Cow Could Soon Be Largest Land Mammal Left Due To Human Activity, Says Study (theguardian.com) 245
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The cow could be left as the biggest land mammal on Earth in a few centuries, according to a new study that examines the extinction of large mammals as humans spread around the world. The spread of hominims -- early humans and related species such as Neanderthals -- from Africa thousands of years ago coincided with the extinction of megafauna such as the mammoth, the sabre-toothed tiger and the glyptodon, an armadillo-like creature the size of a car. "There is a very clear pattern of size-biased extinction that follows the migration of hominims out of Africa," the study's lead author, Felisa Smith, of the University of New Mexico, said of the study published in the journal Science on Thursday. Humans apparently targeted big species for meat, while smaller creatures such as rodents escaped, according the report, which examined trends over 125,000 years. In North America, for instance, the mean body mass of land-based mammals has shrunk to 7.6kg (17lb) from 98kg after humans arrived. If the trend continues "the largest mammal on Earth in a few hundred years may well be a domestic cow at about 900kg", the researchers wrote. That would mean the loss of elephants, giraffes and hippos. In March, the world's last male northern white rhino died in Kenya.
Cows? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are moose endangered or something?
Re:Cows? (Score:5, Informative)
In Minnesota, moose populations are having difficulty with warmer winters leading to a higher parasite load (ticks). The warmer summers also stresses them.
In addition, at least one study has forecasted that with the expected amount of global warming, Minnesota forests will turn to grasslands in about a hundred years. The prairie/forest border will move up to the area of Thunder Bay, Ontario.
So at least where I'm at, moose may be locally extinct in a hundred years.
Chronic societal obesity MOOOOOO (Score:2)
Chronic societal obesity will change this. MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !
Re: (Score:2)
Are moose endangered or something?
Not particularly. But they don't outweigh cows, either. An adult male moose may weigh as much as 1500 lbs; cows weigh in at around 1600 lbs. Both are smaller than the bull, though, at 2400 lb. TFS says "domestic cow at about 900kg" (1980 lb). That's a really big cow, but not as large as a bull.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the entire point is not yet.
What will do the moose in is the same thing that did the auroch in in the 1600s - habitat loss. The giant auroch is the wild ancestor of domestic cattle, and was an important game species from paleolithic times up to the Middle Ages. It was probably the very first species human attempted to prevent from going extinct, first by increasingly restrictive hunting limits, and then by establishing reserves. But an animal that size (over three thousand pounds in the paleolithic
Re:Cows? (Score:5, Informative)
It won't be hunting.
It'll be habitat loss.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And the end of the cows will come when meat and milk substitutes become cheaper and better than 'cow'
Re:Cows? (Score:5, Informative)
so never? meat and milk substitutes still suck arse, only vegans and vegetarians or the ignorant make the claims that it tastes almost as good.
While it indeed will take like 50-100 years for fake meat to approach the real thing, you can bet on certain governments banning actual meat within less than 20 years of fakes entering mass production.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you still drink coffee or eat soy products? Those cause more deforestation than any amount of ranching or livestock raising.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you still drink coffee or eat soy products? Those cause more deforestation than any amount of ranching or livestock raising.
Bullshit. I won't comment on coffee, but almost all soy grown is used for livestock feed. Human consumption of soy is a drop in the bucket.
Re: Cows? (Score:2)
Giving up cow meat has both health and environmental advantages.
The environmental impact of producing meat from poultry and pork is efficient and is in line with vegetarian products in terms of environmental impact per kcal and per gram of protein.
Re: (Score:2)
so never? meat and milk substitutes still suck arse, only vegans and vegetarians or the ignorant make the claims that it tastes almost as good.
Taste is learned. E.g., Vegemite, Marmite, Spam, Escargot, Haggis. History is filled with substitutes that replace the original after the people who grew up with the originals die and the tasteless youngsters take over. They learn to like the substitute and the original then tastes funny. And sometimes it doesn't take a generation -- personal tastes can change.
Anybody that eats quality meat or milk products just about throws up at the bland garbage being produced as substitutes.
And yet there are lots of people who order tofu or other soy crap because they prefer it. Tastes change. Often, tastes change because convenience or
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, if God wanted us to fly, he would have given us first class tickets.
