PDA

View Full Version : Newest US OHV threat - lions and elephants?



jeepsonly
08-17-2005, 06:02 PM
Interesting article. Some scientists are suggesting the introduction of elephants, lions (the big ones), camels and more into the western and southwestern US. The thought is that they would flourish on the open land and cause wildlife to keep moving around. There's more to it than that but the thought that came to my mind is that I bet this will end up being another reason to keep OHV users from the trails; the danger aspect as well as "protecting the species".

The article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8983461/

AZ is not mentioned in the article but NM is.

papajeep
08-17-2005, 06:21 PM
There is a reason these animals were hunted to extiction. These people are nuts :confused: Its bad enough to have wolves roaming around killing livestock and dragging small children off, now they want lions?



Interesting article. Some scientists are suggesting the introduction of elephants, lions (the big ones), camels and more into the western and southwestern US. The thought is that they would flourish on the open land and cause wildlife to keep moving around. There's more to it than that but the thought that came to my mind is that I bet this will end up being another reason to keep OHV users from the trails; the danger aspect as well as "protecting the species".

The article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8983461/

AZ is not mentioned in the article but NM is.

Hackle
08-17-2005, 07:49 PM
Meanwhile we are killing fish in areas because they are of a nonnative species and eat the native species. Wouldn't a Lion and elephant be considered nonnative or invasive species????? Some of the sceince just proves that in some cases the more education they get the less common sense they can apply. JMHO
Jim F.

SavageSun4x4
08-17-2005, 09:49 PM
Well at first I thought you were kidding, then I saw the web addy and I thought it was a joke, no its for real, guess maybe its still a joke.

If anyone will review the record of local/state/US governments managing and introducing game and fauna to offset what ever they always seem to think is broken, it is a dismal record. More often than not, the damage caused by the introduction of foreign species only goes to upset the balance of nature, not restore it. Manís record for restoring nature has been a disaster no matter where it has been tried.

The article mostly blames hunters for all the problems of the world, going back as far as 100ís of thousands of years ago. If it were only that simple.

This is a clear case of extreme liberal nuts using unproven and junk science to lay the foundation for their case. Fact is we cannot predict with any degree of certainty what the short term results and long term outcome will be. The most recent example is the non-native fauna that has taken over our desert and led to the increased fires that we now have.

For those of you who are a little older such as myself, we remember when it was a coming ďICE AGEĒ, now it global warming. All this in less than 40 years.

My take on the Spotted Owl: Well this wouldnít be the first owl that is not with us any more. Seen any dinosaurs lately? Of several million years that various animals have been on earth the only ones that have managed to hang around have been the Alligator/crocodile, the Shark and Roaches, everything else except what is living right now is either referred to as a fossil or on its way to becoming one. And no, I donít believe the crap that we started out as some slime on the bottom of the ocean and now we are walking talking mankind. This is not to say I donít think there arenít a few folks around that are walking fossils and or slime, hell I have met too many of them. The reason I donít believe it, simple, there is not a shred of evidence to support it

My take on Global Warming: Ask any scientist, the answer will always be the same. Planets and stars are:
Getting warmer, 100% of the time.
Getting colder, 100% of the time.
Getting warmer, then colder, then warmer, etc, etc in a cyclic fashion 100% of the time.
Remaining at a constant temperature, 100% of the time.

If your selected any answer BUT number 3, then you donít get a chance to spin the cash wheel or move on to the lighting round. Ice ages may come and go, what was desert is now lush forest, what was lush forest is now desert. And, so it goes on ole Mother Earth, with or without or in spite of what we do.

For those who think they can change something, try this. Pee in the ocean, fart in a whirlwind and stick your hand in a bucket of water. Now look to see if the ocean is piss-yellow or you can smell your fart and did your hand leave a hole in that bucket of water? :D

scully
08-17-2005, 10:41 PM
As a zoo keeper, I've worked with big cats (Lions, tigers, cheetahs, even hyenas) and managing them would be a liablity nightmare! I doubt that Fish & Game would go for such an idea. Look at all the trouble they have with our mountain lions and black bears. Could you imagine them trying to control big cats and elephants that wandered to far from were their "supposed" to be! The only way that they could really pull this off is if they fenced in a large range, and that would defeat the purpose!
My 2 cents!

