"Re-Wilding" of N. American Megafauna?

[AzurePhoenix]

This Article Discusses the idea that extinct North American fauna should be "reintroduced" to America by establishing present day relatives from overseas, such as cheetahs, wild horses and asses, even elephants and lions.

 

The point would be threefold...

 

• to help increase the populations of these declining species and contribute to conservation efforts

• to "restore" long lost Pleistocene megafauna and North American biodiversity

• and, of course, economically benefit rural America through ecotourism

 

Even though I like it, I think most of it sounds too farfetched and undoable, and the article doesn't bring up any of the potential problems. But does anyone think it's feasible? And even if it were possible, should it actually be done?

[Glider]

I think things have changes too much to (re)introduce such species. Cheetah, for example, need savannah populated with large numbers of comparitively small prey animals (e.g. Grant's and Thomsons' gazelle, impala kind of size). Lion need the same (although larger, e.g. gemsbuck or kudu kind of size). The ratio found in Africa is about 800 grazers for every lion. This provides a good balance. The wild horses and asses would be good prey (might be a bit large for cheetah), and would probably do well enough, but there would need to be a lot of them.

 

to create a stable Elephant poulation would take quite a number of animals and they eat a huge amount. I doubt there's enough free (non-agricultural) space in North America for a viable population. At least in the areas that do not drop below zero in winter.

 

I doubt the plan is viable and it wouldn't benefit the animals. The most basic clue is to compare maps of North America and Africa. Compare the "155,000-acre property in the foothills of the Gila Mountains that contains a mix of ecosystems ranging from desert grasslands to pine forests" to something like the rift vally or the serengeti.

 

In my opinion, we would do better to work harder on conserving what'e left than trying to recreate an innacurate reproduction of something that existed before the last ice age.

[AzurePhoenix]

Those were some of my problems. Though there are similarities between the prairies and the savannas, most of the species are adapted to particular climates and diets, and everything out there is either developed, or nestled between developed regions. It'd be like trying to establish a pack of wolves in the empty lot between two homes in suburbia.

 

The Wild horses and asses would probably fare quite well, but there simply isn't enough prey for the predators. And even if cheetahs could potentially adapt to preying on pronghorns, they'd be forgetting the vulnerable position that they happen to be in. Elephants just pose too many problems, not the least of which would be their destructive habits and aforementioned appetites.

 

But even though I think it's too ambitious to "reintroduce" these populations, I do think it's a good idea to maybe attempt to create "naturalistic breeding reserves" for everything but the elephants. Though I suppose it'd be more difficult to prepare group-hunting lions for life on the savanna than it was for those two tigers a couple of years back.

[coquina]

Almost every time a foreign organism is introduced into a new ecosystem, the results are catastrophic. Think about rabbits in Australia, for example.

 

Also think about the fact that they may bring parasitic, bacterial, or viral diseases into the country from which we have no defense. When caucasions arrived in North America, we brought with us measles, and other diseases to which the navtive americans had no natural immunity, and the population was decimated.

 

Africa is home to some mighty nasty micro-critters, ie the organism that causes ebola. Although I think the main reservoir for it is chimpanzees, it may be carried by other animals that don't catch it.

[AzurePhoenix]

Look at hawaii for example. Snakes, boars, cats and mongooses have decimated rare bird populations. Similar thing happened to the dodos. And Florida, like the Land Down Under, has problems with cane toads.

 

I think they've already determined that most African wild cats carry a feline form of aids, but I'm not sure if American species do, or how it might affect them.

 

Like I said, as nice an idea as it is, there are simply too many problems, and not just little ones, but big ol' walloping problems.

 

EDIT: Dammit, I forgot the goats, the goddamn feral goats who just won't give the Galapagos tortoises their fair share. BULLIES!!!

[Mokele]

Let's not forget re-populating Florida with Cuban Crocodiles. It'll do wonders for tourism. "Come to Florida, overrun with terrestrial, fast-running, pack-hunting crocodiles!"

 

Oh, and the American croc, too. People tend to be less fond of members of the pleistocene ecosystem who have meter-long heads and hundreds of pointy teeth.

 

Mokele

[AzurePhoenix]

They did that with Cubans? Moronic losers. And yeah, it's sad that you never see these big plans to repopulate some of the other things, whether they be crocs, pythons or monitors. Classist bastards.

[Mokele]

No, they haven't done it yet, but there's some indication that Cubans lived in FL during the pleistocene, so it'd fit into the "restoration" idea.

 

And actually, there's some repopulation projects for the Orinoco croc doing fairly well, iirc.

[AzurePhoenix]

Hehe. I'm excitable. So sue me

[MattC]

When I first read about this, it seemed exciting and interesting... quite an idea.

 

The more I think about it, the more wild and crazy ... and dangerous it seems to me. If they do this, I hope they study their asses off, because the benefits if it works well are much smaller, in my opinion, than the worst case costs if it goes terribly wrong.

