2007-07-27 01:12:31 · 8 answers · asked by Bill W 【ツ】 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Zoology
Make that 99, I would like to have one for a
pet.
2007-07-27 03:01:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Interesting question. We may be facing these type decisions in real life quite soon. The entire ecosystem of Antarctica is protected by international treaty, so you would be breaking the law, and that would antagonise some people. My opinion is that no one can predict what would happen. My best is that they could survive, at least in some areas. King George's Peninsula would be an example. The reason I say it'd be hard to predict is that the climate of Antarctica is changing fast. Scientists are watching as the ice melts. Most of that ice has been there for millions of years. The species we see there today have evolved and adapted to live on it. What will happen to them when it's gone is anybody's guess. Most, like the penguins, live on, under, or around ice floes around the coast, which will soon be gone. They follow a migratory pattern as they mate lay eggs and raise their young, as many birds do. What will happen when the ice floe melts that they have been doing this on since they evolved thousands of years ago? We don't know. The most likely thing is that it will be like what happens to a population of sea turtles when somebody builds a condo on the beach they have always returned to to lay their eggs. That group of turtles just dies off. There are also whole new ecosystems being exposed that have been living under the ice shelf all along. How will they do in a warmer Antactica without ice? We don't know that either. Great question!
2007-07-27 02:36:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
They would be unlikely to survive as antarctica actually differs substantially from their current habitat. It's much colder there than their home in the arctic and there are only inhabitants there (food wise) part of the year so they would be without food for a substantial amount of time.
I believe they declared the entire continent of antarctica as a preserve so there's no way you could release any animals there and since there are only a couple of ports on the continent, it's not like you could sneak them there. :-)
2007-07-27 03:02:44 · answer #3 · answered by SC 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What a silly question. KIf they were meant to be there, they would already be there. They would not survive (particularly if they were captive bred) or they would significantly alter the ecosystem by preying on an animal, over-breeding and making it go extinct. You only have to look at what has happened in the past with other such hair-brained schemes. Humans are not Nature: they don't know how it all fits together.
2007-07-27 01:45:27 · answer #4 · answered by Buzz 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
They probalby wouldn't all survive as their food source woudl be gone. If you did relaese 100 of them, a lot of people would get pissed off as they could alter the food web in Antarctica.
2007-07-27 01:17:17 · answer #5 · answered by Bob B 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No. Antarctica is basically a big frozen rock. There is NO food source for predators like fox. If there were mice and rabbits present, there would be a predator also. So, what you propose is not only lame and thoughtless, but cruel.
2007-07-27 01:38:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
100 Arctic Foxes would mind! ...especially as they would have to get around upside down
Here on the under side of earth we are forced to walk upside down and I can tell you it gets pretty exhausting! The downside is you get very cold hands ...the upside, of course, are your feet (c;
2007-07-28 02:12:38 · answer #7 · answered by redleaf 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No they wouldnt,only penguins to eat,A lot of it is owned by Australia & if you release any there YOU would be hunted down,The Brits released red foxes in Oz 200 years ago & we are still trying to kill them,they are a pest
2007-07-27 01:25:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