Forums Index >> General >> Lions of the North American Plains?
Page : <1> :
That CNN article sickens me, the handlers and law enforcement ended up killing the Tiger. How retarded is that? That girl got herself killed by the animal. It's her fault, not the Tigers.
Why don't we kill these super-predators for killing elephants, or any other sort of natural prey? What's the difference?
Conservatives and Fundementalists on the Serengeti?
Liberals suggest relocating inferior American ideologues to Africa
DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- If a group of prominent liberals have their way, conservatives and fundamentalists could someday be roaming the Great Plains of The Serengeti.
The idea of transplanting American ideologues to the African continent is being greeted with gasps and groans from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh who recall previous efforts to relocate conservatives to the coasts and major metropolitan areas of this country, often with disastrous results.
But the proposal's supporters say it could help save a handful of decent ideas from extinction, where protection is spotty and most are vanishing. They say the relocated ideologues could also remove the diversity in Africa to a condition closer to what it was shortly after humans overran the landscape more than 10,000 years ago.
Most modern conservatives never liked Africa, the scientists acknowledge. But some of their biological cousins like mastodons, camels and saber-toothed cats, roamed for more than 1 million years alongside antelope and herds of bison until Ice Age glaciers retreated and intelligent humans started arriving.
The rapid extinction of dozens of intellectuals in North America -- perhaps due to a combination of climate change and the current administration -- triggered a landslide of changes to the political landscape. Relocating ideologues to vast ecological parks and private reserves in Africa would begin to repair the damage, proponents say, while offering new ecotourism opportunities to a withering region.
The Liberals' plan appears in Thursday's issue of Harper's. It is attracting interest from some influential circles, including CNN founder Ted Turner, America's largest private landowner. He owns huge ranches in Africa to support his commercial bison operation and personal conservation initiatives.
But the plan is also generating criticism on both sides of the political debate.
"It is not restoration to introduce ideologues that were never here," said University of Washington political scientist Donald K. Grayson. "Why introduce Old World thoughts when there are liberal theories that could benefit from the same kind of effort?"
Others wonder whether people would support fundamentalists making a home in Africa, given the opposition to the reintroduction of bigotry and hypocrisy in parts of South Africa.
"Just when you think the world has gotten as weird as it can get, something like this comes along," said Steve Pilcher, executive vice president of the Montana Thinkingstoppers Association.
"I wonder how many conservatives or fundamentalists it would take to feed a family of lions for a month?" Pilcher mused. "We sort of know what it takes for Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, but something tells me we would be in a whole new ball game."
Some political conservationists said the idea would further damage the prospects of democratic and republican parties and America's hopes for sustainable economic development.
"Such relocations would affect future economic development opportunities for America," said Elizabeth Wamba, the East America spokeswoman for the International Fund for Conservative Welfare in Small Town, Nebraska. "The welfare of the conservatives would have been reduced by transporting and exposing them to different ideas cultures."
Critics also point to calamitous relocations of conservatives in Australia. Conservatives brought from Europe swarmed across parts of the Outback, and noxious policies brought from South America to control minorities in sugar cane fields killed many natives.
The authors of the new plan say they are not discouraged.
"We are not saying this is going to be easy," said Cornell University liberal Josh Donlan, the lead author of the proposal. "There are huge and substantial risks and obstacles."
The plan grew from a retreat at Turner's Serengeti ranch -- a 155,000-acre property in upper Africa that contains a mix of ecosystems ranging from desert grasslands to pine forests.
Liberals are using the ranch to experiment with introducing Newt Gingrich and Oliver North to the region. These 200-pound burrowers were once found across the beltway, but now survive only in a corner of northern Africa's Chihuahuan Desert.
The liberals' discussion expanded to consider long-extinct Republican species that have modern counterparts elsewhere in the world.
For example, a larger American conservative movement once promoted fiscal responsibility on these lands, with both species evolving special features that enabled them to shrink government. Today, government programs rarely are shrunk, except by the occasional rogue Governor.
In America, traditional conservatives are being exterminated as vermin, with fewer than 2,000 remaining in some states. Relocation could help both species retain important traits, the plan's proponents say.