Bull. Not to be punny... (Score:3)
"It's more likely to be two bucks a pound less than regular stuff, eventually and you probably won't be able to tell the difference either in terms of nutrition, taste or texture."
Meat changes texture as it gets used. Chuck and tenderloin wind up being very different. Unless you've got a machine working that vat full of meat stuff, it's never going to have the taste and texture of the real thing.
Re: Bull. Not to be punny... (Score:2)
I love meat and think you may be right. However, I don't mind if it doesn't taste exactly the same, as long as it tastes good.
Re: (Score:3)
You think too small. There was an article the other day about attempts to resurrect a mammoth or mastadon.
I dare say in well less than 300 years every species extinct since the last ice age will be resurrected. This includes dodos, sabertooth tigers, that oddball giant bird in that old photograph from Australia, and many more. Tiny horses, maybe even the tiny humans from that island and neanderthals, though those raise greatly increased ethical issues.
I am opposed to recycling for either resource usage,
Re:Cows? (Score:5, Interesting)
>> If the trend of hunting the larger animals for meat continues for 300+ years..
Here in the US the primary threat to large (wild) mammal population is habitat loss, not hunting. The hunting permit system is such that Hunters spend giant piles of money on conservation to combat this problem.
There is a fantastic example of this working in my home state, Tennessee. Elk were hunted out of the state more than a century ago, but hunters paid to reintroduce them in 2000. There are ~500 in the state now. ... And yes, you can hunt them, if you are willing to drop the price of a decent used car to buy the permit.
Want more Moose? Take up hunting.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, if the money raised by hunting actually goes towards conserving and protecting them.
In practice, where corruption is high or where governments are basically non-existant, it's going to fail. Also, where the animals wander into jurisdictions where they aren't protected, the system will break down.
Re:Cows? (Score:4)
> where corruption is high or where governments are basically non-existant, it's going to fail.
Corruption can be a problem, but it can work too. Zimbabwe, a bastion of corruption free governance, has strict controls on hunting and is extremely tough on poachers. They have a financial incentive to do so; the revenue from hunting pays for their salaries and the land for wildlife preserves.
In my home state we have 1.2 million acres of public hunting lands under management by our Wildlife and Resources agency. It's paid for entirely through license fees and taxes on sporting equipment (primarily ammunition taxes). That's what paid for the Elk program. They also relocate bears away from human dense areas and are working to eliminate (invasive) wild hogs too. They also partnered with the Feds to bring back red wolves to one of our National Parks, but afaik those aren't a stable population (yet).
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to assume your response is in good faith and not some darker motive.
The primary cause for the loss of Rhino populations is uncontrolled hunting and poaching. Rhino horn is, for reasons I cannot fathom, a valuable commodity. Picture them as Gold bars on the hoof. In a classic tragedy of the commons, people have harvested these gold bars and killed off 95% of the population. They are literally killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
If Rhino hunting was controlled by permitting then you can r
Re: (Score:3)
So hunting white rhinoceros or elephants or dolphins or any other animal would increase their numbers?
South Africa experimented with letting farmer raise rhinoceros for income. The rhinoceros population rebounded. But, then PETA complained and the country started banning the practice again.
So, yes. Legalizing the hunting WILL increase the numbers, because there will be an incentive for people to provide resources to keep them around.
Re: (Score:2)
Having animals just so we cab shoot them for fun sounds somehow wrong, because that is what they are doing. Happens with a lot of other animals as well. They are often literally sitting ducks (or other animals) that are released just so they can be shot.
Now if that is your idea of fun, please so. We could discuss it at length, but do not use this as an excuse that you do it to save the animals. That is just a lucky side effect.
Personally, I think keeping animals leashed and imprisoned in cages (or aquariums) for 'fun' sounds more wrong on many levels, but that is what many people are doing to. At least killing animals eating them retain a purpose for their existence that mirror what happens in nature (where many animals kill other animals for sustenance).
FWIW, even vegetarians effectively 'kill' plants for sustenance, so it's just a matter of what line you draw for 'killing' things to keep yourself alive for your own personal mo
Re: Cows? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cows? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cows? (Score:4, Informative)
Poaching for their horns to sell in the Chinese woowoo medicine market is what killed the rhinos off. Not people going out to hunt them for the purpose of hunting them.
