For or against? Bringing extinct animals back to life

[Moontanman]

If they make mammoths i want one about the size of a small pony, GMO mammoths! Let it run loose in the back yard... eat the grass so i don't have to mow it...

[Acme]

Locally and all up and down the east coast there is an influx of coyotes, they are killing pets and domestic animals, they were reintroduced to help keep down the deer population but pets are easier to catch... in a few places cougars are causing problems, out west they have killed several people in recent years, and bears are at an all time high and black bears are more likely to kill you than grizzlies...

 

Their have been some interesting consequences of the genetic bottle neck deer went through about 50 years ago in my old tromping ground, resulting in lots of albino, lecucistic, other weird colored deer.

From what I can find, it is an urban legend that the coyotes were introduced to prey on deer. In your neighboring S. Carolina the coyote predation on deer is a pox according to their DNR. Do you have a reference detailing authorized releases?

 

>> http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/coyote/index.html

Where did they come from?

The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources has NEVER released coyotes into the state for any reason, including deer management.

Coyotes first appeared in the upstate in 1978, they are now present in all counties of South Carolina.

Coyotes were illegally imported into South Carolina for hound running. SCDNR and Federal law enforcement has and will continue to prosecute for this activity.

Eastern migration of coyotes has also resulted in natural expansion of the species in South Carolina.

Seems they were also introduced to Alabama for hound-hunting. >> http://gdomag.com/stories.php?story=10/11/30/3643074

 

As to cougars in the west, Wiki says only 20 human deaths from 1890 to 2011.* source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_in_North_America For those people attacked in the wild, well, sorry about that poor preparedness on your part [or the part of your parent/guardian for those kids' fatalities] and your plain bad luck. What do you expect? Carry at least bear spray and a large sheath knife. If you are comfortable and/or competent, carry a handgun. Put a bell on your bike, pack, shoes, walking stick. Regularly check behind yourself as cougars like to attack from behind as well as from above and behind.

 

As to the attacks in urban areas folks can expect that from time-to-time as we continue to encroach on land previously wild.

 

But none of those critters are extinct so not much to do with resurrecting the extinct. I was being facetious with most the mammoth examples that I earlier gave [excepting providing work for scientists] and even if they do manage to revive them it would likely be a long time if ever that were reintroduced in the wild. I rather imagine that achieving resurrection will provide valuable broader knowledge to biology that makes the effort worthwhile in the absence of any other benefit.

 

Edit: * In comparison, 33 people were killed by domestic dogs in 2013 alone. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Fatalities_reported_in_2013

Edited March 3, 2014 by Acme

[EdEarl]

If they make mammoths i want one about the size of a small pony, GMO mammoths! Let it run loose in the back yard... eat the grass so i don't have to mow it...

I recommend pygmy goats, which are primarily browsers, meaning they will keep the trees clean from ground level to as high as they can reach. Then, the will eat grass. Pygmy goats are from 40cm to 60cm high. The main problem you may have is protecting them from dogs and coyotes. Get at least two so they will not get lonely. You should have at least an acre of land to justify keeping two of them; even so you will have to buy some food for them..

Edited March 3, 2014 by EdEarl

[Moontanman]

From what I can find, it is an urban legend that the coyotes were introduced to prey on deer. In your neighboring S. Carolina the coyote predation on deer is a pox according to their DNR. Do you have a reference detailing authorized releases?

 

>> http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/coyote/index.html

 

Seems they were also introduced to Alabama for hound-hunting. >> http://gdomag.com/stories.php?story=10/11/30/3643074

 

As to cougars in the west, Wiki says only 20 human deaths from 1890 to 2011.* source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_in_North_America For those people attacked in the wild, well, sorry about that poor preparedness on your part [or the part of your parent/guardian for those kids' fatalities] and your plain bad luck. What do you expect? Carry at least bear spray and a large sheath knife. If you are comfortable and/or competent, carry a handgun. Put a bell on your bike, pack, shoes, walking stick. Regularly check behind yourself as cougars like to attack from behind as well as from above and behind.

