Woolly Mammoth Could Soon Be Resurrected

If this is done, should a population of the them be created?

And if a population is created, how should it be managed?  I see great potential for controversy here😉

73 Responses to “Woolly Mammoth Could Soon Be Resurrected”

  1. jon Says:

    Great news! They were talking about a while ago about how they might be able to bring some extinct animals back. I for one would love to see sabertooth cats and short face bears back in the ecosystem!

    • Rita K.Sharpe Says:

      Jon, We have enough to handle, don’t you think? It is hard enough for the lions in Africa to roam without bumping into sheep,goats,and the rest of the animals that belong to incresing numbers of tribe members.We have wolves,cougars and bears here.Someone once told me that just because we can ,doesn’t mean we should.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon, you have a screw loose.

    • Elk275 Says:

      Jon

      In two weeks the Safari Club will be having there annual convention in Reno, NV. I wonder how much a auctioned license for a sabertooth cat or short face bear would bring. The big bucks would bid on a Irish Stag with 12 foot horns.

      • william huard Says:

        As we all know SCI advocates for canned hunting, farming of Endangered Species- the rarer the better- all in the name of “conservation”. My biggest question is whether Sara Palin can find someone at the show that can show her how to shoot her “varmint rifle”. I wonder what her speaking fee is?

    • ProWolf in WY Says:

      Jon, while I am all for restoring ecosystems, this would be disastrous. These animals went extinct and it is doubtful that it was at the hands of man. The ecosystems are no longer adapted to them. I question the ethics of bringing back a species this long extinct for any reason. Are people just going to try to establish a zoo with them? Is that really a reason to bring something back from extinction to view it in a zoo?

  2. Kayla Says:

    Now I have heard of this for sometime now. If this is done then it will be an interesting world. I just personally do say, ‘Go For It!’ Now on a side note, if someone knows about the Hopi Prophecies, have heard that some have talked of something like this happening in the time when we pass from the 4th world to the 5th world in the Hopi Prophecies.

    Now while we are at it, lets bring back the Grizzly to the Sierra’s, the Cascades, the Colorado and the Southern Rockies, the Black Hills and other places that they used to roam. Bring back Wild Bison roaming the plains. Etc. Why Not!

    • jon Says:

      I think this is a great idea. If we have the power to bring back extinct animals, let’s do it.

      • cobra Says:

        If they bring the t-rex back I need a bigger gun.
        I’m with s.b. they went extinct for a reason, be careful what you wish for.

      • JB Says:

        Yes, they went extinct for a reason. Unfortunately, it is hard to determine just how much of a role we played in their extinctions; however, the pattern of megafaunal extinctions largely coincides with the arrival of homo sapiens world wide.

        The “should” question really doesn’t become relevant until one considers reintroducing populations of these animals–which is probably much, much farther away than 5 years. Assuming geneticists are able to pull off such a feat, I suspect initial animals will be limited to zoos. Regardless, these techniques may be useful for saving species that are critically endangered right now, and bringing back species that we know for a fact we eliminated (e.g., the passenger pigeon).

      • PointsWest Says:

        We could bring back several dinosaurs and create a tourist attaction on an offshore island or something. We could call it something catchy….Jurasic Park sounds like a good name!

  3. timz Says:

    I knew this would happen, right after I watched Jurrasic Park for the first time.

  4. Rita K.Sharpe Says:

    Yes,JB,if it meant for the good of a species that is in peril or perhaps ,bring back some species that man contributed for it’s desmise but as for the large ,carnivores and herbivores;they had their day .We need to focus on what we have right in front of us and try not to lose anymore.

  5. Brad Loree Says:

    I’m kind of on the fence with these issues. It might be cool to see these extinct animals living again but then again some species go extinct for a reason, usually because they lost the evolutionary race. In a case where humans were in the main extinction factor, then I say maybe we should bring them back. In all other cases I say no. Another thing to consider is how long has the animal been missing from it’s ecosystem? It could be like introducing a pest into an ecosystem that can no longer handle them. If we reintroduced the mammoth, what would it’s predators be? Besides humans, I’m pretty sure all it’s natural predators are long gone or have evolved pursuing other, smaller game.

    Also, relating to my opening statement about it being cool to see an extinct species, there are thousands of remarkable animals that exist today that I haven’t seen. I’d rather see a Tibetan fox in person before a mammoth. Just another thing to consider.

