DLC18 discussion and predictions

[Milurian]

Maybe, but still, we've seen cases where an animal has been redone in a weekend. And really, the only animals from the base game that need remasters are the Carnivorans and orangutan. Most of the ungulates seem fine (black wildebeest and cape buffalo seem a little odd, though)
So that lowers the 74 animals down to only 14:

1. Timber wolf
2. African wild dog
3. Red panda
4. Giant panda
5. Grizzly bear
6. Formosan black bear
7. Himalayan brown bear
8. West African lion
9. Siberian tiger
10. Bengal tiger
11. Cheetah
12. Snow leopard
13. Borneo orangutan
14. Spotted hyena

That really brings the total down and I feel like it wouldn't take as long as doing an entire revamp. But, what do I know?

You forgot stretching the bison out to be the right size
also even some of the ones you have on this list are passable the cheetah, pandas and wild dog are fine but definitely the tigers, lion, wolf, bears and orangutan are in need of some serious help

 

[Milurian]

I haven't read up on it in a while, but isn't it generally accepted that competition with dingoes was the leading cause of the extinction of the thylacine and devil on the mainland of Australia?

They probably not the leading cause or only cause that was likely humans protecting livestock I have actually read articles comparing actions taken against the thylacine to those being taken against dingos now and how this may lead to the dingos extinction. They probably did compete but they were of different sizes so likely went through niche partioning though there is a noticeable drop in tiger populations when dingos did arrive.
Either way they now have the same roles as the tasmanian tiger so they are important to the ecosystem I also cant find much saying the devils were also affected by dingo arrival.

 

[Chuditch]

I haven't read up on it in a while, but isn't it generally accepted that competition with dingoes was the leading cause of the extinction of the thylacine and devil on the mainland of Australia?

It's been the leading theory for decades, but it's less certain now than it used to be. Not only have dingoes probably been in Australia longer than originally believed (genetic evidence suggesting sometime around 9,000-8,000 years ago, which would mean they coexisted with large marsupial carnivores on the mainland for several thousand years), but there were other significant events that occurred during the same timeframe that the devil and thylacine became extinct on the mainland that had been previously overlooked. The human population of mainland Australia expanded threefold, with associated technological advancements that would probably have made them more efficient hunters, and the climate also shifted abruptly.

The classic circumstantial evidence pointing to dingoes being the leading cause was that they never reached Tasmania, but in a similar fashion, Tasmania never experienced the same population expansion as the mainland, and its cooler southern climate was probably better protected from aridification events. Tasmanian devils also experienced a population crash in Tasmania around 3,000 years ago, the same time they went extinct on the mainland, suggesting they were being impacted by a factor common to both landmasses - which would point to the climate being a big impact. Which factor was most important is still a subject of debate, but dingoes tend to be less implicated as the main culprit nowadays and were probably more of a minor contributing factor.

Here's a couple articles on the subject:

Marsupial extinctions: don’t blame the dingoes

The humble dingo has become something of a scapegoat since its arrival in Australia just 4000 years ago. It is widely blamed for the disappearance of thylacines (also known as Tasmanian tigers) and devils…

theconversation.com

Dingoes cleared of mainland extinctions

Dingoes didn't wipe out mainland thylacines and Tasmanian devils, a study has found.

www.australiangeographic.com.au

Tasmanian devils’ decline ‘driven by climate change’, new research shows

Widespread hunting and facial tumour disease not primary reason for low genetic diversity and historic population slumps

www.theguardian.com

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jbi.13214

 

[ElectricMonk]

In the end, the question as to whether dingos were responsible for the extinction of devils and thylacines is beside the point. The question is not ‘Did they drive native species extinct when they arrived?’ It’s ‘Are they a driver of extinction now? (No, they’re not) and ‘Are they an important component of the ecosystem’ (yes, they are)…. Whatever their position when they were first introduced, dingos now fulfil a critical component of Australian ecosystems, especially in mitigating the effects of more recent introductions like rabbits, foxes and cats.