 

As to the attacks in urban areas folks can expect that from time-to-time as we continue to encroach on land previously wild.

 

But none of those critters are extinct so not much to do with resurrecting the extinct. I was being facetious with most the mammoth examples that I earlier gave [excepting providing work for scientists] and even if they do manage to revive them it would likely be a long time if ever that were reintroduced in the wild. I rather imagine that achieving resurrection will provide valuable broader knowledge to biology that makes the effort worthwhile in the absence of any other benefit.

 

Edit: * In comparison, 33 people were killed by domestic dogs in 2013 alone. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Fatalities_reported_in_2013

 

 

I live in NC, in WV where i am from they were indeed released to help control deer which they did not. Coyotes kill and eat pets regularly, I never suggested they kill and eat people but i would have to assume it's possible..

I recommend pygmy goats, which are primarily browsers, meaning they will keep the trees clean from ground level to as high as they can reach. Then, the will eat grass. Pygmy goats are from 40cm to 60cm high. The main problem you may have is protecting them from dogs and coyotes. Get at least two so they will not get lonely. You should have at least an acre of land to justify keeping two of them; even so you will have to buy some food for them..

Goat are too common...lol

[Acme]

I live in NC, in WV where i am from they were indeed released to help control deer which they did not. Coyotes kill and eat pets regularly, I never suggested they kill and eat people but i would have to assume it's possible..

 

Goat are too common...lol

Ok But I couldn't find a reference to such an intentional release. Do you have one?

 

Checking Wiki I find the following on coyote attacks. No deaths reported. The ones I sell to can't even kill a roadrunner.

Coyote attacks on humans: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_attacks_on_humans

Coyote attacks on humans are uncommon and rarely cause serious injuries, due to the relatively small size of the coyote, but have been increasingly frequent, especially in the state of California. In the 30 years leading up to March 2006, at least 160 attacks occurred in the United States, mostly in the Los Angeles County area.In comparison 300,000 people a year go to hospitals for dog bite related injuries.[1]

Edit: searching specifically for coyotes in W, Virginia I find a similar scenario as outlined for S. Carolina and Alabama That is, they were not intentionally released. >> http://www.wvdnr.gov/2005news/05news024.shtm

Data, collected through observational surveys conducted annually by the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources' Wildlife Resources Section, has shown a steady increase in coyote sightings during the past several years. These coyote populations are not evenly distributed across the state, and coyote sightings were reported more commonly in the southern and southwestern regions and less frequently in the eastern panhandle and mountain regions of the state.

 

 

 

Historically, the coyote was found in the Great Plains of the West. During the past 50 years, however, the coyote has expanded its range into most of the eastern states, including all 55 counties in West Virginia . The cause for this eastern expansion is primarily related to the following two factors: extinction of the eastern wolf (prior to extirpation, wolves dominated other canids in the wild); and re-establishment of abundant deer herds (deer may constitute a significant food source for coyotes).

...

Edited March 3, 2014 by Acme

[Moontanman]

Ok But I couldn't find a reference to such an intentional release. Do you have one?

 

Checking Wiki I find the following on coyote attacks. No deaths reported. The ones I sell to can't even kill a roadrunner.

Coyote attacks on humans: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_attacks_on_humans

 

 

If a group of dogs can kill a human you would have to assume a group of coyote's might do it but the main effect has been killing and eating pets, dogs and cats. They rarely bother deer but a lone dog or cat is toast. Evidently you are correct in that the expansion is natural although people are suddenly seeing their dogs and cats eaten by coyotes are difficult to convince.

 

In my old home town they have become a big problem preying on domestic dogs and cats, I lived there 40 years ago and no coyotes were known. I was an avid hunter and trapper and i would have seen them at least when i was trapping foxes.

 

The rumors of intentional release I cannot confirm and retract. http://www.wvdnr.gov/hunting/coyoteresearch.shtm

 

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/02/15/3624739/dogs-life-among-red-wolves.html

[Acme]

If a group of dogs can kill a human you would have to assume a group of coyote's might do it but the main effect has been killing and eating pets, dogs and cats. They rarely bother deer but a lone dog or cat is toast. Evidently you are correct in that the expansion is natural although people are suddenly seeing their dogs and cats eaten by coyotes are difficult to convince.

