The Grim tide of extinction rolls on

Birdnuts · 25-10-2011 06:40PM #1

http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?202074

This unique sub-species of the already critically endangered Javan Rhino is gone for ever. Primarily due to Vietnams shocking record on conservation that will soon account for its remaining large mammals. This country is also second only to China as a player in the worldwide trade in illegal wildlife products(rhino horn, tiger bone etc.) that is driving species extinction everywhere from Africa to India. Shame on a country that is no third world back water but considers itself one of the Asian tiger economies, yet appears unable or unwilling to provide the type of basic protection for legally protected species, even in National Parks. Even certain war-torn third-world countries manage to do a better job in this area eg, Virunga NP in the Congo etc.

Mickeroo · 25-10-2011 07:58PM

Thanks for that Birdnuts. Thats awful news made all the worse by the fact it was shot. It just makes my blood boil.:mad: Unfortunately there's not very much that can be done in cases like this as no-one really has the power to intervene and force places like China or Vietnam to change their policies.

steddyeddy · 25-10-2011 08:30PM

The closest thing I could do to express my anger towards this result is write to the vietnamese embassy in London conveying my disgust at their countrys attitudes towards endangered species.

Baron de Robeck · 27-10-2011 02:04PM

This is the second sub-species of Javan Rhino to be declared extinct, the first was found in Burma (as it was called then). More poached rhino horn is now heading for Vietnam than it is to China after some cabinet minister claimed it was a cure for cancer. Rhino horn of course has no medicinal properties and extensive analysis has proven this, you would get the same results as grinding up and ingesting your own finger nails!!

The 40-50 surviving Javan Rhinos are in one park in Indonesia and are still breeding but they need to have their territory increased to help boost numbers and a project is on-going to achieve this. Having only one population is very risky as a natural disaster or disease could wipe it out.

Mickeroo · 27-10-2011 06:18PM

More sad news, a siberian tiger which was spotted in China a few days ago was found dead. The body was intact but they're still not ruling out poachers, autopsy is ongoing. Such a shame.

:mad:

I'll never understand what can make people do things like that(assuming it was indeed poachers). Such a senseless waste. I would understand if an animal was being killed to feed a family but something like a tiger is surely only being killed for its fur or because a few deluded people think some of its body parts might cure diseases.

steddyeddy · 27-10-2011 07:42PM

Humans have been responsible for the sixth mass extinction event (holocene extinction). Its sad that the most intelligent species on earth are a species with no foresight.

Galvasean · 27-10-2011 09:23PM

Birdnuts · 27-10-2011 09:38PM

http://www.birdlife.org/community/2011/10/imperial-woodpecker-1956-film/

Another example of humanities ignorance, greed and cruelty - this time taking out one of the most magnificient species of woodpecker that ever lived:(

Birdnuts · 27-10-2011 09:42PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The closest thing I could do to express my anger towards this result is write to the vietnamese embassy in London conveying my disgust at their countrys attitudes towards endangered species.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7738364.stm

It appears the rot is at all levels - I hope this **** gets sent home in a diplomatic bag:mad:

Birdnuts · 27-10-2011 09:48PM

Baron de Robeck wrote: »

This is the second sub-species of Javan Rhino to be declared extinct, the first was found in Burma (as it was called then). More poached rhino horn is now heading for Vietnam than it is to China after some cabinet minister claimed it was a cure for cancer. Rhino horn of course has no medicinal properties and extensive analysis has proven this, you would get the same results as grinding up and ingesting your own finger nails!!

The 40-50 surviving Javan Rhinos are in one park in Indonesia and are still breeding but they need to have their territory increased to help boost numbers and a project is on-going to achieve this. Having only one population is very risky as a natural disaster or disease could wipe it out.

Going on the blog below its clear this species never stood a chance is such a dysfunctional country - its also clear the species was only being kept going by the efforts of foreign NGO's. Its also apparent that the last individual lead a very distressing and lonely life:(

http://rhinomania.blogspot.com/

Baron de Robeck · 28-10-2011 10:47AM

Yes indeed, the blogspot above sums it up the rhinos were doomed in Vietnam. There just wasn't any serious will to save them. In Indonesia the government seem to be taking the situation far more seriously and hopefully the regained area of the park will allow a second population to build. Javan rhinos and their lifestyles are the least known of all rhinos as their habitat is difficult to negotiate around and none are in captivity. They are generally regarded as solitary in nature apart from females with a calf but could well have small social groups. One bit of trivia is that they are the only rhinos known to drink salt water.

