|
|
Post by DinosaurMichael on Apr 29, 2012 19:18:20 GMT -5
As you can see. During the Late Pleistocene. Siberian Tigers lived in Alaska. Evidence from this are from fossils of Siberian Tigers that were found there and because of the bering strait as well. Also not only they livng there, but they were a bit bigger as well. So anyway. Do you guys think it's a good idea to reintroduce Siberian Tigers back into Alaska like they did during the Late Pleistocene. If so. Yes or why not. In my opinion. I think it's a good idea to reintroduce them because then they will be more safe from poachers and not be as endangered since there would be more in the world.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ultimategrid on Apr 30, 2012 2:22:39 GMT -5
NO!
I think animals should be left in their native habitats. Everytime we move an animal thinking it'll do good, something bad happens. What if this had a negative effect on other predators? Or what if the tigers couldn't survive there?
|
|
|
|
Post by DinosaurMichael on Apr 30, 2012 5:58:58 GMT -5
NO! I think animals should be left in their native habitats. Everytime we move an animal thinking it'll do good, something bad happens. What if this had a negative effect on other predators? Or what if the tigers couldn't survive there? However Siberian Tigers lived there during the Late Pleistocene. It is reintroducing them back to where they used to live. Not introducing them. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannosaurus on Apr 30, 2012 16:05:51 GMT -5
NO! I think animals should be left in their native habitats. Everytime we move an animal thinking it'll do good, something bad happens. What if this had a negative effect on other predators? Or what if the tigers couldn't survive there? It is a native habitat. And when in recent history have we deliberately moved an animal thinking it would do good? |
|
Venomous Dragon
Archeon
The Varanid
The Ora, King of The Lizards.
Posts: 2,037
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on May 1, 2012 17:47:57 GMT -5
NO! I think animals should be left in their native habitats. Everytime we move an animal thinking it'll do good, something bad happens. What if this had a negative effect on other predators? Or what if the tigers couldn't survive there? It is a native habitat. And when in recent history have we deliberately moved an animal thinking it would do good? Does the cane toad count as recent? They have programs with south china tigers in africa, this should be fine. |
|
|
|
Post by Ultimategrid on May 2, 2012 1:41:13 GMT -5
NO! I think animals should be left in their native habitats. Everytime we move an animal thinking it'll do good, something bad happens. What if this had a negative effect on other predators? Or what if the tigers couldn't survive there? It is a native habitat. And when in recent history have we deliberately moved an animal thinking it would do good? They died off there long ago, no need to do something other than nature intended. Better safe than sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannosaurus on May 2, 2012 23:45:04 GMT -5
It is a native habitat. And when in recent history have we deliberately moved an animal thinking it would do good? Does the cane toad count as recent? They have programs with south china tigers in africa, this should be fine. Cane toads? What does that have to do with anything? They're invasive because they were never native to Australia. Tigers have historically lived naturally in Alaska. |
|
Venomous Dragon
Archeon
The Varanid
The Ora, King of The Lizards.
Posts: 2,037
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on May 3, 2012 17:48:07 GMT -5
Does the cane toad count as recent? They have programs with south china tigers in africa, this should be fine. Cane toads? What does that have to do with anything? They're invasive because they were never native to Australia. Tigers have historically lived naturally in Alaska. Cane toads were deliberately moved to try and control insects that ate sugar cane, you asked for an example of when an animal was deliberately moved thinking it would do good. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannosaurus on May 3, 2012 19:00:49 GMT -5
Oh, okay.
|
|
ansalon
Single celled organism
Posts: 28
|
Post by ansalon on May 15, 2012 13:36:40 GMT -5
Lets leave Alaska the way it is. Humans already cause enough trouble to ecosystems.
|
|
|
|
Post by mobster on Dec 1, 2012 22:21:52 GMT -5
sure why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Apr 5, 2013 0:56:46 GMT -5
NO! I think animals should be left in their native habitats. Everytime we move an animal thinking it'll do good, something bad happens. What if this had a negative effect on other predators? Or what if the tigers couldn't survive there? Mind sounding a little less angry? I don't see any reason why tigers cannot survive in Alaska. It's similar to their native Russian Far East habitat. |
|
Reticulatus
Ichthyoid
http://fantasyfaceoff.proboards.com
Posts: 709
|
Post by Reticulatus on Apr 5, 2013 19:16:03 GMT -5
I feel it would be determental to the current predators, also the tigers of Alaska died out for a reason and history may very well be repeated. It is better imho that we leave such a small and delicate population be and simply attempt to promote growth.
|
|
Venomous Dragon
Archeon
The Varanid
The Ora, King of The Lizards.
Posts: 2,037
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Apr 5, 2013 19:19:54 GMT -5
If anything It should be in a large fenced in area with the sole purpose of keeping a large more or less wild population protected.
|
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Apr 6, 2013 22:01:39 GMT -5
is there any reason to suggest tigers can't survive in Alaska?
|
|
