If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Scientists who never watched any of the Jurassic Park movies are getting closer to resurrecting extinct species. What could possibly go wrong?   (nydailynews.com) divider line 68
    More: Interesting, National Museum of Natural History, conservation biologist, woolly mammoths, Cincinnati Zoo, American Museum of Natural History, IUCN, molecular biology, kangaroos  
•       •       •

1876 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Mar 2013 at 10:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-15 10:19:19 AM  
Won't anyone heed the lessons learned from  history Michael Chrichton's bad fiction?
 
2013-03-15 10:27:19 AM  
why cant we miniturize wild animals like tigers and pandas.
 
2013-03-15 10:33:20 AM  

bostonowns: why cant we miniturize wild animals like tigers and pandas.


Honestly we're probably more able to do that than resurrect extinct species.

If domestic dogs are any indication, it's relatively easy to miniaturize and the gene responsible has already been mapped (I believe it's TGF-Beta but I could be wrong)

If we can get homologous recombination working in eggs (this is strategy often used in mice), we can swap in a mutant allele for the wild one, do in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and voila! Miniature tigers (aka cats, though) and pandas
 
2013-03-15 10:38:08 AM  

bostonowns: why cant we miniturize wild animals like tigers and pandas.


2.bp.blogspot.com

We do have Toygers, though.
 
2013-03-15 10:39:16 AM  
And this is exactly why I insist on being cremated.

When I die this will be my song to life:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA4iX5D9Z64
 
2013-03-15 10:39:35 AM  
"What could possibly go wrong? "

Absolutely nothing.

/curious as to what a mammoth burger or steak tastes like
 
2013-03-15 10:41:24 AM  

THX 1138: Won't anyone heed the lessons learned from Michael Chrichton's bad fiction?


I especially loved the velociraptors that could chew through steel bars. That's when I knew I was dealing with a master.
 
2013-03-15 10:43:08 AM  

RookStar: "What could possibly go wrong? "

Absolutely nothing.

/curious as to what a mammoth burger or steak tastes like


Chicken.
 
2013-03-15 10:46:31 AM  
If animals went extinct before humans got to them... then it was for a reason. They couldn't hack it (in some way).
This bothers me about humans. There is no master list that says "sabre toothed tigers are SUPPOSED to exist still". If a species is going extinct (again, with no input from humans), then let it freakin go extinct.

Although it would be f*cking awesome to see a mammoth or sabre toothed tiger in real life.

/will they need to resurrect giants to herd the mammoths?
 
2013-03-15 10:52:31 AM  
I'm not especially worried about a passenger pigeon distracting me while two packmates attack from the sides.
 
2013-03-15 10:54:32 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: RookStar: "What could possibly go wrong? "

Absolutely nothing.

/curious as to what a mammoth burger or steak tastes like

Chicken.


Im with you on that one. What would it taste like... well, everything tastes like chicken.

And I would love to see the Tasmanian Tiger come back too. They look awesome.
 
2013-03-15 10:55:20 AM  

sure haven't: /will they need to resurrect giants to herd the mammoths?


No need.  We can just wait until winter and allow the mammoths to freeze to death.
 
2013-03-15 10:57:32 AM  

theorellior: THX 1138: Won't anyone heed the lessons learned from Michael Chrichton's bad fiction?

I especially loved the velociraptors that could chew through steel bars. That's when I knew I was dealing with a master.


- Procompsognathus' venomous bite
- Movement based visual accuity
- Dilophosaurus spitting venom
- Featherless dinosaurs (Though nobody was sure of that stuff in 1989)

Yes there were lots of errors. The book is still a fun read though.
 
2013-03-15 11:04:58 AM  
Clever girl
 
2013-03-15 11:08:23 AM  

THX 1138: sure haven't: /will they need to resurrect giants to herd the mammoths?

No need.  We can just wait until winter and allow the mammoths to freeze to death.


