Experimenting with Pleistocene Rewilding!

[Techno-Druid]

Wolves don't attack humans unless they're hungry. Weird, that goes for any predator. You could sit in a tiger enclosure and get lucky as long as the tiger is fed and thus sees no reason to kill you.

Have you even read this? The wikipedia entry DISAGREES WITH YOU for christs sake.
"The country with the most extensive historical records is France, where nearly 7,600 fatal attacks were documented"
The Wiki entry even points out how the vast mayority of these were NOT KILLED by rabbid wolves.

"Experts in India use the term "child lifting" to describe predatory attacks in which the animal silently enters a hut while everyone is sleeping, picks up a child, often with a silencing bite to the mouth and nose, and carries a child off by the head"

- - - Updated - - -


You posted like 2-3 threads about stuff that would've been located in Europe.

My god, but I'm not talking about Europe now and I never said wolves haven't kill humans, I'm saying they generally shy away from humans from what I've learned from most sources. I don't care about Europe right now, Europe can go do what it wants to do, but any rewilding idea in Europe has at least a little bit of my support. Besides from that though, let's get back to North America...OK?

- - - Updated - - -

Then don't tell Europeans how they have to handle animals..
If you have no clue what you're essentially talking about.
And when you talk US..... we're back to square one. Good luck getting the funding...
It has no use for anything remotely benefiting the military. And since the US is a military industrial complex, that's what it is..
There are vast lands in the US... But getting someone to sell it to you is another story.
I'm sure they're happy when they hear you wanna bring predatory wildlife in, beyond what's already there.
In all seriousness, the American wilderness doesn't need any special treatment.
It is a lush eco system that's healthy enough that predatory animals are already entering dense populated areal. What do you wanna do? Introduce natural enemies of Pumas, to avoid Pumas roaming through cities? Any wild animal that can and wants to kill a Puma, isn't hesitant to kill humans too.

WHEN DID I EVER TELL EUROPEANS HOW TO HANDLE THEIR ANIMALS, I SUGGESTED SOME OPTIONS AND CONCEPTS. Also, again, why are you people getting so butthurt by the idea of experimenting. No ecologist wants to just randomly release animals into the wilderness without doing any research, both for the inhabitants and the animals themselves. This is why I suggested fencing off the area and that they could be taken out if they show any negative affects with native fauna.

[Wildtree]

My god, but I'm not talking about Europe now and I never said wolves haven't kill humans, I'm saying they generally shy away from humans from what I've learned from most sources. I don't care about Europe right now, Europe can go do what it wants to do, but any rewilding idea in Europe has at least a little bit of my support. Besides from that though, let's get back to North America...OK?

Wolves are shy animals... That's nothing new. I think everyone knows that.
Their shyness decreases when they're in packs. It essentially dissipates when they're hungry.
A hungry pack of wolves attacks everything and anything edible. And we are edible prey for them.
That's essentially the reason why we aren't allowed to have wolves as pets at home. Because they see us as potential prey.

[Deleted]

My god, but I'm not talking about Europe now and I never said wolves haven't kill humans, I'm saying they generally shy away from humans from what I've learned from most sources. I don't care about Europe right now, Europe can go do what it wants to do, but any rewilding idea in Europe has at least a little bit of my support. Besides from that though, let's get back to North America...OK?

Once again, they only "shy away" when actively being culled/kept in check. It's not natural fear, it's trained and even then they engage in opportunistic attacks. The data you refer to is heavily flawed as people with a similar mindset to yours were studying wolves who were used to being hunted/encountering armed humans. That however has cost several people their lives already as they expected this still to apply and once the hunting stopped it soon stopped being true.

It's extremly obvious with European wolves, who aren't being hunted and have no fear of humans whatsoever. They are attacking sheep while people are around, they even ignore/drive away these people when they try to intervene and they're strolling right through cities and villages in board dailylight with people all around.

[Wildtree]

WHEN DID I EVER TELL EUROPEANS HOW TO HANDLE THEIR ANIMALS, I SUGGESTED SOME OPTIONS AND CONCEPTS.

Are you aware that neither of us has ever talked about Europe, until you dragged it into it.
You came up with ideas... people told you,"not gonna work".. You insisted how they need to adjust for it to work.
When the Europeans tell you, this isn't working because wolves invading our cities already, you tried to smart ass them with some Alaskan wolf guide.
You think they're stupid over there or something? lol

[Techno-Druid]

Wolves are shy animals... That's nothing new. I think everyone knows that.
Their shyness decreases when they're in packs. It essentially dissipates when they're hungry.
A hungry pack of wolves attacks everything and anything edible. And we are edible prey for them.
That's essentially the reason why we aren't allowed to have wolves as pets at home. Because they see us as potential prey.

Yes, why does it take another person to say it for it to not get slandered and for me to be insulted! Though, a wolf pack may not necessarily readily attack a human, though will certainly attack a dog which they may see as a threat.

