Star Trek 4: Fishermen want humpback whales off endangered list

[hh5]

Sure as long as we have a klingon bird of prey ready to protect them

 

 

A group of Hawaii fishermen is asking the federal government to remove northern Pacific humpback whales from the endangered species list, saying the population has steadily grown since the international community banned commercial whaling nearly 50 years ago.

 

 

[Andy78]

Since the Klingons have no birds of prey to spare due to Captain Kirk constantly blowing them up:

 

[hh5]

oh here we go again picard vs kirk

 

[Former Member]

Lol, totally agree on the klingon ships, but I have to say, I was more than a little outraged when I read one of many articles pertaining to taking a population of humpbacks off the ESL.  But then I researched it a little more and it turns out that their hearts are in the right place.  With the rapid increase of bleaching corals and other endangered animals, I've read that the fisherman want to shift the focus away from less endagered animals (like the North Pacific population of humpbacks) and focus efforts on species that are clearly more in danger.  They haven't said anything about wanting to revoke the whaling ban, so I'm kind of in agreeance.  Of course, there ae still other populations of humpbacks suffering, so I'm quite pleased that they only want to remove on, speific population from the ESL.  Granted, no decision needs to be made until about this time next year anyway.

[C J]

It's scary how much damage get's done to the oceans.  They make up most of the planet, and they control the climate for the most part.  I wonder how many people think about how important the oceans are, and I get a little scared when I read about what get's dumped there, damaging one of our most valuable natural resources.  Sometimes I think there's no hope for us.  How can we survive our own ignorance?  I so wish I knew.  I wish everyone knew.  It doesn't look like very many have a clue. 

[Lugh]

I don't understand why we should bother that particular group of whales... How much has it grown and will they be hunted now? If so, how much will they be hunted and will it put them BACK on the ESL?  Exactly what is the plan?  I think there are a lot of variables here we don't know.  The particular group that wants them off is also known for hunting them... not a good recommendation in my thought process.  I realize they may be eating the other fish in the sea, but what eats them?  Are they on the ESL, if so, why?  Was their food source depleted   How about now... if the whales are making a comeback are they also making a comeback?  A biosphere is a delicate balance and the whole picture must be examined not just one species.

[iSimba]

 

This was a very interesting watch.

[Palantir]

Thanks for the post iSimba.

I found it amazing, inspiring and awesome (in the old sense of the word).

[hh5]

 

 

LA JOLLA, California, October 19, 2011 (ENS) – There are at least 1,000 more humpback whales in the North Pacific Ocean than previously estimated, say scientists at NOAA’s Southwest Fisheries Science Center in La Jolla.

 

In a paper published in the current issue of the journal “Marine Mammal Science,” the scientists say the increase follows a refined statistical analysis of data compiled in 2008 from the largest-ever survey to assess humpback whale populations throughout the North Pacific.

 

The number of North Pacific Humpback Whales in the 2008 study entitled, “Structure of Populations, Levels of Abundance and Status of Humpbacks,” or SPLASH, was estimated at just under 20,000, based on a preliminary look at the data.

 

The new research indicates the population to be higher than 21,000 animals.

 

For comparison, only 1,400 humpback whales were estimated to be in the North Pacific Ocean as commercial whaling ended in 1966.

 

“These improved numbers are encouraging, especially after we have reduced most of the biases inherent in any statistical model,” said co-author Jay Barlow, NOAA’s Fisheries Service marine mammal biologist at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why we should bother that particular group of whales... How much has it grown and will they be hunted now? If so, how much will they be hunted and will it put them BACK on the ESL?  Exactly what is the plan?  I think there are a lot of variables here we don't know.  The particular group that wants them off is also known for hunting them... not a good recommendation in my thought process.  I realize they may be eating the other fish in the sea, but what eats them?  Are they on the ESL, if so, why?  Was their food source depleted   How about now... if the whales are making a comeback are they also making a comeback?  A biosphere is a delicate balance and the whole picture must be examined not just one species.