So what about the rats, snakes and the gorillas that we have to help take care of them? Are they to just go to waste now because the winter will kill off the mammoths instead of the rats which would be eaten by the snakes which in turn would be killed by the gorillas?
 
2013-03-15 11:13:24 AM  

pivazena: bostonowns: why cant we miniturize wild animals like tigers and pandas.

Honestly we're probably more able to do that than resurrect extinct species.

[...] and voila! Miniature tigers (aka cats, though) and pandas


Yep.  There's very little behavioral difference between a common house cat and a tiger.  All the rest is just a matter of scale - one can break your neck and rip your face off, the other can scratch you and give you painful puncture wounds.

On the topic of de-extinction, bringing one of a defunct species back to living would be a technical marvel, but practically speaking, still a novelty.  Bringing back one of each gender might be a little more useful for true de-extinction, but that's still an awfully small gene pool for a species to be perpetually viable.  I think for de-extinction to really work, they'll have to be able to gather and reconstitute DNA from a reasonably wide range of individuals.
 
2013-03-15 11:19:34 AM  

RatOmeter: pivazena: bostonowns: why cant we miniturize wild animals like tigers and pandas.

Honestly we're probably more able to do that than resurrect extinct species.

[...] and voila! Miniature tigers (aka cats, though) and pandas

Yep.  There's very little behavioral difference between a common house cat and a tiger.  All the rest is just a matter of scale - one can break your neck and rip your face off, the other can scratch you and give you painful puncture wounds.

On the topic of de-extinction, bringing one of a defunct species back to living would be a technical marvel, but practically speaking, still a novelty.  Bringing back one of each gender might be a little more useful for true de-extinction, but that's still an awfully small gene pool for a species to be perpetually viable.  I think for de-extinction to really work, they'll have to be able to gather and reconstitute DNA from a reasonably wide range of individuals.


I remember a concept where they theorized how to fix the gene pool issue is to splice their closest living relatives' genes into the extincted animal and that would give them enough of a gene pool to survive.
 
2013-03-15 11:24:19 AM  

sure haven't: If animals went extinct before humans got to them... then it was for a reason. They couldn't hack it (in some way).
This bothers me about humans. There is no master list that says "sabre toothed tigers are SUPPOSED to exist still". If a species is going extinct (again, with no input from humans), then let it freakin go extinct.

Although it would be f*cking awesome to see a mammoth or sabre toothed tiger in real life.

/will they need to resurrect giants to herd the mammoths?


Many/all of the species in the article went extinct because of humans.  We like to kill shiat.
 
2013-03-15 11:27:22 AM  
Recently extinct animals wouldn't be a big problem.

But bringing back a Wooly Mammoth might bring a resurgence of specific diseases that may have lain dormant for thousands of years.
Or in the case of bringing back pigeons, bird flu.

If we are going to do this even on a limited basis, we will have to know exactly why they died off.  If they went extinct because humans moved in, bringing house cats...  Well, that's something.  If they died because of a horrific plague that we can't explain.  Well, that's a warning sign isn't it?

I do think it's a nice idea that after watching animals go extinct for hundreds or thousands of years, we might actually be in a position to stop it.

/Of course.... Imagine.  A bird that tastes terrible to everybody and everything alive.  It's only predator went extinct because the bird went extinct.  Then a couple of the birds escape.  Oh the fun times.  Populations growing out of control.
 
2013-03-15 11:44:46 AM  

theorellior: THX 1138: Won't anyone heed the lessons learned from Michael Chrichton's bad fiction?

I especially loved the velociraptors that could chew through steel bars. That's when I knew I was dealing with a master.


Or that the "Velociraptors" weren't actually Velociraptors at all. The real deal were about the size of a turkey, I assume he got them confused with Deinonychus or Utahraptor although there's not really a dromaeosaurid(that we know of)  the size described in the books or in the movies.
 