Mickeroo · 28-10-2011 11:09AM

Birdnuts wrote: »

http://www.birdlife.org/community/2011/10/imperial-woodpecker-1956-film/

Another example of humanities ignorance, greed and cruelty - this time taking out one of the most magnificient species of woodpecker that ever lived:(

Thought this might be at home in this thread too.

There's a very eerie quality to the footage knowing it was the only ever taken.

Birdnuts · 28-10-2011 10:33PM

The extinction of this unique Rhino means that in the past 5 years alone we have lost 3 unique sub-species. The Western Black, Northern White and this animal. Truelly shocking stuff:( - and the only reason we still have some of the others is thanx to 24 hr armed security in many cases. Despite this the likes of SA continues to lose a Rhino nearly every day thanx to the increasingly ruthless nature of international sydicates using high-powered weapons, helicopters etc. to feed demand for Rhino horn in Asia:mad:

steddyeddy · 28-10-2011 10:41PM

A lot more people are killed by anti poaching units than people think. Theres a ranger in africa who wants to introduce small amounts of poison to rhino horn so the demand for the horn would decrease.

Birdnuts · 28-10-2011 10:54PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

A lot more people are killed by anti poaching units than people think. Theres a ranger in africa who wants to introduce small amounts of poison to rhino horn so the demand for the horn would decrease.

The situation is getting so bad that desperate times called for desperate measures:( - the army is now being used in Tanzania, SA and Kenya to halt the escalation in this war for Africas wildlife. Similiar measures were used in the 80's when an explosion in the price of Ivory nearly did for elephants. Sadly it appears we are back to those dark days.

Sid_Justice · 29-10-2011 05:06AM

What's with the overly poetic and self-indulgent title? I find people who are too preachy about conservation often do more harm than good.

Extinction is nothing new nor is it particularly grim, it's an inevitable part natural selection and evolution.

I do find it abhorrent that poaching is leading to the quick demise of these wonderful rare animals. We need to see a a precedent set, much like the EU and turkey for example with regard to human rights, if a country is not seen to endorse internal law and regulation on the protection of environment and species they should have their importing and exporting curtailed.

I am never going to knowledgeably buy a Vietnamese product ever again. I might take steddy's lead on this and make my views known to the embassy.

Birdnuts · 31-10-2011 06:38PM

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/vietnam-ivory.html

This subspecies is in big trouble over most of its shrinking range and the ongoing chaos in the DRC could tear the heart of one its last strong holds:(

Galvasean · 09-11-2011 01:39PM

Looks like the African antelope is on the way out. that would be the end of not just it's species, but the very genus Beatragus. To put it into context, a whole mamma genus has not gone extinct since the tazmanian 'tiger'
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111108-hirolas-extinct-genus-animals-science-africa-antelopes/

Adam Khor · 09-11-2011 08:25PM

Galvasean wrote: »

Looks like the African antelope is on the way out. that would be the end of not just it's species, but the very genus Beatragus. To put it into context, a whole mamma genus has not gone extinct since the tazmanian 'tiger'
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111108-hirolas-extinct-genus-animals-science-africa-antelopes/

Not quite... the Baiji was a genus of its own (Lipotes). It was also the first cetacean to go extinct due to humans (at least in recorded history). Ironically, Lipotes means "left behind".

Galvasean · 10-11-2011 04:27PM

I hold out hope that the Baiji is still hiding out there. Aquatic creatures have a habit of reappearing the odd time.

Galvasean · 11-11-2011 03:12PM

Just thought I'd post a beacon of hope in a sea of sadness...
http://www.livescience.com/16962-endangered-rhinos-airlifted-africa.html

HugoBradyBrown · 11-11-2011 03:24PM

To strike a possibly contrarian tone here, is it certain that the prevention of the extinction of species (and, a fortiori of sub-species) is a wholly bad thing? I sometimes think that we may be simply sentimentally and nostalgically considering the pretty organisms of our own present or recent past. Who would care if the brown rat or the black rat became extinct? No tears were shed for the smallpox virus. We show concern for tigers and other visibly interesting or apparently splendid animals; we might worry less if a species of cockroach, or Colorado beetle or of hagfish were involved.

Is the opening up of an ecological niche not a stimulus to speciation? If we were to impose stasis on the biosphere, the arousal of entirely new species or even of genera would not continue.

When the dinosaurs died out, the world was in one sense more species-poor, yet it was followed, under the ineluctable force of evolution, by the explosion of mammalian evolution, right up to the very pinnacle of evolution, Homo sapiens. Without such extiction, we would have no happy Homo sapiens.

I suspect that extinction is in fact part of the larger system, and that it functions as an important spur to evolution, by, in effect, clearing the 'brownfield sites' of already occupied ecological niches.

Galvasean · 11-11-2011 03:37PM

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

right up to the very pinnacle of evolution, Homo sapiens.

Such blinkered self important arrogance...
Not to let such a phrase undermine your entire argument (which bears discussing) so I will address it.
I do not feel that humanity wiping out a multitude of species and habitats is in any way helpful to evolution. Yes when a mass extinction occurs there is room for other organisms to flourish in their place. However, in destroying a multitude of diverse eco-systems and habitats and replacing them with our own identically homogenized ones, humanity runs the risk of creating a world with a very limited and specific scope for variety of species. This can be catastrophic when a major extinction event comes into play. That is why the Permian extinction of some 250MYA as so catastrophic (to date recognised as the worst mass extinction event in the Earth's history) - the limited number of unique habitats created by the supercontinent Pangea meant there was much less variety among living organisms. Less variety means less chance of something having the adaptations to survive a great extinction event.
Creatures come and go naturally all the time. It's natural selection and a part of nature. No one can deny this. However, if we carelessly wipe out the multitude of habitats and subsequently those creatures which live within them we are shooting life on Earth in the foot as a result. If the Earth were struck by a meteor tomorrow life's best chance at survival would be to have as many different creatures as possible in the hope that some would have what it takes to survive and repopulate the changed planet.

Mickeroo · 12-11-2011 03:39PM

Galvasean wrote: »

Just thought I'd post a beacon of hope in a sea of sadness...
http://www.livescience.com/16962-endangered-rhinos-airlifted-africa.html

Hopefully something comes of that plan, seems the Western Black Rhino is already gone though.

No wild black rhinos remain in West Africa, according to the latest global assessment of threatened species.

The Red List, drawn up by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), has declared the subspecies extinct.

A subspecies of white rhino in central Africa is also listed as possibly extinct, the organisation says.

The annual update of the Red List now records more threatened species than ever before.

The IUCN reports that despite conservation efforts, 25% of the world's mammals are at risk of extinction. As part of its latest work it has reassessed several rhinoceros groups.
Poaching vulnerability

As well as declaring the western black rhino (Diceros bicornis longipes) extinct, it records the northern white rhino (Ceratotherium simum cottoni), a subspecies in central Africa, as being on the brink of extinction.

The last Javan rhino (Rhinoceros sondaicus) outside Java is also believed to have disappeared.

Overall numbers of black and white rhinos have been rising, but some subspecies have been particularly vulnerable to poaching by criminal gangs who want to trade the animals' valuable horns.

aidoh · 12-11-2011 07:25PM

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

To strike a possibly contrarian tone here, is it certain that the prevention of the extinction of species (and, a fortiori of sub-species) is a wholly bad thing? I sometimes think that we may be simply sentimentally and nostalgically considering the pretty organisms of our own present or recent past. Who would care if the brown rat or the black rat became extinct? No tears were shed for the smallpox virus. We show concern for tigers and other visibly interesting or apparently splendid animals; we might worry less if a species of cockroach, or Colorado beetle or of hagfish were involved.

(A) Is the opening up of an ecological niche not a stimulus to speciation? If we were to impose stasis on the biosphere, the arousal of entirely new species or even of genera would not continue.

When the dinosaurs died out, the world was in one sense more species-poor, yet it was followed, under the ineluctable force of evolution, by the explosion of mammalian evolution, right up to the very pinnacle of evolution, Homo sapiens. Without such extiction, we would have no happy Homo sapiens.

(B) I suspect that extinction is in fact part of the larger system, and that it functions as an important spur to evolution, by, in effect, clearing the 'brownfield sites' of already occupied ecological niches.

(A) Kind of. But you couldn't 'force' a type to evolve based on the availability of some limited resource? In any case, you do know how slow and unpredictable the processes of evolutionary change are, right?