[hh5]

 

 

 

Gastric brooding frogs come in two species: Rheobatrachus vitellinus and R. silus (pictured above and last seen in 1985). These frogs had a unique mode of reproduction: The female swallowed fertilized eggs, turned its stomach into a uterus and gave birth to froglets through the mouth. Timber harvesting and the chytrid fungus are the main suspects behind their extinction.

 

 

[Former Member]

Not to say that humpback whales aren't unique, because that would be plain ridiculous, but see those frogs?!  Only two species in the world can do that.  And sadly they are disappearing as our biodiversity is plummeting.  Carnivourous catepillars, desert tortoises, the rainbow toad.  All of these animals are in need of more protection.  It's so sad to know that some people just don't care about this wonderful world we've been given.

[hh5]

the argument seems to be needs protection from MAN

I do wonder if any species was made extinct by another species?

(and since they only eat a particular species, they went extinct, joke)

 

Not to say that humpback whales aren't unique, because that would be plain ridiculous, but see those frogs?!  Only two species in the world can do that.  And sadly they are disappearing as our biodiversity is plummeting.  Carnivourous catepillars, desert tortoises, the rainbow toad.  All of these animals are in need of more protection.  It's so sad to know that some people just don't care about this wonderful world we've been given.

[W_L]

I have a very odd theory about extinction, not really evolution and not creation

 

Here's my thought on extinction based on natural arguments: if every single creature needs to keep on reproducing in order to keep up the species and adaptation is developed to better its ability to survive and function, then homosexual behavior would have long been eliminated by generations of selection in our earliest proto-species (way before dinosaurs and into the Cambrian). Think about it, there are few biological benefits and many drawbacks. Yet, everyone on this site is living proof that the concept has very big gaping hole of logic. Even bisexuality would have slowly disappeared after millions of generations, let along several billion generations of diverse life-forms.

 

Behind the extinction of a species, I think there is something more fundamental to what shape their world and a certain predestination to destruction. I think every species on earth has a built-in extinction potential based on their biological factors like their comfort level a different temperatures, dietary changes, and other organisms in their ecosystem. Even Humans cannot avoid it, we have been hit by a growing strains of new bacteria along with shrinking birth rates.

[Former Member]

I have a very odd theory about extinction, not really evolution and not creation

 

Here's my thought on extinction based on natural arguments: if every single creature needs to keep on reproducing in order to keep up the species and adaptation is developed to better its ability to survive and function, then homosexual behavior would have long been eliminated by generations of selection in our earliest proto-species (way before dinosaurs and into the Cambrian). Think about it, there are few biological benefits and many drawbacks. Yet, everyone on this site is living proof that the concept has very big gaping hole of logic. Even bisexuality would have slowly disappeared after millions of generations, let along several billion generations of diverse life-forms.

 

Behind the extinction of a species, I think there is something more fundamental to what shape their world and a certain predestination to destruction. I think every species on earth has a built-in extinction potential based on their biological factors like their comfort level a different temperatures, dietary changes, and other organisms in their ecosystem. Even Humans cannot avoid it, we have been hit by a growing strains of new bacteria along with shrinking birth rates.

 

Wow. That is a wonderful theory.  I applaud thee.  ^-^

[hh5]

great theory

 

There are species that may have a weird thing about them but I doubt you can breed out imperfections nor breed in perfections without losing them ..

ie: Rabbits ... they breed like crazy ... one would think in they overcome their surroundings and eat themselves out of existance

    but they happen to have their predators to keep their numbers down

 

Humans can breed like crazy ... we don't seem to have a predator ... but hey there are some that don't breed ... and maybe perhaps our numbers don't go out of control ... but another thing we're our own worst enemy ... we kill each other ... and still there are too many humans on the planet vs the wild animals.