    I suppose doing it for the sake of doing it would be beneficial as far as advancement of science goes, but I think it would be best to keep them in an artificial environment away from our current natural ecosystems.

    But then again I’m no expert.

  6. Nancy Says:

    I agree with Rita.
    ++Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should++

    Many thought bringing wolves back to their native lands to balance out a damaged ecosystem was a good thing and look how well thats gone over with a small percentage of people who just aren’t willing or able, to relate to the benefits.

    Would love to know the actual costs associated with bringing just that handful of wolves back 15 years ago and the expense since.

    The collaring, the monitoring, all the government personal expended – on site, writing up reports about livestock losses, field studies regarding the impact on ungulates in a few areas, lawsuits since and least I forget – WS.
    Been privy, often, to their flyovers (and hours billed $$ to taxpayers, while in the sky) doing what they do best – taking out “problem” species when the need arises………. in the name of a few.

    Keep thinking there’s a happy medium out there somewhere that doesn’t include so much grandstanding and waste, when it comes to the debate about other species being able to exist (as they did for thousands of years) along side our species, before we got to full of ourselves.

    • Elk275 Says:

      Nancy

      ++and look how well that’s gone over with a small percentage of people who just aren’t willing or able, to relate to the benefits.++

      Locally and regionally it is a large percentage of the people who just aren’t willing or able, to relate to the benefits. The large percentage of people do not see any benefits in wolves, just read the comments in the Missoulian or Billings Gazette whenever wolves make headlines.

      Nationally the large percentage of people could careless about wolves. Their concerns and cares are about their personal economic well being, jobs, house and car payments and whether they can make more than the minimum credit card payment. After that if they have any personal time or surplus money it is spent on instant gratification.

      • Nancy Says:

        +Locally and regionally it is a large percentage of the people who just aren’t willing or able, to relate to the benefits+

        Toss some numbers out there Elk. That’s what I’m looking for. A lot of private (ranch) land in my neck of the woods but why does that automatically translate to a “no tolerence” zone to wildlife that can’t begin to relate to OUR notion of boundaries?

      • Bob Says:

        Nancy you always talk of a “zero tolerance”, little do you know about ranchers. Montana fish and game will tell you that greater than 70% of wild life live on private land. From my house to my neighbors ranch we have over 12 grizzly, a pack of wolves and I have no idea how many lions. Its 8 miles and all private ranch land, so give the automatic translation a break and spend some time learning what ranchers are really about.

      • Elk275 Says:

        Nancy, if I had the correct numbers I would play Powerball and win instead of reading this blog.

  7. Petticoat Rebellion Says:

    Oh gawd! Let’s not give the ranchers something else to whine about…Can’t you hear it already? “Them thar sabertoothes is gonna eat my cows and my grandkids” And we can hardly find habitat and tolerance for grizzly bears let alone short-face bears.

  8. IDhiker Says:

    My comments are not meant to be either pro or con concerning mammoths, saber-toothed cats, etc. But, being an archaeologist, I have read a fair amount on this topic. The general consensus in anthropological circles today is that early native Americans were the direct cause of the Pleistocene “mega-fauna” extinctions, which of course includes mammoths. Interestingly, there were some Arctic populations of mammoths that are believed to have survived until the building of the pyramids. I do, however, agree with the comments that with the wolf “mess” that we are now in, reintroducing any other large predators would be a mistake and a public-relations nightmare.

  9. Cody Coyote Says:

    Smilodonts.
    We need Smilodonts*.
    The only feasible carnivore for thinning the excess Yellowstone bison herd. It’s still mostly Late Pleisoticene -early Holocene there anyway

    (* a/k/a/ Sabertooth )

  10. Ian Says:

    Bringing these animals back is great, and great for science, but they should not be let lose in the wild. The idea is ridiculous. There is a possibility that humans contributed to the extinction of the megafauna, but I think it was largely due to the ending of the ice age which vastly changed the landscape.

    I see this more as an opportunity for scientists to get an understanding of the science and hopefully bring back the species whose extinction can directly be attributed to humans.

    • JB Says:

      Just “skimmed” the recent literature on megafauna extinctions and it appears there is still debate about the extent to which humans or climate (or both) caused this last extinction event. I seriously doubt we be able to “directly” attribute many of these “older” (i.e., > 1,000YA) extinctions to humans.

