just let them go.

Even sadder, most of them are not even black. Most are just little leopard kittens that have been dyed just before selling so people think they are black. Occasionally you find other species of large cats, also died black.

And as sad as their story is, it gets even worse. What do you get when you have one of God's super predators running around the subburbs, hungry, desperate, and wanting territory?

I personally have had problems with two. The first, well, at the time I didn't know what it was, but I knew it was a super predator. It was killing and eating my goats and livestock. And it was BIG. I didn't know what it was, but it had paws the size of dinner plates. I was not terribly aware of what the idiot locals had been doing at this time, so I could not figure out why there was some great cat stalking around where I lived. Sadly, I shot and killed the first one. I didn't want to, but some of my neighbors were scared senseless and they have kids and livestock of their own. The second I took great pains to take it alive with some help from some folks who cared.

And there are more. Lots more. Just a few weeks ago some SC Wildlife officials raided a flea market vendor and took around two dozen animals.

People are #$%&ing stupid.

[eppie]

I stick with my earlier comments.
People that sell or buy these things should be thrown in a lion pit.

And it can actually work. All you need is a lobby-group of Bush voting animal-friends.
I mean GW likes a good execution, I'm sure he would be in favor.


(yes I get extremely angry about these things)

[kandrathe]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8983461/ 

Its unteresting both for the idea it self and because its a rather dramatic shift from more classic conservation ideals.
[right][snapback]86427[/snapback][/right]

The money would be better spent buying and protecting habitat in Kenya, or South Africa.

[Guest]

1 I have a degree in biology and and I focused on wildlife management/ecology.

Large animals are very easy to kill if something unexpected begins to happen. Most of them dont have near the effect on ecosystems that small to medium sized animals do. The ones that could have the largest effect are the herbivores and they are the easiest to control/kill.


2 You are confusing helping individual animals with helping populations and ecosystems.
No scientists is seriously proposing this as a boon to existing individual animals. The the main idea is about the larger system and the species.


3 That simply wont happens. Large animals dont dramatically change ecosystems - small animals do. And in the rare instances they do have an impact they are easily eliminated.

In this respect the idea is quite clever and simple. Observer what species of fauna disapear in first in most systems. It the large ones.

A good arguement could be made that the lack of large fauna in America is far more unbalanced than replacement large fauna would be.
Consider the "indroduction" of farmed crops" those are alien plants that have a effect far beyond any thing being suggested here - but we dont worry about it so much because they are easily controled.







Remember I am no promoting this idea. Doc may be right - maybe we would be happier with out big dangerous animals.



EDIT: Actually your comment "we've tried this numerous times in the past and it never seems to work out the way we intended it" is evidence of your ignorance. Hundreds(maybe 100s) of animals have been purposefully introduced to the US over the last 20 years to good effect. Usually to control flora and fauna that someone else accidentally introduced. Well planned and modern species indroductions ussually work out well.

[Guest]

You definetly cant support that stament.

1 African countries have a tendency to rewrite the rules frequently.

2 Part of theit goal is to have a more balanced ecosystem world wide.

[TaMeOlta]

I think we should re-introduce raptors and T-rexes to the food chain ... its so boring walking out to my car and just pretending I'm being stalked by giant , man-eating reptiles ! Just imagine how much more we could accomplish at work if we were all afraid of going home ?

Don't mind me :P I watch too many movies ... :whistling:

[--Pete]

Hi,

2 Part of theit goal is to have a more balanced ecosystem world wide.
[right][snapback]86488[/snapback][/right]

I'm not even sure of what this could mean. First, 'ecosystems' are primary local phenomena. As an extreme example of this point, consider where the ocean meets the land. You have three systems with very little overlap: the ocean, the tidewater region, and the dry land.

So, if you meant '. . . more balanced ecosystems . . .", (plural) then in part I could agree with you. But if you are implying that the world is one big ecosystem, then I think you are oversimplifying.

However, even where I agree with you in part, in another sense I disagree with your terminology. Only for a period after an ecosystem is disrupted (by fire, flood, act of man, invasion of a new species, etc.) is any ecosystem 'unbalanced'. Fairly rapidly, that system will achieve a new balance. That 'balance' may not appeal to some -- it could be a dust bowl where grasslands were, or a river that could catch fire, or vacant lots covered in kudzu. Whatever the end state, it *will* be a state of dynamic balance until the next disruptive influence occurs.

The concept of introducing a disruption (and I agree, mega-fauna are much less disruptive than the microbes) to 'balance' an ecosystem appears to be an oxymoron. Perhaps, it would be better stated as an attempt to drive the ecosystem to a new balance. One more in line with somebody's concept of Utopia. Unfortunately, we don't know enough. Or, to paraphrase Burns, "The best laid plans of mice and men are often about the same".

--Pete

[Doc]

I don't mind a few predators here and there. They are needed! They keep the deer populations down, keep diseases from spreading because of population control, and they are helpful in so many ways.

BUT KEEP THEM IN THE WILDS. Letting a super predator like a panther go in a suburban neighborhood is just asking for tears. Not to long ago, 3 kids got shredded and killed by one of these cats around here. They were playing out in their sandbox. The cat responsible was just doing what it does, but it was demonised. The real villians are the assholes that let the cat go.

Introducing a species can be benificial but only when it is done properly, in a well thought out process of gradual introduction to see what impact a small population might have and then calculate from there to see what large scale impact might be, remember all the while that nothing ever goes as planned.

[Guest]

You are correct - I intended the pluaral.


As to "balance" pehaps its the wrong word perhaps it isnt.
All sustainable systems are orrectly said to be "balanced".
But from a more subjective stand point some lack in degree balance with respect to diversity.

A field of grass and bacteria could be said have balance. But I would say its poorly balanced.