Acme

How are aquatics/fish more 'real' than birds, reptiles, or mammals? As to reintroducing more recent extinct creatures such as pigeons I don't see how reintroducing them could be more damaging than killing them off in the first place. When you reduce the variety in biota you reduce ecosystems' health. If by disruption you mean inconvenience to humans, I don't buy that argument. Again to the article in the OP. On the pigeons & elms, I found some information.. http://www.endangeredspecieshandbook.org/projects_saving.php I agree about the problem of invasives/exotics. Here again human 'sensibilities' stand in the way of actually doing anything about the problem. Take the European Starlings example you gave. They, along with English House Sparrows are about the only 2 bird species not protected in the US. In other words, people can kill them legally. Yet there is -in my experience- a negative reaction from people who see getting rid of them simply as killing wildlife. I mean they are so cute/pretty after all. Any logical arguments about their deleterious ecological impacts fall on [mostly] deaf ears.

It's a bit difficult knowing what most think as it's rather a new subject. Getting to what folks think seems to be the point of the thread. post #1 While the focus of that point seems to be about the actual regeneration work, it is as you imply more than just that. The article in the Times has a comment about the relationship between passenger pigeons and Elm trees. I'm not sure what that relationship is so I'll have to do some reading. So to again answer the original posters question, yes I think resurrecting extinct animals is a good idea, not simply because of the knowledge in genetic manipulation it generates, but because of the restoration/preservation of habitats that is required to sustain the resurrected creatures.

I don't think the number than can be worked on is so limited, rather the number of those that are being worked on. The interest in extinction is growing however as the rate of extinctions is increasing. Collecting DNA from extinct species is a hit or miss business and while age does play a roll, the circumstances of particular samples is not insignificant. Presumably many of the following creatures are preserved in some museum or others, but as I mentioned earlier, Ben Novak [central character in the OP article*] had numerous potential sources of pigeon DNA, but most holding the specimens wouldn't allow him to have any samples. Full article here: >> http://www.buzzle.com/articles/extinct-animals-in-the-last-100-years.html * http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/magazine/the-mammoth-cometh.html?_r=0

It's not about pets, but Moontan and dimrpr brought them into the discussion so I discussed. Seems to me then that contrary to what you just wrote, you honestly do care. I have not espoused any pie-eyed delusion of a pristine environment, and I don't hold any such vision. I do espouse taking a hard unemotional look at the facts. As I said to Moontan [and paraphrasing] if you don't want me to further comment on the pet angle, don't bring it up again. That strikes me as a practical and realistic approach. Just when I was thinking that a potential problem for keeping regenerated mammoths alive might be an absence of necessary digestive flora, I ran across an example of a real resurrection. This one, as with some mammoth DNA sources, is from the frozen ice of Siberia, but the bringing-back was quite accidental. Mammoths and sloths and viruses oh my! http://news.yahoo.com/giant-virus-resurrected-permafrost-30-000-years-202120390.html Kinda makes some arguments about whether we oughta or not oughta moot. We already hava.

I am reminded of a passage from Caroll's Through the Looking-Glass, where the over-arching theme is one of bass-ackwardness. As you have asserted that life's too short not to laugh, I hope this is not out of context here.

Guess we'll just have to wait & see. As Mr. Twain observed, predictions are hard to make, especially when they deal with the future.

Then why keep bringing it up? Moreover I don't think it's off topic because it bears on the wider issue of whether it's a good idea to bring back extinct creatures, which bears on the idea of what makes creatures go extinct in the first place, which is considerably affected by/bears on pet-keeping.. You would agree it's a good idea not to threaten species with extinction, yes? If you et all don't bring it up again, then I won't respond to it again. Otherwise, I will. If you think a separate thread for further discussion of pets is necessary, then by all means start it.

When I see something funny, I'll comment appropriately. I see no reason for a separate thread as I have tied my comments either to the OP and/or specific comments of other respondents. I'm not surprised you no longer wish to pursue the pet angle. Achieving the restoration of an extinct species -as well as preventing the extinction of more- could benefit all manner of other genetic and ecological work such as preventing or curing disease, producing safe genetically modified organisms, or creating sustainable ecosystems that work in concert with humans rather than in opposition. As was pointed out this will take hard work, and wishful thinking is anything but that.

