You're probably thinking of the Tasmanian tiger, or thylacine as it is properly known - a marsupial, not a true tiger. Those once dwelt in mainland Australia too; they died out there before European colonisation, so their demise had nothing to do with the rabbit epidemic.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Should we kill off the tigers once and for all?
- Thread starter tt22
- Start date
You're probably thinking of the Tasmanian tiger, or thylacine as it is properly known - a marsupial, not a true tiger. Those once dwelt in mainland Australia too; they died out there before European colonisation, so their demise had nothing to do with the rabbit epidemic.
Homo sapians are predators. Who needs homo sapians?
You can say the same for all the other animals in the homo genus. But because we are the only ones left on earth the job is almost done.
tigers were killed off in austrailia, rabbits over took the country in no time.
50000 years ago at the arrival of the first humans in Australia there were actually many carnivorous animals present, e.g. the marsupial lion at the size of a small lion and also giant lizard at 7m. The spreading of rabbits and dromedaries in Australia is maybe more a problem of the missing predators than of bringing in species that does not belong there.
Australia would actually be a good candidate for reintroducing some predatory species with its large plains and few people. Since there are no more relatives of the extinct predators maybe leopards, cheetahs and lions would be examples of proxy species.
tt22 said:Australia would actually be a good candidate for reintroducing some predatory species with its large plains and few people. Since there are no more relatives of the extinct predators maybe leopards, cheetahs and lions would be examples of proxy species.
Or if we can find intact DNA(Hey its possible... though unlikely). But I think bringing them back would be a bad idea. Surely animals have come and gone since then. The animals have adapted to the present condition if we change that it could wipe a few animals out.
I assume this was ironic, but I am not sure who the irony is aimed at, me or the OP writer or both....
No irony, just pointing out that you can't spell the name of your own species.
At best you pointed out that I didn't spell it correctly there. But otherwise it was a nice contribution to the topic on your part. I am glad we have a member who checks people's spelling here. I look forward to your ongoing work.No irony, just pointing out that you can't spell the name of your own species.
It wouldnt be bad too experiment with some selection. I wouldnt really look at tigers just yet though. First i would make cockroaches and rats the top priority for eradication of close to 90% or hopefully 100% in the wild. The goal is all is keep the remainder in controlled environments for some experiments and of course conrolled breeding. Then i would seriously look into different species of flies and mosquitos for eradication. With the goal 100% eradication "in the wild". So we start of with bad organisms.
Why?
Well first they compete for resources and bring disease and contamination. Secondly is to see where it goes and what the outcome would be. In my estimation we can eliminate minimum 60% of the bugs and 100% of the rats for a start but remember there would still be relatively small captive breeding programs.
That is just the beginning and i believe this is what an intelligent species would look to do and is what (in my mind) a closer to type 1 civilization would look to do.
I can see having tigers in a protected area and tbh, you may not even have to kill them off BUT some can be sterilized at some point in there lives to keep populations in the controlled environment lelve.
Why?
Well first they compete for resources and bring disease and contamination. Secondly is to see where it goes and what the outcome would be. In my estimation we can eliminate minimum 60% of the bugs and 100% of the rats for a start but remember there would still be relatively small captive breeding programs.
That is just the beginning and i believe this is what an intelligent species would look to do and is what (in my mind) a closer to type 1 civilization would look to do.
I can see having tigers in a protected area and tbh, you may not even have to kill them off BUT some can be sterilized at some point in there lives to keep populations in the controlled environment lelve.
Last edited:
At best you pointed out that I didn't spell it correctly there. But otherwise it was a nice contribution to the topic on your part. I am glad we have a member who checks people's spelling here. I look forward to your ongoing work.
On contribution level, if you're so dumb you can't spell the name of your own species, what do you really think you have offer?
Ah, of course, you don't understand that little problem, do you?
Something we all need to remember is that there is no such thing as a 'natural' environment, anywhere on planet Earth.
Humans have modified everything so much, and so widely, that we have to accept that we, Homo sapiens, are the dominant ecological influence today.
Bearing this in mind, there is no ethical reason why we should not intervene further, to save animals that we consider worth saving. There is no reason why the process of saving them should require something 'natural', since there is no 'natural' environment left anywhere, anyway.
For this reason, I suggest that wealthy humans be invited to become the saviours of the worlds endangered animals. Those wealthy people can buy the vast areas of land required, and fence them to keep the endangered species in, and anything that might kill them out, especially people. They pay less wealthy people to plant the trees and other plants that might be needed.
A tiger need not live in tropical rainforest. A fenced off area of American prairie would be perfectly fine, if enough game animals are introduced. Or even regular meat drops. Suitable dens for our animals can be built out of suitable timber. Protected and fed, and free to roam acceptably large areas, they will breed like crazy.
Humans have modified everything so much, and so widely, that we have to accept that we, Homo sapiens, are the dominant ecological influence today.
Bearing this in mind, there is no ethical reason why we should not intervene further, to save animals that we consider worth saving. There is no reason why the process of saving them should require something 'natural', since there is no 'natural' environment left anywhere, anyway.
For this reason, I suggest that wealthy humans be invited to become the saviours of the worlds endangered animals. Those wealthy people can buy the vast areas of land required, and fence them to keep the endangered species in, and anything that might kill them out, especially people. They pay less wealthy people to plant the trees and other plants that might be needed.
A tiger need not live in tropical rainforest. A fenced off area of American prairie would be perfectly fine, if enough game animals are introduced. Or even regular meat drops. Suitable dens for our animals can be built out of suitable timber. Protected and fed, and free to roam acceptably large areas, they will breed like crazy.
I should remind you that Humans are natural and all living things effect their\THE environment.
Let professionals do all the monitoring. Some species, weather insect or animal, you only need a few hundred or maybe a thousand of course in a controlled environment shouldn't be a problem.
For this reason, I suggest that wealthy humans be invited to become the saviours of the worlds endangered animals. Those wealthy people can buy the vast areas of land required, and fence them to keep the endangered species in, and anything that might kill them out, especially people. They pay less wealthy people to plant the trees and other plants that might be needed.
A tiger need not live in tropical rainforest. A fenced off area of American prairie would be perfectly fine, if enough game animals are introduced. Or even regular meat drops. Suitable dens for our animals can be built out of suitable timber. Protected and fed, and free to roam acceptably large areas, they will breed like crazy.
Let professionals do all the monitoring. Some species, weather insect or animal, you only need a few hundred or maybe a thousand of course in a controlled environment shouldn't be a problem.
... what do you really think you have offer?
huh? what do you... have offer?
proper english, please.
From John
"I should remind you that Humans are natural and all living things effect their\THE environment."
That is why I put the word 'natural' in inverted commas.
I agree about using professionals. But I think there are enough mega-wealthy in this world that they can provide the funds. I care not that the new tiger reserve (or other animal reserve) be a private reserve, owned by a rich person. Just that it be done.
Of course, my suggestion is likely to be sabotaged by idiots in politics.
"I should remind you that Humans are natural and all living things effect their\THE environment."
That is why I put the word 'natural' in inverted commas.
I agree about using professionals. But I think there are enough mega-wealthy in this world that they can provide the funds. I care not that the new tiger reserve (or other animal reserve) be a private reserve, owned by a rich person. Just that it be done.
Of course, my suggestion is likely to be sabotaged by idiots in politics.
huh? what do you... have offer?
proper english, please.
Wireless keyboard, drops out if I type too fast. Doreen made the same spelling error twice however.
I could gripe about your capitalisation, but that would be an equally petty nit pick. Cheerio!