    • Ian Says:

      I agree. I think its possible that hunting pressures may have expedited the process of their extinction, but it would have occurred regardless.

      • william huard Says:

        Jon-

        There are credible people in Tasmania that believe there is an extent population of Tigers in Tasmania. A few years ago I was friendly with Col Bailey, who is one of the foremost experts about tigers in the bush. He told me that they are trying to protect habitat for the tiger. An interesting sidenote is a lumber company named Gunns LTD, was accused of poisoning areas where Tigers were thought to exist with 1080. An Endangered Species designation would hamper their ability to rape the environment at will. What “conservationists”.

      • jon Says:

        Yeah, I heard some say they think the tasmanian tiger is still alive, but they haven’t found any yet. They could be real elusive it seems. I have also heard some claim they think megalania is alive, the biggest lizard to ever walk the planet at 20 plus feet and weighing in at a ton. This lizard if still alive wouldn’t be hard to miss given it’s huge size. The animals we made extinct in recent times, we owe it to them to bring them back. I don’t see why the tasmanian tiger can’t be brought back. If they were brought back, you always gotta worry that they might be wiped out by hunters and ranchers again who viewed them as vermin. Yes, the respect for wildlife just isn’t there by some.

  11. Tim Bondy Says:

    If there were woolly mammoth ranchers back then, they might still be roaming the earth?

  12. Jerry Black Says:

    At least now I know why Greg Hinkle( R-Thompson Falls) is pushing the bill to allow hunting with spears in Montana. I believe it will be up for a vote before the Mt. Legislature on Tuesday.

  13. IDhiker Says:

    I agree there is still debate about mega-fauna extinctions. From climate to disease to extra-terrestrial to human hunting pressure, or a combination of these. But, I believe the swing is to “human caused,” with some environmental influence.

    Back in the 70’s, when I took my undergrad classes, you hardly heard reference to the human Overkill Theory. But, there also was a time when paleontologists thought dinosaur extinction was caused by climate change, but now, the majority of scientists accept the impact theory.

    Getting back to the climate change at the end of the Pleistocene – it certainly could have effected the mega-fauna. But, interestingly, these same mega-fauna had already successfully weathered a number of earlier inter-glacial periods. The only real difference, this time, was the introduction of human hunters into the mix.

    Humans arrived in North America (most agree) around 13 – 14000 years ago, before the mega-fauna disappeared. The extinction of these animals after human arrival happened in a geological “blink of the eye,” in just hundreds to perhaps a 1000 years. Several studies have shown that human populations and migration could have occurred fast enough to accomplish these extinctions. Although there are remains of other animals present, the majority of bones at Paleoindian sites of this time are mega-fauna, which typically had low birth rates.

    Probably, some archaeologists are hesitant to accept the Overkill Theory due to the relatively small number of sites known. But, this is changing with new discoveries, and new knowledge is constantly being uncovered.

    The warming climate did change vegetation patterns, but some animals, such as the ground sloth and horse, are known to have adapted to the change, and yet they became extinct, too, in North America.

    You’ll often find this prehistoric pattern around the world – humans arrive, and large numbers of species shortly become extinct. A lot of the evidence might be circumstantial at this time, but I believe it clearly points one direction, and that, over time, enough evidence will be uncovered to prove it.

    • jon Says:

      Wildlife was doing as good as it could before humans arrived. It seems to me most of these recent extinctions happened after humans arrived. It sickens me that these animals are not here today because of us maybe being responsible for wiping them out. Dinosaurs and their demise obviously can’t be blamed on us as they were killed off millions and millions of years before we humans arrived on planet earth.

    • PointsWest Says:

      There is no doubt that the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet changed the climate and the habitat and contributed to the many extinctions in North America. I think most agree that Paleoamericans also contributed by hunting mammoths and other mammals. There is some new thinking that the Paleoamericans contributed in another way also.

      When the first explorers came west, they noted that all the plains tribes regularly set grass fires on the plains to help grow green grass and increase bison numbers. There are reports of huge grass fires. If they were doing it then, it is likely they were doing it when they first came south of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. So many beleive the Great Plains are not natural but are man made. The Paleoamericans may have drastically altered the landscape south of the Laurentide Ice Sheet with fire and so this may also contributed to the extinction of the mammonths and the many other specied that adisappeared at the same time. Some claim the Great Plains were nothing more than a man made pasture to rear bison for human consumption.