Putin may get shirtless not because he takes it off, but because he loses it. http://news.yahoo.com/russia-hikes-rates-amid-market-carnage-over-ukraine-100455087.html

No. I can discuss it, it is you who cannot. Chadn recently informed me that appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy; perhaps he will comment here as well. Moreover, once again you ignored the facts of the damage your "good" dog ownership does that I laid out with my reference. You and other dog owners share part of the blame for habitat destruction and the harassment and death of many wild animals, plants, and their ecosystems. Deny it all you want, but the facts remain. If you have data to back up any of your claims, then present it so I can find fault at the source if it is there to find. Recall how misinformed you were about the coyotes? Is it possible you are misinformed on your other assertions? I recall you wanted a pet mammoth rather than promoting some wider benefit to bringing them and other extinct animals back. I think 'responsible pet ownership" is an oxymoron.

I gave a link outlining the negative effects of dogs on wildlife. Here it is again. >>http://tchester.org/srp/lists/dogs.html While I only quoted headings when I gave the link, each heading has material substantiating it as well as some links. I point out it was written by a dog owner. Your arguments strike me as the fallacy of 'No true Scottsman', which is to say you are a true/good dog owner and it's only other folks that are false/bad dog owners. Making light of your dog(s) killing squirrels does nothing to allay my concerns. While I have no [ethical] problem with zoos, raising livestock, or keeping working animals such as service dogs, I find pet-keeping to be rather selfish and on the whole damaging to environments. Not only so with domesticated pets, but with exotic pets all the more. Not only can the exotics cause havoc in the environment in which they are kept [pythons, goldfish, etc.], the collecting of them in the wild is a major world-wide problem. Someone said we should stop the extinctions that we can before we bring back any species, but I think those are not mutually exclusive goals. Bringing back extinct species adds to the broader biological sciences, whereas preventing extinctions would prevent unnecessary restoritivework. http://www.bornfreeusa.org/facts.php?more=1&p=439

But you are arguing. Reply, bring up, introduce, whatever. A comment by any other name must stand due criticism. While you bring up cats, which I agree are a problem, you ignore the negative consequences of your dog. How convenient. I see a bigger problem to bringing back extinct species from baseless objections of folks feeling they have some special position than from the actual technical difficulties. Just as with Moontan's thinking authorities introduced the coyotes, when in fact in at least 2 states it was dog owners who wanted to hunt them that did the introducing. What really was reintroduced in the East was the Red Wolf, and now the hunters are whining because they can't tell them from the coyotes and it's messing up their hunting because they're not allowed to kill the wolves. I'm more of a plant guy myself [too?]. If the plant community isn't there to support the animals, the problems only multiply for reintroducing extinct or endangered species. Here in the Pacific Northwest the Fender's blue butterfly is endangered as it is host-specific to Kincaid's Lupine which is endangered due to habitat being lost to development/farming. Then there is the Spotted Owl and the...yada yada yada. [On a more promising note, wolves and wolverines are starting to reappear in Oregon.] A major impediment to maintaining native plants are the invasives that push them out. I started a thread on the subject but it went nowhere fast. Again, I think people are more concerned with their nicely mown and watered lawns -and their snuggly pets- than any wider concern for environments. The Svalbard Global Seed Vault is perhaps a model for what we need in the animal kingdom. In the article of the OP, the guy wanting to bring back those Pigeons had no end of trouble securing DNA for his work. Svalbard Global Seed Vault: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault

You are the one who brought these things up. I am the one who showed your assessments questionable if not false. Pet owners are not part of the solution to protecting endangered species, they are part of the problem. The more wildlife we protect while it's here, the fewer we will have to worry about bringing back.