(B) Faunal turnovers are very natural (e.g. as you mentioned, the 'replacement' of dinosaurs and subsequent radiation of mammals as the dominant fauna [even though we aren't!]), but I think it's pretty rotten that people can so easily and so rapidly wipe out so much of the biodiversity on earth - which is obviously 'unnatural', or whatever.

HugoBradyBrown · 12-11-2011 07:46PM

aidoh wrote: »

(A) Kind of. But you couldn't 'force' a type to evolve based on the availability of some limited resource? In any case, you do know how slow and unpredictable the processes of evolutionary change are, right?

(B) Faunal turnovers are very natural (e.g. as you mentioned, the 'replacement' of dinosaurs and subsequent radiation of mammals as the dominant fauna [even though we aren't!]), but I think it's pretty rotten that people can so easily and so rapidly wipe out so much of the biodiversity on earth - which is obviously 'unnatural', or whatever.

Yes, I see your point, but is point A not one with a repellent sense of teleological preference, and is point B not undermined by a taint of sentimentality? If the biosphere evolved to contain only bacteria, that would be life, and possibly in every degree as varied and interesting as the current load of biota.

Birdnuts · 12-11-2011 07:48PM

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

To strike a possibly contrarian tone here, is it certain that the prevention of the extinction of species (and, a fortiori of sub-species) is a wholly bad thing? I sometimes think that we may be simply sentimentally and nostalgically considering the pretty organisms of our own present or recent past. Who would care if the brown rat or the black rat became extinct? No tears were shed for the smallpox virus. We show concern for tigers and other visibly interesting or apparently splendid animals; we might worry less if a species of cockroach, or Colorado beetle or of hagfish were involved.

Is the opening up of an ecological niche not a stimulus to speciation? If we were to impose stasis on the biosphere, the arousal of entirely new species or even of genera would not continue.

When the dinosaurs died out, the world was in one sense more species-poor, yet it was followed, under the ineluctable force of evolution, by the explosion of mammalian evolution, right up to the very pinnacle of evolution, Homo sapiens. Without such extiction, we would have no happy Homo sapiens.

I suspect that extinction is in fact part of the larger system, and that it functions as an important spur to evolution, by, in effect, clearing the 'brownfield sites' of already occupied ecological niches.

The earth has never seen such a sustained rate of extinction across all habitats - as regards niches, the only species that appear to benefit from mankinds assualt on the planet are likes of jellyfish, rats and cockroaches. Not a pleasant proposition for future generations or the planet in general:(

Birdnuts · 12-11-2011 07:53PM

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Yes, I see your point, but is point A not one with a repellent sense of teleological preference, and is point B not undermined by a taint of sentimentality? If the biosphere evolved to contain only bacteria, that would be life, and possibly in every degree as varied and interesting as the current load of biota.

How do you see 7 billion + people getting by in your bacteria world??

HugoBradyBrown · 12-11-2011 07:54PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

The earth has never seen such a sustained rate of extinction across all habitats - as regards niches, the only species that appear to benefit from mankinds assualt on the planet are likes of jellyfish, rats and cockroaches. Not a pleasant proposition for future generations or the planet in general:(

Unsentimentally, I disagree. To the planet, rats may be little worse than humans or pandas. And if such species were to dominate, it is not unlikely that a new explosion of speciation would occur, and a new range of lifeforms would appear. Except for keeping cuddly or apparently cuddly organisms on life-support, there are no sound grounds for such extraordinary efforts to reverse a process. Humans and our technology are in themselves a part of the evolutionary story, with good and bad effects, by various different measures,

Adam Khor · 12-11-2011 08:08PM

I was actually going to adress this thread but then I read that someone refered to humans as "the pinnacle of evolution".
So, nah.

Birdnuts · 12-11-2011 08:09PM

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Unsentimentally, I disagree. To the planet, rats may be little worse than humans or pandas. And if such species were to dominate, it is not unlikely that a new explosion of speciation would occur, and a new range of lifeforms would appear. Except for keeping cuddly or apparently cuddly organisms on life-support, there are no sound grounds for such extraordinary efforts to reverse a process. Humans and our technology are in themselves a part of the evolutionary story, with good and bad effects, by various different measures,

Its nothing to do with "sentimentality" - billions of people around the world depend directly or indirectly on intact ecosystems for food,medicines, shelter, water resources and a stable climate etc.. Your unsentimental future world of slime is unlikely to work out well for mankind and the vast majority of other life forms:(.

The Grim tide of extinction rolls on

Comments