Re: (Score:2)
The greatest evolutionary adaptation is: (Score:5, Insightful)
Being tasty or useful to humans.
Study still wrong (Score:4, Funny)
Being tasty or useful to humans.
Which is exactly why this study has the wrong conclusion. Thanks to all those tasty cows helping to cause an obesity epidemic in a few centuries, the largest land mammal will be humans, not cows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a key ingredient in many fast food meals.
That's like claiming that a toy surprise is a reason for obesity because it is a key ingredient in happy meals. Or cardboard. Or lettuce. It's not the beef itself, it's the other stuff, and the amounts.
Re: (Score:2)
That's like claiming that a toy surprise is a reason for obesity because it is a key ingredient in happy meals.
If you are eating the toy surprise then I definitely agree that obesity is not your primary concern. However, since the beef is one of the sources of the fat content in fast food you are deluding yourself if you think it's contribution to the overall nutritional value of the meal is equivalent to the lettuce. Note that I never claimed it was entirely responsible only that it 'helped'. There are clearly lots of other bad things in fast food but the fat content of the processed beef is one.
Re: (Score:2)
No... just no. What's causing the obesity epidemic is the combination of helicopter parenting restricting kids from any significant outdoor activity and sugar intake(probably HFCS intake but until someone follows up on the rat study with pig and monkey studies that one's unconfirmed).
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it's not like I walked 5 miles every saturday(more often during summer break) starting at the age of 8 down and back to the local library during spring, summer, and fall or anything. It's not like the lack of lead in gasoline and paint has precipitously dropped crime rates from their heights in the late 80's early 90's and the idea that children are in more danger than ever before is complete and utter shite. No, the real answer is that I'm an internet tough guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you meant 'being easily farmable'. Because that's definitely not true for many ocean fish that are being caught to extinction.
Re: The greatest evolutionary adaptation is: (Score:2)
Perhaps you meant 'being easily farmable'. Because that's definitely not true for many ocean fish that are being caught to extinction.
Well, it's a mix. We don't farm deer or ducks but we've activaly undertaken various efforts to keep their populations at healthy levels because they make for good eatin', and we don't wanna lose that. It's hard with ocean fisheries because we don't have legal control of international waters or the waters of other nation-states.
Basically you have to either be easily farmable or lucky enough to live within the borders of a semi-responsible country.
Re: (Score:2)
It's no longer evolution so much as selective breeding.
Re:The greatest evolutionary adaptation is: (Score:4, Informative)
Passenger pigeons were tasty. They're extinct. A lot of other animals were "useful" at one time and went extinct, such as colorful birds in North America that all got killed for lady's hats.
Simply being tasty and/or useful apparently isn't enough; but it does help. Whales--almost extinct but huge, majestic, romantic. and protected *now*. That was a close call. Pandas! Whoah, big, furry, cute, stupid, and the PRC uses them as a symbol. These guys really have it dialed in; but they still almost got wiped out because of their specialized diet making it hard for them to live outside of their region. If panda evolution were really that great, they'd have figured out how to live on garbage.
We have a critter that does that, and they even call it the "trash panda". Raccoons. Big. Sort of useful as rustic hats. You can eat them... but most people don't. It's dark meat, and really not as gamey as you'd think; but I digress. The trash panda is not endangered. It's adapted to us better than the other panda.
I guess the point is... tasty and useful is trumped by a lot of other factors. I mean... roaches, gack! They're everywhere in the city, and we do all kinds of things to kill them but they just keep going. They're not useful. Only a few people obsessed with trying to make us all insectivores would call them tasty. The roach is hearty and omnivorous. It lives off our garbage.
A better way to sum up the greatest evolutionary advantage would be: "being able to co-exist with humans".
Re: (Score:2)
It's true. If you look at the total biomass of mammals it's all cattle, humans and pets, and the odd elephant thrown in for irony.
Re:The greatest evolutionary adaptation is: (Score:4, Interesting)
there: https://xkcd.com/1338/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ithe odd elephant thrown in for irony.
Or is it for ivory?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read Vaclav Smil's book on the biosphere and he presents all these calculations but I forgot so much about it. The item about the ants must be in it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true. If you look at the total biomass of mammals it's all cattle, humans and pets, and the odd elephant thrown in for irony.
