Putting the North American plains to use?

[Lief Erikson]

Here's an interesting article I found on BBC.

Big Game "could roam US plains"


The animals would fill a void in the ecosystem

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."

Wild America

During the Pleistocene era - between 1.8 million to about 10,000 years ago - North America was home to a myriad of mega fauna.


Gaining public acceptance is going to be a huge issue, especially when you talk about reintroducing predators



Josh Donlan, Cornell University

Once, American cheetah (Acinonyx trumani) prowled the plains hunting pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) - an antelope-like animal found throughout the deserts of the American Southwest - and Camelops, an extinct camelid, browsed on arid land.

But man's arrival on the continent - about 13,000 years ago, according to one prevalent theory - pushed many of these impressive creatures to extinction.

Their disappearance left glaring gaps in the complex web of interactions, upon which a healthy ecosystem depends. The pronghorn, for example, has lost its natural predator and only its startling speed - of up to about 60mph - hints at its now forgotten foe.

By introducing living counterparts to the extinct animals, the researchers say, these voids could be filled. So, by introducing free-ranging African cheetahs to the Southwest, strong interactions with pronghorns could be restored, while providing cheetahs with a new habitat.

Public acceptance

Other living species that could "stand in" for Pleistocene-era animals in North America include feral horses (Equus caballus), wild asses (E. asinus), Bactrian camels (Camelus bactrianus), Asian (Elephas maximus) and African (Loxodonta africana) elephants and lions (Panthera leo).

"Obviously, gaining public acceptance is going to be a huge issue, especially when you talk about reintroducing predators," said lead author Josh Donlan, of Cornell University. "There are going to have to be some major attitude shifts. That includes realising predation is a natural role, and that people are going to have to take precautions."

However Americans might do more than put up with their new compatriots - they might actually welcome them.

According to Dr Donlan and his colleagues, the re-wilding plan would offer ecotourism and land-management jobs to help the struggling economies of the Great Plains and Southwest.

Dr Donlan said that large tracts of private land are probably the most promising place to start, with each step carefully guided by the fossil record and the involvement of experts and research.

"We are not advocating backing up a van and letting elephants and cheetah out into the landscape," he said. "All of this would be science driven."




I really, really like the idea of having lions, cheetahs, elephants or camels wandering about our huge plains areas. That would be just splendid . My younger sister seems to disagree, out of concern for the ecosystem, and I find that understandable. But some of these creatures apparently lived in this ecosystem in the past, anyway.

I know the idea of introducing large African wildlife into North American plains seems laughable, but I find it very appealing. I've always had a soft spot for dangerous predators, too .

[inked]

LE,

Do you, by chance, in an alterverse, work as a gameskeeper and teach magical animals?

People have enough trouble with puma attacks in British Columbia and the American Northwest. Sure they're gonna want lions and tigers and bears!

O my!

[Lief Erikson]

Don't worry, Dorothy, the good fairy will look after you .

[Mercutio]

There was an article on this in today's Philly newspaper. I'll have to read that too.

[Rían]

interesting idea!

It needs a lot of thought, though - I know that the introduction of some plant and small animal species from other continents completely wiped out the native species

[Lief Erikson]

I expect a lot of research already has been done on the subject. I wish I had an opportunity to see this group's hour-long presentation.

[Nurvingiel]

Interesting thread Lief! That's why it's not a slight against you when I say this idea is, at first glance, the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

The idea of introducing exotic species to manage or conserve an ecosystem, or to get rid of an existing pest, is a bad idea. Introducing an exotic species into an ecosystem to control an exotic pest has been done successfully. The grasslands of the southern interior of British Columbia have a problem with knapweed, an exotic invader. A grub (IIRC) was introduced to the area that would limit knapweed populations because the grub makes its home in the main stem, killing the plant. The grubs were radiated first so that they produce infirtile offspring. To prevent the program dying off after two generations, they simply introduce more radiated grubs.

Before they go ahead with this idea (though I doubt public opinion will be very supportive of this), some questions should be asked.

Is there actually a void in the ecosystem, as the article suggests? Maybe there's an overabundance of deer or something, and they lack a large predator. Maybe they should look at the native predator populations like wolves before they introduce lions. I'm not saying the problem is necessarily deer and wolves, I'm just using it as an example.

RÃ*an brings up a good point as well - Australia's problems with feral cats, dogs, horses, and a bunch of other introduced species outlines this well. Australia has a huge problem with these exotic species damaging their ecosystem.

I'm also not conviced that their research is sound. Otherwise they wouldn't be suggesting elephants. Maybe they should take a look at South Africa's problems with overabundant elephant populations first.

(Edited because I had to restart my computer in the middle of the post.)

I don't personally have a problem with re-introducing predators, but we also have to consider the time-scale. After a certain amount of time, an animal is no longer part of the natural ecosystem.

For example, wild horses in Alberta. 10'000 years ago, our prehistoric ancestors hunted wild horses, which lived in North and South America, to extinction. Now there are herds of escaped feral horses (for all intents and purposes, wild now) causing huge problems in Alberta's grassland ecosystems.

They are no longer part of these ecosystems, and they are doing serious harm. They should probably all be shot (or rounded up, but that's way harder and people aren't willing to do that either), but the situation is a public relations nightmare. (The public does not generally support shooting horses.)

I think the problems in the ecosystem would only be worsened by introducing a variety of exotic plants and animals.

[Rían]

Hi, Nurv! Good to see you!

(please clean out your PM box!!)

I was thinking of the kudzoo (sp?) plant in the south, and some foxes, IIRC, in our Channel Islands, that just stomp all over the native species.

[Tessar]

I can't say I'm really for the idea... Like inked was saying, I don't think the people who live in/around those areas would be too thrilled with bringing -more- deadly animals into their back yards.

I've always had a soft spot for dangerous predators, too .

I really hope you're kidding . I mean, animals are wonderful and everything, but I have no sympathy for an animal that could run me down in a couple of strides and physically rip my head off my shoulders, and likely would if it was hungry enough .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Tessar

I really hope you're kidding .

Well, I'm not kidding .

Originally Posted by Tessar

I mean, animals are wonderful and everything, but I have no sympathy for an animal that could run me down in a couple of strides and physically rip my head off my shoulders, and likely would if it was hungry enough .

I do . Not that I love danger or anything. I don't believe that such creatures would be a great danger to me, even if I did live near them. One is far, far more likely to be killed in a car crash. I very much like the Great White shark, and am mad that it is hunted and cannot reproduce swiftly.

Having African animals living in the US would be wonderful as far as I'm concerned. The worries that (to me) are valid are that the ecosystem might be negatively impacted, and that protecting these animals from poachers would require an enormous amount of money. Those concerns to me are valid. The AIDS and poverty issues in Africa are more worthy of our money than this, I think . So the cost also would have to be taken into account.

I don't really think our ecosystem has much to worry about, though. I have trouble imagining these African animals pushing any of our native species toward extinction.

[Nurvingiel]

(My PM box isn't full... I just flushed it out recently.)


Yes, there are countless examples of introduced or invading species causing problems in new ecosystems. A species moving to a new ecosystem is a natural occurence, but I don't think humans should be accelerating this process.


Edit: Cross-posted with Lief and Tessar

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Having African animals living in the US would be wonderful as far as I'm concerned. The worries that (to me) are valid are that the ecosystem might be negatively impacted, and that protecting these animals from poachers would require an enormous amount of money. Those concerns to me are valid. The AIDS and poverty issues in Africa are more worthy of our money than this, I think . So the cost also would have to be taken into account.

I agree with you that this effort might not be worth the cost. You bring up valid points about poachers, and also other more worthy projects. Introducing these species to North America would take a huge amount of money to do properly (assuming that we even could do it properly).

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't really think our ecosystem has much to worry about, though. I have trouble imagining these African animals pushing any of our native species toward extinction.

I have no trouble imagining problems that might arise from this. Firstly, I'm not convinced we would manage the elephant population adequately, and the only aminal on Earth more destructive than elephants are humans. Elephants provide natural disturbances to their native forests, and they are a valuable part of that ecosystem. If the population becomes too large (which can happen due to a variety of reasons), they do more harm to the forest than good because it can't regenerate fast enough. I believe this is a challenge faced by South Africa right now.

When undertaking an expensive environmental project, maybe we should be asking what the point is before we decide if it's even worthwhile or feasable.

What is this so-called void in the ecosystem anyway?

[Insidious Rex]

Jurassic Park anyone? We are generally clumsy one thumbed louts when it comes to successfully maneuvering the mathematically chaotic prospects of trying to harmoniously match nature. Best to leave it TO nature on such a scale as this. Although Im all for the introduction of the asian oyster into the north american oyster grounds that man himself has destroyed greedily and carelessly. But for horribly selfish reasons I admit... I no longer wish to pay $18 for a dozen freaking oysters...

[Lief Erikson]

Lol.

[Earniel]

The idea is interesting and appealing, but very unpractical IMO. The Pleistocene was a long time ago, the ecosystems have changed, the animals too. By introducing decendants of long-lost animals you are not 'restoring' anything.

If you want to bring in both predators and herbivores you have to change the vegetation accordingly. Elephants eat tremendous amounts of green. I am not familiar with the US Plains but the word 'plain' seem to indicate they will have a lot to replant if they want to keep big herbivores!

Africa has a very rich biodiversity, granted, but to gain that you'd loose whatever biodiversity you previously had on the plains. The original biodiversity of the plains may not have been so spectacular as the African but it is unique and valuable in it's own.

Introducing one animal species into another place is already a huge logistic operation and with many consequences. To introduce several is just asking for trouble, IMO. And a whoooole lot of cash. One simply cannot predict all environmental consequences. This would take years and years of study. Besides, unless you board off the entire plain area you cannot prevent the animals of moving into other eco-systems.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm pretty much approaching this issue from this stance: "It'd be really, really neat if this could work out. I would LOVE to have these wild animals in North America. However, I know full well it's never going to happen ."

It's a neat dream .

[hectorberlioz]

I ownder why they're choosing predators though...we need more antelope!

[trolls' bane]

Yeah, and tortises.

[Bombadillo]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Jurassic Park anyone? We are generally clumsy one thumbed louts when it comes to successfully maneuvering the mathematically chaotic prospects of trying to harmoniously match nature. Best to leave it TO nature on such a scale as this. Although Im all for the introduction of the asian oyster into the north american oyster grounds that man himself has destroyed greedily and carelessly. But for horribly selfish reasons I admit... I no longer wish to pay $18 for a dozen freaking oysters...

You make a great point about the importance of compensating for our past destruction of ecosystems. But, although I know you were half-kidding, I have to point our that oysters don't matter as much as elephants. To me, it seems like the only reason most people (myself included) other than environmentalists themselves give a damn about the environment is because they'd hate to see animals as cool or magificent as the elephant, lion, cheetah, or bald eagle go extinct. As noble as they try to sound it all boils down to preserving their own fascination with those creatures, and nothing fascinates me about an oyster.

But the right way to balance that sentimentality with reason is to put more endangered animals in their real natural habitat. A possible project that goes along with that would be cloning or artificially inseminating a bunch of elephants or integrating males and females in controlled conditions and distributing them throughout Africa (not so much the province of South Africa, since they're too abundant there, but still where most elephants are), not dragging them to America and hoping ever so naively that they'll reproduce enough.

Originally Posted by trolls' bane

Yeah, and tortises.

But probably not on the plain.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

because they'd hate to see animals as cool or magificent as the elephant, lion, cheetah, or bald eagle go extinct. As noble as they try to sound it all boils down to preserving their own fascination with those creatures, and nothing fascinates me about an oyster.

Maybe but have you tried eating a raw elephant with a little tabasco and some lemon? Its a lot harder.