Last week, the Associated Press ran an article about a controversial proposal making the rounds in various scientific journals. The idea is to populate large areas of the Great Plains with animals from Africa: Elephants, zebras, lions and the like.
You see, before humans came to North America many thousands of years ago, there were zebras, camels, elephant-like animals, hippopotamuses, and large cat predators on the Great Plains. These specific species were driven extinct long ago, but some scientists say that the ecology of the Great Plains would be best reconstructed if equivalent species from other continents, like Africa, were brought over to America and let loose in large nature preserves – with large fences around them to keep the dangerous beasts from running into downtown Lawrence, Kansas.
The question at the core of the controversial proposal is about the nature of nature. Would a Great Plains featuring African giraffes and cheetahs be more authentic than a Great Plains populated only by great corporate cornfields of genetically engineered plants? Or, is there a third solution, featuring authentically native American species like the American bison, pronghorn antelope, wolves, and cougars? Furthermore, for the sake of what would such an ecosystem be established/restored?
Let’s not leave it to the professional ecologists to discuss. At heart, it is as much a matter of values and vision as it is a subject of science. What do you think about a plan to put African creatures out on the American savannahs?
Would probably be a lot better to keep the African animals in Africa.
No doubt that the habitat’s good for them, no stress to the animals through capture, transportation and being released into an alien environment, and no damage to the wildlife that’s currently in America (I’m sure it’d adapt rather fast, but that seems a little cruel when there’s nothing to be gained from it).
Another thing; Africa’s not the richest country on the planet.
My parents have been to Africa, and I intend to go some day, too. Want to guess why?
Safari animals. Lions, elephants, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, zebras, wildebeest, and so on. The impressive wildlife of Africa is surely its number one tourist attraction, and this country NEEDS the support.
It would be unfair to the African tourist industry and to all the animals involved to needlessly test the theory that America might be okay for wild African animals.
That said; a small nature reserve for the African animals in danger of becoming extinct through poaching could be beneficial, though I think Africa would do better to not lose what it’s already got.
Also; African wildlife is dangerous, and most people aren’t aware of what’s REALLY dangerous in nature.
For example: THE most dangerous animal in England is the wasp (some people have allergic reactions and die; most adder bites result in little more than a sore arm for a few weeks). The most vicious animal we ever had was not the wolf or bear but the wild boars, because wild boars are grumpy and irritable, and make good use of those tusks.
I’m not sure the American public would adapt quickly enough to the fact that water buffaloes and hippos are hundreds of times more dangerous to people than lions.
Water buffaloes are pretty fearsome (again; grumpy, irritable, quick to attack) and hippos generally stick to watery environments but could bite a crocodile in half or a person’s arm off without much difficulty.
So; with no particular reason to relocate the wildlife it’s probably better off where it is.
Here we are on the brink of Iraqi civil war, there’s oil-driven famine and corruption in Niger and other African states, and gas prices show no signs of abating here (wait ’til you start shopping for fuel oil this winter guys) and you want us to worry about some hypothetical species shifting game in our mid-west? C’mon guys, it’s about as important as that writing prompt thing you keep doing. What’s up with this site anymore?
Please forgive the following feeble-minded (yet necessary) statement: did we learn NOTHING from Jurassic Park? Take note that Mr. Ted Turner is a huge supporter of this so-called project…the same man who thought colorization was a good idea.
Pardon, Tom, but let’s get something straight – We’ve been writing about Iraq for years. We’ve been writing about problems with an oil-fueled economy for years. We’ve written about gas prices quite often too.
You, on the other hand, have often written in comments to our articles on electoral politics saying that the fix is in and that there’s no hope, bordering onthe suggestion that we might as well all give up.
We can offer Sunday prompts to people who are trying their hands at creative writing and still write about Iraq. We can also write stories about scientific issues and still write about energy issues. It’s not one or the other, Tom.
If you look around the site, you’ll see that we have an entire section of articles devoted to gardening. That’s because a few of our writers have something to say on the subject, not because gardening is the number one most important subject on the planet.
I, for one, think that Irregular Times would be incredibly dull if it did the standard blog thing of babbling on and on about the same stories that someone could find on the front page of the New York Times, or watch on MSNBC.
Nothing’s happened to Irregular Times. We’ve been online for ten years, and hope to be online for another 50. But, we’re not about to narrow ourselves down to a single voice or a single tone, especially not the voice and tone of Chicken Little.
Sometimes it seems that the sky is falling a bit. It hasn’t fallen yet, and I think that there is plenty of room left under it for people with full and open minds interested in a variety of subjects.
We’re IRREGULAR. Get it?
Well, Tom; being repetitive leads to boredom which wouldn’t do Irregular Times or its arguments good.
Plus; I do consider species on this planet other than humans to be important, thanks.
Who owns the lands where they propose doing this?
If it’s public lands, and they plan to use public money to carry it out, I’d have to agree that it seems like, well a nice thing to do, but rather unnecessary.
The Jurassic Park comment is rather doomsday, but JP itself brings up another point. Is it possible to do the actual research to create a JP? Like the novel, with real genetically recreated dinosaurs? It probably isn’t today, but hey, spend enough money and spend enough time and who knows?
It might cost billions over 50 years, but why not, if you want to restore “once-native” creatures to that area? Is that idea crazy, or just an extension of what they are proposing here?
As far as poor people in Africa, HareTrinity, let me put a different spin on it for you. There are many millions of poor people in America, who will probably never have enough money to go on a family vacation to Africa to visit a native game preserve. Why should we not value them? There are lots of them who could possibly drive to Kansas or take a bus trip for relatively little money and let their kids experience these wild animals in a natural setting. What’s wrong with that? Most of the rich people who travel to Africa to visit a game preserve do so because it’s “cool”. I doubt they’d be too interested in go to Kansas. Not enough panache.
The idea of bringing African Animals to America is just another distraction, they won’t really do it, even if they wanted. Now, here in MO. the Conservation Corps is really bringing back species of NATIVE animals to the prairies and forests and have been for quite some time. No, the buffalo will probabaly never roam free as they once did, but quail are popping up in better numbers and elk and wolves are being re-introduced. Many others are being researched and submitted for growth.We’re even beginning to have reports of cougars being sighted again! This is an example of grassroots work being done and not just government talking points to cover up something else.
There are many poor people everywhere, IceyMaster, along with many rich people not interested in observing wildlife.
The wildlife of Africa is one of the things that makes it special, and seeing them WILD is the experience I referred to. I’ve already seen the animals in zoos, and so long as the animals there are well cared for I doubt it’s called for that they roam wild in a country they’re not used to. And much as America does have a problem with poverty it’s not at the same level as Africa’s.
As for Jurassic Park; scientists keep changing their minds about whether or not it’s possible, but it doesn’t sound too unlikely as knowledge of how to clone lifeforms is improved.
Pros:
- More variety of wildlife in America
- Easy way for Americans to see the animals without having to leave their country
Cons:
- Expensive
- Stressful for the animals
- Increased amount of danger for the public
- Current wildlife may not mix well with new wildlife (come on; America’s already got wolves, coyotes, bears, foxes and cougars; does it need lions, jaguars, cheetahs, hyenas, leopards and so on added onto the food chain?)
- Damage to the tourist industry of Africa
- The point mentioned above will make America even more unpopular globally (I know you didn’t hear much about the G8 meeting over there, but a lot of people are very upset about how little the US put in to trying to end world poverty)
- Pointless?
We all know how introducing rabbits into Australia went, right? Even though they did okay in England, that’s because they and the brown hare (also not native to the country) pushed the mountain/blue hare populations aside. We still have mountain hares, just not nearly so many.
And you know some people would only support it for a chance to go and hunt these animals. Overall it’s a pointless and risky idea, and I agree with Stryder that it sounds like just a distraction.
Things in Iraq still getting worse? Hey, look, a giraffe! And an elephant!!!