2013-03-15 11:45:49 AM  

seniorgato: But bringing back a Wooly Mammoth might bring a resurgence of specific diseases that may have lain dormant for thousands of years.
Or in the case of bringing back pigeons, bird flu.


How will bringing back an extinct species bring back its diseases? The disease and the animal are two different organisms, and if you reconstitute the DNA for a Wooly Mammoth its diseases aren't going to magically come back to life. If anything, we will be more of a threat to it than it is to us, because the Mammoth immune system isn't primed to fight off modern diseases that have had thousands of years to evolve, unless you transplanted some elephant T-cells to boost immunity. Dinosaurs would be even more screwed when it comes to modern diseases.
 
2013-03-15 11:57:10 AM  

lousyskater: theorellior: THX 1138: Won't anyone heed the lessons learned from Michael Chrichton's bad fiction?

I especially loved the velociraptors that could chew through steel bars. That's when I knew I was dealing with a master.

Or that the "Velociraptors" weren't actually Velociraptors at all. The real deal were about the size of a turkey, I assume he got them confused with Deinonychus or Utahraptor although there's not really a dromaeosaurid(that we know of)  the size described in the books or in the movies.


As I recall, they were the proper size in the book (maybe a *TAD* larger, but not much).  Been a while since I read it, though.

They were significantly enlarged for the movie.

Doesn't really matter anyway, because none of them were strictly Species A or B:  They filled in the "gaps" with frog DNA, so technically they were a new species that had the basic form and appearance of a dromeosaur, but they weren't *ACTUAL* dromeosaurs.
 
2013-03-15 11:58:12 AM  

seniorgato: Recently extinct animals wouldn't be a big problem.

But bringing back a Wooly Mammoth might bring a resurgence of specific diseases that may have lain dormant for thousands of years.
Or in the case of bringing back pigeons, bird flu.

If we are going to do this even on a limited basis, we will have to know exactly why they died off.  If they went extinct because humans moved in, bringing house cats...  Well, that's something.  If they died because of a horrific plague that we can't explain.  Well, that's a warning sign isn't it?

I do think it's a nice idea that after watching animals go extinct for hundreds or thousands of years, we might actually be in a position to stop it.

/Of course.... Imagine.  A bird that tastes terrible to everybody and everything alive.  It's only predator went extinct because the bird went extinct.  Then a couple of the birds escape.  Oh the fun times.  Populations growing out of control.


Pretty sure in the case of mammoth, early humans hunted them into extinction as well, or so I read somewhere.
 
2013-03-15 12:04:21 PM  

verbaltoxin: theorellior: THX 1138: Won't anyone heed the lessons learned from Michael Chrichton's bad fiction?

I especially loved the velociraptors that could chew through steel bars. That's when I knew I was dealing with a master.

- Procompsognathus' venomous bite
- Movement based visual accuity
- Dilophosaurus spitting venom
- Featherless dinosaurs (Though nobody was sure of that stuff in 1989)

Yes there were lots of errors. The book is still a fun read though.


The bolded one isn't that far off, really.

Even for advanced mammals, it's *MUCH* easier to see a moving object than one that's standing still.  That's why, when you're out hunting and a deer spots you, you freeze and don't move until it looks away, even if it actually sees you.  That's also what you look for when hunting:  Movement.  I don't know how many times I've spotted a deer because it was moving, but I can't think of too many examples of deer I spotted when they were standing still.

Plus, they used significant amounts of frog DNA.  Anyone who has kept a frog as a pet knows they key-in on movement.  You can almost *SEE* the programming in their brains based upon their actions.  Kinda cool, actually.
 
2013-03-15 12:05:34 PM  

KellyX: Pretty sure in the case of mammoth, early humans hunted them into extinction as well, or so I read somewhere.


That just means they must be really, really tasty.
 
2013-03-15 12:09:09 PM  

dittybopper: verbaltoxin: theorellior: THX 1138: Won't anyone heed the lessons learned from Michael Chrichton's bad fiction?

