[lovebunny]

ok so i was reading through my biology book and it has a huge thing on animal conservation and endangered species. and it was talking about reintroducing animals to the wild. now the first thought that came to my mind was that sure that makes sense for animals that are endagered from hunting or poaching. but what about animals that are supposed to go extinct? isnt that kind of messing with the balance of nature?ean if you reintroduce an animal thats not supposed to be there anymore then that could possibly hinder the development of a new animal taking its place. am i right or am i just totally looking at this wrong?

 

[robdamanii]

ok so i was reading through my biology book and it has a huge thing on animal conservation and endangered species. and it was talking about reintroducing animals to the wild. now the first thought that came to my mind was that sure that makes sense for animals that are endagered from hunting or poaching. but what about animals that are supposed to go extinct? isnt that kind of messing with the balance of nature?ean if you reintroduce an animal thats not supposed to be there anymore then that could possibly hinder the development of a new animal taking its place. am i right or am i just totally looking at this wrong?

You've just discovered why man is a pain in the ass...we know better than mother nature.

 

[binary visions]

It's only because of mankind's massive intrusion on the environment that many of these species are going extinct in the first place.

 

[narlus]

ok so i was reading through my biology book and it has a huge thing on animal conservation and endangered species. and it was talking about reintroducing animals to the wild. now the first thought that came to my mind was that sure that makes sense for animals that are endagered from hunting or poaching. but what about animals that are supposed to go extinct? isnt that kind of messing with the balance of nature?ean if you reintroduce an animal thats not supposed to be there anymore then that could possibly hinder the development of a new animal taking its place. am i right or am i just totally looking at this wrong?

well i guess you have to look at the long term...depending on why the species became extinct (and if you are looking at species which became extinct in the last 150 years or so, i'd about unequivocally state that they were all due to human influence, either directly via hunting or indirectly via habitat destruction), if you re-introduce them w/o changing the root cause which enabled the extinction, ain't gonna matter much.

that said, their presence back in the particular ecological niche won't impart undue pressure to newcomers...this sort of adaptation takes a lot longer than that.

 

[lovebunny]

It's only because of mankind's massive intrusion on the environment that many of these species are going extinct in the first place.

yeah but i was reading about them reintroducing some wolves in northern canada and alaska. it could hardly be for that there

 

[lovebunny]

well i guess you have to look at the long term...depending on why the species became extinct (and if you are looking at species which became extinct in the last 150 years or so, i'd about unequivocally state that they were all due to human influence, either directly via hunting or indirectly via habitat destruction), if you re-introduce them w/o changing the root cause which enabled the extinction, ain't gonna matter much.

that said, their presence back in the particular ecological niche won't impart undue pressure to newcomers...this sort of adaptation takes a lot longer than that.

well i dont know about that. i mean you introduce animals where there not sposed to be and it destroys the ecosystem there. so why would the same not happen with an animal that is supposed to be extinct?

 

[dhbuilder]

It's only because of mankind's massive intrusion on the environment that many of these species are going extinct in the first place.

you are correct.

the industrial revolution pretty much put and end to the natural order of things.

 

[dhbuilder]

well i dont know about that. i mean you introduce animals where there not sposed to be and it destroys the ecosystem there. so why would the same not happen with an animal that is supposed to be extinct?

introducing plants and animals seems to always lead to disaster.
look at rabbits in australia and kudzu in the south.
and that list goes on forever.

plus the way domestic animals are bred for a specific purpose leads to dead end evolution.
same goes for plant species too.

good thread subject.

 

[lovebunny]

so basically humans are responsible in one way or another for every extinction in the last 150 years. that sucks. sort of makes me feel even worse bout the possum i ran over last night

 

[lovebunny]

plus the way domestic animals are bred for a specific purpose leads to dead end evolution.
same goes for plant species too.

good thread subject.

dead evolution as in a species thats going nowhere and would no longer be effective in the wild?

 

[macko]

Actually, man is exactly the reason why wolves have been extirpated from many locations. I can speak of the Mexican Grey Wolf situation in Eastern Arizona specifically as I have worked with people involved; in the early 1900's as settlement in the West increased dramatically, wolves were seen as an interference with grazing operations and were shot on site by most ranchers. They were "hunted" to near extinction in the southwest. There has been an effort mainly by the USFWS and AZ and NM Game and Fish Departments to reintroduce the wolves in these areas, though drought has really put a hardship on the survivability of the wolves.

So basically, yeah, man is typically to blame when a species is driven to an level of endangerment. The current causation of this typically habitat loss and fragmentation, but cattle grazing can have a severe impact on the availability of and quality of habitat as well as poisoning from agricultural and industrial byproducts, and the introduction of non-native species can provide a severe, negative effect as well.

 

[dhbuilder]

dead evolution as in a species thats going nowhere and would no longer be effective in the wild?

you look at the way
cattle, chickens and such are bred for certain traits that make them better for human consumption.
totally altering their natural evolutionary path.
locking them into the path we desire, which is then replicated throughout the industry.

the same with purebred domestic dogs and cats.

 

[dhbuilder]

good post macko.
this was the exact point she was making.

 

[SkaredShtles]

yeah but i was reading about them reintroducing some wolves in northern canada and alaska. it could hardly be for that there

My understanding there are lots of wolves in Canada & Alaska. They've recently be reintroducing them into the lower 48 in places like Montana & Wyoming. You sure you have the facts straight?

 

[macko]

My understanding there are lots of wolves in Canada & Alaska. They've recently be reintroducing them into the lower 48 in places like Montana & Wyoming. You sure you have the facts straight?

Yeah I'm not sure about that either. From what I can recall, Alaska has the greatest population of wolves in the United States.

 

[SkaredShtles]

Yeah I'm not sure about that either. From what I can recall, Alaska has the greatest population of wolves in the United States.

Probably need to know what kind of wolves are being referenced. I think that timber wolves are fairly common over a pretty wide area. The gray wolf, OTOH, apparently is concentrated only in Canada & AK.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Actually, man is exactly the reason why wolves have been extirpated from many locations. I can speak of the Mexican Grey Wolf situation in Eastern Arizona specifically as I have worked with people involved; in the early 1900's as settlement in the West increased dramatically, wolves were seen as an interference with grazing operations and were shot on site by most ranchers. They were "hunted" to near extinction in the southwest. There has been an effort mainly by the USFWS and AZ and NM Game and Fish Departments to reintroduce the wolves in these areas, though drought has really put a hardship on the survivability of the wolves.

So basically, yeah, man is typically to blame when a species is driven to an level of endangerment. The current causation of this typically habitat loss and fragmentation, but cattle grazing can have a severe impact on the availability of and quality of habitat as well as poisoning from agricultural and industrial byproducts, and the introduction of non-native species can provide a severe, negative effect as well.

I sure don't know any southwestern ranchers that would shoot a wolf and burn its radio collar....

 

[macko]

I sure don't know any southwestern ranchers that would shoot a wolf and burn its radio collar....

Exactly. :wonky2:

Though at this point, wolf populations are in such scarcity that they're not considered a major threat [by ranchers] in the southwest; coyotes are. However, in the western plains states such as Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, wolves are a threat to livestock operations and ranchers feel that it is okay to eliminate native species in order to protect their investments. While I see their side of the argument I don't believe it's ecologically prudent.

It would be like a biologist working to protect pronghorn populations, having the mindset: "The cattle in my management area are grazing grasses and forbs down to a level which is endangering native pronghorn populations. It's my job to improve pronghorn survivability, so I'm going to go shoot a bunch of cows in order to protect my animal of interest."

Flawed logic, but it seems more acceptable when it's a rancher protecting his cows from nasty wolves.

 

[narlus]

well i dont know about that. i mean you introduce animals where there not sposed to be and it destroys the ecosystem there. so why would the same not happen with an animal that is supposed to be extinct?

i was under the impression that you were talking about reintroducing animals to where they'd previously been (ie, wolves back in Montana), not to where they have not been (ie, wolves into Delaware).

i wasn't talking about humans introducing non-native species where they then run roughshod over endemic species (zebra clams, purple loosestrife, marine toads, sugar possums, etc...too many examples to name).

 

[SkaredShtles]

i was under the impression that you were talking about reintroducing animals to where they'd previously been (ie, wolves back in Montana), not to where they have not been (ie, wolves into Delaware).

Looks like they may have been close:

 

[narlus]

yeah, let's reintroduce the gray wolf back to Trenton.

 

[SkaredShtles]

yeah, let's reintroduce the gray wolf back to Trenton.

Sweet! We occasionally get catamounts down in the neighborhoods on our side of town. And black bears. They cause quite a ruckus.

 

[N8 v2.0]

lovebunny study material:
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060727_sex_history.html

 

[narlus]

take the test!
http://www.livescience.com/php/trivia/index.php?quiz=sex

i got 8 out of 10 correct.

 

[bjanga]

In an increasingly crowed world, species evolve to carve out their own niche, or to become more competitive with other species. Nature is evolving with humans, so we walk a fine line between being too agressive and too passive with our efforts limit the damage we cause.

 

[bluebug32]

yeah but i was reading about them reintroducing some wolves in northern canada and alaska. it could hardly be for that there

The pursuit of oil there isn't exactly kind to the locals


And in terms of NJ, they actually have a black bear hunt every year where the rednecks are set loose with guns to hunt down the grizzlies. That's the one day of the year that the rest of NJ gets to feel what it's like to live in Newark (minus the strange chemical smell)

 

[macko]

take the test!
http://www.livescience.com/php/trivia/index.php?quiz=sex

i got 8 out of 10 correct.

Wow I only got 6 out of 10. The next time I have a girl tell me my wiener is small, I'll reply "not relative to my mammalian quadrupedal cousins!"

 

[SkaredShtles]

Wow I only got 6 out of 10. The next time I have a girl tell me my wiener is small, I'll reply "not relative to my mammalian quadrupedal cousins!"

To which the well read lass will reply:

"Nope - even compared to a gorilla's tiny d**k yours is the loooooser."

 

[narlus]

'hung like a gorilla'

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

take the test!
http://www.livescience.com/php/trivia/index.php?quiz=sex

i got 8 out of 10 correct.

Lets completely bastardize this intelligent thread with cosmo quizes !!!

You answered 10 questions correctly out of 10. If you scored a perfect 10, you're giving Dr. Ruth a run for her money. Eight or better and you can call yourself an expert. Seven or less? Practice!

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

Lets completely bastardize this intelligent thread with cosmo quizes !!!

You answered 10 questions correctly out of 10. If you scored a perfect 10, you're giving Dr. Ruth a run for her money. Eight or better and you can call yourself an expert. Seven or less? Practice!

 

[N8 v2.0]

Lets completely bastardize this intelligent thread with cosmo quizes !!!

You answered 10 questions correctly out of 10. If you scored a perfect 10, you're giving Dr. Ruth a run for her money. Eight or better and you can call yourself an expert. Seven or less? Practice!

I suspect a lot of you all practice A LOT when you're alone...

 

[Tenchiro]

Although it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have existed are extinct. Surely we can't be at fault for many of those.

 

[narlus]

Although it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have existed are extinct. Surely we can't be at fault for many of those.

i don't think anyone said that. take a look at the relative timescale and number of extinctions though.

 

[Tenchiro]

i don't think anyone said that. take a look at the relative timescale and number of extinctions though.

I read it on the internet, of course it is true.

The Wikipedia entry used to say that but has since changed. Here is the google cache of it though;

A mass extinction summary lecture from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill estimates that living creations are drawn from only fifty billion species, but that fifty billion species may have lived on the planet. It estimates a background extinction rate (aside from the mass extinctions) at two to four families per million years. The American Museum of Natural History says that scientists estimate that "at least" 99.9% of all species of plants and animals that have ever lived are now extinct. The Permian-Triassic extinction alone killed off about 90 percent of marine species and 70 percent of the terrestrial vertebrate species then alive.

From the lecture notes;

If 5 to 50 billion species have lived on this planet, but only about fifty million are alive today, then 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. To a first approximation, all species are extinct!

 

[Skookum]

With MTBResque threads like this you're gonna make Ridemonkey extinct....

 

[dropsdon'tlikem]

Although it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have existed are extinct. Surely we can't be at fault for many of those.

and we aren't, because we weren't around to make them extinct. In order to grasp the ecological disaster we are causing you must first understand just how brief our stay on earth has been, and just how many species we've managed to take out. The problem here is the rate or extinct which is many many times (someone look this up for me) the natural rate. If we keep this up 100.0% of all species that have ever existed will be extinct.

 

[BurlyShirley]

and we aren't, because we weren't around to make them extinct. In order to grasp the ecological disaster we are causing you must first understand just how brief our stay on earth has been, and just how many species we've managed to take out. The problem here is the rate or extinct which is many many times (someone look this up for me) the natural rate. If we keep this up 100.0% of all species that have ever existed will be extinct.

What're you rambling on about? We're much less destructive than say...a comet? Or if you're the religious type, a global flood. We are part of the "natural rate" as humans and all they do are part of nature.

 

[macko]

What're you rambling on about? We're much less destructive than say...a comet? Or if you're the religious type, a global flood. We are part of the "natural rate" as humans and all they do are part of nature.

Unfortunately, BS, I've got some problems with this. I agree that a comet, or massive "super volcanic" eruption, could cause massive and rapid change in the global climate resulting in the loss of many species of bacterial, plant, and animal life. However, that hasn't happened for thousands of years.

In the past 150 years, humans have changed the chemical make-up of the atmosphere and groundwater, the pH of the oceans, and the overall temperature of the earth (terrestrial temps) and water (oceanic & freshwater temps). These changes, although not nearly as rapid as that of a catastrophic event such as a meteor, are still changing the ecosystems faster than species are able to adapt. This is resulting in the "speeding up" of the extinction rate.

Historically, the extinction of one species typically coincided with the birth of a new species. Example, as one species of frog died off due it's inability to digest a newer, more abundant food source, a mutation of the original frog species began to expand and replace the old. This wasn't always the case but many similar situations have been found to exist. With the relatively rapid increase in global climate change, many herp species (very susceptible to UV light and varying temps) are unable to cope with the increased stresses and are literally dying off.

Some can argue that the planet goes through cooling and warming periods, which is true. But not at the rate of which are currently heating up our atmosphere. Or increasing the acidity of our water sources. Or introducing genetically modified, invasive agricultural species to our lands.

I'm not a HUGE environmentalist, I'm not a member of PeTA or Greenpeace. But I do read a lot of literature on ecological and landscape-scale habitat changes and there is a very common theme among all of them: humans are to blame.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Unfortunately, BS, I've got some problems with this. I agree that a comet, or massive "super volcanic" eruption, could cause massive and rapid change in the global climate resulting in the loss of many species of bacterial, plant, and animal life. However, that hasn't happened for thousands of years.

In the past 150 years, humans have changed the chemical make-up of the atmosphere and groundwater, the pH of the oceans, and the overall temperature of the earth (terrestrial temps) and water (oceanic & freshwater temps). These changes, although not nearly as rapid as that of a catastrophic event such as a meteor, are still changing the ecosystems faster than species are able to adapt. This is resulting in the "speeding up" of the extinction rate.

I wasnt arguing any of that. Im just saying that humans arent "the worst thing to happen to nature" becuause humans are, in fact, part of nature. There have been numerous cases of mass-extinction throughout the earth's history. Some from Ice ages, comets, volcanos, etc. Arguing over which occurs at a quicker rate is really irrelevent. Species come and go, and thats just how it works.
And dont get mre wrong. I think people should do all they can to protect the world, but technically speaking, whatever happens is supposed to happen. That's nature for you.