Birds can drop fish after they've captured them. Not longer than a year now, we were visiting my wife's family, and me and my father in law got to Walmart there was a dead fish in the front, but when we mentioned it to my wife who got there before us (separate cars) she said it was struggling for life when they saw it, I don't think there was a lake nearby enough, but I wouldn't be surprised if birds have accidentally introduced life into new bodies of water.
Close, I looked it up out of curiosity, it seems Waterfowl eat the eggs, but they travel through their digestive system fully alive. Really interesting even so!
In this case they have carbon dated wooden equipment for fish farming and know due to geological factors when the lake could support fish, though of course the fish might have gotten there first somehow. I thought this was interesting because it predates agriculture in the same area.
But I always thought the explanation was eggs randomly getting stuck to bird feet. Or maybe a bird carries a fish with eggs up there and eats it or something. Inevitably it happens though...
Lakes have connected rivers and streams that provide paths for fish and eggs to move around. There are human and animal activities that affect this. Your bird example and beavers causing floods could allow movement.
There’s a stream in my back yard that doesn’t hold fish over the winter because it’s too shallow/cold. A large property near me has a pond that overflows into my stream. The fish survive in the deeper waters of the pond and spring rain usually washes fish eggs or even fish into my stream. They gather in the rocks in my backyard near the storm drain.
Alpine lakes are fed by snow met. There’s not going to be fish eggs on the snowpack that melts into the lake.
> There’s fish eggs being washed everywhere during rain storms. The eggs come from upstream and wash into random places.
Do you realize that in the summer mountains below 4000m are mostly snow-free and thawing point ie in Europe has been pushed above 5000m repeatedly during summers. Its easy to have 25C in 2500m in today's alps (ie today 22C in 2000m in Chamonix, France).
The term 'alpine lake' doesn't mean anything specific, and most are fed from rain during entire summer without any/much of snow or ice contribution.
Apparently if you introduce a large fish species to your pond, the bullfrogs will not eat them, not sure how you would secure the eggs though. Maybe some sort of area that could shelter from them, but once they come out of shelter when they hatch, its kind of the same problem.
Could also introduce fish that will eat the frogs to keep them under control. Or just leave it all as-is.
hmmm, I have seen big fish in much bigger birds claws, and have seen even bigger birds dive bombing other birds to force them to drop there fish
plus a bird can get a fish over ANY lake in
minuits, vs an all day random fish carrying hike?
so to recap, I have seen many birds with fish, but zero human fish hikers
I thought bird poop was the commonly accepted explanation
7000 years ago is the edge of recorded human civilization
(well 8000 years, I remember this because it's also the edge of a gamma ray burst in light years that could destroy all life on earth after traveling all that time)
If writing is your yardstick then 7000 years is way too far back. There was likely proto-writing back then (some of the figures at gobekli tepe are found in a very similar form in later scripts of the area, there are clearer forms of proto-writings from CA 6000~7000 BCE in various cultures) however writing proper is only currently known from 3000 BCE onwards.
Yes. One thing that becomes very obvious if you go along "native" human villages in Africa is the reason civilization develops. When you look at villages that don't grow, but do the normal human thing. Grow, war (2 kinds: young vs old and village/tribe vs village/tribe), grow.
It's not because of agriculture. They have agriculture (they grow maniok, and you don't need much. They have fire, weapons, ... Also the entire countryside is full of grain). It's not that they don't understand how things work. They just don't care.
It's not because they're dumb. In fact on pretty much all measures the humans living in those villages are better, in a genetic sense, than we are. They're smarter. They're more beautiful. Every last one is in shape, even the oldest (the oldest, btw, are maybe 45, not that they even know themselves. In both villages I saw the oldest was a couple). They're even better, genetically, than the black people living in cities around them. They have no sick (maybe 1), because the sick are dead. Even sick children regularly die. They bury their dead, with respect, after a burial but to say they have a religion is overstating matters. They have noone that can't run a marathon, or is fat, or ... because if you can't hunt you don't eat. Wounds are deadly. Not because the wound is so serious, but because you're nearly guaranteed to develop fever and die. Most people die from complications with infections. They have only beautiful men and women, because if you can't participate in "evening activities" you'll go hungry or get murdered (and it's not just men: women have lovers kill other men due to "insults", or they poison someone. And regularly it doesn't take much incentive at all for a murder to happen). Sometimes they (try to) treat cities the way the treat neighboring tribes: they attack them to kill everyone (at the very least all men). That usually fails due to guns, but it's not like it never works.
There are very few people in those villages that want to leave. And they're not about to starve. There's no need for civilization, and, frankly, they don't want to. But also, I don't care what religion or non-religion you have: you will find that way of live thoroughly immoral.
Great point until the end. None of your descriptions imply a lack of morality for living isolated from a greater civilization. If anything, such small societies inhabit a neutral position, in that they don't care, which is something you already stated.