[Kronik85]

Deleth? Where the fuck are you pulling all this Wolves Gone Bad stuff from? You got a source for these malevolent Wolves you describe?

[Techno-Druid]

Are you aware that neither of us has ever talked about Europe, until you dragged it into it.
You came up with ideas... people told you,"not gonna work".. You insisted how they need to adjust for it to work.
When the Europeans tell you, this isn't working because wolves invading our cities already, you tried to smart ass them with some Alaskan wolf guide.
You think they're stupid over there or something? lol

Sir, I didn't point a gun at anyone and tell them how to deal with wolves, I was offering some suggestions. Nor did I drag it up, but rather simply offered facts. It's a fact that most American subspecies of gray wolves are larger than most Eurasian subspecies. It's a fact that wolves are generally shy of humans unless of starvation or if humans haven't been encountered yet by them (though even then, I don't see a wolf not being weary of humans if they haven't encountered man).

- - - Updated - - -

Deleth? Where the fuck are you pulling all this Wolves Gone Bad stuff from? You got a source for these malevolent Wolves you describe?

Indeed he does.



Just joking with you, so don't get all butthurt. You threw insults at me anyway, so I at least deserve this to poke fun at you.

[Deleted]

Yes, why does it take another person to say it for it to not get slandered and for me to be insulted! Though, a wolf pack may not necessarily readily attack a human, though will certainly attack a dog which they may see as a threat.

Did you even read what he wrote? He didn't say what you did at all. In fact he wrote that wolves do prey on humans.

Deleth? Where the fuck are you pulling all this Wolves Gone Bad stuff from? You got a source for these malevolent Wolves you describe?

Which exactly? The numbers? Just look at the Wikipedia article Ate himself posted. And it's not "wolves gone bad" it's "wolves behaving like the predator they are". Or do you mean wolves happily strolling through villages/cities, having no natural fear of humans, savaging sheep while ignoring the people trying to drive them off?

[Techno-Druid]

Did you even read what he wrote? He didn't say what you did at all. In fact he wrote that wolves do prey on humans.


Which exactly? The numbers? Just look at the Wikipedia article Ate himself posted. And it's not "wolves gone bad" it's "wolves behaving like the predator they are". Or do you mean wolves happily strolling through villages/cities, having no natural fear of humans, savaging sheep while ignoring the people trying to drive them off?

Wolves can prey on humans, but rarely. You made it sound like there are just packs of wolves discussing how they are going to bring down humans or that wolves purposely enter human settlements to specifically prey of humans. Most predators will generally travel into human settlements for livestock, pets (both captive and feral) and trash/waste. Sometimes these wolves may attack people in the process, but specific predadation is extremely uncommon unless it is a young child.

[Wildtree]

Deleth? Where the fuck are you pulling all this Wolves Gone Bad stuff from? You got a source for these malevolent Wolves you describe?

he has a point
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-Germany.html

- - - Updated - - -

Wolves can prey on humans, but rarely. You made it sound like there are just packs of wolves discussing how they are going to bring down humans or that wolves purposely enter human settlements to specifically prey of humans. Most predators will generally travel into human settlements for livestock, pets (both captive and feral) and trash/waste. Sometimes these wolves may attack people in the process, but specific predadation is extremely uncommon unless it is a young child.

That is not because wolves don't usually attack humans, that's because of target size.
Wolves don't usually mess with bears in the wild. Single wolves definitely not, since they are no match to a bear.
A hungry pack however will stand it's ground against a grizzly.

[Kronik85]

Which exactly? The numbers? Just look at the Wikipedia article Ate himself posted. And it's not "wolves gone bad" it's "wolves behaving like the predator they are". Or do you mean wolves happily strolling through villages/cities, having no natural fear of humans, savaging sheep while ignoring the people trying to drive them off?

The wiki article talks about 7600 deaths over the course of 700 years in France, not being funny like but that's hardly a shocking statistic. Then there's a handful of attacks across the EU and a few fatalities across the world. Wild animals are dangerous, no shit. I'm talking about these marauding Wolves your having to shoot rubber bullets at to keep away from your kids.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in the Atethecat camp, I'm just curious if you have a source for these examples you keep belting out.

[Techno-Druid]

he has a point
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-Germany.html

- - - Updated - - -

That is not because wolves don't usually attack humans, that's because of target size.
Wolves don't usually mess with bears in the wild. Single wolves definitely not, since they are no match to a bear.
A hungry pack however will stand it's ground against a grizzly.

Yes, hunger is the driving force. I'm saying a wolf would opt out of hunting a human unless it was a pure starvation.

Can we just talk about another predatory animal? How about cheetahs? Cheetahs lived in North America until the arrival of humans in North America and their prey animal; the pronghorn, is still around. It could also be used for conservation to experiment with cheetahs in a large western American area.

[Kalis]

What benefit do we get out of reintroducing them? Bear in mind that "Because they're cool" is not a valid reason for putting potentially dangerous animals into a region.