 

In my old home town they have become a big problem preying on domestic dogs and cats, I lived there 40 years ago and no coyotes were known. I was an avid hunter and trapper and i would have seen them at least when i was trapping foxes.

 

The rumors of intentional release I cannot confirm and retract. http://www.wvdnr.gov/hunting/coyoteresearch.shtm

 

 

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/02/15/3624739/dogs-life-among-red-wolves.html

Acknowledge rumor retraction. If the rumor did indeed come from pet owners I'm not surprised. As to packs of dogs I don't think they account for any significant part of the total of dog attacks whether fatal or not. FWIW I'm no fan of keeping pets and a few less equates to better off for me. But that's another topic.

 

Trying to inflate the danger of wild critters whether large or small, extinct or extant, is little more than fear mongering. I'm not inclined to sympathy for hunters' or ranchers' arguments against reintroducing animals any more than I'm sympathetic to pet owners as they don't understand or don't care about the larger scientific perspective, rather their concerns are for their own small personal piece of pie.

 

The ignorant mind, with its infinite afflictions, passions, and evils, is rooted in the three poisons. Greed, anger, and delusion. ~ Bodhidharma

[Moontanman]

Wel if coyotes jump my fence and eat my dogs they better eat fast, a 12 gauge is hard to outrun...

[CaptainPanic]

 

Why be for? what are the benefits?

 

The awesomeness of it.

 

The article (in the OP) mentions that someone practically fell in love with an extinct species of pigeon, and dedicated his life to bring it back. That is not a rational attempt to do as much good for the planet with the least effort. That is entirely emotional. It is just about as useful as people maintaining old cars, or people spending a lot of effort creating some art. It's awesome. It can motivate. You can even say that these kind of things make use human... but they have one thing on common: they're rather pointless in the big picture.

 

The first pigeons/mammoths/sabretooths won't roam the steppes. They'll be shown in a zoo (which can instantly triple the entrance fee). If they plan to release thousands into the wild (and they probably plan to, but that's just a little plan), then we may have to consider the wisdom of that at a later stage.

 

In the case of the mammoths, I'm all for it. Humans have a good track record when it comes to population control of big beasts with tusks, so we have a plan B if their de-extinction goes wrong.

[EdEarl]

 

EdEarl, on 02 Mar 2014 - 6:19 PM, said:

I recommend pygmy goats, which are primarily browsers, meaning they will keep the trees clean from ground level to as high as they can reach. Then, the will eat grass. Pygmy goats are from 40cm to 60cm high. The main problem you may have is protecting them from dogs and coyotes. Get at least two so they will not get lonely. You should have at least an acre of land to justify keeping two of them; even so you will have to buy some food for them..

Goat are too common...lol

 

They are quite and inexpensive grounds keepers; though, might eat things you don't want them to. They are also better for the environment than a gasoline lawn mower. But, you are right, they don't tickle one's fancy like an exotic pygmy woolly mammoth.

[Greg H.]

If they make mammoths i want one about the size of a small pony, GMO mammoths! Let it run loose in the back yard... eat the grass so i don't have to mow it...

Those are called goats.

[CaptainPanic]

Those are called goats.

 

So, recap:

 

If it walks like a mammoth.

Has tusks like a mammoth,

Has a trunk like a mammoth,

Eats grass like a mammoth,

But is the size of a goat... It's a goat?

 

/me points at the OP, looking innocently, not wanting to hijack this thread...

[Moontanman]

 

So, recap:

 

If it walks like a mammoth.

Has tusks like a mammoth,

Has a trunk like a mammoth,

Eats grass like a mammoth,

But is the size of a goat... It's a goat?

 

/me points at the OP, looking innocently, not wanting to hijack this thread...

 

 

As long as the first four are true call em what ever they want... I'm not sure we under stand GMO well enough to manipulate life forms quite that much but bringing extinct animals could give us this technology eventually...

