For or against? Bringing extinct animals back to life

[dimreepr]

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.

 

 

Another strawman, I was replying, not introducing; certain pets are indeed a problem, cats for instance IIRC are responsible for more extinctions, directly, than man.

 

The more wildlife we protect while it's here, the fewer we will have to worry about bringing back.

 

 

No argument from me.

[Acme]

Another strawman, I was replying, not introducing; certain pets are indeed a problem, cats for instance IIRC are responsible for more extinctions, directly, than man.

 

 

No argument from me.

But you are arguing. Reply, bring up, introduce, whatever. A comment by any other name must stand due criticism. While you bring up cats, which I agree are a problem, you ignore the negative consequences of your dog. How convenient.

 

I see a bigger problem to bringing back extinct species from baseless objections of folks feeling they have some special position than from the actual technical difficulties. Just as with Moontan's thinking authorities introduced the coyotes, when in fact in at least 2 states it was dog owners who wanted to hunt them that did the introducing. What really was reintroduced in the East was the Red Wolf, and now the hunters are whining because they can't tell them from the coyotes and it's messing up their hunting because they're not allowed to kill the wolves.

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. ...

I'm more of a plant guy myself [too?]. If the plant community isn't there to support the animals, the problems only multiply for reintroducing extinct or endangered species. Here in the Pacific Northwest the Fender's blue butterfly is endangered as it is host-specific to Kincaid's Lupine which is endangered due to habitat being lost to development/farming. Then there is the Spotted Owl and the...yada yada yada. [On a more promising note, wolves and wolverines are starting to reappear in Oregon.]

 

A major impediment to maintaining native plants are the invasives that push them out. I started a thread on the subject but it went nowhere fast. Again, I think people are more concerned with their nicely mown and watered lawns -and their snuggly pets- than any wider concern for environments.

 

The Svalbard Global Seed Vault is perhaps a model for what we need in the animal kingdom. In the article of the OP, the guy wanting to bring back those Pigeons had no end of trouble securing DNA for his work.

Svalbard Global Seed Vault: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault

[Moontanman]

 

But you are arguing. Reply, bring up, introduce, whatever. A comment by any other name must stand due criticism. While you bring up cats, which I agree are a problem, you ignore the negative consequences of your dog. How convenient.

 

I see a bigger problem to bringing back extinct species from baseless objections of folks feeling they have some special position than from the actual technical difficulties. Just as with Moontan's thinking authorities introduced the coyotes, when in fact in at least 2 states it was dog owners who wanted to hunt them that did the introducing. What really was reintroduced in the East was the Red Wolf, and now the hunters are whining because they can't tell them from the coyotes and it's messing up their hunting because they're not allowed to kill the wolves.

 

I'm more of a plant guy myself [too?]. If the plant community isn't there to support the animals, the problems only multiply for reintroducing extinct or endangered species. Here in the Pacific Northwest the Fender's blue butterfly is endangered as it is host-specific to Kincaid's Lupine which is endangered due to habitat being lost to development/farming. Then there is the Spotted Owl and the...yada yada yada. [On a more promising note, wolves and wolverines are starting to reappear in Oregon.]

 

A major impediment to maintaining native plants are the invasives that push them out. I started a thread on the subject but it went nowhere fast. Again, I think people are more concerned with their nicely mown and watered lawns -and their snuggly pets- than any wider concern for environments.

 

The Svalbard Global Seed Vault is perhaps a model for what we need in the animal kingdom. In the article of the OP, the guy wanting to bring back those Pigeons had no end of trouble securing DNA for his work.

Svalbard Global Seed Vault: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault

 

 

 

How is walking your dog, around here they have to be on a leash, hurting the environment, I walk my dogs, pick up after them, and do not allow them to hunt any wild animals although they do occasionally get hold of a opossum which is hilarious, when they fall over and play dead the dogs don't know what to do with it, they poke it with their noses and run in circles howling... if it won't run they have no interest in it except to bark at it...

Cat's are indeed a different story, many if not most run wild and kill for no reason since they are being fed my their owners... When I move in with my dogs (fenced back yards) the small animal population begins to go up immediately, lizards, toads, snakes do much better when not being consistently hunted by cats...

 

I have a dog or two that liked to kill and eat rats and squirrels which are just rats with fuzzy tails but their success rate was quite small except for one who would use a "baited field" to catch squirrels..

Edited March 3, 2014 by Moontanman

[Acme]

How is walking your dog, around here they have to be on a leash, hurting the environment, I walk my dogs, pick up after them, and do not allow them to hunt any wild animals although they do occasionally get hold of a opossum which is hilarious, when they fall over and play dead the dogs don't know what to do with it, they poke it with their noses and run in circles howling... if it won't run they have no interest in it except to bark at it...

 

Cat's are indeed a different story, many if not most run wild and kill for no reason since they are being fed my their owners... When I move in with my dogs (fenced back yards) the small animal population begins to go up immediately, lizards, toads, snakes do much better when not being consistently hunted by cats...

 

I have a dog or two that liked to kill and eat rats and squirrels which are just rats with fuzzy tails but their success rate was quite small except for one who would use a "baited field" to catch squirrels..

I gave a link outlining the negative effects of dogs on wildlife. Here it is again. >>http://tchester.org/srp/lists/dogs.html While I only quoted headings when I gave the link, each heading has material substantiating it as well as some links. I point out it was written by a dog owner.

 

Your arguments strike me as the fallacy of 'No true Scottsman', which is to say you are a true/good dog owner and it's only other folks that are false/bad dog owners. Making light of your dog(s) killing squirrels does nothing to allay my concerns.

 

While I have no [ethical] problem with zoos, raising livestock, or keeping working animals such as service dogs, I find pet-keeping to be rather selfish and on the whole damaging to environments. Not only so with domesticated pets, but with exotic pets all the more. Not only can the exotics cause havoc in the environment in which they are kept [pythons, goldfish, etc.], the collecting of them in the wild is a major world-wide problem. Someone said we should stop the extinctions that we can before we bring back any species, but I think those are not mutually exclusive goals. Bringing back extinct species adds to the broader biological sciences, whereas preventing extinctions would prevent unnecessary restoritivework.

 

http://www.bornfreeusa.org/facts.php?more=1&p=439

Get The Facts:

 

Ten Fast Facts about Exotic Pets

 

1.Millions of wild animals, including reptiles, large felines, nonhuman primates, and others, are kept in private possession in the U.S. The trade in exotic animals is a multi-billion-dollar-a-year industry.

2.Exotic pets are wild animals that do not adjust well to a captive environment. They require special care, housing, diet, and maintenance that the average person cannot provide.

3.It is estimated that between 5,000 and 7,000 tigers are kept as pets more than exist in the wild. A tiger can be purchased for as little as $300, or less than the cost of a purebred dog.

4.Animals enter the exotic pet trade from a variety of sources. Some are stolen from their native habitat; some are surplus from zoos or menageries; some are sold at auctions or in pet shops; while others come from backyard breeders. The Internet has dramatically increased the ease with which people can find and purchase wild animals for their private possession.

5.Exotic pets purchased as infants are abandoned by their keepers as they age and become impossible to control. Sanctuaries cannot accommodate the large numbers of unwanted pets. As a result, the majority of these animals are euthanized, abandoned, or doomed to live in deplorable conditions.

6.Across the country, privately-held exotic animals held have escaped from their enclosures and have attacked humans and other animals with sometimes fatal results.

7.Many exotic pets can transmit deadly diseases including herpes B, monkeypox, and salmonellosis to humans.

8.An estimated 90 percent of all reptiles carry and shed salmonella in their feces. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that 93,000 salmonella cases caused by exposure to reptiles are reported each year in the United States. As many as 90 percent of all macaque monkeys are infected with herpes B virus, which harmless to monkeys but often fatal in humans.

9.The American Veterinary Medical Association, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the CDC have all expressed opposition to the possession of certain exotic animals by individuals.

10.The sale and possession of exotic animals is regulated by a patchwork of federal, state and local laws that generally vary by community and by animal. Eighteen states prohibit possession of at least large cats, wolves, bears, nonhuman primates, and dangerous reptiles. Ten states have a partial ban, prohibiting possession of some exotic animals. Thirteen states require a license or permit to possess exotic animals. Many cities and counties have adopted ordinances that are more stringent than the state law.

[Moontanman]

I gave a link outlining the negative effects of dogs on wildlife. Here it is again. >>http://tchester.org/srp/lists/dogs.html While I only quoted headings when I gave the link, each heading has material substantiating it as well as some links. I point out it was written by a dog owner.