Marv Miller
08-18-2005, 06:44 AM
Quote fromt the article:
"Start now
The park would actually involve multiple locations and phases of introduction, beginning immediately."

Fence the animals in, keep the people out... Sounds like a backdoor method of forcing access denial.

Sedona Jeep School
08-18-2005, 08:10 AM
Hahahahahaha!!!!! Oh, they're serious?

You know when we have one of our own goes off and talks about tearing up the trails and drinking and driving and we all say "STOP, idiot! You are making us all look bad!"? This is one of those times for the environmentalists...:D

Here is my favorite part of the article:

"One justification for "rewilding," as the scientists call it, is that one way or another, we humans have a dramatic effect on the animal kingdom and ecology in general, so a proactive approach is better...(otherwise) landscapes will come to be dominated by dandelions, rats and other undesirables..."

Undesirables according to some HUMANS. 100 years ago, many of our native species were considered "undesirable." That statement just totally negates his whole argument. Do we still think so highly of ourselves as a species and our past record that we deem ourselves worthy to continue to judge all other species on the planet? We humans have had a dramatic effect on the planet, and to continue to act like God will not improve our effect. This goes for introducing elephants, exterminating fish, and building lakes in the desert.

"Large predators can be "keystone species" that are crucial to shaping the flora and fauna of an entire range." Guess what guys--WE have been the large predators who have shaped the age. If we don't like it, we have only ourselves to thank.

I just picture folks scrambling around on the enviro chat board trying to shut those guys up... :D

My1stJeep
08-18-2005, 02:23 PM
ROFLMAO

Oh wait you were serious with all that stuff...



I think the idea is to REINTRODUCE species that were once NATIVE. The goal is to attempt to bring more balance to the present eco-system.

First thought... uh anyone have any records on either of these animals roaming freely in the United States without being introduced by humans? Just curious as I don't have any idea, never heard of African Lions or Camels roaming the US without being brought here.



No. I highly doubt it. If you look at the regions they have outlined, its mostly the great plains regions of the united states, an environment similar to the areas they wish to import from. These animals DO NOT live in mountainous regions. They are more comfortable on open plains. They did say they would introduce these into areas being left by farmers.

Awesome, they don't live in the mountains, they live even closer to the majority of the populations in those areas, makes me feel even better.

I will agree with that we have been a part of the problem when it comes to some species dwindling in numbers and even going extinct. However nature has a way of helping out and new species are coming into play all the time, sometimes species just evolve to the surroundings to survive.



As far as your comments on humans once being slime, I wouldn't believe that either, LITERALLY. Life took many forms between slime and our present state. Many things. READ A BOOK.

Guess the joke was missed. Me personally I have read a book and still am, it explains alot, called the Bible. You may to choose to believe it and you may choose not, your choice, you just better be right.



Its obvious your conception of what science and knowledge is, depends on whats in front of your face. Unfortunately, Americans believe whats on TV. First you have to know how science works, before you can claim its junk. The problem is that politicians are trying to entangle science with idealogical and political BS. Then they sell it to the public through the stupid box and Americans buy it because they are 49th in the US on dollars per student funding.

HUH? American buy it because they are the 49th in the US on... Lost me there isn't America and the US the same thing? As far as it being BS, that comes down to personal opinion. You will find just as many scientists that will say the fauna introduced is adding fuel to the fires and causing more damage, and others will say it has no affect. Just attend the next BLM land use meeting, you will have one scientist stand up to say you have to close the area or lose a specie, and other who will say they have found no reason to believe any encroachment has a slip in numbers. You then get to choose to believe who you feel is right, that is in person, no stupid box needed.

