Carl, you should clone your wife instead.

Keith

"But if you think that animal rights people aren't contemplating how to get them on the endangered species list, and how to use them to restrict or eliminate use/harvest/management of other animals, I think you are very naive."

How about we turn this around. Now there is no need for an endangered species list at all, since we can bring anything back we want.

It already seems like there's two of them...that's enough!

But the expertise being gained here I think could be very useful to mankind. Think about the couples that have one or more of the nearly 1000 genetic diseases that are choosing not to have kids because of that. They could potentially edit out the faulty base pairs replicated in a gene and from there on out the family is free of a curse. I'll bet there's more applications than that too.

I agree that this technology is very useful for man too. That's not saying that bad or careless people could not cause disasters with this technology. I think overall, it will improve life for most people.

Keith

Plus I want to go on a guided wooly mammoth hunt in Siberia someday.

(Hey Keith, I want to send you some Italian plum roots this week, the ones we talked about. That OK?)

WHOA! For a guy from Minnesota you're thinking is spot on! What a great "argument" in a Federal Court!......... And I never mention that I'm from Colorado to anyone with a thought process. (At least I came here from Wyoming)!!!!

Should now be no more endangered species list.Allow all trapping with no restrictions for all species of animals.

That’s just bad management. Guys on horses with .30-30’s near wiped North America clean of anything to eat for a while, and human populations were a lot lower then. If the same thing were to happen with the current population levels and the technology available, most animals would be looking at extinction pretty rapidly

Yep. No idea how a supposed sportsmen can keep posting about wanting to extirpate entire species. First it was wolves and now everything. Seasons and limits exist for a reason. In my state we have healthy populations of all the trappable species, and so have long seasons with no limits. But just imagine no limit on, say marten and fisher in MN, or marten in NY. It wouldn't be but a few years until they were all gone.

And it sure makes trappers in general look bad when people post stuff like that.

Didn’t they just find a bear thought to be extinct a few months ago?

I call BS on the whole article until they show me a wolf-like canine weighing 350 lbs and standing 60 inches at the shoulder.

And I work in "science", although not DNA research. I've done a lot of journal article reviews in the past 5 years (lots and lots of peer-reviewed journals out there and its a business, with the big name journals the most costly one out to get published in, especially if you want your work to be "open access" so anyone can read it). I can tell you there is as much "faith" in a lot of science as there is in various religious dogma.Various scams work by pushing the envelope a bit at a time until that "edge" is "accepted" and then later almost no one will challenge it.

As if "Jurassic Park" is real...

350 pounds? Did not know they were so big. With the animals they preyed on it makes sense. Would need a bear trap.

google says 150

[quote][google says 150/quote]

Then the BS/scam meter just spins up some more, doesn't it. Bred back and forth some of the biggest gray wolves out there until you get some that typically push toward 150, and kazam, we have a "dire wolf"

There's grey wolves that have weighed over 170 pounds and domestic dogs, that have weighed over 340 pounds. 150 pounds is not very big. The biggest domestic dogs are over twice the weight of a dire wolf.

Keith

P.S. Here' some diddy about how much it costs to get "open access" in peer-reviewed journals so anyone can read an article instead of just people or insinuations that have subscriptions.

In 2021, we had an manuscript that dealt with the analysis of a new, broad U.S. mapping effort across about 35 years and the changes that we found using one of its components. Fairly broad stuff but because it dealt with the whole CONUS and covered the amount of time that it did AND it was from a government research group, we thought that The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA (or PNAS as its known) might be interested in it. That's where I submitted it first, knowing that it was probably a long shot but we'll try. They ended up deciding not to send the manuscript out for review but in the couple of weeks or so that it took for them to tell us "no thanks", I had looked up their "open access" price.

If I remember correctly, it was $9.500

The next place we sent the manuscript was to a "tier 2" Nature venue. Nature (actually the publishing company is now Springer Nature, a UK company, at least the Nature part) was out of our league but their next step down is a line of journals that lead with "Nature" and then the theme of the research, such as "Nature Geoscience". They also decided not to send the manuscript out for review but I checked out their "open access" price. They were just under $5,000 a pop in 2021.

I think the reason the above (and another Nature - name your theme) journal didn't send this manuscript out for review was that there wasn't enough "blood in the streets" for their tastes. The paper finally got accepted in a "common people" peer-reviewed operation that has several hundred themed open access journals. Most "cool kid" authors who get in Science, PNAS, or Nature wouldn't even consider getting published with this large venue company because they are just "paper mills" that charge for publications and have very fast turn arounds from submission to possible publication. Of course those folks don't see their hypocrisy in publishing with the "prestigious" folks who charge nice coin for institutional subscriptions or the high "open access' fees such as those I've listed above. I find that thinking rather...amusing...

Keith

Check the "Guinness World Records" and the largest verified Gray wolf ever recorded weighed 227 lbs. It was from the Yukon.