Like mentioned before--Australia.
Heard this dopey idea on the radio myself last night.
Here's a link.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/513772/
Note this:
"Other living species that are counterparts to Pleistocene-era animals in North America include feral horses (Equus caballus), wild asses (E. asinus), Bactrian camels (Camelus bactrianus), Asian (Elephas maximus) and African (Loxodonta africana) elephants and lions (Panthera leo)."
Isn't there already a problem with feral horses in N. America?
Why would Camelus bactrianus intoduced in N. America be less of a problem than Camelus dromedarius has become in Australia?
And what's wrong with the predators that were here more recently? Why are the African ones "better"? Has the attitude that everything that people who live here do is "bad" been extended to the indigenous (or once indigenous) wildlife?
These guys have to be the fringe wingnuts of the econuts.
Especially in light of things like this:
"The San Francisco Bay estuary is recognized as one of the most invaded aquatic ecosystems in North America. Since 1970, at least one new species has been introduced every 24 weeks. It is estimated that the Bay has over 240 invasive species inhabiting its reaches and that most of the fish found in the Bay-delta are non-native...
Had to look up "lovebugs"....
Seems that current evidence suggests that they moved in from C. America pretty much on their own, or stowed away on ships--nobody is known to have knowingly introduced them.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/lurkers/lovebugs.htm
Stowing away is how some nasties like zebra mussels got here too.
Apparently, the insects' remains do a number on automobile paint.
Would anyone give a flip about the things if that weren't the case?