Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site bcsaic.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp
From: pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Extinction
Message-ID: <290@bcsaic.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 14:01:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: bcsaic.290
Posted: Thu Sep 12 14:01:38 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 04:25:35 EDT
References: <390@imsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha)
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle
Lines: 52
Summary: 


Let's go back to the current discussion of the Human Overkill
theory that ted finds so unacceptable.

The veiw amoung most of my former colleagues is on the
conservative side. We think that the human factor in the
extinction of the megafauna was only part of a group of
factors. The veiw most commonly held is that a series
of paleoenvironmental changes directly affected the food
supplies of these fauna. The changes affected both the
extent in area and the character of the available food
resources. In particular, to quote from one of my
references
	"The most prominant change was the large scale
	reduction of the steppe environment about 10000
	years ago, which coincides with the latest dates
	for extinctions of the many grazers such as the
	giant groundsloth. Stress on food resources for
	all the large grazers may well have hastened their
	extinction. Hunting pressures by paleoindians may]
	have been the final blow...that led to the
	extinction of some of the already more decimated
	beasts..." (Markgraf,V.,1985,Science,(May 12),
	v.228,n.4703,p.1110-1112.)

Note: What I am trying to point out is that there is
proof out that there is a direct link between vegetation
change and the dietary response of fauna. A drastic change
can decimate a population without too much difficulty.
The time period we are talking about was just such a time
period.


The human factor still cannot be over looked, because
in some cases the deitary changes were not as drastic,
wereas the human influence is more evident. Hence the
view being put forth here.


Now as for the inablity of some to believe that we
mere humans couldn't kill much larger beasts than
ourselves, I think we've been maligned. All the cases
that have been thrown out have consisted of looking
at our current weapons and scoffing.  The one weapon
close to what was used at that time period, the
bow and arrow, was actually NOT USED then. Having
played with an atlatl and spear and seen the strength
enhancement it has, I'd still pit a canny, experience
former ancestor against some of the megafauna anyday.

--------------------------------------------------------
				P.M.Pincha-Wagener


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com