I read that as "the odd elephant thrown in for ivory" at first. Nearly spit my drink all over my computer...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I dunno, cats are neither tasty nor particularly useful (unless you have a vermin problem), but have effectively enslaved millions of humans and risen to the top of the evolutionary pile.
I'm hesitant to say that is an evolutionary adaptation, because it seems more like luck that they evolved to be highly efficient genocidal sociopaths and extremely compelling "pets" for a significant number of humans. So less adaptation and more blind luck, or a flaw in the human brain that makes it susceptible to abuse by
Re: (Score:3)
... less adaptation and more blind luck... .
That's a good tagline for evolution in a nutshell.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, cats are neither tasty nor particularly useful (unless you have a vermin problem)
That's exactly why they're useful. I know of a warehouse (a few decades ago now) that kept cats to hunt down the mice that were eating paper and cardboard. They were also good at hunting rats that were spreading all kinds of nasty diseases.
Re: (Score:2)
Not tasty, useful. I mean, how do you think humans got electricity to power our smartphones before the advent of coal power production.
Not the first time the big ones have died off (Score:2)
Re-introduction of species similar to ones extint (Score:5, Interesting)
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Take species that are alive right now, and re-introduce tem in areas where animals similar to those species became extint.
This is not unprecedented. In the pleistocene, there were horses in America, those became extint, and later re-introduced, with little or no effect in the ecosystem
Same with the Hippos in colombia (imported by no other than Pablo Escobar Gaviria, of "Narco" fame). Here, the efect on the ecosystem is low, but since the animals are very territorial, the populalition has a relationship with them of "Awe and respect"
In Venezuela there used to be an animal called Mixotoxodon Larensis, similar (but not related to) rhinos and hippos. It went all the way from brazil to Texas (the toxodon originated in patagonia, but our variation traveled more). We could re-introduce rhinos in venezuela and Brazil. Rhinos eat grass, like cows, so no biggie for the ecosystem, and are not a huge problem for humans (unlike Hippos hicha are VERY territorial).
In Venezuela we used to have a thinguie called the mastodons (other parts of america had them too, they came from the north), similar to elephants, so we may as well adopt elephants, either african, assian or both. Again, vegetarians, big, no biggie for the environmet.
Also, we used to have gavialoids (there are crocodiles, aligators, and gavials), but they became extinct, so may as well get gavials and "fake gavials" (which, funny enough, turned out to be true gavials ;-) ) which are on the brink to extintion, and re-deploy. Since they eat only fish, are no danger to humans, and could deploy in places with "bad" fish (think piranha or electric eels).
I think a similar case could be made about the other continents.
The opportunities are plentyfull, is just the disposition.
Re: (Score:2)
We could bring endangered African cheetahs over here to the USA and let them chase after pronghorn antelope in exactly the way that our now-extinct American cheetah (Miracinonyx) once did. (And this idea wouldn't even be possible to contemplate if we hadn't first saved the pronghorn from near-extinction by over-hunting.)
De-extinction (Score:2)
That is why some of us believe that de-extinction is the ethical choice.
The U.S. has vast tracts of undeveloped wilderness under federal and state ownership. Additionally, the nation is substantially over-farmed because of that rediculous corn ethanol mandate. There is certailnly space for them.
We should bring some of these great creatures back in North America to undo some of the harm humankind has already done.
Re: (Score:2)
This. It seems like I have this conversation with anyone about the subject.
"We are thinking about de-extincting the woolly mammoth. This is awesome!"
"Shouldn't we think carefully about re-introducing an extinct species into the world? Didn't they die off for a *reason* ?"
"Do you know what that reason was?"
"No"
"It turns out the reason for their extinction was "too delicious to live". Being large, slow-moving, dumb, made of meat, and having an awesome pelt means that humans LOVED to kill them. Best thing
extrapolating even further (Score:5, Funny)
Even better, in 400 years, extrapolation shows that the larges land mammal will have negative mass.
Negative mass is great news: not only can we use such animals for large scale balloon powered flight (in place of expensive helium or dangerous hydrogen), when such negative masses are properly arranged they can create wormholes, allowing for instantaneous interstellar travel!
What about Bison (Score:3)
We nearly made bison extunct, but these days we are farming them, and bison burgers do taste good...