As for having to see it face to face I think that applies to everyone. We go to school, we are taught what to believe. As time goes on so does alot of peoples blind acceptance. Growing up I never heard anyone question the Halocaust, yet another generation or two have come up and now some question it, are some just trying to cause problems yes. Some say that the landing on the moon and space travel is nothing more than a TV show designed to corrupt us, yet not ever being in space do you believe we have been? Do you believe the history books about the Revolution? Civil war? The contenants all being one large land mass before breaking apart and creating our land masses of today? How about Jack the Ripper? All things that I would love to see actual proof of, right here and now in front of my face (I am sure some can be proven wth some DNA, etc...) but I did not see it happen so how do I know? Same logic is applied when people choose to believe in the Bible or not, to me it is a very interesting History book.

My guess is it will never happen. Yes our eco system is different then before and I am sure it is not perfect, but it is adapting. Helping animals that are on the decline is one thing, the California Condor is a good example, but having a specie (if they have ever just roamed the US without being shipped here, then again how did anything start roaming the earth?) re-introduced after being gone for so many years is just flat out setting us up for a disaster.

I am not sure I can see how you can say they are all wrong? They have a right to their opinion, you have a right to yours, but who has the right to say who is wrong and who is right?

papajeep
08-18-2005, 04:05 PM
I am not sure I can see how you can say they are all wrong? They have a right to their opinion, you have a right to yours, but who has the right to say who is wrong and who is right?

I'll decide who decides :D

papajeep
08-18-2005, 04:13 PM
Papajeep: "There is a reason these animals were hunted to extiction. These people are nuts Its bad enough to have wolves roaming around killing livestock and dragging small children off, now they want lions?"

Uhmm. No. Sorry to say, the only reason large mammals were killed off at the end of the last ice age, say 100,000 to 40, 000 years ago was because they HAD NEVER SEEN A HUMAN BEING.

Uhmm. wrong professor. The wolves were killed off by the farmers because the wolves killed everything they came in contact with. Oh, by the way, I gots that out a won o them book learnin things :eek: .

SavageSun4x4
08-18-2005, 04:25 PM
RANT



All I got to say is: BONK! Wrong answer, you don't get to pick a door, spin the cash wheel or move on to the lighting round. :D

My1stJeep
08-18-2005, 04:58 PM
Oh, and they can't put elephants imported from somewhere else, where will all of us phat guys go? I an see it now, people will be running away, rogue elephant coming!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nah, it's only Chris.... :D

1BLKJP
08-18-2005, 05:07 PM
Oh, and they can't put elephants imported from somewhere else, where will all of us phat guys go? I an see it now, people will be running away, rogue elephant coming!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nah, it's only Chris.... :D

Hey, I don't want people petting me because they are confusing me for an elephant. :D

You know having an elephant on each trail would be cool. Need a tug and it would be right there. :D

This is an interesting concept, but there are some holes in their theories and conclusions. I mean we do have some fairly large predators that populate the US currently like the different bears and some larger cats. But to introduce large species of mammals into an area that is a fragment of the size that they are accustomed to roaming in is kind of asking for trouble. Because I highly doubt a few thousand pound elephant is really going to be stopped by any fence if he/she doesn't want to be.

Allen
08-18-2005, 07:07 PM
Lions and elephants??? There was NEVER lions and elephants here. Although there were buffalo, horses, mountain lions, wolves, elk, deer and many other breeds that inhabited this very land before man did. The problem with re-population of these species is MAN. To sucsessfuly populate this land with it's native wildlife would require that man leave! A million head of buffalo storming thru Phoenix would be a major problem

Lets be real...

Humans have taken over this planet. They have massively growing populations on every continent except Antartica, and I'm sure it's growing some some there too. At mans current rate of growth we will cover every desert some day! I'd guess It'll be getting crowded here in about 1200 years. Where will you put the lions we have now when we have track homes and mini malls in Kenya.

If man is to save the ballance of Earth he has to figure out how to raise lions and elephants..... and man on Mars. He'll have to go somewhere. At some point in time man will have to find a new wilderness to tame or every species will perish...... all of them!

thats my $.02


I bet there is some great 4 wheeling on Mars!

Quasimotor
08-19-2005, 08:32 AM
Data can be skewed to deliver whatever message the academic was trying to point out. It's funny how we try to fix things that haven't been broken for eons, but all of a sudden we decide there is urgency, and think we can protect everyone from themselves.

Quasimotor
08-19-2005, 09:12 AM
We need a more educateed public. Period.
I admit it, I'm not educateed as you are, and I don't feel like starting another arguement.

Sedona Jeep School
08-19-2005, 09:20 AM
You remind me of my husband, except my husband thinks the bible is a colorfully entertaining piece of fiction. I agree that we will disagree, because I have holes in my drywall from "discussions" at my house about ecology, environment, and human importance.:) (Oooh, this is fun!) A few notes on my position:


...the article is not refrencing a 100 years ago, its speaking on the order of thousands, not hundreds. The reason animals were deemed undesirable a hundred years ago is because we were ignorant of ecology. Plain and simple. We understand more now. And WHO was deeming animals undersirable matters here too...farmers and ranchers.
We still are ignorant. I used 100 years ago as a local example, because that is the time frame in which we can site specific examples in our region. It just dawned on us in the last 100 years of our meager (arguably) 30,000 year existence that maybe WE were effecting massive changes. And so in our vast 100 years of accumulating knowledge on the subject, we deem ourselves worthy and capable of attempting to reverse 30,000 years of impact? What is the ultimate goal? Any topics on "balance" conveniently leave out what adjustments humans will make. At what point do WE stop trying "to bring balance" back to our ecosystem? When we have big cats hunting us? (oh, yeah, mountain lions.) When we all hunt and gather, again? (Um, there are a whole lot of folks that will be moving OUT of Phoenix!) That is what I love about the "let's fix it" folks--"Okay, NOW we are smart enough to control the world...muhahahaha!"


The animals were easy targets for an already sophisticated human hunter...Again your worng about WE being keystone species. Do hunt and gather? Or do you go to the grocery store? Face it, hunderds of years ago we gave up hunting and went toward agriculture. We are not a predator in the same sense.
No--we are not a predator in the same sense--we're worse. We have become so sophisticated, that most of us don't even have to hunt to kill off species--we use bulldozers to plow under thousands of acres at a time and devastate entire ecosystems. In that sense, we are the keystone species. We are in the middle of the largest extinction since the Permian--and it is our human "infestation" that is the accelerator. By the way, I can hunt and gather when I choose to. Can you?


I think the idea is to REINTRODUCE species that were once NATIVE. The goal is to attempt to bring more balance to the present eco-system. The idea is to have nature balance out the repsective populations.
My belief is that we are not and have never been smart enough to manage the ecosystem. So quit friggin' messing with it. Mother nature WILL balance out itself without our help--we just may not like the outcome. What humans should be doing is worrying about what they can do to minimize their impact and live sustainably, not sticking their short-sighted bureaucratically-thickened fingers into the soup again and again. What I have come to understand is that those who are called "radical environmentalists" are really very philanthropocentric: they want to preserve the planet in a way the best benefits continuing human existence. I, however, doubt whether human existence is good for the planet at all! :D We can fit in, or we can leave, but quit trying to change everything!


Uhmm...Can you say California Condor? Clearly you are taking a "slippery slope" view of the effort. There are success stories, its just the media seems to like to blow up the obstacles.
For every critter on the very short list of species saved, there are thousands gone, and more that we never even knew existed and our presence killed them off anyway. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to save those critters, but any successes we have had has been, in most part, due to sheer dumb luck. By the way, I go to see the condors almost every month--they are so cool!


Its obvious your conception of what science and knowledge is, depends on whats in front of your face. Unfortunately, Americans believe whats on TV. First you have to know how science works, before you can claim its junk. The problem is that politicians are trying to entangle science with idealogical and political BS. Then they sell it to the public through the stupid box and Americans buy it because they are 49th in the US on dollars per student funding.
I agree with you about TV--that's why I haven't had it for four years. What is in front of my face are sensationalist publications like Scientific American, Science Journal, Works-in-Progress papers from our local biologists, archaeologists, and geologists, and--okay, I'll admit--National Geographic. Makes for wonderfully light bedtime reading.