 

[NZFanatic]

It’s ‘Are they a driver of extinction now? (No, they’re not) and ‘Are they an important component of the ecosystem’ (yes, they are)

Just want to point out that I'm not disputing that. Dingoes are a naturalised species in Australia and therefore have a place in the ecosystem now even if they didn't before. That said I don't fully buy into the idea that they were destined to be this way, nor do I fully believe that the impact they did have on the ecosystem can be completely ignored. I have to imagine that the presence of dingos will be something of a hindrance when it comes to the reintroduction of devils to the mainland, for example, even if they are important in other areas.

To me they represent a double-edge sword, in that way.

 

[Chuditch]

That said I don't fully buy into the idea that they were destined to be this way, nor do I fully believe that the impact they did have on the ecosystem can be completely ignored.

I don't think dingoes were "destined" to be this way, that's not really how ecology or evolution works, so if I gave that impression I'm sorry. I should also make it clear that I do think dingoes had some sort of impact on thylacines and devils, the arrival of a new large and social predator would have certainly shook things up a bit - just that we don't know if they alone were enough to drive these species to extinction, and it's a bit unfair to pin this so strongly on them like we have for the longest time when there were a bunch of other factors at the same time that could have been even more influential. And if they were responsible, it doesn't change how important they are now (which you agree with, I'm just restating it).

not to mention they didn't "destroy the fauna of the whole continent" in any case

I have to imagine that the presence of dingos will be something of a hindrance when it comes to the reintroduction of devils to the mainland, for example, even if they are important in other areas.

This is something I've thought about a lot too. Not only would devil populations from Tasmania have no history of interaction with dingoes and therefore be evolutionarily naive, but small establishing populations tend to be a lot more vulnerable to even minor pressures - both foxes and rabbits failed to be introduced to Australia a bunch of times, despite how much the two species thrived out of control once they finally did gain a foothold. However, one reason why devils are being reintroduced to the mainland in the first place (alongside being an extra insurance population against DTFD) is to re-establish some sort of largish carnivore in areas where dingoes have been eradicated and are unlikely to return to in the near future thanks to intense persecution, so they have a vast area of temperate south-eastern Australia to establish in where dingoes are either rare or absent. This means that when dingoes and devils do properly interact, the devil population will hopefully be large enough where they can compete on more equal terms.

Dingoes overall are still a complex and developing issue, even if I have an immense amount of respect for them, but I just felt that nutrit's statement was misleading and needlessly inflammatory. They're already one of the world's most misunderstood and heavily persecuted predators, so I feel a need to counter obviously false information about them when I see it.

 

[sumcherish82]

HI, guys, do you think how many dlcs we will get in this year ?

 

[Captain Callum]

HI, guys, do you think how many dlcs we will get in this year ?

Likely? 1 dlc in late summer/early fall
Ideally? The usual 3

 

[sumcherish82]

Likely? 1 dlc in late summer/early fall
Ideally? The usual 3

just like the situation in 2020? 3 dlcs in one year?

 

[nutrit]

I don't think dingoes were "destined" to be this way, that's not really how ecology or evolution works, so if I gave that impression I'm sorry. I should also make it clear that I do think dingoes had some sort of impact on thylacines and devils, the arrival of a new large and social predator would have certainly shook things up a bit - just that we don't know if they alone were enough to drive these species to extinction, and it's a bit unfair to pin this so strongly on them like we have for the longest time when there were a bunch of other factors at the same time that could have been even more influential. And if they were responsible, it doesn't change how important they are now (which you agree with, I'm just restating it).

not to mention they didn't "destroy the fauna of the whole continent" in any case


This is something I've thought about a lot too. Not only would devil populations from Tasmania have no history of interaction with dingoes and therefore be evolutionarily naive, but small establishing populations tend to be a lot more vulnerable to even minor pressures - both foxes and rabbits failed to be introduced to Australia a bunch of times, despite how much the two species thrived out of control once they finally did gain a foothold. However, one reason why devils are being reintroduced to the mainland in the first place (alongside being an extra insurance population against DTFD) is to re-establish some sort of largish carnivore in areas where dingoes have been eradicated and are unlikely to return to in the near future thanks to intense persecution, so they have a vast area of temperate south-eastern Australia to establish in where dingoes are either rare or absent. This means that when dingoes and devils do properly interact, the devil population will hopefully be large enough where they can compete on more equal terms.