[Greg H.]

 

So, recap:

 

If it walks like a mammoth.

Has tusks like a mammoth,

Has a trunk like a mammoth,

Eats grass like a mammoth,

But is the size of a goat... It's a goat?

 

/me points at the OP, looking innocently, not wanting to hijack this thread...

No - if what you want is a hoofed critter to mow your grass that doesn't take up a lot of room, get a goat, not a genetically engineered version of a genetically de-extincted critter.

 

The issue is, veering back to the subject of the OP for a minute, that we have no idea how these creatures would react to the modern world. A wooly mammoth is NOT just a big furry elephant. They were a unique species evolved to deal with a unique set of ecological needs. Reviving them is questionable at best. I am reminded of the line from Jurassic Park.

 

To paraphrase, Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

 

If we want to revive extinct species, then we need to first focus on those that human activity, rather than evolutionary failure, have rendered extinct.

[Moontanman]

No - if what you want is a hoofed critter to mow your grass that doesn't take up a lot of room, get a goat, not a genetically engineered version of a genetically de-extincted critter.

 

The issue is, veering back to the subject of the OP for a minute, that we have no idea how these creatures would react to the modern world. A wooly mammoth is NOT just a big furry elephant. They were a unique species evolved to deal with a unique set of ecological needs. Reviving them is questionable at best. I am reminded of the line from Jurassic Park.

 

To paraphrase, Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

 

If we want to revive extinct species, then we need to first focus on those that human activity, rather than evolutionary failure, have rendered extinct.

 

 

Wooly mammoths are by definition big furry elephants, no reason to expect them to have significant behavior differences. Fossils indicate they had most of the identifiable behaviors of elephants. turning them loose would be problematic I agree...

As for other paleofauna I am not sure but I thin the mammoth is the only one we have a snow balls chance of resurrecting... a few small herds in out of the way places could be managed I am sure...

[dimreepr]

 

The awesomeness of it.

 

The article (in the OP) mentions that someone practically fell in love with an extinct species of pigeon, and dedicated his life to bring it back. That is not a rational attempt to do as much good for the planet with the least effort. That is entirely emotional. It is just about as useful as people maintaining old cars, or people spending a lot of effort creating some art. It's awesome. It can motivate. You can even say that these kind of things make use human... but they have one thing on common: they're rather pointless in the big picture.

 

The first pigeons/mammoths/sabretooths won't roam the steppes. They'll be shown in a zoo (which can instantly triple the entrance fee). If they plan to release thousands into the wild (and they probably plan to, but that's just a little plan), then we may have to consider the wisdom of that at a later stage.

 

In the case of the mammoths, I'm all for it. Humans have a good track record when it comes to population control of big beasts with tusks, so we have a plan B if their de-extinction goes wrong.

 

People who spend their own time and money on projects like restoring cars or creating art, feel free, ethics aren't involved; the same can’t be said for wanting to create animals for zoo’s or the wild, which would just add further issues to the ever increasing problem of trying to safeguard what we already have.

 

I was awestruck this morning, whilst walking the dogs, a kingfisher put on a great display of its fishing prowess.

[EdEarl]

Woolly Mammoth were adapted to a cold climate, I think. With the climate heading into hellish heating, perhaps we could put a herd on Antarctica. I expect Siberia and Canada will be too warm. However, if we revive the mammoth, we would should revive a number of other animals to make a diverse biosphere, and I don't think that the genes are available to do that. On the other hand, we might release wolves, rabbits, deer, elk, mice, rats, and Siberian tigers, etc. to simulate a diverse Eco-sphere.

[Moontanman]

Woolly Mammoth were adapted to a cold climate, I think. With the climate heading into hellish heating, perhaps we could put a herd on Antarctica. I expect Siberia and Canada will be too warm. However, if we revive the mammoth, we would should revive a number of other animals to make a diverse biosphere, and I don't think that the genes are available to do that. On the other hand, we might release wolves, rabbits, deer, elk, mice, rats, and Siberian tigers, etc. to simulate a diverse Eco-sphere.