 

Your arguments strike me as the fallacy of 'No true Scottsman', which is to say you are a true/good dog owner and it's only other folks that are false/bad dog owners. Making light of your dog(s) killing squirrels does nothing to allay my concerns.

 

While I have no [ethical] problem with zoos, raising livestock, or keeping working animals such as service dogs, I find pet-keeping to be rather selfish and on the whole damaging to environments. Not only so with domesticated pets, but with exotic pets all the more. Not only can the exotics cause havoc in the environment in which they are kept [pythons, goldfish, etc.], the collecting of them in the wild is a major world-wide problem. Someone said we should stop the extinctions that we can before we bring back any species, but I think those are not mutually exclusive goals. Bringing back extinct species adds to the broader biological sciences, whereas preventing extinctions would prevent unnecessary restoritivework.

 

http://www.bornfreeusa.org/facts.php?more=1&p=439

 

 

I doubt very seriously we can discuss this since i totally disagree, humans have been dragging exotic species around with us for many thousands of years, domestic animals is part of how we conquered the world. I take good care of my animals, I do not allow them to run free, squirrels are a nuisance, they have no real predators and are every bit as destructive as rats which we spread around the world. I am a responsible pet owner, I do my best to promote responsible pet owner ship in every way i can. No many people are not responsible at all only changing laws and attitudes can do anything about that.

 

I suggest you do a bit of research about the collecting of wild fishes as pets, in many areas it is a sustainable way the people there make a living. The vast majority of freshwater fish are captive bred and marine fish are becoming that way. Pollution and habitat destruction are many orders of magnitude more destructive than the pet trade.

 

I happen to agree with much of the take on things like big cats, monkeys, and other wild creatures.

[Acme]

I doubt very seriously we can discuss this since i totally disagree, humans have been dragging exotic species around with us for many thousands of years, domestic animals is part of how we conquered the world. I take good care of my animals, I do not allow them to run free, squirrels are a nuisance, they have no real predators and are every bit as destructive as rats which we spread around the world. I am a responsible pet owner, I do my best to promote responsible pet owner ship in every way i can. No many people are not responsible at all only changing laws and attitudes can do anything about that.

 

I suggest you do a bit of research about the collecting of wild fishes as pets, in many areas it is a sustainable way the people there make a living. The vast majority of freshwater fish are captive bred and marine fish are becoming that way. Pollution and habitat destruction are many orders of magnitude more destructive than the pet trade.

 

I happen to agree with much of the take on things like big cats, monkeys, and other wild creatures.

No. I can discuss it, it is you who cannot. Chadn recently informed me that appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy; perhaps he will comment here as well. Moreover, once again you ignored the facts of the damage your "good" dog ownership does that I laid out with my reference. You and other dog owners share part of the blame for habitat destruction and the harassment and death of many wild animals, plants, and their ecosystems. Deny it all you want, but the facts remain.

 

If you have data to back up any of your claims, then present it so I can find fault at the source if it is there to find. Recall how misinformed you were about the coyotes? Is it possible you are misinformed on your other assertions? I recall you wanted a pet mammoth rather than promoting some wider benefit to bringing them and other extinct animals back. I think 'responsible pet ownership" is an oxymoron.

[Moontanman]

No. I can discuss it, it is you who cannot. Chadn recently informed me that appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy; perhaps he will comment here as well. Moreover, once again you ignored the facts of the damage your "good" dog ownership does that I laid out with my reference. You and other dog owners share part of the blame for habitat destruction and the harassment and death of many wild animals, plants, and their ecosystems. Deny it all you want, but the facts remain.

 

If you have data to back up any of your claims, then present it so I can find fault at the source if it is there to find. Recall how misinformed you were about the coyotes? Is it possible you are misinformed on your other assertions? I recall you wanted a pet mammoth rather than promoting some wider benefit to bringing them and other extinct animals back. I think 'responsible pet ownership" is an oxymoron.

 

 

So you are humor impaired? I do not expect any miniature mammoths, it was a joke son... Ok I'll get real, this thread is not about pets to begin with, if you want to pet bash start another thread and I'll be glad to go toe to toe with you.