I think the only people arguing that the North Sentinelese are immoral are religious, for instance (hence why most attempts to visit are done by missions). The general consensus is otherwise awe for being separated from the rest of us, relatively unmolested.
They don't care and "respond strongly" to insults or territorial disputes (which involve both actual land, men, women, and children), to the point that sometimes dozens of people die in the resulting fight. They kill because of insults (which mostly involves sex). Oh and they do quite a bit for alcohol. They'll fuck visitors, just to see if their next kid is white (but, of course, if you go along with that you lose whatever protection that "outsider who maybe brings alcohol" gave you. And you're sure to lose almost any fight). Also: don't make the mistake of still visibly having any alcohol when leaving the village.
Certainly it would be accurate to say that both the cities in the neighborhood and the central government have issues with this sort of thing. To say nothing of when cities get attacked.
Sounds like you need alcohol, and also a pistol, with a few full magazines. Just in case. Try not to let the women see it, if you have occasion to remove your clothes.
> That is the only possible explanation for how fish could have populated isolated mountain lakes
isn't that a common question?
"How do fish appear in landlocked lakes/ponds/etc"?
After digging a pond and letting it fill with rainwater/groundwater, fish appear. I don't think its because people carried them there.
(don't really know the common answer though)
Birds can drop fish after they've captured them. Not longer than a year now, we were visiting my wife's family, and me and my father in law got to Walmart there was a dead fish in the front, but when we mentioned it to my wife who got there before us (separate cars) she said it was struggling for life when they saw it, I don't think there was a lake nearby enough, but I wouldn't be surprised if birds have accidentally introduced life into new bodies of water.
In California, it's because people (the state department of fish and wildlife) put the fish there.
You can even see their scheduled fish plantings online:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FishPlants/PublicPlantSearch
Fish eggs often travel long distances by sticking to the feathers or legs of waterfowl I have been told at school long ago.
Close, I looked it up out of curiosity, it seems Waterfowl eat the eggs, but they travel through their digestive system fully alive. Really interesting even so!
I can see how the evolutionary advantage of such hardened eggs would be huge!
Right, as long as you can still get out.
In this case they have carbon dated wooden equipment for fish farming and know due to geological factors when the lake could support fish, though of course the fish might have gotten there first somehow. I thought this was interesting because it predates agriculture in the same area.
Mountain lakes are completely different.
There’s fish eggs being washed everywhere during rain storms. The eggs come from upstream and wash into random places.
This doesn't provide an answer for lakes.
But I always thought the explanation was eggs randomly getting stuck to bird feet. Or maybe a bird carries a fish with eggs up there and eats it or something. Inevitably it happens though...
Lakes have connected rivers and streams that provide paths for fish and eggs to move around. There are human and animal activities that affect this. Your bird example and beavers causing floods could allow movement.
Isolated alpine lakes do not have connected rivers and streams, yet a ton are stocked with fish by humans.
Is it unbelievable that ancient hunter-gatherers would do the same thing?
"Life finds a way"
- Dr. Ian Malcolm
How did they appear upstream?
There’s a stream in my back yard that doesn’t hold fish over the winter because it’s too shallow/cold. A large property near me has a pond that overflows into my stream. The fish survive in the deeper waters of the pond and spring rain usually washes fish eggs or even fish into my stream. They gather in the rocks in my backyard near the storm drain.
Alpine lakes are fed by snow met. There’s not going to be fish eggs on the snowpack that melts into the lake.
You yourself wrote in this thread:
> There’s fish eggs being washed everywhere during rain storms. The eggs come from upstream and wash into random places.
Do you realize that in the summer mountains below 4000m are mostly snow-free and thawing point ie in Europe has been pushed above 5000m repeatedly during summers. Its easy to have 25C in 2500m in today's alps (ie today 22C in 2000m in Chamonix, France).
The term 'alpine lake' doesn't mean anything specific, and most are fed from rain during entire summer without any/much of snow or ice contribution.
A tornado?
I've had a pond for 11 years that has not acquired fish. It existed before that, too, but I'm not sure for how long (I think several decades).
It has lots of amphibians and snakes. Rarely any birds.
Maybe the snakes have been eating the fish eggs / baby fish?
The bullfrogs are the big carnivores, and sure, maybe.
Snakes are active but I doubt they eat nearly as much as the bullfrogs.
Apparently if you introduce a large fish species to your pond, the bullfrogs will not eat them, not sure how you would secure the eggs though. Maybe some sort of area that could shelter from them, but once they come out of shelter when they hatch, its kind of the same problem.
Could also introduce fish that will eat the frogs to keep them under control. Or just leave it all as-is.
It's not the only possible explanation. Fish can get sucked up by tornatos and get dropped later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_of_animals
> Tornadoes and waterspouts may lift up animals into the air and deposit them miles away.
https://archive.is/ZuKV6
Thank you!