Dingoes overall are still a complex and developing issue, even if I have an immense amount of respect for them, but I just felt that nutrit's statement was misleading and needlessly inflammatory. They're already one of the world's most misunderstood and heavily persecuted predators, so I feel a need to counter obviously false information about them when I see it.

You are right. They did not destroyed the fauna of the whole continent.
You did that. Australia is the ecological catastrophe thanks to humans who brought alien species with them.

 

[Captain Callum]

just like the situation in 2020? 3 dlcs in one year?

Yeah could be, the console release could of pushed back the dlc slots similar to 2020. Similar to the last speculation thread, people are divided on the topic of a final dlc (like always lol) so some hope for a final June dlc, some think august/september is a more realistic goal etc.

 

[Chuditch]

You are right. They did not destroyed the fauna of the whole continent.
You did that. Australia is the ecological catastrophe thanks to humans who brought alien species with them.

Yep, I agree, the colonial culture and the species they brought with them have devastated the ecology of this land. Good to agree on something.

if you're going to try and aggravate me, say something I don't already think is true lol

EDIT: Anyway have this cool little clip on how dingoes shape the desert:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZDIJ8pDQc0

 

[nutrit]

Yep, I agree, the colonial culture and the species they brought with them have devastated the ecology of this land. Good to agree on something.

if you're going to try and aggravate me, say something I don't already think is true lol

EDIT: Anyway have this cool little clip on how dingoes shape the desert:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZDIJ8pDQc0

That was not my intention to aggravate you.
I’ve read dozens articles about dingos. I agree that now they are very important but them being there in first place was a huge mistake from the beginning in my opinion.
I know that your knowledge about dingos is extensive and I respect your opinions.

 

[Marvinb]

I mean isnt that kind of the standard? Everywhere humans went they impacted the ecosystems in a negative way, some places more than others ofcourse. And islands are especially vulnerable to change, so thats where that impact usually hit the hardest, rip gorilla sized lemurs, last of the fround sloths, moas and tree crocodiles

 

[NZFanatic]

I don't think dingoes were "destined" to be this way, that's not really how ecology or evolution works, so if I gave that impression I'm sorry. I should also make it clear that I do think dingoes had some sort of impact on thylacines and devils, the arrival of a new large and social predator would have certainly shook things up a bit - just that we don't know if they alone were enough to drive these species to extinction, and it's a bit unfair to pin this so strongly on them like we have for the longest time when there were a bunch of other factors at the same time that could have been even more influential. And if they were responsible, it doesn't change how important they are now (which you agree with, I'm just restating it).

No worries, sometimes dingo-defenders give the impression that "the dingo did nothing wrong" (I mean, they technically didn't, being animals, and animals being inherently innocent, but you get what I mean). You didn't give that impression at all, though. I find the climate argument difficult to swallow when it comes to devils and thylacines, because generally speaking climate change tends to reduce ideal habitats in tropical-subtropical biomes rather than fully eradicating it. So even if the habitable range of thylacines/devils shrunk as a result of climate change, I can't imagine the impact being so drastic as to be a major contributor towards extinction.

While the situation is certainly never black and white, I feel comfortable in laying the blame at the feet of the dingo for the most part. But again, that isn't me saying "they're a pest, get rid of them!" it's just an acknowledgement of a likely scenario. I don't have any particular ill-will towards dingoes (Wellington Zoo used to (might still have them, I can't actually remember) keep the only pair of dingoes in NZ so I do like them a lot).