I especially loved the velociraptors that could chew through steel bars. That's when I knew I was dealing with a master.

- Procompsognathus' venomous bite
- Movement based visual accuity
- Dilophosaurus spitting venom
- Featherless dinosaurs (Though nobody was sure of that stuff in 1989)

Yes there were lots of errors. The book is still a fun read though.

The bolded one isn't that far off, really.

Even for advanced mammals, it's *MUCH* easier to see a moving object than one that's standing still.  That's why, when you're out hunting and a deer spots you, you freeze and don't move until it looks away, even if it actually sees you.  That's also what you look for when hunting:  Movement.  I don't know how many times I've spotted a deer because it was moving, but I can't think of too many examples of deer I spotted when they were standing still.

Plus, they used significant amounts of frog DNA.  Anyone who has kept a frog as a pet knows they key-in on movement.  You can almost *SEE* the programming in their brains based upon their actions.  Kinda cool, actually.


I always tossed the only seeing moving objects, at least in the only scene it worked in, working is because Grant and Lex were covered in mud and made no sounds. So they would not really being giving off a smell and the mud broke their outlines with the already muddy surfaces and such. And did the standing still concept not work in the second book?
 
2013-03-15 12:09:59 PM  

dittybopper: KellyX: Pretty sure in the case of mammoth, early humans hunted them into extinction as well, or so I read somewhere.

That just means they must be really, really tasty.


WE need mammoth burgers, mammoth steaks and more importantly, mammoth bacon!
 
2013-03-15 12:15:03 PM  

dittybopper: They filled in the "gaps" with frog DNA, so technically they were a new species that had the basic form and appearance of a dromeosaur, but they weren't *ACTUAL* dromeosaurs.


I never understood that bit. Why frogs? Wouldn't birds be a little closer to what they needed?

Oh, right, Crichton needed a Chekov's Gun for "nature finding a way" to shift genders. Which is hilarious, now that I think of it... birds don't use XX/XY for gender, they use WW/WZ, and the default gender is male. LOL.
 
2013-03-15 12:16:46 PM  
Wrong?  Wilma could not have the brontosaurus apatosaurus spare ribs ready when Fred gets home.
 
2013-03-15 12:32:30 PM  

dittybopper: verbaltoxin: theorellior: THX 1138: Won't anyone heed the lessons learned from Michael Chrichton's bad fiction?

I especially loved the velociraptors that could chew through steel bars. That's when I knew I was dealing with a master.

- Procompsognathus' venomous bite
- Movement based visual accuity
- Dilophosaurus spitting venom
- Featherless dinosaurs (Though nobody was sure of that stuff in 1989)

Yes there were lots of errors. The book is still a fun read though.

The bolded one isn't that far off, really.

Even for advanced mammals, it's *MUCH* easier to see a moving object than one that's standing still.  That's why, when you're out hunting and a deer spots you, you freeze and don't move until it looks away, even if it actually sees you.  That's also what you look for when hunting:  Movement.  I don't know how many times I've spotted a deer because it was moving, but I can't think of too many examples of deer I spotted when they were standing still.

Plus, they used significant amounts of frog DNA.  Anyone who has kept a frog as a pet knows they key-in on movement.  You can almost *SEE* the programming in their brains based upon their actions.  Kinda cool, actually.


You've got a point there, and so did Crichton. Henry Wu stated in JP that the creatures weren't really dinosaurs brought back to life, but genetic creations from the laboratory. Crichton also made many allusions to their behaviors reacting and adapting to their environment, starting with Hammond's rat-sized elephant acting more like a rodent than a pachyderm.

It's a very cool sci-fi adventure, warts and all.
 
2013-03-15 12:45:02 PM  
Isn't Jurassic Park really a cautionary tale about having an understaffed IT department?
 
2013-03-15 01:01:15 PM  

pizen: Isn't Jurassic Park really a cautionary tale about having an understaffed paidIT department?


Everything would have been fine if Newman hadn't sold out the company out to its competitor.
 