 

Rewilding is controversial as is bringing back extinct mega fauna. I think we could find room for mammoths, I've stated it several times, the main reason is that their habitat is not gone and is sparsely habitated with humans at best in most of the high north. I'm not sure any other mega fauna is possible except with some extreme speculations.

[Acme]

So you are humor impaired? I do not expect any miniature mammoths, it was a joke son... Ok I'll get real, this thread is not about pets to begin with, if you want to pet bash start another thread and I'll be glad to go toe to toe with you.

 

Rewilding is controversial as is bringing back extinct mega fauna. I think we could find room for mammoths, I've stated it several times, the main reason is that their habitat is not gone and is sparsely habitated with humans at best in most of the high north. I'm not sure any other mega fauna is possible except with some extreme speculations.

When I see something funny, I'll comment appropriately. I see no reason for a separate thread as I have tied my comments either to the OP and/or specific comments of other respondents. I'm not surprised you no longer wish to pursue the pet angle.

 

Achieving the restoration of an extinct species -as well as preventing the extinction of more- could benefit all manner of other genetic and ecological work such as preventing or curing disease, producing safe genetically modified organisms, or creating sustainable ecosystems that work in concert with humans rather than in opposition. As was pointed out this will take hard work, and wishful thinking is anything but that.

[chadn737]

No. I can discuss it, it is you who cannot. Chadn recently informed me that appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy; perhaps he will comment here as well. Moreover, once again you ignored the facts of the damage your "good" dog ownership does that I laid out with my reference. You and other dog owners share part of the blame for habitat destruction and the harassment and death of many wild animals, plants, and their ecosystems. Deny it all you want, but the facts remain.

 

If you have data to back up any of your claims, then present it so I can find fault at the source if it is there to find. Recall how misinformed you were about the coyotes? Is it possible you are misinformed on your other assertions? I recall you wanted a pet mammoth rather than promoting some wider benefit to bringing them and other extinct animals back. I think 'responsible pet ownership" is an oxymoron.

 

I honestly could care less. Since when did this become about pets? I would disagree with you about dogs anyhow. I have had dogs most of my life. Sure left unchecked these will have an impact on the environment, but responsible owners prevent this. Like all things, there is a tradeoff. I value wild diversity and wild spaces, but I have always been a "consevationist" in the tradition of Aldo Leopold, as opposed to an environmentalist. In other words, my thinking is in terms of practical measures and close working with farmer and other people to promote both conservation of diversity and wild space alongside human use. The best exemplars of this philosophy are groups like Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever, which are primarily made up of hunters who actively work to protect and develop new habitat and so further the conservation of the species they hunt. Those people who actively promote the spaying and neutering of pets is also working in a similar line of thought. I think we should work to reduce greenhouse gass emmissions (I know I am going way off topic now, but its to illustrate my mindset), but quite frankly, the idea that we will reduce everything to pre-industrial levels and create this sort of untarnished world is delusional. Our goal should be to adapt and preserve. You will never get rid of the pet population, so how do you create a more harmonious existence? Exotic pets can be destructive to wild populations. On the other hand, establishment of active breeding programs could be what saves many exotic species. Dogs will never go extinct because people want dogs, they breed them, care for them. Cows will never go extinct despite being slaughtered in the millions. Turning some exotic species into pets may actually be their salvation as a species. I'm all about practical and realistic solutions that seek a middle ground between human usage and preserving the original ecosystem/species.

 

I guess years of studying biology has killed this delusion in my mind that "natural habitats" are "forever" unless screwed up by humans. Climate, habitat, species have changed for millions of years before man and for hundreds of thousands with man and they will for millions of years after man. Nothing lasts forever. If a disease wipes out American Chestnuts, then we should get over the delusion of genetic purity and create viable hybrids with introgressed resistant genes or transgenically introduced resistant genes from Asian varieties. The idea of a "pristine" nature has long ago died in my mind to be replaced with a goal of practical preservation and dual usage.

[Moontanman]

When I see something funny, I'll comment appropriately. I see no reason for a separate thread as I have tied my comments either to the OP and/or specific comments of other respondents. I'm not surprised you no longer wish to pursue the pet angle.

 

Achieving the restoration of an extinct species -as well as preventing the extinction of more- could benefit all manner of other genetic and ecological work such as preventing or curing disease, producing safe genetically modified organisms, or creating sustainable ecosystems that work in concert with humans rather than in opposition. As was pointed out this will take hard work, and wishful thinking is anything but that.

