Good idea, or nuts? Scientists want to introduce African megafauna into the wild in North America to replace the predators lost 12,000 years ago when humans first arrived and wiped them out. Hmmmm.....

It is certainly an interesting idea. That said, I have no idea if it would work or not.

It'd be spiffy to see though, such fauna in the US.

Hmm..honestly, introducing animals that will attack and kill humans if they roam too near civilization....

I don't know what benefits this will supposedly have for the ecosystem, but it better be damn good to justify that kind of threat to the general population. It's bad enough where I am having to worry about coyotes and foxes taking your pets, and not having the legal right to even keep them off your property in some places.

Apparently, the scientific community is going out for a mass Darwin Award. "Hey guys! Let's put already dangerous animals into an environment they're not used to, thus pissing them off more!"

*Golf Clap* Niiiice...

I don't expect much good from it. The prime reason why we should be so carefull not to upset existing equilibria is that it is damn hard if not impossible once they are gone.

So now we try to recreate an equilibrium that existed back in times when no one particulary cared for accuratly count animals, so we only guess what it was, we use partly different animals and things are pretty different also because there are more humans.

I don't thinks thats going to work.

Can you image driving 65 (I know everyone drives faster than this in Wyoming) and seeing a cheetah passing your car? (They top out at 70 mph)

You know, I'm actually going to defer to the expertise of the scientific community that it might be good for the ecosystem.

But all that matters very little the first time a lion wanders into a school playground.

First off, cheetahs are about as dangerous as racoons. You could probably beat one off with a rolled up newspaper.

The idea mentioned above is not new, I've been aware of it, in a pie in the sky way, for a while. It is not as crazy as it seems. I've lived in forests with elephants, and when I'm on the mainland I live with lions, mountain lions for sure. I'd rather live with them than a gang of drug dealers. At least animals are reasonable, and, given space, will generally stay out of peoples way.

I have more to say on this but it will have to wait! But yes, Bob, the ecological reasons do make sense. I'll try and explain when I get back from my shorebird survey.

ASB, cheetahs weren't the only animal mentioned in the article, they also mentioned the african lion. And they vaguely mentioned that people would have to take 'precautions'.

I also know that a lot of people around where I live have lost pets and are really peeved that laws prevent them from doing anything to get the coyotes out of their backyards.

Essentially, megafauna (great big aminals, to the chilluns), fill an important niche in an ecosystem, and that niche has been unfilled since we showed up about 12,000 years ago and ate everything to death.

Surgoshan, that much is obvious from the article, but it hasn't been explained excactly what is gained by that niche being filled, and by what means it is gained.

It's just way too vague for my tastes at the moment.

That's because going into detail isn't what the news is about. The news is about getting just enough information for about 5 paragraphs.

For instance, large herbivores tend to maintain grassland so that it remains grassland. To keep them from overwhelming and impoverishing the environment requires predators capable of keeping their numbers reasonable.

That's just an example.
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalpro ... _55024.htm
That abstract suggests a link leading from human arrival in Australia to mass extinction to a massive shift in ecosystem.

Sorry Bob, I was just poking fun. Long tedious explanation coming up.

Ahem.

Actually, lkie the article says, it is kind of hard to give a quick introduction of why this is a good idea. To begin with, it helps to understand tow ecological processes, top down and bottom up. Both refer to the way different trophic levels of the food chain affect one another. Limited plant avaliablity exerts a bottom up process on herbivours above. The population of herbivores is controlled (and predicted even) by avaliablity of food from on high. Top down is the opposite, where the consumers in higher trophic levels control the numbers of prey items. A great deal of ecology is understanding the various interactions within. And a great deal of debate lies in which of these processes are more important.

Recently wildlife and conservation managers have realised that a great deal of the active managment they need to do in order to maintain a healthy ecosystem is as a result of the missing elements of the ecosystems, and the most common aspects of the ecosystem is the megafauna. A problem with too many deer? Probably because no wolves/cougars/lions are around to hunt them. Grass growing too high for Mountain Plovers to nest and forage? Ooops, where are the bison? Trees out of control? Where are the elephants.

In Europe, where the loss of large mammals is worse than the US, refuge managers have begun to introduce feral cattle and horses that have been back-bred to resemble the extinct ancestors (the auroch and tarpan respectively) because they can graze and maintain the vegetaion at natuarl levels. This is simply taking the idea to it's logical conclusion.

Personally, I have no idea if this will ever get off the ground. People probably wouldn't object to camels, and horses, in the form of mustangs, already have been reintroduced in a manner of speaking. Cheetah, like I said, probably wouldn't be a problem.

Lions and elephants, on the other hand, seem somewhat dubious propsitions. Lions, for their fearsome reputation, are actually probably less of a problem than the existing grizzlies. They are timid creatures that are capable of living around humans without too many issues. Elephants, which are possiblly the most needed animal in america's ecosystem, are however the most dangerous. Elephants are keystone species in any environement they exist in, and it is safe to assume they were here too. They clear small trees, they control bush and create habitat for miriads of other species. But I can't see anyone releasing them into litigious america.

They way I invision this happening is the creation of South African style reserves which are fenced in their entirety. the creation of a demarcation between farms, homes and towns, and reserves. This not only reduces local antipathy and fear, but would create a situation like Yellowstone, to which people flock to see North America's remaining megafauna.

Okay. Now their position makes sense!

Still, if an animal poses any danger to people they should at least keep watch to make sure they don't get too close to populated areas.

More likely we'll have to be more careful about putting firm barriers between ourselves and the wild.

It'd also be a good idea to not just dump garbage.