This is something I've thought about a lot too. Not only would devil populations from Tasmania have no history of interaction with dingoes and therefore be evolutionarily naive, but small establishing populations tend to be a lot more vulnerable to even minor pressures - both foxes and rabbits failed to be introduced to Australia a bunch of times, despite how much the two species thrived out of control once they finally did gain a foothold. However, one reason why devils are being reintroduced to the mainland in the first place (alongside being an extra insurance population against DTFD) is to re-establish some sort of largish carnivore in areas where dingoes have been eradicated and are unlikely to return to in the near future thanks to intense persecution, so they have a vast area of temperate south-eastern Australia to establish in where dingoes are either rare or absent. This means that when dingoes and devils do properly interact, the devil population will hopefully be large enough where they can compete on more equal terms.

Well, that's some good news at least. All we need now is some irrefutable proof that the thylacine isn't extinct (I want to believe!).

 

[ElectricMonk]

Just want to point out that I'm not disputing that. Dingoes are a naturalised species in Australia and therefore have a place in the ecosystem now even if they didn't before. That said I don't fully buy into the idea that they were destined to be this way, nor do I fully believe that the impact they did have on the ecosystem can be completely ignored. I have to imagine that the presence of dingos will be something of a hindrance when it comes to the reintroduction of devils to the mainland, for example, even if they are important in other areas.

To me they represent a double-edge sword, in that way.

I’m sure you didn’t really mean it but no - there’s no such thing as ‘destiny’ (or similar), IMO. I also agree that dingos likely had a substantial effect on the species already present (that they’re so important now more or less required that they must have)…. Would the devil and thylacine still exist (or would they have until European colonisation) without the dingo?… I suspect the answer is yes. But that doesn’t change the fact that they’re gone now (and it’s quite possible foxes might prevent devils reestablishing on the mainland - there are no foxes in Tasmania, so how they’d interact is completely unknown)….

 

[Thylaco]

Well, that's some good news at least. All we need now is some irrefutable proof that the thylacine isn't extinct (I want to believe!).

Realistically, Feral Cats and Foxes should have pretty safely put the nail in the coffin on the Mainland and in Tasmania, with diet overlapping a fair bit.

This trip video from last month has some promising tracks at 34:30. They are leaving deep tracks in the sand themselves, so it seems difficult to fake shortly before filming (you'd need a wheel with the print on it, to roll all that way on its own, or maybe a drone with the print, being wet sand, but it'd take a while though to do that many).

It does feel like there is something weird about the tracks, a sort of unnatural quality, I can't pinpoint it. They did see a wallaby on the trail cams, and there's wallaby tracks there too (the two digit side by side prints). For a natural explanation it could be a dog/fox with neuropathy, or ruptured achilles tendons on both sides, as those can induce a plantigrade stance (though I'm unsure on walking gait).

Regardless, eDNA should give a concrete answer eventually, even a population size, regardless on if one is ever found.

 

[Doran]

But that doesn’t change the fact that they’re gone now (and it’s quite possible foxes might prevent devils reestablishing on the mainland - there are no foxes in Tasmania, so how they’d interact is completely unknown)….

Not sure how credible it is, but I once read foxes had hard time to invade tasmania thanks to devils. Fox dens with pups are very smelly, which attracts perfectly adapted devils for such situations. Foxes cant really do anything to devil raids, because these are more aggresive and often bigger.
So on mainland only dingo would probaby posses problems.

 

[Thylaco]

But that doesn’t change the fact that they’re gone now (and it’s quite possible foxes might prevent devils reestablishing on the mainland - there are no foxes in Tasmania, so how they’d interact is completely unknown)….

Primary evidence for Foxes being in Tasmania is DNA from corpses and scat, it is surprising how rare they seem to be given the suitable climate, but they've probably been there a while.

• https://pestsmart.org.au/toolkit-resource/foxes-in-tasmania/
• https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116631
• https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/1365-2664.12011
• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ece3.3694

 

[ElectricMonk]

Let’s just say the evidence of them being in Tasmania currently is.. debatable.

Multi-million-dollar fox hunt 'likely based on hoax'

A $50 million government program to eradicate foxes in Tasmania is quite likely based on faked evidence, according to a leaked report, with sceptics suggesting evidence could have been planted.

www.abc.net.au