      • PointsWest Says:

        Also…Paleoamericans came south of the Lurentide Ice Sheet along with bison, grey wolves, elk, deer and several other animals. All of the new animals and perhaps new disease could have driven several species extinct.

  14. IDhiker Says:

    Jerry Black,
    You are right about the spears….they worked well for the Clovis hunters on mammoth, and they had only stone to work with. I imagine Hinkle’s spear-hunters will have steel available.

  15. Tim Says:

    Are you people High? Why in the hell do you think woolly mammoths could live anywhere in this day and age. Where are they going to live? what do they eat? Get real! With how many people are on this planet you cannot actually take this seriously. Jon you are the most unrealistic person on this blog. I read this blog multiple times everyday and you are out there buddy! I can’t believe this is even a post here. I’m with cobra though. i think i might buy some bigger guns too!

    • william huard Says:

      Maybe the NRA can push through the use of cannons for consumptive use

    • Larry Thorngren Says:

      Tim-
      I think that Jon and several others on this blog say some of the things they do, just to get a reaction from the rest of us. I wouldn’t take them seriously.
      I agree with you about no room for Ice Age mammals because of all the people. ALL of the things we argue and pontificate about on this blog are meaningless, unless we address the human population problem. Each day, more species go the way of the wooly mammoth.

      • jon Says:

        As our population continues to get bigger and bigger, you can bet wildlife is going to suffer. Soon, there will very little habitat for some animals and they will most likely die off. No one wants to address the human overpopulation problem. There is no doubt as our population keeps growing, wildlife will suffer.

      • PointsWest Says:

        The did it in China.

    • jon Says:

      I did not say we had to put them back in the wild, but they are trying to bring them back. What does that tell you? They want to bring them back. I agree, with the overpopulation of both humans and cattle, those ancient extinct animals if brought back would not survive because humans would kill them off like they might have done thousands of years ago.

  16. JimT Says:

    Habitat, Habitat, Habitat….

  17. Carl Says:

    No way should we bring them back. They would compete with modern wildlife and have a tremendous impact on the ecosystem. We should use the money to save what we have left. Let them rest in PEACE!!!!

  18. vickif Says:

    We don’t have enough space for the animals which have evolved and remained here. Let alone some extinct animals which died without major impact of over populated humans.

    We should definitely learn to handle what we have before adding more to the list of issues.

    This is just another example of humans (wealthy humans) wanting things they don’t need and never being satisfied or appreciative of what they have. Preserve what we can, and learn from what we could stand to lose.

    About the only good I see coming of this, aside from preservations of species we are killing off ourselves, is that it may inspire people to see a world without waste, imagine a time when the planet was paramount and the desires of man were based on survival and not greed.

  19. Jay Says:

    Clone a handful of species, place them in a park similar to the San Diego wild animal park, charge admission, and use the proceeds to purchase land for endangered species. I’m sure there would be lots of people willing to pay a fair amount of money to view prehistoric animals.

  20. mikepost Says:

    I cant think of a greater threat to the ESA than the successful cloning of extinct animals. It provides a whole new rationale for relaxing the standards and touting cloning as a mitigation tool.

    • Jay Says:

      The ESA is all about critical habitat, not individual animals, as well as preventing endangered species from reaching the dire situation where cloning might be an option.

      • mikepost Says:

        Jay, thats my point, with cloning you can argue that you dont have to do as much mitigation for endangered species because you can always clone some down the road. You have to think like the enemy, not like your friends….

      • Jay Says:

        You have to have a place to put those animals, so it’s really a moot point to bring something back only to keep it in the zoo. I would say the biggest threat to the ESA is republicans, not gimmick science.