2013-03-15 01:02:00 PM  

pizen: Isn't Jurassic Park really a cautionary tale about having an understaffed IT department?


I thought it was a warning about cheap executive management.
 
2013-03-15 01:04:37 PM  

Mad_Radhu: pizen: Isn't Jurassic Park really a cautionary tale about having an understaffed paidIT department?

Everything would have been fine if Newman hadn't sold out the company out to its competitor.


Except Nedry was the lowest bid. You never go with the lowest bid.

I actually have this problem with the owner I work for now.  I tell him - "You have 3 options: Good, Cheap, and Fast.  Pick two".
He says " I know, I know"
Then he picks Cheap and Fast, and complains until it's Good - at which point he ends up with only 1 of the 3.  Though you could maybe argue for 2.
 
2013-03-15 01:09:12 PM  

theorellior: dittybopper: They filled in the "gaps" with frog DNA, so technically they were a new species that had the basic form and appearance of a dromeosaur, but they weren't *ACTUAL* dromeosaurs.

I never understood that bit. Why frogs? Wouldn't birds be a little closer to what they needed?

Oh, right, Crichton needed a Chekov's Gun for "nature finding a way" to shift genders. Which is hilarious, now that I think of it... birds don't use XX/XY for gender, they use WW/WZ, and the default gender is male. LOL.


Well, it *IS* fiction, but it's not just rana that do that:  An even closer relative would be the monitor lizards, and some species have been know to reproduce asexually in the absence of males, most notably the Komodo Dragon.

Of course, that brings up another point:  Instead of making all the dinos female, and running the risk of parthenogensis, why not just do the opposite and make them all male, and thus incapable of laying viable eggs, fertilized or not?

Of all the disappointments in the movie, though, it's that none of the free velociraptors ever showed up.

Remember that scene where Dr. Grant and the kids find the hatched eggs, and the small tracks leading away?  Those tracks are two-toed:

1.bp.blogspot.com

Those are miniature versions of the full sized velociraptor prints:

img191.imageshack.us

That means there were adult velociraptors loose in the park.  After all, *SOMETHING* had to lay those eggs, and the only other theropods we see in the park that could possibly be that size (Gallimimus, Dilophosaurus) have three toed prints, not two toed:  Dromeosaurs need to keep their sickle-claw up to keep them from being worn down.

The implications of that are stunning, and I'm disappointed that it wasn't followed up on.

It didn't matter if they raptors in the pen escaped, because there were raptors running free (and breeding) in the park already.

Dr. Grant should have recognized the implications of that immediately, but his reaction isn't what I'd expect of someone who just discovered that there is a breeding population of very nasty carnivores on the loose.
 
2013-03-15 01:20:22 PM  

dittybopper: Well, it *IS* fiction, but it's not just rana that do that: An even closer relative would be the monitor lizards, and some species have been know to reproduce asexually in the absence of males, most notably the Komodo Dragon.


It's still dumb to use Anuria or Squamata when a simple chicken would work far better. Didn't they even compare the soft tissues in Sue the T. Rex to chickens?
 
2013-03-15 01:38:10 PM  

dittybopper: verbaltoxin: theorellior: THX 1138: Won't anyone heed the lessons learned from Michael Chrichton's bad fiction?

I especially loved the velociraptors that could chew through steel bars. That's when I knew I was dealing with a master.

- Procompsognathus' venomous bite
- Movement based visual accuity
- Dilophosaurus spitting venom
- Featherless dinosaurs (Though nobody was sure of that stuff in 1989)

Yes there were lots of errors. The book is still a fun read though.

The bolded one isn't that far off, really.

Even for advanced mammals, it's *MUCH* easier to see a moving object than one that's standing still.  That's why, when you're out hunting and a deer spots you, you freeze and don't move until it looks away, even if it actually sees you.  That's also what you look for when hunting:  Movement.  I don't know how many times I've spotted a deer because it was moving, but I can't think of too many examples of deer I spotted when they were standing still.

Plus, they used significant amounts of frog DNA.  Anyone who has kept a frog as a pet knows they key-in on movement.  You can almost *SEE* the programming in their brains based upon their actions.  Kinda cool, actually.


Thanks ditty, i was wondering what was so far fetched about that. Heck, if an image remains in the same spot on your retina for a short time, it disappears from your vision. It's why you don't typically see your retinal blood vessels that sit atop sensory retina.
 
2013-03-15 01:43:19 PM  
I thought someone proved DNA has a half life of 500 years so its pretty much impossible to bring back animals that have been extinct for thousands of years let alone millions.
 
2013-03-15 01:50:59 PM  
imageshack.us
I got nuthin....but that's one big pile of shiat.
 
2013-03-15 02:00:25 PM  

sure haven't: If animals went extinct before humans got to them... then it was for a reason. They couldn't hack it (in some way).
This bothers me about humans. There is no master list that says "sabre toothed tigers are SUPPOSED to exist still". If a species is going extinct (again, with no input from humans), then let it freakin go extinct.

Although it would be f*cking awesome to see a mammoth or sabre toothed tiger in real life.

/will they need to resurrect giants to herd the mammoths?


There are loads of magafauna whose extinctions happened right around the time humans arrived. As mentioned in the article, if it's "playing god" to bring them back why wasn't it "playing god" to drive them to extinction in the first place? Bringing them back from extinction would just be correcting damage that we've done to our planet.

But your argument also relies on fate, a concept which is a human fiction, not a universal force.

I think it would also be great to answer some questions about extinct species... like how with sabertoothed cats no one really understands how those saber teeth worked in practice. We have a few guesses... but that's about it.
 
2013-03-15 02:03:47 PM  

aragonphx: I thought someone proved DNA has a half life of 500 years so its pretty much impossible to bring back animals that have been extinct for thousands of years let alone millions.



Nope. We've already found DNA that is much older than 500 years. In fact, on the contrary... DNA can be extremely long lasting and is being proposed as a method of long term data storage. If you need to store data for thousands of years then encoding it in to DNA might actually be your best bet.

Also, half life generally refers to the decay of radioactive isotopes, not DNA.
 
2013-03-15 02:15:06 PM  
Wooly rhinos and mammoths are probably the best initial candidates, as there is still lots and LOTS of natural habitat available for them to roam free in. The only surviving arctic ice age herbivorous megafauna was the muskox. When it was reintroduced to Alaska after being exterminated there it spread all over the western and northern part of the state. Rhinos and mammoths could do the same. Read about the muskox success story here.

Would definitely travel to Alaska to see mammoths in the wild!

Passenger pigeons are probably a poor choice, since they require flocks in the thousands simply to breed. If you read about their history, humans realized well before they disappeared that they were in trouble, but by then their numbers had dropped below the trigger value to get them to nest in their big colonies. From there it was a slow decline to extinction.
 
2013-03-15 02:18:22 PM  

mongbiohazard: There are loads of magafauna whose extinctions happened right around the time humans arrived. As mentioned in the article, if it's "playing god" to bring them back why wasn't it "playing god" to drive them to extinction in the first place? Bringing them back from extinction would just be correcting damage that we've done to our planet.

But your argument also relies on fate, a concept which is a human fiction, not a universal force.

I think it would also be great to answer some questions about extinct species... like how with sabertoothed cats no one really understands how those saber teeth worked in practice. We have a few guesses... but that's about it.


Not fate, I actually meant that they just couldn't exist. Evolution isn't a force or a plan, it's just something that happens, and I fully understand that, and tried to say it, but must not have.

/maybe I need more coffee
//or less
 
2013-03-15 02:24:41 PM  

yves0010: StoPPeRmobile: RookStar: "What could possibly go wrong? "

Absolutely nothing.

/curious as to what a mammoth burger or steak tastes like

Chicken.

Im with you on that one. What would it taste like... well, everything tastes like chicken.

And I would love to see the Tasmanian Tiger come back too. They look awesome.




Tasmanian Tiger? Sounds tasty.
 
2013-03-15 02:25:42 PM  
There's no point in trying to recreate an extinct population.  Where are we going to put it?  We already drive extinction of successful species by over-hunting and destroying habitats.  When we figure out how to live on this planet in equilibrium, then we can consider de-extinction (read: never).

A few in zoos would be cool, although carnivores (particularly big cats) in zoos make me a little sad.
 
2013-03-15 02:46:23 PM  

Stone Meadow: Would definitely travel to Alaska to see hunt mammoths in the wild!


FTFM.

That could make the program self-funding.  Crank out mammoths and charge an arm and a leg to hunt them.  No guarantee, and you must use primitive methods (like an atlatl).  Charge, say, $5,000 per person for a week long hunt, minimum group size is 5, and because of the equipment limitations, most groups won't get a mammoth.

But I bet they'd have fun.
 
2013-03-15 03:01:27 PM  

dittybopper: That could make the program self-funding. Crank out mammoths and charge an arm and a leg to hunt them. No guarantee, and you must use primitive methods (like an atlatl). Charge, say, $5,000 per person for a week long hunt, minimum group size is 5, and because of the equipment limitations, most groups won't get a mammoth.

But I bet they'd have fun.


I dunno, that sounds like a good way to make hunter-shaped doormats.
 
2013-03-15 03:08:42 PM  

theorellior: dittybopper: That could make the program self-funding. Crank out mammoths and charge an arm and a leg to hunt them. No guarantee, and you must use primitive methods (like an atlatl). Charge, say, $5,000 per person for a week long hunt, minimum group size is 5, and because of the equipment limitations, most groups won't get a mammoth.

But I bet they'd have fun.

I dunno, that sounds like a good way to make hunter-shaped doormats.


Yeah, not to mention PETA suing the program out of existence, Native Alaskans demanding their rights to half the hunt and those weird Japanese tourists making strange out in the bush. ;^)

Oh, and mammoth needed about 20 years to get to breeding age, and even then only calved about every five years. That slow reproduction rate no doubt factored in their demise. Let's just take photos for the first century or so.
 
2013-03-15 03:35:16 PM  

mongbiohazard: Also, half life generally refers to the decay of radioactive isotopes, not DNA.


Don't forget carnivorous head crabs
 
2013-03-15 04:00:39 PM  

Stone Meadow: theorellior: dittybopper: That could make the program self-funding. Crank out mammoths and charge an arm and a leg to hunt them. No guarantee, and you must use primitive methods (like an atlatl). Charge, say, $5,000 per person for a week long hunt, minimum group size is 5, and because of the equipment limitations, most groups won't get a mammoth.

But I bet they'd have fun.

I dunno, that sounds like a good way to make hunter-shaped doormats.

Yeah, not to mention PETA suing the program out of existence, Native Alaskans demanding their rights to half the hunt and those weird Japanese tourists making strange out in the bush. ;^)

Oh, and mammoth needed about 20 years to get to breeding age, and even then only calved about every five years. That slow reproduction rate no doubt factored in their demise. Let's just take photos for the first century or so.


But we can crank them out using elephants.  That's pretty much a given.

PeTA can't sue:  The mammoths would be private property.  They have no standing to sue.  They wouldn't be a "natural resource", and of course, their record on stopping hunting is so abysmal that probably the only thing keeping Ingrid Newkirk from killing herself is that she'd be harming an animal.

Consider that if you make it hard enough that only 1 out of 10 groups actually kills a mammoth, you've collected $250,000 in fees for that 1 animal, minimum (and probably more).

Alternatively, you could have guided hunts that allow a person to hunt them with a modern rifle but you charge $10k for the hunt itself, with a $200k license fee or something like that.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report