Not so. Older cars in particular have engines lacking pollution control for example. And remember the flap a while back over that cartoon of Mohamed with a bomb in his turban? No end of other examples if one bothers to look. Awww isn't that just all warm & cuddly. Not. This link gives data on a specific area, but the principles extend to taking dogs into any wild area. Safeguarding what we already have by taking your doggy along? I think not. http://tchester.org/srp/lists/dogs.html

Acknowledge rumor retraction. If the rumor did indeed come from pet owners I'm not surprised. As to packs of dogs I don't think they account for any significant part of the total of dog attacks whether fatal or not. FWIW I'm no fan of keeping pets and a few less equates to better off for me. But that's another topic. Trying to inflate the danger of wild critters whether large or small, extinct or extant, is little more than fear mongering. I'm not inclined to sympathy for hunters' or ranchers' arguments against reintroducing animals any more than I'm sympathetic to pet owners as they don't understand or don't care about the larger scientific perspective, rather their concerns are for their own small personal piece of pie. The ignorant mind, with its infinite afflictions, passions, and evils, is rooted in the three poisons. Greed, anger, and delusion. ~ Bodhidharma

Ok But I couldn't find a reference to such an intentional release. Do you have one? Checking Wiki I find the following on coyote attacks. No deaths reported. The ones I sell to can't even kill a roadrunner. Coyote attacks on humans: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_attacks_on_humans Edit: searching specifically for coyotes in W, Virginia I find a similar scenario as outlined for S. Carolina and Alabama That is, they were not intentionally released. >> http://www.wvdnr.gov/2005news/05news024.shtm

As I see no other point to this thread other than sharing cool cataclysmic-y stuff, I'll join in for a go. There is research that suggests suitably large impacts may trigger volcanic activity -flood or otherwise- at the antipode to the impact. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/10197028 Here's a seemingly well-writ and researched page on impacts, volcanism, and extinctions: >> If there is some other point here, by all means correct my error(s).

From what I can find, it is an urban legend that the coyotes were introduced to prey on deer. In your neighboring S. Carolina the coyote predation on deer is a pox according to their DNR. Do you have a reference detailing authorized releases? >> http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/coyote/index.html Seems they were also introduced to Alabama for hound-hunting. >> http://gdomag.com/stories.php?story=10/11/30/3643074 As to cougars in the west, Wiki says only 20 human deaths from 1890 to 2011.* source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_in_North_America For those people attacked in the wild, well, sorry about that poor preparedness on your part [or the part of your parent/guardian for those kids' fatalities] and your plain bad luck. What do you expect? Carry at least bear spray and a large sheath knife. If you are comfortable and/or competent, carry a handgun. Put a bell on your bike, pack, shoes, walking stick. Regularly check behind yourself as cougars like to attack from behind as well as from above and behind. As to the attacks in urban areas folks can expect that from time-to-time as we continue to encroach on land previously wild. But none of those critters are extinct so not much to do with resurrecting the extinct. I was being facetious with most the mammoth examples that I earlier gave [excepting providing work for scientists] and even if they do manage to revive them it would likely be a long time if ever that were reintroduced in the wild. I rather imagine that achieving resurrection will provide valuable broader knowledge to biology that makes the effort worthwhile in the absence of any other benefit. Edit: * In comparison, 33 people were killed by domestic dogs in 2013 alone. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Fatalities_reported_in_2013

What other eyes do you suggest we see through? Are you supporting Ancient Aliens here? In any case, I see no evidence for ancient aliens. The show is just ideas more-or-less based on Velikovsky's books of the 50's, put in snappy dressing. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky ]

Yes.

Sure; sounds good to me. With unemployment nagging at us we could use a lot of hard work. And after all, just being alive carries lots of risks and costs so that's nothing new. As to the mammoths, we could charge people to see them, we could train them to do work -maybe- as we do elephants, charge people to hunt/cull them, eat the meat [pet food?], tan the hides and make belts, purses, boots, and such, sell insurance for when they run amok, make TV programs about all the preceding, and otherwise utilize them as we do extant creatures. And who wouldn't want the chance to strangle an Auk again?

My explanation is that someone has spent seven days too many in the midday Sun.

Erhm...rabies? Anyway, just throwing out ideas and I've always wanted to sneeze on an alien.

I think that's Me So Kooko. Seriously though, has this guy lost all self-respect? I think all we have to do is sneeze on a couple aliens and let the viruses do the rest. Think War of the Worlds.

lol Nah. I'm a supplier of industrial equipment for coyotes. If you ever need a good deal on an anvil, call me.