 

 

The pet angle is Off Topic, no other reason...

[Acme]

The pet angle is Off Topic, no other reason...

Then why keep bringing it up? Moreover I don't think it's off topic because it bears on the wider issue of whether it's a good idea to bring back extinct creatures, which bears on the idea of what makes creatures go extinct in the first place, which is considerably affected by/bears on pet-keeping.. You would agree it's a good idea not to threaten species with extinction, yes?

 

If you et all don't bring it up again, then I won't respond to it again. Otherwise, I will. If you think a separate thread for further discussion of pets is necessary, then by all means start it.

[Moontanman]

Then why keep bringing it up? Moreover I don't think it's off topic because it bears on the wider issue of whether it's a good idea to bring back extinct creatures, which bears on the idea of what makes creatures go extinct in the first place, which is considerably affected by/bears on pet-keeping.. You would agree it's a good idea not to threaten species with extinction, yes?

 

If you et all don't bring it up again, then I won't respond to it again. Otherwise, I will. If you think a separate thread for further discussion of pets is necessary, then by all means start it.

 

 

seriously dude, read the rules, if you want to debate pets then start another thread... I will not be gish galloped

[Acme]

I honestly could care less. Since when did this become about pets?

It's not about pets, but Moontan and dimrpr brought them into the discussion so I discussed.

 

 

I would disagree with you about dogs anyhow. I have had dogs most of my life....snip...

Seems to me then that contrary to what you just wrote, you honestly do care. I have not espoused any pie-eyed delusion of a pristine environment, and I don't hold any such vision. I do espouse taking a hard unemotional look at the facts. As I said to Moontan [and paraphrasing] if you don't want me to further comment on the pet angle, don't bring it up again. That strikes me as a practical and realistic approach.

Just when I was thinking that a potential problem for keeping regenerated mammoths alive might be an absence of necessary digestive flora, I ran across an example of a real resurrection. This one, as with some mammoth DNA sources, is from the frozen ice of Siberia, but the bringing-back was quite accidental. Mammoths and sloths and viruses oh my!

 

http://news.yahoo.com/giant-virus-resurrected-permafrost-30-000-years-202120390.html

Giant Virus Resurrected from Permafrost After 30,000 Years

A mysterious giant virus buried for 30,000 years in Siberian permafrost has been resurrected.

 

The virus only infects single-celled organisms and doesn't closely resemble any known pathogens that harm humans.

 

Even so, the new discovery raises the possibility that as the climate warms and exploration expands in long-untouched regions of Siberia, humans could release ancient or eradicated viruses. These could include Neanderthal viruses or even smallpox that have lain dormant in the ice for thousands of years.

...

The team then took samples of this permafrost and put them in contact with amoebas (blob-like single-celled organisms) in Petri dishes. The researchers then waited to see what happened.

 

Some of the amoebas burst open and died. When the scientists investigated further, they found a virus had killed the amoebas. ...

Kinda makes some arguments about whether we oughta or not oughta moot. We already hava.

[overtone]

Let's say the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is a no-brainer - little or no apparent risk, much karmic value. Similarly the passenger pigeon or Carolina parakeet - a bit more risk there, but nothing to worry about. And my preference - endangered and/or extinct trees (the last original coffee tree, say, or the Easter Island palm tree, or the American Chestnut they've pumped wheat genes into because that's the state of that art) - is not romantically engaging enough for major funding. We still don't have to jump all the way to Jefferson mammoths for excitement. There's a whole managerie of DNA harborers being pulled out of the La Brea tar pits - we can start with the smaller-than-can-kill-people but still flashy and predatory American cheetahs, with the horses and such they ate.

[Moontanman]

Let's say the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is a no-brainer - little or no apparent risk, much karmic value. Similarly the passenger pigeon or Carolina parakeet - a bit more risk there, but nothing to worry about. And my preference - endangered and/or extinct trees (the last original coffee tree, say, or the Easter Island palm tree, or the American Chestnut they've pumped wheat genes into because that's the state of that art) - is not romantically engaging enough for major funding. We still don't have to jump all the way to Jefferson mammoths for excitement. There's a whole managerie of DNA harborers being pulled out of the La Brea tar pits - we can start with the smaller-than-can-kill-people but still flashy and predatory American cheetahs, with the horses and such they ate.

