>Amadeus, do you mean the big game animals were *made*
>extinct by humans in America? Do you have sources for
>this?

I've read about this tobic from the one and another viewpoint so far.
E.g. Jared Diamond suggests the man made extinction theory particularly
in America, where the time was rather short.

I myself cannot imagine that human hunters were able to make extinct such
big and dangerous to hunt animals like mammoth.
Except maybe when they had found some trick or technique to attack
mammoth youngs or babies and therefore block the mammoth survival.

The article Philip provided reminded me on annother way, how humans could
have easily caused the big animal extinction (like today):
By habitat destruction.
Artificial fires can profoundly change a given habitat.
For what reason ever they might have done that.
I suppose less for hunting, but more for reasons like Australian aboriginals
do it. The after-fire fauna and flora is better suited for their
exploitations.

>
>My reading contends that many of the American big game
>species became extinct around here because of climate
>changes. For instance, I live in southern Idaho. When
>the first HG's arrived here the climate was much, much
>different (circa 10,000 to 15,000 years ago)- it was
>far wetter and the winters were far less harsh.

Of course the same time (12000 y back) was also the time of the great
climate change. The fires may have  accelerated what would have happened
anyway.

>> That's pretty little.
>> That means only 1200 years to eat mammoth.
>
>Not if the early immigrants to this continent from
>Eurasia were already adapted to eating big game.

Then is the question, why went mammoth extinct so quick in America and not
in Asia.
If it was hunting. Were the American mammoth weaker? I don't think so.

If it was habitat destruction then the different ecosystems and constraints
for *humans* to live there influence the picture.

Maybe the zones where man and mammoth met each other were not big enough to
endanger the mammoth.

As I've pointed out several times, I think "big game" of temperate climates
is not suitable for human staple nutrition. Because of the fat deficit.

In cold regions, where animals are fat, like the mammoth was, a population
if mammoth hunters is possible, and the Inuit show how it works - with
plenty of fat.

Of course such habitats are slow in regrowth of vegetation, and any
influences, like with fire, can rapidly change the scene.
It looks like the Inuit which hunt animals which rely on the unlimited
resources of the sea (walrus, fish, whale....) have found their niche from
the sea. Or with far travelling animals from a vast area (caribou).

Amadeus