NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4160560.stm

If a group of US researchers have their way, lions, cheetahs, elephants and camels could soon roam parts of North America, Nature magazine reports.

The plan, which is called Pleistocene re-wilding, is intended to be a proactive approach to conservation.

The initiative would help endangered African animals while creating jobs, the Cornell University scientists say.

Evidence also suggests, they claim, that "megafauna" can help maintain ecosystems and boost biodiversity.

"If we only have 10 minutes to present this idea, people think we're nuts," said Harry Greene, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell University, US.

"But if people hear the one-hour version, they realise they haven't thought about this as much as we have. Right now we are investing all our megafauna hopes on one continent - Africa."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4160560.stm

wow. That's actually a really good idea. Although presumably it'd take many, many decades to breed large enough self sustaining populations of all these animals for the ecosystem to really get going properly.

and then we have lions wandering into town?

Man..where I live..we have enough problems hitting deer.

Man-eating lions could poach a construction site near you.

Wouldn't that be an ecological disaster?

We tried introducing cane toads to cull certain wildlife some time ago.

Naturally, it backfired, and has killed alot of native wildlife it wasn't intended too.

Oh, and not to mention the insane number of wild rabbits you'll find in the bush.

Interestingly enough, the kangaroos have thrived since colonisation. In fact, there's apparently a significant amount more of them now than there was back then.

Of course, that doesn't mean we get kangaroos running through our city streets (quite the contrary). They're smart critters. They've obviously learned that the city isn't a good place to live.

Mind, you don't have to get far out of Sydney to see them if you look hard enough. This is partly because Sydney's pretty much surrounded by National Parks, one being a World Heritage area. Another one of the national parks near Sydney is the second oldest National Park in the WORLD (which was creatively titled 'The National Park', and became the "Royal National Park with a queen's visit" :p ). We were just beaten...

wow. That's actually a really good idea. Although presumably it'd take many, many decades to breed large enough self sustaining populations of all these animals for the ecosystem to really get going properly.
Oh god no. This is a horrid idea. Though most likely we'd dodge a cane toad problem (thank god for the 1-in-100 rule), deciding to introduce random species into an ecosystem is one of the big 'bad ideas'.

What are the main wild species roaming North America that haven't been killed off in large numbers yet?

Sounds like a conspiracy by the blue states to get those in the red states trampled by elephants and eaten by lions.

I'm only kidding, please don't take this seriously.

Sounds like a conspiracy by the blue states to get those in the red states trampled by elephants and eaten by lions.

I'm only kidding, please don't take this seriously.

You think I can't tell sarcasm? I'm insulted!

You think I can't tell sarcasm? I'm insulted!

Well, you should see the thread about the Onion article on Intelligent Falling and see how many people couldn't tell it was only a paraody of Intelligent Design arguments.

What they will really do is stick those wildlife preserves near the border instead of hiring more border Patrol so if a Mexican national wants to cross illegally he will have to outrun the lions and cheetahs

They have bee talking about this for years. Ain't gonna happen.

What are the main wild species roaming North America that haven't been killed off in large numbers yet?

Human beings, I believe. There were a couple of minor culls in the 1940s and 1860s though, IIRC.

This may have been a great idea, buut I am sure that it will get opposition. For one, introducing a new species always has problems. Introducing a slew of them will be even bigger. I'm worried that they may overgraze, and help to erode the precious soil faster. You'd know what I mean if you heard why overgrazing contributes to the contraction of the Sahel. But, I guess the grazing issue will be seen as no worse than cows.

I've heard of this before. What they are talking about is replacing the extinct North American large mammals (most of which became extinct shortly after humans first colonized the continent) with their closest African and Asian relatives, thus filling some rather large gaps in the North American ecosystem.

While it may seem to be a good idea from a purely ecological perspective, there are some thorny practical problems. We need to take into account the fact that there are large numbers of humans occupying the North American ecosystem. Forget about the damage that lions and tigers could do - a wild elephant rampaging through town would cause a considerable amount of trouble. Nobody's going to support that.