Re: (Score:2)
I've been to South Dakota. SD bison burgers are no substitute for Texas cow burgers. Texas cows are tastier every day of the week.
The answer is the beefalo; or possibly grind bison meet with domesticated cattle meet to get the desired fat content.
"... hominims..." -- Not so much. (Score:3)
Sorry, but, "... hominims..." is wrong.
However, "hominin" (or at a stretch "hominid") would be correct. See the diagram at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and see the original article that uses "hominin" liberally: http://science.sciencemag.org/... [sciencemag.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but, "... hominims..." is wrong.
However, "hominin" (or at a stretch "hominid") would be correct. See the diagram at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and see the original article that uses "hominin" liberally: http://science.sciencemag.org/... [sciencemag.org]
Meh close enough, they sound alike! ; )
Re: (Score:2)
So your saying they're actually homonyms?
Ummm what about equines (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What about southern trailer park women? Oh, yeah, they said "cows" would be the largest land mammal, didn't say what kind of cow.
Water Buffalo (Score:3)
Aren't water buffalo larger than cows? I rather think that they are, and they are clearly not on their way out.
That said, the "red list" is clearly an underestimate of the threatened animal species. It's more a list of "those in imminent danger this decade". It's really hard to figure out which species are in more distant danger of extinction. This partially depends on how the climate changes, and what unexpected events this causes. Someone above mentioned moose. They don't currently seem to be in danger, but they depend on a certain ecology, IIRC, they are browsers rather than grazers, so they need trees and shrubs they can eat, etc. If a warming climate dries out the territory where they're living and turns it into a grassland, they'll need to migrate, and often it turns out that new migration routes are blocked. That's not likely a "this decade" kind of danger, but it's an "if this goes on..." kind of danger.
A lot of animals would do a lot better if people and fences didn't block their path to a better territory. But unlike most animals, people are even territorial about other species passing through their territory. (There are, of course, good reasons, but that doesn't change the problem.)
They should make a movie (Score:2)
Hominim? I thought he was good in 8 Mile...
Where's my buffalo? (Score:2)
Just saw one nostrils steaming, and big as a freight train still roaming the untracked West.
Humans are catching up (Score:2)
> "the largest mammal on Earth in a few hundred years may well be a domestic cow at about 900kg"
Guinness says the heaviest human they've weighed is 635 kg (1,400 pounds).
Present trends suggest that in a few hundred years, humans may be the largest land mammals.
Re: (Score:2)
Present trends suggest that in a few hundred years, humans may be the largest land mammals.
Some would argue we're already the tastiest.
Forgetting a few species? (Score:2)
Well unless we are planning to get rid of bison [wikipedia.org] or water buffalo which are generally bigger than cows that isn't likely to be true even for captive animals. Heck some breeds of draft horses [wikipedia.org] are about the same size as the biggest cows. The biggest draft horse ever weighed in at about 1525kg.
Re: (Score:2)
We've already had tremendous success in our efforts exterminate Bison. They were down to 300 in 1900, and have only recently recovered past 100k, which is still a far cry from their earlier population of 100M.
As it currently stands, the Bison's fate will likely follow that of the Auroch - extinction by domestication.
Past Performance Does Not Indicate Future Results (Score:2)
The majority of this documented trend seems to be based on hunting. And that makes sense, because for the majority of human existence we were hunter-gatherers.
The shift to agriculture marked a big change in human society, but agriculture hasn't been kind to large animals either. We've put up fences to impede their movement, and we've treated them as pests that prey on our livestock or trample and eat our crops.
Now we're in another big shift, to industrialization. How will an ever-more-industrialized worl
Well that's a meaningless prediction. (Score:2)
What isn't neat or interesting or meaningful or even valid is the silly prediction in the title. Here's some reasons why: 1. Most remaining megafauna is found in places where humans have been the long
Re: (Score:2)
One difference from earlier times is habitat destruction. That kills lots of species, and we're doing it pretty fast nowadays.
advancements in biology may allow unextinction (Score:2)
The operative word being, "could". (Score:2)
I mean, how can one argue with a post like that? I "could" receive my gold-plated potty, towed by my pony, in the next twenty minutes. The oceans "could" boil from global warming, turning the Earth into a Venus-a-like. The Higgs boson "could" have reached a state somewhere in the Universe just out of sight where particles lose their mass and the wave of Universal extinction "could" be rolling towards us to end the Universe (in the vicinity of the Earth) long before we lose all the large land animals.