 

 

so screw the penguins? I don't think mammoths required quite that cold of a climate, they did live in areas free of ice and even down into warm areas of NA. I think they probably migrated much like caribou and musk oxen or moose. all of them have been pushed to the limits of their range and used to be more widespread. woolly mammoths could integrate into that ecosystem and probably wouldn't be much more dangerous than moose or Kodiak beers...

[Acme]

People who spend their own time and money on projects like restoring cars or creating art, feel free, ethics aren't involved;

Not so. Older cars in particular have engines lacking pollution control for example. And remember the flap a while back over that cartoon of Mohamed with a bomb in his turban? No end of other examples if one bothers to look.

...the same cant be said for wanting to create animals for zoos or the wild, which would just add further issues to the ever increasing problem of trying to safeguard what we already have.

 

I was awestruck this morning, whilst walking the dogs, a kingfisher put on a great display of its fishing prowess.

Awww isn't that just all warm & cuddly. Not. This link gives data on a specific area, but the principles extend to taking dogs into any wild area. Safeguarding what we already have by taking your doggy along? I think not.

 

http://tchester.org/srp/lists/dogs.html

The Effect of Dogs On Wildlife

...

Direct Predation

...

Indirect Predation

...

Disease Transmission.

...

Competition for Resources.

...

Addition of nitrogen to the soil.

...

Scent?

...

[chadn737]

You all have been watching way too much Jurassic Park. Why would we need or want to bring back entire herds of mammoths or repopulate them in the wild? Now for certain species that have recently gone extinct (last couple of hundred years) I see the logic behind that. Say bringing back the Tasmanian tiger or the dodo. Going through with this process would enable us to develop the technology, which could prove essential is preserving many endangered species. We already keep many animals in zoos, including elephants. I see no reason why if a mammoth was raised with captive elephants, that this would not prove a viable alternative. Visions of mammoths reigning terror on humans are far-fetched. This is not some isolated island where vast numbers of dinosaurs are fighting ~10 unarmed people. Besides, we killed them off before when all we had was fire and spears.

 

The morals of bringing back a Neanderthal are in a completely different league though, because its safe to assume that the Neanderthal has higher cognitive abilities that would put them on par with many modern humans, which introduces a truly unique moral dilemma. But with species like the mammoth, I do not see the problem.

[dimreepr]

Not so. Older cars in particular have engines lacking pollution control for example. And remember the flap a while back over that cartoon of Mohamed with a bomb in his turban? No end of other examples if one bothers to look.

 

 

Accepted, although, out of context in this thread.

 

Awww isn't that just all warm & cuddly. Not. This link gives data on a specific area, but the principles extend to taking dogs into any wild area. Safeguarding what we already have by taking your doggy along? I think not.

 

 

Strawman, I made no mention of the specifics of my dog walking, in this case along a well used canal tow path in a semi-urban environment. Let’s just stick to the topic please.

[Moontanman]

Mammoths survived into historical times 4,200 years ago, a bit of a stretch i know.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth

 

The woolly mammoth (M. primigenius) was the last species of the genus. Most populations of the woolly mammoth in North America and Eurasia, as well as all the Columbian mammoths (M. columbi) in North America, died out around the time of the last glacial retreat, as part of a mass extinction of megafauna in northern Eurasia and the Americas. Until recently, the last woolly mammoths were generally assumed to have vanished from Europe and southern Siberia about 12,000 years ago, but new findings show some were still present there about 10,000 years ago. Slightly later, the woolly mammoths also disappeared from continental northern Siberia.^[18] A small population survived on St. Paul Island, Alaska, up until 3750 BC,^[2][19][20] and the small^[21] mammoths of Wrangel Island survived until 1650 BC.^[22][23] Recent research of sediments in Alaska indicates mammoths survived on the American mainland until 10,000 years ago.^[24]

 

 

 

Dwarfing occurred with the pygmy mammoth on the outer Channel Islands of California, but at an earlier period. Those animals were very likely killed by early Paleo-Native Americans, and habitat loss caused by a rising sea level that split Santa Rosae into the outer Channel Islands.^{[citation needed]}

 

[Arete]

Why would we need or want to bring back entire herds of mammoths or repopulate them in the wild?