 

 

Is there any reason to assume those bones have recoverable DNA, there were not preserved by cold but by immersion in hot tar. I seems unlikely to me.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

Acme, Moontanman,

Please both stick to the topic.

 

Acme, don't bring the pet story up. You made your point loud and clear by now.

Moontanman, you're not really helping by replying and asking questions (for example here). If you know it's off-topic, you have a few options: ignore it, report it, or open a new thread. You chose to discuss first... and you only reported it once you got tired of it. That is not the ideal situation.

 

I propose we all read the OP again, and try to discuss that.

[Moontanman]

I was under the impression that the number of animals that could be resurrected was quite limited, does anyone have figures on how many are being worked on or how many have DNA available?

[Acme]

I was under the impression that the number of animals that could be resurrected was quite limited, does anyone have figures on how many are being worked on or how many have DNA available?

I don't think the number than can be worked on is so limited, rather the number of those that are being worked on. The interest in extinction is growing however as the rate of extinctions is increasing. Collecting DNA from extinct species is a hit or miss business and while age does play a roll, the circumstances of particular samples is not insignificant. Presumably many of the following creatures are preserved in some museum or others, but as I mentioned earlier, Ben Novak [central character in the OP article*] had numerous potential sources of pigeon DNA, but most holding the specimens wouldn't allow him to have any samples.

 

Extinct Animals in the Last 100 Years

...

It is estimated that around 99 percent of the animals to have ever existed on Earth are extinct today. Though the concept of extinction is not new for the planet, the alarming rate at which animals are disappearing over the last century or so, has left the scientists worried. At the ongoing rate, we are set to lose some of the most important species in the ecosystem, which, in turn, will result in severe ecological imbalance and bring about the downfall of all the plants and animals related to that particular species. More importantly, we need to understand that we are a part of this ecosystem and therefore, the loss of any species is bound to affect us directly or indirectly, sooner or later!

...

In the following section, we will take a look at the animal extinctions which occurred in the last 100 years, along with some information on what triggered the extinction of these species. Going through the list will help us realize how we were--directly or, indirectly--responsible for the tremendous loss our planet has faced over the years. If at all we do end up learning from our mistakes, we will be in a better position to do our bit for the environment and save several hundreds of animals and plants which are threatened with extinction. ...

Full article here: >> http://www.buzzle.com/articles/extinct-animals-in-the-last-100-years.html

 

* http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/magazine/the-mammoth-cometh.html?_r=0

Edited March 4, 2014 by Acme

[Moontanman]

I don't think the number than can be worked on is so limited, rather the number of those that are being worked on. The interest in extinction is growing however as the rate of extinctions is increasing. Collecting DNA from extinct species is a hit or miss business and while age does play a roll, the circumstances of particular samples is not insignificant. Presumably many of the following creatures are preserved in some museum or others, but as I mentioned earlier, Ben Novak [central character in the OP article*] had numerous potential sources of pigeon DNA, but most holding the specimens wouldn't allow him to have any samples.

 

Full article here: >> http://www.buzzle.com/articles/extinct-animals-in-the-last-100-years.html

 

* http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/magazine/the-mammoth-cometh.html?_r=0

 

 

I see what you mean, I guess more pigeons is not what most think of when they think of rewilding but it is legitimate but it also bring up the question of wild release just as surely as mega fauna, passenger pigeons existed in flocks of billions, I wonder if they could recover enough numbers to rewaken this old behavior of mass migration how important to their survival those huge sky blackening flocks were.

[Acme]

I see what you mean, I guess more pigeons is not what most think of when they think of rewilding but it is legitimate but it also bring up the question of wild release just as surely as mega fauna, passenger pigeons existed in flocks of billions, I wonder if they could recover enough numbers to rewaken this old behavior of mass migration how important to their survival those huge sky blackening flocks were.

It's a bit difficult knowing what most think as it's rather a new subject. Getting to what folks think seems to be the point of the thread.

 

post #1

I feel that the idea involves a lot of hard work that carries some risks and costs, and it is also mis-sold - the cloned creatures will not be the same thing as the extinct ones. But there seems to be a passionate group of advocates, and if they are keen to work on such a projects, then why not?