This plan could only work if there were large-scale evacuations of humans from the affected areas first. Who would have the power to do such a thing, and where would the displaced people go?

In short, it's not going to happen. Move along, nothing more to see here. Pay no attention to the man-eating tiger behind the curtain.

:p

i had a similar idea, though i was more concerned with the existing megafauna of north america. it's well past time to cut the fences of the plains and mountain states and let the bison run free again.

but i can see the attraction of reintroducing the relatives of the recently extinct american megafauna. hmmm...

I've always wondered why they don't stick a few elephants into Australia. The place is big enough. And every continent should have some elephants.

Thats retarded, the last thing I was is elephants running through my backyard at 2 in the morning wakeing me up and ruining my newly built toolshed.

What are the main wild species roaming North America that haven't been killed off in large numbers yet?
elk, deer, caribou, coyotes, bear,

there must be more large wild animals than that.

We need to take into account the fact that there are large numbers of humans occupying the North American ecosystem.

nah. most of the good habitats are nearly empty of human population anyway, and the economics of the country has been driving people into the cities for decades, leaving even more room for megafauna.

elk, deer, caribou, coyotes, bear,

there must be more large wild animals than that.
Two of those are endangered, and the other two have become so out of balance with the ecosystem that the population of those animals are booming out of control.

I don't now if I like the idea of brining cheetahs or lions over, but that would so freaking rock to go outside and see camels or elephants roaming around :D

I wonder if anything cool would be released in Ohio... although I think for both the state and the entire country when I say I think we've already got more than our share of wild asses xp

elk, deer, caribou, coyotes, bear,

there must be more large wild animals than that.

moose, wolves, alligators, bison, cougars, bighorn sheep, pronghorn, the spanish-introduced wild horse

there are a couple more i'm forgetting

and the other two have become so out of balance with the ecosystem that the population of those animals are booming out of control.

though we found a wolf near chicago recently, so maybe there is hope for the deer population of wisconsin and northern illinois coming under natural control as the wolf population comes back.

wow. That's actually a really good idea. Although presumably it'd take many, many decades to breed large enough self sustaining populations of all these animals for the ecosystem to really get going properly.
Ecosystem? What about the ecosystem already in place. America has been seperate from the rest of the world for so long that during the Indian Wars (read yesterday in evolutionary terms) the diseases that Europeans took to the Native Americans were probably more deadly than any concerted troop action.

When the Us postal service is worried about a few grains in a piece of mail, maybe carting a herd of wild animals (for wild read unquarantined) into an ecosystem they weren't designed to ever be a part of, could be about as successful as introducing bullfrogs to Austrailia. Those bullfrogs that have no natural predators and eat everything else out of food.

Of course it might not be, but when did American policy ever play safe?

Ecosystem? What about the ecosystem already in place. America has been seperate from the rest of the world for so long that during the Indian Wars (read yesterday in evolutionary terms) the diseases that Europeans took to the Native Americans were probably more deadly than any concerted troop action.

When the Us postal service is worried about a few grains in a piece of mail, maybe carting a herd of wild animals (for wild read unquarantined) into an ecosystem they weren't designed to ever be a part of, could be about as successful as introducing bullfrogs to Austrailia. Those bullfrogs that have no natural predators and eat everything else out of food.

ah, but the difference is that all of these things will be the close relatives of animals that did live here and, in fact, formed important parts of the north american ecosystem until a new invasive species was introduced that threw the system off balance. consider it a bit of restoration ecology, like reintroducing wolves and bison to areas where they've been killed or driven off.

as for the bullfrog analogy - we aren't talking about small animals that mass-reproduce. this is megafauna we're talking about here. huge animals with slow rates of reproduction that are fairly easy to track. less of a concern than most things we keep in zoos, really.