  21. Idaho Dave Says:

    What a hoot! I had to laugh at the comment about the SCI, because it so true! A “T-Rex” for the wall please!
    Realistically, interestingly enough it apprears we aren’t far from the “Jurassic Park” scenario.
    If one looks back to “Flash Gordon”, “Star Trek” or “Star Wars” and recognizes the imagination it took to suggest the ideas and realizing how people, sceintists, inventors and engineers just needed someone to suggest it, then they go and create it . Imagination, a truly amazing and scary thing.
    In the case of the wooly mammoth, I don’t see a need for them. However, I do recognize the benefits of the technology to create them. How wonderful a thing it would be to take tissue from a diseased organ and grow a new one, instead of waiting for an organ donor. Or, how about the ability to grow a new limb to replace one lost to accident or injury?
    Unfortunately, one also has to recognize the dark side (sorry for the pun). I can see “super soldiers” with the heart and lungs of Lance Armstrong, the strength of a NFK running back and the quickness of Bruce Lee incorporated with the technology of a “Terminator or an “X man”. Farfetched? Not really.
    Once we start playing God, who gets to determine right from wrong, moral from immoral? Unfortunately, in man’s case, especially in the corporate world, it’s usually greed that determines the course of action.
    I don’t know how we could stop this, but it definitely needs some kind of oversight even with that, you and I will never know the true extent of that technology.
    Can you see placing an order for your next pet online? “Dial a dinosaur”!

  22. Brian Ertz Says:

    I think there ought be a distinction in humans’ culpability with respect to extinction events. take the passenger pigeon v. mammoth – it seems to me that any indigenous peoples’ contribution to extinction of a wooly mammoth is different, and perhaps much more acceptable in the context of humans being subject to population regulations within the greater ecosystem of which they are a part than those extinction events that take place in the more modern era — of which i think that the spirit of the ESA seeks to regulate given our moving ‘out-of’ those other pre-existing restraints …

    • SEAK Mossback Says:

      I think I’d stick with a “modern” versus “pre-modern” distinction than “indigenous” versus “non-indigenous” or “invasive” peoples. I ran into an indigenous hunter with a Heckler & Koch assault rifle with a huge banana clip. He didn’t seem too concerned about being “regulated” by a predator nor about limiting his take of prey. I’m not sure what would be left moving on the landscape today if his pre-modern forebears had been thus armed.

  23. Nate Hobbs Says:

    While genetics can bring the animal back lost forever are the social lessons and characteristics taught at birth. If these animals we’re to be brought bak they would be a glimmer of what they really are. I could see them in a zoo but in a ecosystem, never.

  24. Kibby Says:

    Oh, good gawd. Woolly mammoths? Sabretooths? Short-faced bears? (Along with lions, cheetahs and wolves…) I bet in a few generations they would have recovered all of their social abilities. I would also give up several non-vital organs to see a Pleistocene array of animals able to fulfill their biological imperative on the American Great Plains.

    Yeah, yeah, not holding my breath. But it’s the pipe dream to end all pipe dreams. There’s still plants in the American South awaiting an elephant’s digestive system to propogate their seeds (e.g Osage Orange). The speed of the American Pronghorn is still the result of a cheetah that no longer exists. Even simple things, like elk on the plains and widespread bison, are damn difficult to reintroduce to their old stomping grounds…

    • PointsWest Says:

      How about direwolves! Anyone know how much the weighed. Rockhead and the likes would love direwolves.

  25. JB Says:

    Just a general comment: Very few people would support restoring woolly mammoths anywhere near human inhabitants; however, there are places such as Ellesmere Island, which lies inside the Arctic Circle, that probably could support populations of these animals.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellesmere_Island

  26. PointsWest Says:

    Does anyone know if they can choose the sex of the animal they clone? What about the case where there are only a few animals left of an endangered species and say all the males are killed. Can they clone another male from the females?

    Also, if there are only a few animals left of an endangered species, maybe samples should be collected and kept fozen somewhere to some of the variety of the genetics is preserved.

    • Save bears Says:

      PW,

      There have been rumors floating around for years that the government has been saving genetic samples from all kinds of things for future use, from grain to humans.

      There was a history channel show on a vault that has all kinds of information saved in it and they would not confirm or deny genetic samples from mammals are being stored, but they did confirm that crop DNA is being stored as well as seeds.

      So you never know, there was a story floating around Montana for a while after the discovery of a dinosaur was found that contained mummified flesh, that they took samples and they are stored at U of M.

      • PointsWest Says:

        SB…thanks for the info.

        I have read and watched documentaries on using older DNA to clone new animals or people. While DNA from frozen tissue will give results, using DNA from older material is basically science fiction. DNA breaks down over time. It may still be there but is in fragments and would need to be pieced back together somehow, as I understand it.

