Who Is For Rewilding America?

[MarkGelbart]

In case you're unfamiliar with the subject check out this link--www.rewilding.org or if that doesn't work just google Pleistocene rewilding.

Of course, I'm in favor of it but a lot of scientists and conservationists oppose it because they've experienced problems with invasive species.

The only problem with their argument is that these aren't invasive species--they once lived here.

So who here is in favor of rewilding America?

[Nicholas]

I'm not opposed to Pleistocene rewilding "parks" set up in specific areas with boundaries and regulations keeping them from mixing with general populations. I think it makes for a great concept, however at least personally if any type of Pleistocene animal was selected out in America thousands of years ago then why mess with that system?

I'm hugely in favor of natural selection and feel it would be in poor taste to allow these animals in to general American populations again. Like I mentioned, I think it would be lovely to set a reserve of land which could be protected and these animals could be studied... but other than that I'm against it.

[Auspex]

The environment has changed, for better or worse. There is no place for them to be now.

[Seldom]

I am all for studying them, but natural selection put them out. As said there's no place for them now.

[Nicholas]

Also I'd like to say this is a very fascinating discussion, and I'm particularly interested in everyone's views and ideas on the subject matter.

Please don't let it go into a flame war, because it has happened with past threads like this.

[emmytee]

i agree with auspex. instead of bringing in lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) we should focus on repopulating species that have vanished due to HUMAN cause and are still fit for inhabiting north america.

-emily

[LanceH]

Ok, so I guess they would want a large tract of land somewhere to do this? National Park?

Some of these American Pleistocene animals would have to be their cousins from South America and Africa/Asia. Exactly what animals would they use and from where?

Edited January 9, 2010 by LanceHall

[Hawkeye]

I would have to agree with Emmytee. I think we should put back the environments that we have destroyed like the tall grass prairies out west. The other environments are gone for a reason (evolution/natural selection). They may, however, be back some time. Man thinks in decades and centuries while the world revolves in cycles that take thousands of years. In fact, thousands of years would be a very fast cycle.

At this time, I'm not even sure we can preserve what we have and bringing back the past is just a pipe dream.

[RJB]

Man always wants to do something? We have already destroyed countless things being living or mineral. We cant leave anything alone! Too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak where any good idea gets destroyed. Too many people. Too many ideas. To many folks who want to change things because of whatever reason. Too many people who want everyone else to think like they do. Man, thinking he is so smart is the only species who will ruin mother earth and I would have to say we are doing one he-ll of a super good job.

Rewilding,, sounds like a neato idea, but as far as I am concerned, if mother nature isnt in charge, then its a bad idea. If only we could let mother nature be as she wants to be. How sad we are.

RB

[Eriphia]

I agree with RJB. Introducing plants and animal species into habitats which are not their originals, problems can arise. And not just because they can become invasive but also new diseases, etc. For instance, there are not guarantees that once introduced, they won't escape (or liberated) or expand without control.

On the other hand, in some cases, introducing species in different areas can contribute to get different genetycs, useful when blood relationships can hinder recovering endangered species. The matter is, are we sure that we can control the consequences of our acts?

There are soooo many examples : Australia, New Zealand, Spain of invasive species (and associated diseases). Human must be extremly careful!

[glacialerratic]

I'd love to see a Mammoth, but then again, I think about how weird that would be. And sad. The elephants at the zoo bum me out enough already! (I'm not anti-zoo, elephants just seem like they know what's happening to them).

The whole restoration thing leaves me a bit puzzled, too. The climate is changing, for whatever reason. MSU did a study that tracked the northward migration of mid-west natives, flora and fauna. Things are constantly changing, with or without us.

I'd prefer to see conservation, with well planned and managed greenbelts connecting large habitat tracks across large areas. Let's improve what we've got for what's here.

On a positive side-note, regarding mega-fauna, my brother-in-law got a good look at a young mountain lion this past Labor Day weekend. They were camping in the National Lakeshore (Sleeping Bear), and one ran across the road while they were riding bikes. The next week a photo of what had to be the same lion appeared in the paper, sited about 20 miles north. Right in my backyard. Pretty cool!

Tim

[MarkGelbart]

It wasn't natural selection that weeded these animals out of America's ecosystems. It was most probably overhunting by man. I guess one could say hunting men are part of natural selection, but I think man has been a freak and destructive addition to nature.

Therefore, it only seems right for man to bring these animals back to their rightful place within the natural world.

Man already has shaped and probably created most of North American biomes that exist today. Indian set fires likely created the prairies of the west.

[barefootgirl]

I think we should concentrate on what we do have and how not to destroy it any further.

[Xiphactinus]

Haven't you people watched Jurassic Park?!

[Darbi]

I support rewilding to some degree. I think we should focus more on preserving the native habitat, be more environment friendly, and reintroducing native species that are drove away from their habitat or wiped out by human.

Here's a possible scenario for my challenging question. Assume that we found out that mammoths are most likely to be wiped out by prehistoric human instead of climate change, we are able to clone a mammoth, we found out mammoths can easily survive and adapt to our current climate (little or no pressure from natural selection), our cloned mammoths are able to have offsprings, and we have enough different genetic materials to avoid inbred problems. Assuming this scenario is right and will happen in the future, should we attempt to reintroduce mammoths to North America and Eurasia? Should we reintroduce other extinct Pleistocene animals, assuming every steps from this scenario applies?

[MarkGelbart]

In Siberia scientists have already established a Pleistocene Park. They've re-introduced horses, and they plan to introduce musk-oxen, woodland bison, saiga antelope, and Siberian tigers. They do hope some day to introduce cloned woolly mammoths. A Japanese scientist is trying to clone woolly mammoths out of the material found frozen in Siberia, but so far he's been unsuccessful locating viable DNA.

[Smaug]

Hello, newbie here.

First thing i want to state is that i am an environmental student specializing in nature (conservation, human interaction species, ecology etc.).

- 1. On environments and species.

We humans have a strange notion of the way how an environment should be. We create a picture in our minds of how things where say 200 years ago and think then that that is the way how an environment should be. But the thing is that environments arent fixed. Where 200 years ago there was grassland today there maybe a forest, 200 years from now a river might have changed its course and it could be a swamp.

Short: an environment is dynamic and under influence of change.

Then we also have to consider species. What today is there fixed range (due to human made boundries, hunting etc.) is probably not the species former range. The former range might even not be the potential range of a species. For example: Tigers used to have a range from the kaspian sea to china and parts of siberia. They have been hunted by humans since the moment we started farming. Romans cleared out a lot of tigers in the middle east for their arenas. The biggest decline started from 1800, driving tigers back to pockets in india and south east asia. Potentialy tigers could have roamed thru the whole of eurasia. Europe isnt far from the caspian sea and there are huge continues game infested forests from eastern siberia to northern europe. Also, species will adapt to their environment.

Short: where species live now is not where they used to live and is not where they probably could live.

So: There is never an original habitat and there is never an original range of species.

- 2. Rewilding America

I would love to see that happen, altough i live in europe. This will have to be done in a very careful way. You should only use animals from the Americas and Eurasia. But you could start with some animals that are native to the americas (bisons, pronghorns alpaca etcetera.). Then you could have a look around for animals that are now extinct in America but still have population on other continents (saiga antelope, prezwalksy horses (alaskan horse)). At the last moment you could try to introduce elephants (asian because they are the closest living elepants). When you realy have an establisht park with enough prey, then you could try to introduce larger carnivores like asian lions.

For these mammals to be invasive? Probably not, they are large mammals wich you can probably spot and shoot from far when escaping. The only note is that thes mammals should be cleaned of harmful critters (wich are probably already introduced into the americas).

When the rewilding is well under way most creatures will probably have addepted to local environment. We might see the first glimpses of "evolution" (destictive subspecies are emerging).

- 3. Reaction on the Siberian Pleistocene Park

The project under direction of Sergei Zimov has started of a few years ago in Siberia. In addition with the (now) native animals, yakutian horses, snow sheep, reindeer, red deer and moose where introduced. The most recent addition to the area are 30 Woodland bisons from Canada, wich last year produced their first offspring. At this moment these bisons are still in a large holding pen but will eventually be released. Other big mammals will be released in the future including maybe siberian tigers.

You can offcourse state here that bisons went extinct in Russia and that they do not belong there now. On the other hand: A population of a very vulnerable species like the woodland bison in Russia is an example of ex-situ conservation of a species. In the case of a calamity in the canadian range of this species then there is always a backup in Russia. The same will be with the extremely rare siberian tiger.

http://www.faculty.uaf.edu/fffsc/station.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/796

http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-01-09/Wild_and_woolly__Canadian_bison_thrive_in_Siberia.html

I hope i make sense...

Edited February 5, 2010 by Smaug

[Auspex]

^^^

Well said!

[Nicholas]

I agree with Auspex, very well put Smaug.

I found the info about the Siberian Pleistocene Park to be very interesting as well. I've not heard of it until now.

[Smaug]

Just some interesting information on this subject i found recently (and years ago):

This site is probably known to you all: http://www.quaggaproject.org

In south africa there is a selective breeding project for the Quagga. This project has been underway for quite a few years now and the result is a Zebra species without stripes on the hindlegs and the front legs. For the two best animals (still foals) follos this link: http://www.quaggaproject.org/quagga-whatsnew.htm

(You can ofcourse discuss that what is created now is not what went extinct. But that is de conservative biologist talking that thinks that things never change. We as (amateur) paleontologist/fossil collectors should know that nature is always changing and species come and go. In a natural situation the same thing could have happend as what this project is about. Or something quite like it.)

Then there is the well known recreation of the "Aurochs" currently going by the name "Heckcattle" (and ###### cattle, but you cant blame the animals for that monstrousity). For those who do not know about them: Heckcattle is a cattle species that was created to look like the aurochs. This was done by the brothers Heck during the nazireign. They used several species of primitive cattle and created a primitive looking and robust creature. Today there is a large herd of these creatures living in the naturereserve oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands. These are not aurochs but a docile cattle species looking a little like them (for photo's: http://www.martijndejonge.nl/paginas/bbbfotos/026-Heckrunderen,%20Oostvaardersplassen.jpg , http://www.martijndejonge.nl/paginas/bbbfotos/027-Heckrunderen,%20Oostvaardersplassen.jpg , http://www.martijndejonge.nl/paginas/bbbfotos/028-Heckrunderen,%20Oostvaardersplassen.jpg and http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&tbs=isch:1&q=heckrund&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=21).

Recently an Italian institute Has proposed to ressurect real Aurochs http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7011035/Giant-cattle-to-be-bred-back-from-extinction.html and http://www.consdabi.org/

Yale university is working on extinct tortoises from the galapagos http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=7214&s=t

Last: there will be a conference on ressurecting ectinct species in poland http://biodiversity.pl/

I wonder where this will all lead too.