08-18-2005, 03:46 PM
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.
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.