[Aardvark]

The more I think about it' date=' the more wild and crazy ... and dangerous it seems to me. If they do this, I hope they study their asses off, because the benefits if it works well are much smaller, in my opinion, than the worst case costs if it goes terribly wrong.[/quote']

 

Sometimes you should leap before you look.

 

Just introduce some interesting species and see what happens. Elephants on the great plains and Cuban crocodiles in the Condos of Florida. I'd be very happy to see that.

[The Peon]

I think this would be a horrible idea. Species have already radiated to fill all the niches these "removed" species have left (or are in the process of such). To reintroduce them would create havoc on the current ecosystem... IMO...

[Aardvark]

I think this would be a horrible idea. Species have already radiated to fill all the niches these "removed" species have left (or are in the process of such).

 

No, you are mistaken. No species have 'radiated' to fill the niches left by the extinct megafauna. (Unless you count the 'radiation' of swarms of humans).

 

To reintroduce them would create havoc on the current ecosystem... IMO...

 

Introducing species to reoccupy niches would potentially have the effect of making the ecosytem more complex (reversing ecological simplication) and more robust. Species evolue in tandem. When one species is removed it effects others. Restoring a similiar species would potentially have a postive impact.

[Mokele]

(Unless you count the 'radiation' of swarms of humans).

 

But they *do* count. Many of the megafauna species (those not totally dead) require large areas to feed and hunt, and such huge areas simply are not availible in the US anymore. Sure, you *could* introduce lions and elephants, but how long before the elephants are devouring Farmer Bill's corn and the lions have figured out that the yummy pink things can't run very fast?

 

Mokele

[Aardvark]

Sure' date=' you *could* introduce lions and elephants, but how long before the elephants are devouring Farmer Bill's corn and the lions have figured out that the yummy pink things can't run very fast?

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Would that be the corn that needs huge subsidies to be grown, costing the tax payer, the consumer, the third world producer and the environment dearly?

 

Would those yummy pink things be examples of the rapidly decreasing human population of the great plains? Maybe those yummy pink things should budge over and leave a little room for the rest of us.

[Mokele]

Maybe those yummy pink things should budge over and leave a little room for the rest of us.

 

Yes, but you know as well as I do that humanity will *never* do what is right when it means doing something that's detrimental to us, even on the short term.

[Glider]

Especially where 'detrimental' means 'costs a few dollars or reduces our profits'.

[AzurePhoenix]

or even "it does all those good things and doesn't cost me a dime? What's the direct benefit for me? Nothing?! I'm outraged! How could you be so heartless to do something like this to me?! I won't rest until this travesty is brought to an end!!"

[fossilnut]

I think things have changes too much to (re)introduce such species. Cheetah, for example, need savannah populated with large numbers of comparitively small prey animals (e.g. Grant's and Thomsons' gazelle, impala kind of size). .

 

Glider, I agree with the thrust of your posting.

 

One note, however, on cheetahs. Ask most kids what the fastest animal in the world is and most will know it's the cheetah. But who gets the silver medal? The answer is the Pronghorn of the North American grasslands.

 

Why did the Pronghorn evolve to be so fast? On the Canadian prairies Pronghorns are relatively common as once were their natural predators: wolves, coyotes, cougars, bears, etc . These predators, however, haven't any chance of catching a pronghorn.

 

Pronghorns evolved on the North American grasslands before the last ice age and the cheetah is thought to have been the principal predator. I've stood on our grasslands and have herds of pronghorns whiz by and it sure makes me, as a human, feel like a sloth stuck to the ground.

 

No, i don't want cheetahs re-introduced (or other animals) but it sure would be a rush to see a cheetah take off after a pronghorn.

[Glider]

I think you're right, it would be a rush to see cheetah hunting the Canadian prairies. It's an amazing animal.

 

Thing about the other predators is that in the natural balance of things, you're right, they couldn't take out the fittest adult pronghorns, but they could take weaker ones; the very young, very old, the lame or the less watchful. That's the benefit of predation, it keeps the population controlled and healthy.

 

Couger are ambush hunters, like lion, only moreso as they hunt alone. Their habitat indicates that they're not runners. They have to get very close (or wait for their prey to get close) and then attack. Bears (comparitively slow) and coyote (comparitively small) are more likely to take advantage of newborns (or discarded placentas) the crippled, sick dying or dead (they will happily scavenge).

 

Wolves on the other hand are very organised hunters and whilst no wolf could run down a pronghorn, a pack could. The pack will start the pray animals running and will keep them running, often in a large circle, until the weaker animals begin to drop back. Each individual wolf runs in relay to wear the chosen pray animal down until it's exhausted.

 

Even so, I think pronghorns would be a challange as they can maintain high speed for hours. However, wolves have been know to 'probe' groups of animals; starting them running to assess whether or not there are any weak or lame animals in the group that are likely to get left behind. If there aren't, they call off the attack as a waste of energy. The teamwork and coordination of wolf packs is amazing.