why would you think that these things would be released without screening them for diseases, if this plan was followed?

less of a concern than most things we keep in zoos, really.

and certainly less of a threat than things we've already put into the environment.

i just read the actual article in 'nature', and the authors brought up a really good point. most of these large animals are already severely threatened in their home ranges and are unlikely to survive the next century. and the areas where they are proposing to do these re-wilding projects, if not used for this will just become filled with "pests and weeds" - invasive introduced species - anyway. but if we go with the re-wilding idea, we have a chance to establish new protected populations of megafauna and restore the north american environment to its previous fullness.

it's a pretty good article - certainly worth thinking about if nothing else.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4160560.stm

If a group of US researchers have their way, lions, cheetahs, elephants and camels could soon roam parts of North America, Nature magazine reports.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4160560.stm

Hell, having someone standing guard 24/7 to protect your home from a bunch of animals that belong in zoos? I mean, it'd be fun, but it'd be a bloodbath. You have to keep in mind that one of the most abundant forms of income in the American Great Plains is that of ranching. The ranchers wouldn't like having their precious cattle eaten by freaking LIONS!

It'd be great to go after a camel with a 1903. Or a lion, for that matter.

elk, deer, caribou, coyotes, bear,

there must be more large wild animals than that.

Pronghorn Antelope, too. They overrun the places near us.

Hell, having someone standing guard 24/7 to protect your home from a bunch of animals that belong in zoos? I mean, it'd be fun, but it'd be a bloodbath. You have to keep in mind that one of the most abundant forms of income in the American Great Plains is that of ranching. The ranchers wouldn't like having their precious cattle eaten by freaking LIONS!

from the 'nature' article:

"The third stage in our vision for Pleistocene re-wilding would entail one or more ‘ecological history parks’, covering vast areas of economically depressed parts of the Great Plains. As is the case today in Africa, perimeter fencing would limit the movements of otherwise freeliving ungulates, elephants and large carnivores, while surrounding towns would benefit economically from management and tourism related jobs. A system of similar reserves across several continents offers the best hope for longterm survival of large mammals."


not exactly lions running around your backyard

I'm worried about further damaging of the enviornment. If anything we should breed north American endangered species more.

To be honest though, I would like to hear how they would pull it off first.

from the 'nature' article:

"The third stage in our vision for Pleistocene re-wilding would entail one or more ‘ecological history parks’, covering vast areas of economically depressed parts of the Great Plains. As is the case today in Africa, perimeter fencing would limit the movements of otherwise freeliving ungulates, elephants and large carnivores, while surrounding towns would benefit economically from management and tourism related jobs. A system of similar reserves across several continents offers the best hope for longterm survival of large mammals."


not exactly lions running around your backyard
Yeah, but they will inevitably escape and multiply. Just like the wolves in Yellowstone National Park.

Yeah, but they will inevitably escape and multiply. Just like the wolves in Yellowstone National Park.

there isn't a fence around yellowstone. and wolves haven't actually been much of a problem to anybody out in the west.

All ecological arguments against this proposal are trumped by the innate coolness of having lions in America.

Why bother with lions and cheetas? Put more money into genetic engineering and make your own animals!

Just think about it:
The jabberwock - native predator to Northern America.

All ecological arguments against this proposal are trumped by the innate coolness of having lions in America.

plus, lions were part of the natural ecosystem of north america anyway. it would be damn cool though. or as the article in nature put it,
"Replacing the extinct American lion (Panthera leo atrox), although challenging, has clear aesthetic and economic benefits."

but the whole thing is motivated primarily by ecological concerns:

"Our proposal is based on several observations. First, Earth is nowhere pristine; our economics, politics, demographics and technology pervade every ecosystem. Such human influences are unprecedented and show alarming signs of worsening. Second, environmentalists are easily caricatured as purveyors of doom and gloom, to the detriment of conservation. Third, although human land-use patterns are dynamic and uncertain, in some areas, such as parts of the Great Plains in the United States, human populations are declining — which may offer future conservation opportunities. Fourth, humans were probably at least partly responsible for the Late Pleistocene extinctions in North America, and our subsequent activities have curtailed the evolutionary potential of most remaining large vertebrates. We therefore bear an ethical responsibility to redress these problems.

North American conservationists routinely turn to the arrival of Columbus in 1492 as a restoration benchmark. But the arrival of the first Americans from Eurasia roughly 13,000 years ago constitutes a less arbitrary baseline. Mammal body-size distributions were similar across all continents before the Late Pleistocene, but subsequent extinction of most large species drastically altered those distributions in favour of smaller species. In the Americas, where large-vertebrate losses were greatest, the subsequent changes were undoubtedly ecologically and evolutionarily significant. Large carnivores and herbivores often play important roles in the maintenance of biodiversity, and thus many extinct mammals must have shaped the evolution of the species we know today."

ecological, ethical, and damn fucking cool. rockin'.

Bring back the buffalo!

I'm glad this thread was posted. I was going to do it when I read the article in the paper, but I couldn't get to the internet.

Anyhow, I've got one big question that hasn't been answered by the USA today article or by the Nature article.

What benefit does our society reap if this plan is carried out? Just big zoos? So what? Why not work on keeping the existing species in Africa from dwindling?

By the way, this plan was hatched at a Ted Turner ranch in New Mexico. That sort of puts it in the class of science that recognizes global warming as a human-induced condition.

there isn't a fence around yellowstone. and wolves haven't actually been much of a problem to anybody out in the west.
I think ranchers out that way might have a different opinion. I haven't read anything for a while, but the project seemed to be headed towards unmitigated failure a few years ago.

Of course, we pig farmers in Georgia aren't nearly as concerned about wolves as we might be about lions.

I think ranchers out that way might have a different opinion. I haven't read anything for a while, but the project seemed to be headed towards unmitigated failure a few years ago.

the ranchers bitched and moaned quite a lot (though this has declined a bit recently), but the actual numbers of wolf kills for livestock are ridiculously low. they lose a thousand times more animals to the weather alone each and every year.

wolf reintroduction has been a stunning success ecologically and economically. wolves have reduced overgrazing by elk and deer, which has in turn allowed more diversified habitat to grow, allowing for a number of other animals to make comebacks in areas where they'd been absent. and the value of increased tourism due to people wanting to see wolves in the wild has outweighed the costs to ranchers by an order of magnitude. plus, ranchers are usually offered compensation for confirmed wolf kills anyway.

Why not work on keeping the existing species in Africa from dwindling?

because it's always better to have back-ups.

"A system of similar reserves across several continents offers the best hope for longterm survival of large mammals.
...
In the coming century, by default or design, we will constrain the breadth and future evolutionary complexity of life on Earth. The default scenario will surely include ever more pest-and-weed dominated landscapes, the extinction of most, if not all, large vertebrates, and a continuing struggle to slow the loss of biodiversity.
...
Will you risk the extinction of the world's megafauna should economic, political and climate change prove catastrophic for those populations remaining in Asia and Africa? The obstacles are substantial and the risks are not trivial, but we can no longer accept a hands-off approach to wilderness preservation. Instead, we want to reinvigorate wild places, as widely and rapidly as is prudently possible."

That sort of puts it in the class of science that recognizes global warming as a human-induced condition.

i wouldn't go that far. this idea needs more study before it gains the status of the overwhelming scientific consensus position backed up by mountains of evidence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4160560.stm

If a group of US researchers have their way, lions, cheetahs, elephants and camels could soon roam parts of North America, Nature magazine reports.

The plan, which is called Pleistocene re-wilding, is intended to be a proactive approach to conservation.

The initiative would help endangered African animals while creating jobs, the Cornell University scientists say.

Evidence also suggests, they claim, that "megafauna" can help maintain ecosystems and boost biodiversity.

"If we only have 10 minutes to present this idea, people think we're nuts," said Harry Greene, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell University, US.

"But if people hear the one-hour version, they realise they haven't thought about this as much as we have. Right now we are investing all our megafauna hopes on one continent - Africa."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4160560.stm
Cool. Maybe I won't have to go to Africa to get my "Big 3"! :sniper: :D

MMMM, now we can have Tiger Burgers at your local McDonalds!

I think England should try somthing like this to, like use crocodiles or aligators as substitues for dragons (THEY'RE REAL I TELL YOU! REAL!)

Seriously though, it's an intresitng idea but if it whent wrong it would be one hell of a mess for the states (think elephant dropings on the roads)

Seriously though, it's an intresitng idea but if it whent wrong it would be one hell of a mess for the states (think elephant dropings on the roads)

couldn't be worse than the kudzu vines in the south. or what the ranchers have already done to the west. or the farmers to the great plains and palouse.

How much d'you wanna bet this idea came about solely because one environmentalist was talking to another and said, whimsically, "Wouldn't it be cool if there was a lion right over there?" and the other environmentalist took him seriously? :P

Anyhoo, I like the way this sounds, but yeah, there probably needs to be a lot more work put into the plan before it'd be considered worthwhile (or practical).

The only real worry I'd have (justified or no, it'd still be there, just like my insane fear of spiders, what with their inherent creepiness and fangs and bristly hair and--..*ahem*) is about, like others have said, the possibilities of escapes from the preserves or whatever they'll call the enclosures. Though not being a rancher myself, the worry is mostly for me and my cat. <.<

How much d'you wanna bet this idea came about solely because one environmentalist was talking to another and said, whimsically, "Wouldn't it be cool if there was a lion right over there?" and the other environmentalist took him seriously? :P

i'd guess it was motivated by a trip to the la brea tar pits.

"damn, i want sabertooth cats running around still. and some mastadons. or at least some lions and elephants or something."

http://www.madisoncity.k12.al.us/Faculty2/SperrCathy/photos/skeleton02.jpg

One more reason to buy a gun.


Someone should write a song about tiger hunting in their backyard with a 44. Magnum Desert Eagle. Or something... okay, bad idea.

Tigers Hunters
:confused: :mp5:
:( :sniper:
:eek: :mp5:

0h y3@! hun73rz pwned j00! w3 r0x0rz

"hun73rz r 1337, m@n. "

h3r3 c0m3 73h hun73rz
7h3y g07 d@ .44 M@gnum D353r7 3@g13 h@ndgun5
7h3y g0nn@ 5h007 up @11 d@ 7!g3r5
7h3y g0nn@ 5h007 7h3!r br@!n5 0u7
7h053 7!g3r5 b3773r run
7h053 7!g3r5 b377r run
7h053 7!g3r5 b377r run
1355 7h3y w@nn@ g37 7h3!r br@!n5 5h07 0u7
h3r3 c0m3 73h hun73rz
7h3y g07 d@ .44 M@gnum D353r7 3@g13 h@ndgun5
7h3y g0nn@ 5h007 up @11 d@ 7!g3r5
7h3y g0nn@ 5h007 7h3!r br@!n5 0u7
7h053 7!g3r5 b3773r run
7h053 7!g3r5 b377r run
7h053 7!g3r5 b377r run
1355 7h3y w@nn@ g37 7h3!r br@!n5 5h07 0u7


I did it. I wrote a song.

"If we only have 10 minutes to present this idea, people think we're nuts," said Harry Greene, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell University, US


Well, I got the equivilant of the 10 minute presentation and I think they're nuts, so I'm with you this far.

I'm not quite sure how taking aninals out of their natural habitat and placing them in this one is suppose to be good for the enviroment.