Heck
Re: (Score:2)
I extrapolated a population curve from the mid 1300s and found out the last human died when cowboyneal left slashdot. bastard, leaving us to die like that....
None of this is a problem. (Score:2)
Why? Because all the overpopulated areas of the world depend heavily on technology for their existence, and will diminish said population when the electricity is turned off for a few years. When will that happen? When our undefended electric grid succumbs to a Carrington-event-scale solar tantrum. Word is that US population will drop by 90%. 30 million people aren't going to make shit go extinct. They may be eaten by the residual mountain lions and grizzly bears, tho...
Oh good (Score:2)
"... an armadillo-like creature the size of a car."
Thanks for that. I was running out of nightmare fuel.
Science on Thursday (Score:2)
Odd name for a journal. Is it based in Sheffield?
The solution is simple (Score:2)
It's the elephants' fault... (Score:2)
...for not being more delicious.
What a stupid extrapolation (Score:2)
It makes sense large animals were hunted for meat in the past. But going forward, since we have and raise cows there is no reason to hunt large animals for meat, so they will carry on.
There's no reason to think for example that elephants will vanish in a few hundred years.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also notable sabertooth cats keep popping up, then going extinct. Bad example.
Fun fact to know when you rub under a housecat's chin and you get poked by teeth.
Bias (Score:3)
I guess these researchers just plumb forgot that buffalo are still raised as domestic animals in much of the country. There's a ranch not a few miles from me that does, and a few local small-town eateries have "bison burgers" on the menu - expensive, but literally a nice change of taste on occasion.
I hate it when scientists do this - massage facts for better PR impact (the link between cows and human domestication for human use is much stronger than with bison.) Those worthies among us who worship "The Science" with pseudoreligious zeal take exception to those who can't reconcile that faith with the less-than-saintly deviations scientists make into PR.
Somewhere along the line, scientists figured out that if journalists could twist their papers into moronic headlines and get away with it, then they could write the headlines into their conclusions and do the same. What a shitshow.
Extrapolation...to stupidity and beyond!! (Score:2)
And yet, the largest land animal, the elephant, continues on in Africa where these extinctions started, and even in India, one of the more heavily populated areas of the world. Then there is the rhinos and hippos (still in Africa).
Do they not know of Wal*Mart (Score:2)
Doing my part (Score:3)
I'm doing my part. I'm eating as many of the damn things as I can!
I can't stay silent with my disappointment (Score:2)
Re:Uday and Qusay (Score:5, Insightful)
Having a bunch of entitled jackoffs running around Africa gunning down and mutilating big game doesn't help the situation.
Actually, it does help. Big game hunters pay high fees that are used for habitat conservation. They also create jobs for local people that then see wildlife as an economic benefit, rather than just seeing them as crop/livestock destroying pests.
Wildlife in Africa would be much better off if there were more Western big game hunters.
Re: (Score:2)
If they really cared about wildlife, why not just pay big fees without having to kill something?
Is that what you do?
Re:Uday and Qusay (Score:5, Insightful)
You might want to tell that to the white rhinoceros. There are three left in the world today because baby-dick failsons like Eric and Don Jr went around blasting them to hell,
We're talking about guys whose "sport" requires that something die. They're sociopaths. There are better ways of managing wildlife than trophy hunting.
I'm no fan of hunting but there's a big difference between it and poaching.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm inclined to agree, here is the big difference:
Killing to eat is what animals do. Killing for fun and "sport" is what sociopath humans do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it's another word for "hominids"?
Re: (Score:2)
> Perhaps it's another word for "hominids"?
Perhaps it's not a word at all?
Perhaps not, but perhaps yes [australianmuseum.net.au]...
Or, it could simply be of homonym of hominid...
Then again it could just be typo...
We will never know...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, that is an excellent idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, it has been done. South Africa opened up the ivory market to farm raised rhinos and the population started to rebound. The PETA types got that shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
So sad. And I'm pretty sure that bulls weigh more than cows.
Hopefully the supply of frozen bull semen will last until the cows can be cloned.