"Someone brought the black bass to this lake from far away, changing the biological distribution of the lake."
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5w35n0Hm_m0
I wouldn't be so sure. Were there ever any ducks?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/special-delivery-d...
An alternative vector: "cloud seeding" (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/sep/09/science.rese...)
Charles Fort collected numerous data for his famous "The Book of the Damned" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_Damned
It rained fish in my front yard in South Carolina back in the 80's, it's definitely a real phenomenon.
hmmm, I have seen big fish in much bigger birds claws, and have seen even bigger birds dive bombing other birds to force them to drop there fish plus a bird can get a fish over ANY lake in minuits, vs an all day random fish carrying hike? so to recap, I have seen many birds with fish, but zero human fish hikers
Someone below mentions bird poop, but could a fish egg survive the human (or a dogs) digestive system as well?
> That is the only possible explanation for how fish could have populated isolated mountain lakes
I hate how much of historical science is performed this way. Speculation is not very scientific.
I thought bird poop was the commonly accepted explanation
7000 years ago is the edge of recorded human civilization
(well 8000 years, I remember this because it's also the edge of a gamma ray burst in light years that could destroy all life on earth after traveling all that time)
> 7000 years ago is the edge of recorded human civilization (well 8000 years
The earliest pre-pottery Neolithic complexes are nearly 4000 years older than that.
Did they have writing and kept records that we've found? That's the "recorded" part.
If writing is your yardstick then 7000 years is way too far back. There was likely proto-writing back then (some of the figures at gobekli tepe are found in a very similar form in later scripts of the area, there are clearer forms of proto-writings from CA 6000~7000 BCE in various cultures) however writing proper is only currently known from 3000 BCE onwards.
In Norway, the oldest written records are barely 1000 years old.
It doesn't matter if it's recorded. This is inferred, not written down.
Hunter-gatherers aren't known for their civilizations.
Yes. One thing that becomes very obvious if you go along "native" human villages in Africa is the reason civilization develops. When you look at villages that don't grow, but do the normal human thing. Grow, war (2 kinds: young vs old and village/tribe vs village/tribe), grow.
It's not because of agriculture. They have agriculture (they grow maniok, and you don't need much. They have fire, weapons, ... Also the entire countryside is full of grain). It's not that they don't understand how things work. They just don't care.
It's not because they're dumb. In fact on pretty much all measures the humans living in those villages are better, in a genetic sense, than we are. They're smarter. They're more beautiful. Every last one is in shape, even the oldest (the oldest, btw, are maybe 45, not that they even know themselves. In both villages I saw the oldest was a couple). They're even better, genetically, than the black people living in cities around them. They have no sick (maybe 1), because the sick are dead. Even sick children regularly die. They bury their dead, with respect, after a burial but to say they have a religion is overstating matters. They have noone that can't run a marathon, or is fat, or ... because if you can't hunt you don't eat. Wounds are deadly. Not because the wound is so serious, but because you're nearly guaranteed to develop fever and die. Most people die from complications with infections. They have only beautiful men and women, because if you can't participate in "evening activities" you'll go hungry or get murdered (and it's not just men: women have lovers kill other men due to "insults", or they poison someone. And regularly it doesn't take much incentive at all for a murder to happen). Sometimes they (try to) treat cities the way the treat neighboring tribes: they attack them to kill everyone (at the very least all men). That usually fails due to guns, but it's not like it never works.
There are very few people in those villages that want to leave. And they're not about to starve. There's no need for civilization, and, frankly, they don't want to. But also, I don't care what religion or non-religion you have: you will find that way of live thoroughly immoral.
Great point until the end. None of your descriptions imply a lack of morality for living isolated from a greater civilization. If anything, such small societies inhabit a neutral position, in that they don't care, which is something you already stated.
I think the only people arguing that the North Sentinelese are immoral are religious, for instance (hence why most attempts to visit are done by missions). The general consensus is otherwise awe for being separated from the rest of us, relatively unmolested.
Well, they sure are xenophobic.
I do not think anyone is arguing the Sentinelese are immoral?
Why would you bring a mission to a hostile island otherwise?
Because you think god is immoral, and you want them to meet his mercy?
They don't care and "respond strongly" to insults or territorial disputes (which involve both actual land, men, women, and children), to the point that sometimes dozens of people die in the resulting fight. They kill because of insults (which mostly involves sex). Oh and they do quite a bit for alcohol. They'll fuck visitors, just to see if their next kid is white (but, of course, if you go along with that you lose whatever protection that "outsider who maybe brings alcohol" gave you. And you're sure to lose almost any fight). Also: don't make the mistake of still visibly having any alcohol when leaving the village.
Certainly it would be accurate to say that both the cities in the neighborhood and the central government have issues with this sort of thing. To say nothing of when cities get attacked.
Sounds like you need alcohol, and also a pistol, with a few full magazines. Just in case. Try not to let the women see it, if you have occasion to remove your clothes.