 

Pleistocene rewilding proponents are advocating a very similar approach - the return of North America to 13,000 years ago http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7053/full/436913a.html http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01379.x/full. In the absence of extinct species, their idea is to populate North America with cheetahs, Asian and African elephants and lions to replicate the megafauna of the Pleistocene. If reintroducing mammoths were a possibility, they'd be all for it.

 

"Although the cheetahs, lions and mammoths that once roamed North America are extinct, the same species or close relatives have survived elsewhere, and our discussions focused on introducing these substitutes to North American ecosystems. We believe that these efforts hold the potential to partially restore important ecological processes, such as predation and browsing, to ecosystems where they have been absent for millennia."

 

http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v296/n6/full/scientificamerican0607-70.html

 

Personally, I think biological conservation should be undertaken in a more systems based approach than species based. Ultimately, preserving the ecological function and evolutionary potential of a biome is vastly more important than preserving individual species. While the conservation of certain keystone and charismatic species might work well as a proxy for preserving biological systems and evolutionary units, I think that species-centric approaches at the expense of systemic approaches are myopic.

 

As such, would think you'd need to carefully consider how intact the ecological system an extinct organism was a component of before its extinction, and how important to the robustness of that system the organism was before undertaking that type of approach. No point bringing back a thylacine if its habitat no longer exists, or the balance of the ecosystem it was a part of has fundamentally shifted.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Arete

[chadn737]

 

Pleistocene rewilding proponents are advocating a very similar approach - the return of North America to 13,000 years ago http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7053/full/436913a.html http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01379.x/full. In the absence of extinct species, their idea is to populate North America with cheetahs, Asian and African elephants and lions to replicate the megafauna of the Pleistocene. If reintroducing mammoths were a possibility, they'd be all for it.

 

"Although the cheetahs, lions and mammoths that once roamed North America are extinct, the same species or close relatives have survived elsewhere, and our discussions focused on introducing these substitutes to North American ecosystems. We believe that these efforts hold the potential to partially restore important ecological processes, such as predation and browsing, to ecosystems where they have been absent for millennia."

 

http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v296/n6/full/scientificamerican0607-70.html

 

Personally, I think biological conservation should be undertaken in a more systems based approach than species based. Ultimately, preserving the ecological function and evolutionary potential of a biome is vastly more important than preserving individual species. While the conservation of certain keystone and charismatic species might work well as a proxy for preserving biological systems and evolutionary units, I think that species-centric approaches at the expense of systemic approaches are myopic.

 

As such, would think you'd need to carefully consider how intact the ecological system an extinct organism was a component of before its extinction, and how important to the robustness of that system the organism was before undertaking that type of approach. No point bringing back a thylacine if its habitat no longer exists, or the balance of the ecosystem it was a part of has fundamentally shifted.

 

I agree with your opinion of preserving the ecosystem rather than the species to an extent. There really is no pristine wilderness left and as a whole, the function of ecosystems are what is vital to us as humans. I think those wanting to restore pleistocene habitats are crazy.

 

But...there is value in preserving species or their germplasm. The genetic diversity that is lost could be a valuable resource. I typically think more in terms of plant diversity than animal diversity, but there is potential value in it all. Hence the rationale behind preserving landraces and wild relatives of any number of crop species. I also see value in bringing back species even if they do not have a natural habitat to return too, such as the mammoth. If one were to bring back mammoths, I honestly would think they would live out in captivity. Unless people have a profound moral problem with captive animals...I do not...I don't see the issue.

[Acme]

Accepted, although, out of context in this thread.

 

 

Strawman, I made no mention of the specifics of my dog walking, in this case along a well used canal tow path in a semi-urban environment. Let’s just stick to the topic please.

You are the one who brought these things up. I am the one who showed your assessments questionable if not false. Pet owners are not part of the solution to protecting endangered species, they are part of the problem. The more wildlife we protect while it's here, the fewer we will have to worry about bringing back.