[Fritters154]

You specified ecological surrogate which implys that its a different species soooo nope its invasive so are former native species after the fauna and flora got stabilisied exspecially if millenia past by in some of your pet projects.

Non-native and invasive are two very different terms in ecology but yeah, the potential for them to become invasive is an issue.

The idea is to replace a species with a species that fulfills it's exact role. It has worked very well with island systems and recent extinctions but I highly doubt replacing pleisotcene species in the modern day would work out well.

[Wildtree]

What benefit do we get out of reintroducing them? Bear in mind that "Because they're cool" is not a valid reason for putting potentially dangerous animals into a region.

Everyone wants to be a Stark and have their own wolf..

[Fritters154]

What benefit do we get out of reintroducing them? Bear in mind that "Because they're cool" is not a valid reason for putting potentially dangerous animals into a region.

The benefit is "habitat stabilization". So, we bring african cheetah to the american midwest to actually have a predator/prey relationship with pronghorn which are too fast for north american predators (they evolved alongside american cheetah).

The problem is that most of the relationships that would be "stabilized" just won't work anymore because there was too much time in-between now and their extinction. Lots of scenarios have shown it works well with recent extinctions and surrogate species with extremely similar functions but pleistocene rewilding is likely impractical.

[Kalis]

The benefit is "habitat stabilization". So, we bring african cheetah to the american midwest to actually have a predator/prey relationship with pronghorn which are too fast for north american predators (they evolved alongside american cheetah).

The problem is that most of the relationships that would be "stabilized" just won't work anymore because there was too much time in-between now and their extinction. Lots of scenarios have shown it works well with recent extinctions and surrogate species with extremely similar functions but pleistocene rewilding is likely impractical.

Is that actually of benefit to humans though? Having Googled pronghorn, they don't look like something we couldn't cull if required.

[Wildtree]

Yes, hunger is the driving force. I'm saying a wolf would opt out of hunting a human unless it was a pure starvation.

Can we just talk about another predatory animal? How about cheetahs? Cheetahs lived in North America until the arrival of humans in North America and their prey animal; the pronghorn, is still around. It could also be used for conservation to experiment with cheetahs in a large western American area.

We can talk about any predatory animal, and that's fine. But you have to live with the concerns how they are all potentially harmful to humans. So you won't find a lot of public support when it comes to them being anywhere near dense populated territory.
I believe, when it comes to the US, it's currently the opposite way. There is a problem with extremely dangerous predators that are getting out of control, and posing a serious thread to the human populated areas, caused by exotic predators smuggled into the country and set free.
Snakes come to mind now..

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/us...g-florida.html

[Techno-Druid]

Non-native and invasive are two very different terms in ecology but yeah, the potential for them to become invasive is an issue.

The idea is to replace a species with a species that fulfills it's exact role. It has worked very well with island systems and recent extinctions but I highly doubt replacing pleisotcene species in the modern day would work out well.

Well, you have to understand that I simply imply experimentation at the very least before something like this is done. Buy a few hundred acres of land, fence it off and release some native fauna and then some ecological surrogates and study the affects they have on any of the native fauna. Does that make sense to you? We don't know for sure unless we experiment.

- - - Updated - - -

We can talk about any predatory animal, and that's fine. But you have to live with the concerns how they are all potentially harmful to humans. So you won't find a lot of public support when it comes to them being anywhere near dense populated territory.
I believe, when it comes to the US, it's currently the opposite way. There is a problem with extremely dangerous predators that are getting out of control, and posing a serious thread to the human populated areas, caused by exotic predators smuggled into the country and set free.
Snakes come to mind now..

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/us...g-florida.html

That's why I chose cheetahs and not lions. Because cheetahs are generally fearful of most predators (including humans) unless they are in captivity. Most cheetahs will bolt at mere eye contact and their evolution for speed has made them terrible defensive fighters and many predators have taken advantage of that. Though the major cause for their extinction is the exotic pet trade in the Middle East and poaching.

- - - Updated - - -

Is that actually of benefit to humans though? Having Googled pronghorn, they don't look like something we couldn't cull if required.

Why does it have to benefit humanity? Bison don't benefit us, nor do wolves, brown bears, black bears and raccoons, but we don't simply eradicate them because they don't serve a purpose to us.

[Fritters154]

Is that actually of benefit to humans though? Having Googled pronghorn, they don't look like something we couldn't cull if required.

The honest answer to that is we don't really know. Due to humans ability to mostly escape the dynamics of ecosystems we know little about what happens to us if they are left broken. Ecology is discovering more and more about how ecosystem preservation or manipulation can benefit humans (erosion defense, CO2/Oxygen tradeoff, microbes, etc.) but it is generally difficult to quantify the benefits. In terms of quantifiable benefits, pleistocene rewilding is actually a high ranking project as it would bring in tourism value, at least at first.