While the focus of that point seems to be about the actual regeneration work, it is as you imply more than just that. The article in the Times has a comment about the relationship between passenger pigeons and Elm trees.

The sequencing process is now in its data-analysis phase, which leaves Novak, who studied ecology in college, but has no advanced scientific degrees, time to consult on academic papers about de-extinction, write his own paper about the ecological relationship between passenger pigeons and chestnut trees and correspond with the scientists behind the worlds other species-resurrection efforts.

I'm not sure what that relationship is so I'll have to do some reading.

 

So to again answer the original posters question, yes I think resurrecting extinct animals is a good idea, not simply because of the knowledge in genetic manipulation it generates, but because of the restoration/preservation of habitats that is required to sustain the resurrected creatures.

[Moontanman]

I've been following the rewilding thing for at least a couple of decades, mostly though my efforts helping with population studies with the state DNR but the idea of reintroduction of species extinct either locally or globally is not new. Lots of concern for disease transmission from exotics but not much info on how often if ever it happens. We are a bit lucky in some way in NA with introduced fishes as many from tropical areas are either not capable of living though winter or the water conditions are so far from what they need being from the tropics it's impractical, Florida sadly being an exception to that.

 

Temperate fishes from places like Europe or Asia are more of a problem with the European Wels catfish being particularly high on the "not wanted list". In my area the introduction of "non native to this area" large catfish from the Mississippi has caused considerable damage to the local ecosystem.

 

Lessons can be drawn from these introduction problems, even reintroducing locally extinct animals can cause problems since most animals locally no longer have the instincts to deal with these animals, humans in particular.

 

There is much concern for the consequences of both resurrection of extinct species and the introduction of exotics. exotics is my main area of concern, specifically the disease angle.

 

More to the point of the post, I think the small animals have as much if not more potential to be disruptive than the mega fauna, a few thousand mammoths can be killed relatively easily if they prove too destructive, millions or billions of small animals might be impossible to control, example would be European starlings released into the US or grew squirrels released into the UK.

 

I think I would be very careful of assuming small animals to be less harmful than large ones...

 

Aquatic fauna is a real way to look at the introduction problem from several angles, much introduction of exotics was done intentionally, we know exactly when and where they were introduced, it's seldom a good thing...

 

As an example of rewilding efforts currently underway, i point to shovel nosed and other species of sturgeon as well as paddlefish, so far they seem to be minimally disruptive but the evidence is still being collected...

[Acme]

...

Lessons can be drawn from these introduction problems, even reintroducing locally extinct animals can cause problems since most animals locally no longer have the instincts to deal with these animals, humans in particular.

 

There is much concern for the consequences of both resurrection of extinct species and the introduction of exotics. exotics is my main area of concern, specifically the disease angle.

 

More to the point of the post, I think the small animals have as much if not more potential to be disruptive than the mega fauna, a few thousand mammoths can be killed relatively easily if they prove too destructive, millions or billions of small animals might be impossible to control, example would be European starlings released into the US or grew squirrels released into the UK.

 

I think I would be very careful of assuming small animals to be less harmful than large ones...

 

Aquatic fauna is a real way to look at the introduction problem from several angles, much introduction of exotics was done intentionally, we know exactly when and where they were introduced, it's seldom a good thing...

 

As an example of rewilding efforts currently underway, i point to shovel nosed and other species of sturgeon as well as paddlefish, so far they seem to be minimally disruptive but the evidence is still being collected...

How are aquatics/fish more 'real' than birds, reptiles, or mammals? As to reintroducing more recent extinct creatures such as pigeons I don't see how reintroducing them could be more damaging than killing them off in the first place. When you reduce the variety in biota you reduce ecosystems' health. If by disruption you mean inconvenience to humans, I don't buy that argument.

 

Again to the article in the OP.

...To Brands idea that the pigeon project would provide a beacon of hope for conservation, conference attendees added a number of ecological arguments in support of de-extinction. Just as the loss of a species decreases the richness of an ecosystem, the addition of new animals could achieve the opposite effect. The grazing habits of mammoths, for instance, might encourage the growth of a variety of grasses, which could help to protect the Arctic permafrost from melting a benefit with global significance, as the Arctic permafrost contains two to three times as much carbon as the worlds rain forests. Weve framed it in terms of conservation, Brand told me. Were bringing back the mammoth to restore the steppe in the Arctic. ...

