African animals imported to North America ...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,518
Location
the West Coast
Group Wants to Bring African Animals to North America
By JOSEPH B. VERRENGIA, AP

DENVER (Aug. 17) - If a group of prominent ecologists have their way, lions and elephants could someday be roaming the Great Plains of North America.

The idea of transplanting African wildlife to this continent is being greeted with gasps and groans from other scientists and conservationists who recall previous efforts to relocate foreign species halfway around the world, often with disastrous results.

But the proposal's supporters say it could help save some species from extinction in Africa, where protection is spotty and habitats are vanishing. They say the relocated animals could also restore the biodiversity in North America to a condition closer to what it was before humans overran the landscape more than 10,000 years ago.

Most modern African species never lived on the American prairie, the scientists acknowledge. But some of their biological cousins like mastodons, camels and saber-toothed cats, roamed for more than 1 million years alongside antelope and herds of bison until Ice Age glaciers retreated and humans started arriving.

The rapid extinction of dozens of large mammal species in North America - perhaps due to a combination of climate change and overhunting - triggered a landslide of changes to the environmental landscape. Relocating large animals to vast ecological parks and private reserves would begin to repair the damage, proponents say, while offering new ecotourism opportunities to a withering region.

The scientists' plan appears in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. It is attracting interest from some influential circles, including media mogul Ted Turner, America's largest private landowner. He owns huge ranches in several states to support his commercial bison operation and personal conservation initiatives.

But the plan is also generating criticism on both sides of the conservation debate.

Media mogul Ted Turner is interested in the idea, but many scientists say it's misguided.

"It is not restoration to introduce animals that were never here," said University of Washington anthropologist Donald K. Grayson. "Why introduce Old World camels and lions when there are North American species that could benefit from the same kind of effort?"

Others wonder whether people would support African lions making a home on the range, given the opposition to the reintroduction of native wolves in the rural West.

"Just when you think the world has gotten as weird as it can get, something like this comes along," said Steve Pilcher, executive vice president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association.

"I wonder how many calves or lambs it would take to feed a family of lions for a month?" Pilcher mused. "We sort of know what it takes for wolves, but something tells me we would be in a whole new ball game."

Some wildlife conservationists said the idea would further damage the prospects of both threatened species and Africa's hopes for sustainable economic development.

"Such relocations would affect future tourism opportunities for Africa," said Elizabeth Wamba, the East Africa spokeswoman for the International Fund for Animal Welfare in Nairobi, Kenya. "The welfare of the animals would have been reduced by transporting and exposing them to different eco-climatic conditions."

Critics also point to calamitous relocations of foreign species in Australia. Rabbits brought from Europe swarmed across parts of the Outback, and noxious cane toads brought from South America to control bugs in sugar cane fields killed native wildlife.

The authors of the new plan say they are not discouraged.

"We are not saying this is going to be easy," said Cornell University ecologist Josh Donlan, the lead author of the proposal. "There are huge and substantial risks and obstacles."

The plan grew from a retreat at Turner's New Mexico ranch - a 155,000-acre property in the foothills of the Gila Mountains that contains a mix of ecosystems ranging from desert grasslands to pine forests.

Ecologists are using the ranch to experiment with reintroducing the Bolson tortoise to the region. These 100-pound burrowers were once found across the Southwest, but now survive only in a corner of northern Mexico's Chihuahuan Desert.

The scientists' discussion expanded to consider long-extinct Pleistocene species that have modern counterparts elsewhere in the world.

For example, a larger American cheetah once stalked pronghorn on these lands, with both species evolving special features that enabled them to accelerate to 60 mph. Today, pronghorns rarely are chased, except by the occasional pickup truck.

In Africa, modern cheetahs are being exterminated as vermin, with fewer than 2,000 remaining in some countries. Relocation could help both species retain important traits, the plan's proponents say.

Other living species that are counterparts to Pleistocene-era animals in North America include wild horses and asses, Bactrian camels, elephants and lions.

Donlan concedes that lions would be a tough sell to Americans.

"Lions eat people," he said. "There has to be a pretty serious attitude shift on how you view predators."


08/17/05 13:44 EDT

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050817134809990018&ncid=NWS00010000000001
 
Irvine511 said:
Donlan concedes that lions would be a tough sell to Americans.

"Lions eat people," he said. "There has to be a pretty serious attitude shift on how you view predators."

Apparently more people are trampled on by angry hippos than eaten by lions. Or at least so Animal Park (a UK documentary show) tells me. :wink:
 
Can we fully understand the potential consequences of such a move? There may be a noble effort to "save" one species, but it could be at the expense of others.

I believe the Northeast has had this problem with non-indigenous fish introduced to lakes and ponds in the area.
 
I know the intentions are good, but I personally do not think it is a good idea, merely because we're talking about introducing a foreign species. And, frankly, I don't care if these animals have a Pleistocene-era equivalent in North America; that era is long gone.

Melon
 
It seems to me that the gradual extinction of certain species is just part of nature's natural cycle of things.
 
joyfulgirl said:
It seems to me that the gradual extinction of certain species is just part of nature's natural cycle of things.

I have mixed feelings about this...

On the one hand, you want to save the cute and cuddly(or not-so-cuddly)_____(insert species here).

On the other hand, extincton is part of life...

The main difference seems to be who or what is causing an extinction.
 
I don't know that I'd describe human activity as natural or unnatural, but I do think that such things as deforestation and pollution are having a devastating impact on the environment, including on endangered species.
 
nbcrusader said:
Isn't human activity natural? Are we unnatural? Or just self-aware?
:lmao:

Well, i sit here hidding from the heat in a airconditioned room waiting for my girlfriend to come home and we will go out for greek food tonight. And than i read this,...thanks :up:
 
joyfulgirl said:


Maybe, but I'm not sure.

I guess, but I look at examples like the snow leopard which is now threatened with extinction because of human activities (hunting, traps, more farming means less land available etc) and I can't see how we can describe that as just part of nature.
 
This is a dumb idea.

It would be better to put the money and energy into encouraging Africa to engage in species preservation. Eco-tourism has proven to be a success in places like Kenya, and would be a win-win situation for everyone.

Everyone who's taken a basic Ecology class knows that the rate which humans are consuming resources is unsustainable, and unmatched in any other era of Earth's history. It's natural for species to gradually become extinct, but its the speed and the carelessness which is dangerous. Most of the time, we only know how interconnected the planet is when something has gone wrong, like the introduction of a foreign species.

There's a reason there are lions in Africa and not in North America, and it's not smart to change that. I would rather they concentrate on local species, like wolves. (I love how the cattlemen had to throw their two cents in. :rolleyes: )
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:
I don't know that I'd describe human activity as natural or unnatural, but I do think that such things as deforestation and pollution are having a devastating impact on the environment, including on endangered species.

Obviously, humans have an impact on the environment of other creatures. But so do other animals - some devastating to species.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


I guess, but I look at examples like the snow leopard which is now threatened with extinction because of human activities (hunting, traps, more farming means less land available etc) and I can't see how we can describe that as just part of nature.

For me it's a philosophical question but I don't have time to get into it. I'm not disagreeing with you, I want to save the animals as much as the next person, and do I think we are raping the earth of its natural resources which certainly impacts all life. At the same time, I do wonder how much of what even man does is part of a bigger natural cycle.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


I guess, but I look at examples like the snow leopard which is now threatened with extinction because of human activities (hunting, traps, more farming means less land available etc) and I can't see how we can describe that as just part of nature.

Factually it is a part of nature. If the snow leopard's predator were Lions instead of Humans, we would chalk it up to nature. We just happen to be it's worst predator, just because we have a choice doesn't make it any less "Natural". Man unchecked does what is in man's own best interest. I think you could make an argument that preserving the species is more "Unnatural" to man.

Before anyone jumps on my back, I think it would be perfectly lovely to protect them from extinction, but I do agree with NBC that "Natural" can be a bit of a fuzzy tag. I know it's silly to argue semantics, but maybe an argument based on whether or not it's right or wrong would be more effective than whether or not it's "Natural"

But really, I'm just bored on a Thursday afternoon, and no one has written anything interesting in a little while. :shrug:
 
nbcrusader said:
Obviously, humans have an impact on the environment of other creatures. But so do other animals - some devastating to species.

But humans impact is far more widespread and far more devastating. Of course there are examples of particular species becoming endangered or extinct because of another species, but the impact of human activity is so much more intensive and extensive.
 
starsforu2 said:
I know it's silly to argue semantics, but maybe an argument based on whether or not it's right or wrong would be more effective than whether or not it's "Natural"

In that case, whether natural or otherwise, it's wrong for humans to act in ways which have a devastating impact on the world around them.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


But humans impact is far more widespread and far more devastating. Of course there are examples of particular species becoming endangered or extinct because of another species, but the impact of human activity is so much more intensive and extensive.

Is it because of our actions, or our ability to avoid death? Overpopulation and destruction of resources is devastating on other beings. Humans have beat the system (for now).
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:
In that case, whether natural or otherwise, it's wrong for humans to act in ways which have a devastating impact on the world around them.

Why?

I know we are very careful around FYM when labeling things as "wrong".
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


In that case, whether natural or otherwise, it's wrong for humans to act in ways which have a devastating impact on the world around them.

Now You're talking! Now we can debate on why what we do is bad instead of just labeling it unnatural.

So, is there a good example of man and the rest of nature coexisting well (on a large scale). We can flagellate ourselves to death, but if we have no goal than everything is unmeasurable.

I hear a lot of denunciations of man doing this and man doing that, and so it'd be nice to know if man does anything that is pleasing to the rest of nature, and if not... then what should man do?
 
It's wrong on a moral level - why do we have the right to destroy the environment? Why should we assume our right to tear down forests or pump pollutants into rivers is more important than the next generation's right to breathe clean air or live in a home that doesn't get flooded every time it rains?

It's also wrong on a purely practical level - environmental degredation had already begun to have an impact on humans, for instance low-lying countries which experience more flooding due to global warming.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


But humans impact is far more widespread and far more devastating. Of course there are examples of particular species becoming endangered or extinct because of another species, but the impact of human activity is so much more intensive and extensive.

I was going to post the following as a new thread until I read this one...pretty seamless transition in subject, and also a Bono reference. Is it just me? Or is Bono getting a lot of flack from the 'sustainable development' experts? I think many of them view his aim as naive and misguided, but I believe he has been vocal about using all monies wisely. In spite of the criticism, nobody can deny Bono's role in raising a stink about Africa...the proof of this occurs when the 'experts' casually include his name in the same breath as global movers and shakers. That's a victory in my opinion. And now, it's a cover story in National Geographic. Should be an interesting read, based on the cover below...





By Sadia Latifi, Knight Ridder Newspapers Wed Aug 17, 5:30 PM ET

WASHINGTON - One hundred thousand images, 70,000 miles and 21 countries later, conservationist J. Michael Fay thinks Bono, Live 8 and the G-8 have been misguided.

Fay, a biologist and member of the Wildlife Conservation Society and
National Geographic Society, spent seven months flying at low altitudes across Africa, and he has mapped enough of the human footprint on his trip to be disturbed, he said at a news conference Wednesday to highlight his findings.

"People aren't connecting the dots," he said of African relief efforts. "We gotta stop talking about poverty alleviation, and we gotta start talking about sustainable development."

Fay said he believed international aid to Africa must be transformed to preserve the continent's basic resources instead of extracting them for wealthy nations. Natural resources and conservation management should be part of the psyche of African governments and people worldwide to help make African countries more self-sustaining and so that the world won't keep seeing them as places of constant crisis, he said.

Fay said he had seen mass graves in
AIDS-ridden South Africa as well as dehydrated and dead hippos at Katavi National Park in Tanzania, which he said was a result of the
World Bank's rice-development efforts, which made money but took away water from wildlife.

Fay and pilot Peter Ragg of Austria left South Africa in June 2004 to look at the "interface between humanity and what nature provides for humanity," and to find answers to questions about the origins of the land's most troubled spots, such as Sudan and Niger.

"Darfur, in my opinion, was something we could have seen 30 years ago," Fay said, referring to the region in Sudan where more than 100,000 people have died and millions have been displaced during two years of fighting between black African tribes and Arab militias. Fay pointed to the ecological warning signs: limited habitable space, little productivity of goods and a heavy human "footprint."

It wasn't all disheartening. Fay said he saw examples of a budding commitment to sustainable development. Namibia's healthy soil, grass and wildlife, for example, are the result of a new "conservancy" system that grants communities control over their land with encouragement from the government to produce wisely.

Fay also was amazed to see tens of thousands of lechwe, a type of antelope, alongside humans in Zambia, offering hope that nature and humanity can coexist.

"There is no silver bullet. We can't say we're going to change the world overnight," he said. "Humans have a natural tendency to consume; we take that as a given. But we have to take the natural resource base as a fundamental."

In 2001, Fay walked through miles of African forests to survey wildlife. His findings there led to the creation of 13 national parks in Gabon, which preserve some of the last wild places in Africa from deforestation due to logging.

Fay will address members of Congress' International Conservation Caucus in September about his research. He said he wouldn't mind chatting with
President Bush, World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, British Prime Minister
Tony Blair and U2 singer Bono, who's worked extensively on relief efforts for Africa.





capt.wx10508181422.national_geographic_wx105.jpg
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:
It's wrong on a moral level - why do we have the right to destroy the environment? Why should we assume our right to tear down forests or pump pollutants into rivers is more important than the next generation's right to breathe clean air or live in a home that doesn't get flooded every time it rains?

Thus opens the great FYM question - who decides what is moral?
 
nbcrusader said:


Thus opens the great FYM question - who decides what is moral?



you do. for you.

all of us (and the government, and academia, and the courts, etc.) are continuously dialoging so that we might be able to work out what is currently ethical.
 
Irvine511 said:
you do. for you.

all of us (and the government, and academia, and the courts, etc.) are continuously dialoging so that we might be able to work out what is currently ethical.

But to what end? If it is all relative, you can't say someone else's actions are immoral.
 
nbcrusader said:


But to what end? If it is all relative, you can't say someone else's actions are immoral.



it is all relative.

we do the best we can with what we have when we can.

and i'm fine living my life without being able to judge things moral or immoral.

ethical or unethical, however, we can certainly lable things.

like, (to tie this back to the thread), i think it is unethical to destroy an ecosystem when we don't have to. i think it is unethical to drive SUVs. i think it is unethical to call rapacious human activity "natural" and to label things like EPA standards as beign "anti-business" -- yes, let's all be rich and dead.
 
Back
Top Bottom