Other living species that are counterparts to Reagan-era conservatives in North America include wild horses and asses, Bactrian camels, elephants and lions.
Donlan concedes that asses would be a tough sell to Africans.
"Asses are stupid and stubborn," he said. "But that's not requiring a huge attitude shift on how you view conservatives."
Last edited: Friday, August 19, 2005 at 11:09:49 PM
Why not purchase the land in africa and save the animals habitat there,but I also agree rogue,I can see the cheetahs coming back to america.we already have horses in the wild same as camels.lets save the ocelot thats in texas,it looks like a mini leopard.lets save the florida cougar,lets save the blackfooted ferret,lets save the salmon,lets save children that are starving,lets save bigfoot,lets save austalias animals too.lets not let the government force booster and shots with mercury in them.there is no safe mercury amount for consumption,yet its in our childrens shots.causing autism and other defects/learning disabilities.
@ 44............. Are you retired?
Not yet. A quick copy and paste and about 15 minutes of editing.
@ 44- LMAO! Nice job that...
@ all
I have to say I think moving those animals to North America seems stupid to me. Can the animals handle winter in the plains?
Those animals have NO natural predators here, and I think it's pretty irresponsible. Jurassic Park does come to mind- along with all the security problems. Who wants this in their state, anyway? Volunteers want to buy up the land and live nearby? How would you like a pride of lions for neighbors? Would you want the elephants using your trees for scratching posts? I give this the DUH of the Day award.
They are going to be fenced in,they aren't going to be free like wolves or cougars and other wild animals
You are all as good at zoology as you are at theology.
If you don't want animals living around you, move to a city where the godless heathens are.
Or keep hunting. Makes me wonder if your towns have an equal number of zoos and churches, and if your time is spent equally between them.
Flame on!
boing boing boing.
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/19/boing_boings_250000_.html
Woops, forgot which thread I was in.
Tally, thanks for the comical break. I am sick of all the politcal crap on these sites. For the love of God we all know we are gettin screwed by big money these days in regards to oil, insurance and the like.
So, Tally and Gamera are in favor of the idea? I know they would fence it, but you think it's a good idea? I'm concluding this because of what you posted.
Tally's right that I'm no zoologist, but the idea seems ridiculous to me. I really wonder how cold tolerant elephants and other animals are. Also, it takes a lot of land and biomass to support big animals like elephants and top predators like lions, cheetah, and such. Where would you put this thing?
If the animals are going to be left to roam free, thats not the same as a place like a park I saw in Oregonhttp://www.wildlifesafari.org/ That one is like a drive-thru zoo, not a reserve where the animals roam free.
@Tally- no flames, sorry XD
Last edited: Monday, August 22, 2005 at 7:54:31 PM
There are cougars in north america,cheetahs are actually less vicious than cougars,lgm I also said save the american wildlife like the texas ocelot,and buy land in africa where they are at already,132,000 acres is a lot of land thats already housing some of these animals now.bears are also roamong north america too
I think we should do a test run with this and place some Lions in NYC, LA, Seattle. Then if it goes well we can look at expanding the program
Gamera,
I have no problem with the animals being where they naturally occur. I live near the North Cascades National Park. We have cougars, eagles, bears, and all that stuff here. If the animal is from a place, I think we should do what we can to keep it there. I'm even not opposed to relocating wolves to the Northeast or Northwest for that matter. I have coyotes running around my neighborhood now and again, and have had encounters with some large animals in the past.
I do worry when people start messing with natural systems. Hawaii is a good example. People introduced species there that had no natural predators. Now they have overrun the islands and taken over the niches that native animals once had. Not good.
I also still don't hear about cold. Do elephants and other African animals have the ability to tolerate the plains in winter? I don't know, but I doubt it.
Lol dash
@lgm there were cheetahs and large cats here,mammoths too,I too have coyotes here right in the woods behind my house,I hear them in the morning and evening.they even come on the property.i had a few bear come on the property last winter.lgm did you read all I said or did you skim through it.i did say we should buy the land there also to keep them in there own environment.we should go out and kill all the fox that are here in america.they are not native to usa
Last edited: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 2:37:29 AM
Gamera, I did read your post. We agree to a large extent. I think we disagree on which animals should be kept where. I have no problem with animals being located in climates appropriate to them, but take issue with introducing exotic species to areas.
Wooly mammoths are related to elephants, but not the same. Elephants don't tolerate cold well, and shouldn't be kept in places where the Arctic breezes blow. The plains don't work for many African species.
http://www.elephants.com/sanct.htm
This link is to a place in Tennessee that has an elephant sanctuary. It sounds like their long term goal is to reintroduce elephants to SE Asia. I can go along with that. They have an article that tells about elephants in Chicago dying from cold and not being able to wander like elephants do in the wild.
http://www.elephants.com/media/chicago_tribune_5_3_05.htm
Another interesting article I found is about the problems with putting animals in sanctuaries. Dr. Richard Leakey was quoted.
"Protected areas are now islands," said Dr Leakey. "The wildlife and fauna and flora are pretty well tied in by boundaries which aren't oceans, in the sense of islands, but development.
"And if there's significant climate change, as is predicted, what's going to happen to these areas?
"Paleontologically, island faunas become extinct."
So, this problem is difficult, and needs solving, but we have to be careful about it is done.
We need more wolverines, small, fuzzy, cute, great with children.
Jed Eckert: We can hunt, we can fish, we can stay here a long, long time.
Robert: How long, Jed?
[Jed and Robert hear jets]
Jed Eckert: 'Til we don't hear that no more.
WOLVERINES!
I thinks this idea of releasing African animals into the wild is all a liberal scam. Think about it. The idea is coming from the "blue" states who wish to release man eating animals into the "red" states.
Only one problem. The blues didn't figure that the reds have a gun rack full of shotguns on every pickup truck and at least a pistol in every house. Like one gentleman said in Texas, "we'll have more critters to shoot at..." ;)
I agree KKB, we should release these animals in the states and use them for livestock.
MMmm, cheetah burger. It's what's for dinner. You could package a pair of cheetah muffs in every box of frozen burgers.
But seriously, I think that article leads us to an obvious hypothesis. Darwin may agree that large mammals, fish and reptiles are on the wrong end of his "Survival of the Fittest" theory. I believe that all large forms of life will eventually die off, leaving only the tiniest versions of today's plants and animals.
That being said, maybe our wives are right when they try and comfort us by saying that size really doesn't matter. I think Mother Earth is concurring with that statement. Whew, I now feel a bit more virile. There's nothing like hypothesizing about the extinction of large life forms to make me feel better about my miniscule schlonger.
Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to be on my toes.
Invite a retard to a picnic and you'd better expect to get drool in the potato salad.
Last edited: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at 3:09:19 PM
^ wow ROGUE.... All that talk about schlongers gave me a chubby....
I agree - all that will be eventually left will be bacteria and my lingering farts, :P
ROGUE- Overshare! Too much information! Warning! Danger!
(at least you seem ok with it...) ;)
@ ROGUE, manomanomano!! LOL LMAAAAAAAO. Didnt laugh the schlonger off. Speaking of miniscule schlonger, that does not make sense. See, I hear schlonger, and I think of a big ole salami, or an elephant salami.... Miniscule weenie sounds better to me.
So far as the food goes... Cheetaburgers are fine if you use enough tenderizer or beat the meat to hell and back which will make it more satisfying. And speaking of which, I enjoy beating the meat to hell and back cause the wife wont touch it. Hmmm... She never was good anyway.... In the kitchen.
I love to eat "muffs" too, very satisfying. :P :P :P Actually the wife likes that. :P :P :P
:P
Last edited: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at 8:57:57 PM
Page : <1> :
I thought this was an interesting article. Good or bad? Necessity or Possible Nuisance? Would it further impoverish Africa? Is it ridiculous to risk the extinction of animals indigenous to Africa in the name of tourism? Are we simply pathetic as a species for letting this happen or is it simply evolution?
Personally I think it's going to be a necessity and would ultimately be a good thing. I believe in the distant future that most of the World's large mammals will have to be protected and kept from extinction by keeping them in zoos and on preserves. Sad, but unfortunately realistic.
Lions and elephants on the Great Plains?
Scientists suggest relocating African species to North America
DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- If a group of prominent ecologists have their way, lions and elephants could someday be roaming the Great Plains of North America.
The idea of transplanting African wildlife to this continent is being greeted with gasps and groans from other scientists and conservationists who recall previous efforts to relocate foreign species halfway around the world, often with disastrous results.
But the proposal's supporters say it could help save some species from extinction in Africa, where protection is spotty and habitats are vanishing. They say the relocated animals could also restore the biodiversity in North America to a condition closer to what it was before humans overran the landscape more than 10,000 years ago.
Most modern African species never lived on the American prairie, the scientists acknowledge. But some of their biological cousins like mastodons, camels and saber-toothed cats, roamed for more than 1 million years alongside antelope and herds of bison until Ice Age glaciers retreated and humans started arriving.
The rapid extinction of dozens of large mammal species in North America -- perhaps due to a combination of climate change and overhunting -- triggered a landslide of changes to the environmental landscape. Relocating large animals to vast ecological parks and private reserves would begin to repair the damage, proponents say, while offering new ecotourism opportunities to a withering region.
The scientists' plan appears in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. It is attracting interest from some influential circles, including CNN founder Ted Turner, America's largest private landowner. He owns huge ranches in several states to support his commercial bison operation and personal conservation initiatives.
But the plan is also generating criticism on both sides of the conservation debate.
"It is not restoration to introduce animals that were never here," said University of Washington anthropologist Donald K. Grayson. "Why introduce Old World camels and lions when there are North American species that could benefit from the same kind of effort?"
Others wonder whether people would support African lions making a home on the range, given the opposition to the reintroduction of native wolves in the rural West.
"Just when you think the world has gotten as weird as it can get, something like this comes along," said Steve Pilcher, executive vice president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association.
"I wonder how many calves or lambs it would take to feed a family of lions for a month?" Pilcher mused. "We sort of know what it takes for wolves, but something tells me we would be in a whole new ball game."
Some wildlife conservationists said the idea would further damage the prospects of both threatened species and Africa's hopes for sustainable economic development.
"Such relocations would affect future tourism opportunities for Africa," said Elizabeth Wamba, the East Africa spokeswoman for the International Fund for Animal Welfare in Nairobi, Kenya. "The welfare of the animals would have been reduced by transporting and exposing them to different eco-climatic conditions."
Critics also point to calamitous relocations of foreign species in Australia. Rabbits brought from Europe swarmed across parts of the Outback, and noxious cane toads brought from South America to control bugs in sugar cane fields killed native wildlife.
The authors of the new plan say they are not discouraged.
"We are not saying this is going to be easy," said Cornell University ecologist Josh Donlan, the lead author of the proposal. "There are huge and substantial risks and obstacles."
The plan grew from a retreat at Turner's New Mexico ranch -- a 155,000-acre property in the foothills of the Gila Mountains that contains a mix of ecosystems ranging from desert grasslands to pine forests.
Ecologists are using the ranch to experiment with reintroducing the Bolson tortoise to the region. These 100-pound burrowers were once found across the Southwest, but now survive only in a corner of northern Mexico's Chihuahuan Desert.
The scientists' discussion expanded to consider long-extinct Pleistocene species that have modern counterparts elsewhere in the world.
For example, a larger American cheetah once stalked pronghorn on these lands, with both species evolving special features that enabled them to accelerate to 60 mph. Today, pronghorns rarely are chased, except by the occasional pickup truck.
In Africa, modern cheetahs are being exterminated as vermin, with fewer than 2,000 remaining in some countries. Relocation could help both species retain important traits, the plan's proponents say.
Other living species that are counterparts to Pleistocene-era animals in North America include wild horses and asses, Bactrian camels, elephants and lions.
Donlan concedes that lions would be a tough sell to Americans.
"Lions eat people," he said. "There has to be a pretty serious attitude shift on how you view predators."
Ironically the next day this piece of news was on CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/18/tiger.attack.ap/index.html
Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to be on my toes.
Invite a retard to a picnic and you'd better expect to get drool in the potato salad.