On the pigeons & elms, I found some information..

http://www.endangeredspecieshandbook.org/projects_saving.php

...The American Chestnut, a massive tree of eastern forests, made up about one-fourth of the original eastern forests in colonial times. It provided nuts that were fed on by populations of the now extinct Passenger Pigeon, American Turkeys, Black Bears, squirrels and other wildlife. ...

I agree about the problem of invasives/exotics. Here again human 'sensibilities' stand in the way of actually doing anything about the problem. Take the European Starlings example you gave. They, along with English House Sparrows are about the only 2 bird species not protected in the US. In other words, people can kill them legally. Yet there is -in my experience- a negative reaction from people who see getting rid of them simply as killing wildlife. I mean they are so cute/pretty after all. Any logical arguments about their deleterious ecological impacts fall on [mostly] deaf ears.

[Moontanman]

How are aquatics/fish more 'real' than birds, reptiles, or mammals? As to reintroducing more recent extinct creatures such as pigeons I don't see how reintroducing them could be more damaging than killing them off in the first place. When you reduce the variety in biota you reduce ecosystems' health. If by disruption you mean inconvenience to humans, I don't buy that argument.

It's not more real, we just have more documentation for it. many aquatic species were introduced intentionally, we know when and where and the spread is well documented.

 

The biosphere has changed significantly since many species became locally or globally extinct. other animals have moved in to replace them or the habitat has significantly changed...

[Acme]

It's not more real, we just have more documentation for it. many aquatic species were introduced intentionally, we know when and where and the spread is well documented.

Well, I would need to see some real documentation that supports your assertion of more documentation, but it's no matter of great significance to me. In any case, it's no argument to favor one class over another.

 

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect. ~ Seeathl

 

Or as I like to say, nothing is not connected.

 

The biosphere has changed significantly since many species became locally or globally extinct. other animals have moved in to replace them or the habitat has significantly changed...

 

I agree about changes, but by saying it as you have, you seem to imply it's just tough luck and/or that's progress, or too late to do anything about it. Or some such thought seems behind it given the context of this discussion. :shrug: While some flavor of that-all may be true for resurrecting ancient extinct species I don't think it applies to more recent examples.

 

The American Bald Eagle for example was going extinct because of the use of DDT, and we recognized that and stopped using that pesticide and the Eagle has rebounded. In a rather sad twist in my opinion, it was human's warm emotional feelings that worked in favor of taking action to preserve/restore the Eagle, whereas in other examples such as farmers resisting planting hedgerows after the dust bowl days, the self-same clinging to human endearments was an impediment.

 

Subsuming the will/wants of the few for the better good of the many is a principle we [Americans at least] embody in both spirit and law. We don't let people have a cesspool anymore just because they like it or don't want to pay to put in a septic tank or connect to a sewer; this is because the cesspool is a hazard to the larger population and per se environment in a number of ways. We would not have the Interstate Highways that we all use & benefit from without some individuals being forced to sell their land. [And yes, sacrificing some habitats as well.]

 

So too will individuals have to surrender or otherwise lose some personal property and/or privelages if we are to carry out ecological projects that benefit all. Contrary to claims and suggestions otherwise, people can and do change attitudes and those changes can and do lead to positive actions that benefit all. To paraphrase an unattested French proverb, they who never undertook anything never achieved anything.

[Moontanman]

Well, I would need to see some real documentation that supports your assertion of more documentation, but it's no matter of great significance to me. In any case, it's no argument to favor one class over another.

Please stop straw manning me, I never said one was more important than the other, just that freshwater fish in NA can be documented better. No one knows how long pythons have been reproducing in the wild but we exactly when carp were first introduced or peacock bass, or flat head catfish or channel cats, the list is quite long. We know exactly when paddle fish were first repatriated, shovelnose sturgeon. We know when large mouth bass were transplanted in certain waters.

 

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect. ~ Seeathl

 

Or as I like to say, nothing is not connected.

 

 

 

I agree about changes, but by saying it as you have, you seem to imply it's just tough luck and/or that's progress, or too late to do anything about it. Or some such thought seems behind it given the context of this discussion. :shrug: While some flavor of that-all may be true for resurrecting ancient extinct species I don't think it applies to more recent examples.

What i imply?