        Cloning from frozen tissue is much, much simpler, something like taking the cell nucleus and inserting into an egg cell of a similar animal since the DNA is still intact and is still functional in the frozen cell nucleus.

        What I don’t know is if they can choose or change the sex. It sounds like the sex will be that of the frozen tissue but it seems like I’ve heard they can change the sex of a zygote somehow.

      • howlcolorado Says:

        I don’t know that genetic engineering has reached the point of being able to “determine” gender, but they certainly can filter it to ensure a certain gender.

        When cells become a zygote (6 or 8 cells?), scientists can do some diagnostic tests to both determine if the resulting offspring will have any genetic disorders, but also determine what gender the offspring is going to be. Therefore, prior to implanting in a surrogate, they can already know a lot about what will be produced.

        If my memory serves me correctly, invertebrates are inherently female and it’s a trigger which converts the chromosones from XX to XY. I am not sure they can interrupt that process to ensure female or encourage that process to produce a male.

        In humans, the highly controversial and ethical discussion around trying to control gender, or any other aspect (even genetic disorders) of a baby during in vitro fertilisation has demonstrated what Geneticists can do, but the age-old question is always going to be – just because you can do it, does that mean you should?

  27. mikepost Says:

    There is a significant issue with regards to the limited gene pool created by the cloning of extinct animals. Even determining that the cloning material source is representative of of the species and not off the edge of the bell curve would be difficult.
    In California we have seen an issue with Tule Elk, where the species was brought back from 1 bull and 5 cows about 100 years ago. There is some speculation that what we see in the herd of 4,500 today (physically and behaviorly) may not be exactly what was the norm with the 500,000 that were market hunted to near extinction in the 1800’s.

    • PointsWest Says:

      Right, so it makes sense that when we find the carcas of a dead animal that is an endangered species, we take a tissue sample and freeze it. SB indicated that maybe this was already being done.

  28. Cody Coyote Says:

    Why don’t we just clone Aldo Leopold instead?

    • PointsWest Says:

      I was going to say Bill Clinton except it sounds like he was already doing a good job of speading his DNA around. 🙂

    • Cody Coyote Says:

      ..as in “Also” Leopold.

      This is a strange discussion thread. (guilty as charged )

      Wrangell Island up north had a population of dwarfed Mammoths that persisted well into ” modern” times…still living at the time Stonehenge was built. The animals had downsized to make better use of limited forage; not uncommon. There is plenty of Woolly Mammoth genetic stock in the permafrosts of east Asia. Who knows what else ?

      Perhaps the best cloners on Earth that you never knew about are the Thais. Researchers in Thailand have said for years that cloning a mammoth using their own elephant research facilities would be relatively easy. Thais can clone about anything, and have done remarkable cloning feats . (In fact the entire Thai Orchid industry is run with cloned plants , but that is relatively easy to do , even as mass production ). The Thais are adept at animal cloning , too. They have reproduced the Vietnamese Pseudo-Oryx discovered a few years back and previously unknown.

      Then there are the Chinese, who have a successful if secretive cloning program. More than just Pandas.

      The questions with Neo-Mammoths become…what do you do with it, and how do you raise it, behaviorally ? Is it just a three ton Lab Rat or will it be allowed to grow to maturity ? I presume Mammoths are herd animals and were nurtured collectively when young. Would our modern day warm climate African or Indian elephants even adopt the mammoth calf ? Who’s got 50 gallon drums of elephant milk ?

      My feeling is the temptation to clone a Woolly Mammoth will be irresistible. It would be a Grand Prize winner.

  29. Tilly Says:

    This proposed cloning seems morally wrong. Does not seem fair to the woolly mammoth that would be born. What kind of life will it lead, with no family or species kinship whatsoever. I believe elephants are known to be intelligent and family-oriented, so presumably the same would be true for mammoths.

    • Connie Says:

      Tilly, I’ve thought the same thing as I’ve been reading this thread. I’m not a big fan of zoos and have often wondered about the quality of life zoo inhabitants have. Even though the prospect of seeing a live wooly mammoth is fascinating, cloning one to live as a lab specimen borders on cruelty, if not indifference.

  30. Wildlife Fan Says:

    I want to see these in my life time!!!


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: