"A Void in the Ecosystem"

Here's the latest craptacular nonsense from a group of scientists who don't know jack about the real world.

If a group of US researchers have their way, lions, cheetahs, elephants and camels could soon roam parts of North America, Nature magazine reports.
The plan, which is called Pleistocene re-wilding, is intended to be a proactive approach to conservation.

The initiative would help endangered African animals while creating jobs, the Cornell University scientists say.

Evidence also suggests, they claim, that "megafauna" can help maintain ecosystems and boost biodiversity.

"If we only have 10 minutes to present this idea, people think we're nuts," said Harry Greene, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell University, US.

"But if people hear the one-hour version, they realise they haven't thought about this as much as we have. Right now we are investing all our megafauna hopes on one continent - Africa."

Not wacky enough for you yet? Read on!

During the Pleistocene era - between 1.8 million to about 10,000 years ago - North America was home to a myriad of mega fauna.

Once, American cheetah (Acinonyx trumani) prowled the plains hunting pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) - an antelope-like animal found throughout the deserts of the American Southwest - and Camelops, an extinct camelid, browsed on arid land.

But man's arrival on the continent - about 13,000 ago, according to one prevalent theory - pushed many of these impressive creatures to extinction.

Oh, that's right, these animals are extinct, so it must have been the fault of humans. It's utterly impossible under their own theories of evolutionary mechanics that these species just died out, right? How about this one:

Their disappearance left glaring gaps in the complex web of interactions, upon which a healthy ecosystem depends. The pronghorn, for example, has lost its natural predator and only its startling speed - of up to about 60mph - hints at its now forgotten foe.

Now, call me crazy, but don't you think that humans would have more interest in eating "pronghorn" (read: antelope) than lions? Isn't it far more likely that humans would have driven prey to extinction than predators?

So, what's it going to be? Are we going to leave habitats alone and let nature maintain its old balance? Or are we going to screw around with these ecosystems and introduce foreign animals, essentially without consequences?

And the money shot?

"We are not advocating backing up a van and letting elephants and cheetah out into the landscape," he said. "All of this would be science driven."

Science-driven, huh? In the same way that the fiasco of grey wolf "reintroduction" in Western states is "science-driven"? Wolves are running unopposed because ranchers and farmers aren't allowed to shoot them except in extreme circumstances. The so-called "reintroduction" of species that have been absent from an ecosystem for decades and centuries simply doesn't work; why should we expect that this asinine "reintroduction" of species that aren't even native to replace species that haven't been around for thousands of years should be any different?

And let's not forget, ladies and gentlemen, that in places where lions are native, attacks have increased by three hundred percent in the last fifteen years.

There are alternative links here and here.

Bottom line? This proposal is the same kind of asinine pseudo-science that gives us propaganda on global warming. It's lousy policy, and it's doomed to failure.

Unless, of course, it gives me the opportunity to hunt African lions in Kansas, or elephants in Utah... But it won't, so yeah, failure, plain and simple.