I'm not quite sure how taking aninals out of their natural habitat and placing them in this one is suppose to be good for the enviroment.

point the first: most of the remaining megafauna is extremely unlikely to survive the next century. and even if we slow the losses down or stabilize them (which it is certainly our duty to help out with), it is better to have many populations across the world than just a few.

point the second: many existing species of megafauna are close relatives of north american species that died off as a combined result of the end of the last ice age and the introduction of a new predator (us) to the system. those species played key roles in the north american ecosystems, whose niches have remained largely unfilled.

point the third: since the na megafauna were killed off we have continued to radically alter the landscape, particularly after the arrival of europeans. mere preservation means an ecosystem dominated by rats and dandelions and such ('weeds and pests' that themselves are introduced species, as the article notes).

basically, the idea is to kill several birds with one stone (and i have never seen a more inapproriate time to use that metaphor). we can increase the biodiversity of existing megafauna populations, offer them better protection against extinction by not keeping all of them in one basket, restore some protected areas to being more 'filled out' as ecosystems, and work to undo some of the ecological damage of our own causing.

so what DO you do about winter?

Man, you guys are looking at it from all the wrong angles!

BRING BACK POACHING FOR IVORY!


(Kidding, as if it weren't inherently obvious)

I'm not digging it. This is a terrible idea.

I like North America the way it is. Wolves are having enough trouble recovering, why would you introduce non-native competition.

Saying these creatures are native is like saying dinosaurs are native. Versions of them once roamed the plains, but they didn't.

Jeez.

I may be OK with this Idea, hey a safari hunt closer were I live, that would be neat.

i just read the actual article in 'nature'...

and you can too.

http://rewilding.org/pdf/Pleistocene-Re-wildingNorthAmerica1.pdf

Wow, this sounds like something that was proposed by someone who has never even visited, let alone lived in the midwest.

Ashmoria so what DO you do about winter?

Good question, how well do you think tropic and subtropic species will do when its -40 out before the windchill for acouple of weeks straight?

Wow, this sounds like something that was proposed by someone who has never even visited, let alone lived in the midwest.

why?

Good question, how well do you think tropic and subtropic species will do when its -40 out before the windchill for acouple of weeks straight?

cows seem to have done well enough, and they're originally from the india and were domesticated in iraq. the camels they want to introduce already live in the gobi. african lions used to live in eastern europe even in historic times. and we know that the close relatives of everything they are talking about were more than able to thrive here - and the weather was colder then, no less. there is absolutely no reason to think the weather will be the factor that makes this impossible.

btw, the russians are working on a similar project in siberia.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0517_050517_pleistocene.html
http://www.faculty.uaf.edu/fffsc/Pleistocene%20Park%20Cana%20-%20Eco.pdf

The midwest is not filled with vast tracks of empty land, just sitting there waiting to be filled. Its home to some of the best farmland in the world, and nearly all privately owned. It would cost billions to buy the land, unles it was something that the gov. would try to use eminate domain to steal it from people.

If such a park were established, what controls would be enacted to the mega fauna, which eveidnce suggests are very nomadic, from leaving the park and causing millions of dollars in damage to crops and proprerty.

BTW, cattle freeze to death all the time. Its a major struggle durring the winter to make sure that herds have enough to eat to keep from freezing when they are out on the open range.

The midwest is not filled with vast tracks of empty land, just sitting there waiting to be filled. Its home to some of the best farmland in the world, and nearly all privately owned. It would cost billions to buy the land, unles it was something that the gov. would try to use eminate domain to steal it from people.

If such a park were established, what controls would be enacted to the mega fauna, which eveidnce suggests are very nomadic, from leaving the park and causing millions of dollars in damage to crops and proprerty.

read the actual article

read the actual article

I did, and i see nothing in there that adresses my conserns.

I did, and i see nothing in there that adresses my conserns.

not even when they talked about setting up a system of private and public reserves?

or when they mentioned fencing and how effective it has been for the african game reserves and national parks?