I want to see the business plan from these scientists, complete with 50-, 1000-, and 50,000-year proforma HUMAN inhabitation, not what animals we introduce. Typical human response--"it's not me, it's them!" :D

Just curious--what do you do for a living?

I would love to meet you--we could have very lively discussions--first "soft" drink is on me if you are going to CK tomorrow!

Bring it. :D

Quasimotor
08-19-2005, 09:31 AM
You remind me of my husband, except my husband thinks the bible is a colorfully entertaining piece of fiction. I agree that we will disagree, because I have holes in my drywall from "discussions" at my house about ecology, environment, and human importance.:) (Oooh, this is fun!) A few notes on my position:


We still are ignorant. I used 100 years ago as a local example, because that is the time frame in which we can site specific examples in our region. It just dawned on us in the last 100 years of our meager (arguably) 30,000 year existence that maybe WE were effecting massive changes. And so in our vast 100 years of accumulating knowledge on the subject, we deem ourselves worthy and capable of attempting to reverse 30,000 years of impact? What is the ultimate goal? Any topics on "balance" conveniently leave out what adjustments humans will make. At what point do WE stop trying "to bring balance" back to our ecosystem? When we have big cats hunting us? (oh, yeah, mountain lions.) When we all hunt and gather, again? (Um, there are a whole lot of folks that will be moving OUT of Phoenix!) That is what I love about the "let's fix it" folks--"Okay, NOW we are smart enough to control the world...muhahahaha!"


No--we are not a predator in the same sense--we're worse. We have become so sophisticated, that most of us don't even have to hunt to kill off species--we use bulldozers to plow under thousands of acres at a time and devastate entire ecosystems. In that sense, we are the keystone species. We are in the middle of the largest extinction since the Permian--and it is our human "infestation" that is the accelerator. By the way, I can hunt and gather when I choose to. Can you?


My belief is that we are not and have never been smart enough to manage the ecosystem. So quit friggin' messing with it. Mother nature WILL balance out itself without our help--we just may not like the outcome. What humans should be doing is worrying about what they can do to minimize their impact and live sustainably, not sticking their short-sighted bureaucratically-thickened fingers into the soup again and again. What I have come to understand is that those who are called "radical environmentalists" are really very philanthropocentric: they want to preserve the planet in a way the best benefits continuing human existence. I, however, doubt whether human existence is good for the planet at all! :D We can fit in, or we can leave, but quit trying to change everything!


For every critter on the very short list of species saved, there are thousands gone, and more that we never even knew existed and our presence killed them off anyway. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to save those critters, but any successes we have had has been, in most part, due to sheer dumb luck. By the way, I go to see the condors almost every month--they are so cool!


I agree with you about TV--that's why I haven't had it for four years. What is in front of my face are sensationalist publications like Scientific American, Science Journal, Works-in-Progress papers from our local biologists, archaeologists, and geologists, and--okay, I'll admit--National Geographic. Makes for wonderfully light bedtime reading.

I want to see the business plan from these scientists, complete with 50-, 1000-, and 50,000-year proforma HUMAN inhabitation, not what animals we introduce. Typical human response--"it's not me, it's them!" :D

Just curious--what do you do for a living?

I would love to meet you--we could have very lively discussions--first "soft" drink is on me if you are going to CK tomorrow!

Bring it. :DThe only thing tougher to argue with than a woman, is a smart woman.....I digress
Cheers Sedona!

Strange, on that same page the list the top 10 deadliest animals, and guess what, at least two of the species they list are on the transplant list! Wow that makes sense, lets see we don't have enough hazards in our lives, lets add some more. Here's the link: http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/top10_deadliestanimals.html

AZXJ
08-22-2005, 07:16 AM
This all kinda reminds me of Jurassic park... and well, it didn't work..

Yeah, I'm simply minded, under educated and am easily entertained by the boob toob... but I have enough common sense to see that this project that US as humans has taken on to try to save the planet. Won't work.. The planet will save it's self or eventually destroy it's self.. We are insignificant dwellers of this giant ball of rock.... Space will determine this planets future...

azjeepcjman
08-23-2005, 03:45 AM
No. Some people WANT you to believe that, but let me clear things up for you.

Numbers are numbers. They don't lie.

Its the INTERPRETATION and PRESENTATION of the those numbers that can be skewed.

That is where the problem is, always. What do the numbers MEAN? IS a 5% drop in goofy footed, yellow striped, pigeon ***** something to be concerned about? I don't know!! But the fact is, there is a 5% drop. See what I mean?

Thats why I look at the numbers, when I considering what someone is SAYING.

I see it all the time in academic papers. The explanation is sometimes far from what I think the data reveals.



I completely disagree with this thought process. True, the numbers don't lie, but the results of any study can be predetermined by someone wanting to make a point by what questions are asked and how they are asked. Many so called scientific studies are comissioned by groups looking to support their viewpoint, and it is always possible to selectively study an issue to come up with the desired results. This in no way suggests all studies are biased, only that it frequently happens.

Quasimotor
08-23-2005, 09:16 PM
Mama say's "Science is the devil"....

SavageSun4x4
08-24-2005, 10:31 AM
True stories:
In the 60's the USSR always one to state how much better they were than the US posted race results in the Russian newpaper.

"In the race the USSR sponsored team finished in second place while the US team finished next to last."

The data:
There were 2 cars in the race.
The US car finished first.
The USSR car finshed last.

A little closer to home:
Several years ago VW was comparing is cost to repair in a slow speed collision. If memory serves me correctly VW backed it theirs into a brick wall at about 5 mph. The cost to repair was a few dollars for a tail light lens. The US car they compared it too was a Jeep and the cost to repair was well over $2,000 bucks.

The data:
VW, Golf
Jeep, Wrangler with hardtop
6' VERTICAL brick wall

Somebody at DC dug into this and found out about the data. VW was forced to pull its print ad as a result.

marsquatch
08-24-2005, 03:29 PM
I say bring them over here to save me money. Do you know how much money it costs to go to Africa to hunt? Bring them over here and let us manage them like the rest of the critters. Or maybe Elephant could become the new cow? Is elephant white or dark meat?

mingoglia
08-24-2005, 04:03 PM
Or maybe Elephant could become the new cow? Is elephant white or dark meat?

I have nothing constructive to add as you guys are batting this around pretty well yourselves... but I will say that the above quote is pretty funny... :D

SavageSun4x4
08-24-2005, 04:44 PM
Is elephant white or dark meat?
Its dark meat, but I'll be danged if it doesn't taste just like chicken :D

Hackle
08-24-2005, 05:28 PM
I can give you an example of hard science data being used incorrectly and it is very close to home. You may have seen that they are talking about delisting the Pygmy Owl. Well the data came in that they could be endangered so they listed them on the ESA. What they did not point out is that they only used the sample taken on the US side of the Mexican border. Once you cross the border they can be found in great numbers.
To say that hard science numbers are not skewed toward the side they want to support is living in a dream world and ignoring facts. What about all the scientists found a couple years ago brought up on charges (while working for US Fish & Wildlife) planting lynx hair to slant a survey???
BTW this is a great discussion no name calling just sharing ideas. I wish all the threads would do this.
Jim F.

Sedona Jeep School
08-24-2005, 05:36 PM
Its dark meat, but I'll be danged if it doesn't taste just like chicken :D
No, no, no...It tastes like spotted owl. :D

Quasimotor
08-24-2005, 09:24 PM
You know, it's bad enough to hit a javalina or a deer, an elephant might make a mess out of my rockbumper & winch..... Do they make "Elephant Gaurds": (you know like cattle gaurds only big enough a small boy can fall in)
Jim