 

If the dinosaurs weren't extinct ... we have our predators that will keep out numbers down ... but let say the numbers were reduced to the gay ones ... I bet the for survival of the species we'd overcome our inability to not breed ...

 

lol, Jurassic park ... "Life will find a way"

 

But a good question ... should man be de-extincting past animals? someone will hunt them down any way...

 

I have a very odd theory about extinction, not really evolution and not creation

 

Here's my thought on extinction based on natural arguments: if every single creature needs to keep on reproducing in order to keep up the species and adaptation is developed to better its ability to survive and function, then homosexual behavior would have long been eliminated by generations of selection in our earliest proto-species (way before dinosaurs and into the Cambrian). Think about it, there are few biological benefits and many drawbacks. Yet, everyone on this site is living proof that the concept has very big gaping hole of logic. Even bisexuality would have slowly disappeared after millions of generations, let along several billion generations of diverse life-forms.

 

Behind the extinction of a species, I think there is something more fundamental to what shape their world and a certain predestination to destruction. I think every species on earth has a built-in extinction potential based on their biological factors like their comfort level a different temperatures, dietary changes, and other organisms in their ecosystem. Even Humans cannot avoid it, we have been hit by a growing strains of new bacteria along with shrinking birth rates.

Edited May 8, 2013 by hh5

[Former Member]

Speaking of animals going un-extinct, I've been following some articles about some species that have had their DNA saved that have gone extinct.  Scientists are trying to come to a conclusion on whether it's ethical or not I guess.  Candidates include the saber-toothed tiger and the carribean monk seal and the dodo bird.

[Thorn Wilde]

I have a very odd theory about extinction, not really evolution and not creation

 

Here's my thought on extinction based on natural arguments: if every single creature needs to keep on reproducing in order to keep up the species and adaptation is developed to better its ability to survive and function, then homosexual behavior would have long been eliminated by generations of selection in our earliest proto-species (way before dinosaurs and into the Cambrian). Think about it, there are few biological benefits and many drawbacks. Yet, everyone on this site is living proof that the concept has very big gaping hole of logic. Even bisexuality would have slowly disappeared after millions of generations, let along several billion generations of diverse life-forms.

 

Behind the extinction of a species, I think there is something more fundamental to what shape their world and a certain predestination to destruction. I think every species on earth has a built-in extinction potential based on their biological factors like their comfort level a different temperatures, dietary changes, and other organisms in their ecosystem. Even Humans cannot avoid it, we have been hit by a growing strains of new bacteria along with shrinking birth rates.

 

I've always seen homosexuality, from a purely scientific view point, as mother nature's population control. By making some people gay, you get couples who can't have children of their own (not naturally, anyway), but who can adopt and raise children that other people have birthed. 

[hh5]

Collecting should not be a bad thing ... it'll take us years to study the DNA to determine if we can clone or not

It might be the act of cloning ... but something for us to think about

what if we had to clone an animal or plant that just went extinct to prevent a domino effect on a particular food chain?

would we not make such an exception?

ex:

What if global warming made the bees go extinct and we humans realize that we had to drastically change our greenhouse gas policy

after some time we brought atmosphere conditions back favorable for the bees ... we clone back the bees and re-plant the vegetation

Would we not make an exception to cloning? 

 

Speaking of animals going un-extinct, I've been following some articles about some species that have had their DNA saved that have gone extinct.  Scientists are trying to come to a conclusion on whether it's ethical or not I guess.  Candidates include the saber-toothed tiger and the carribean monk seal and the dodo bird.

[Former Member]

I would certainly be of the opinion that cloning is okay in those circumstances.  

 

Good point about the bees too.  There are already too many places where natural pollination just can't physically happen because of how much we're demanding be pollinated by so few natural pollinators.  Almonds for example represent one of the largest crops that has managed pollination.  Bees are flown in from all over the country in the US to pollinate california almonds.  And in Sichuan China, there are physically no bees to pollinate their pear trees, so every year hundreds of people go out and hand pollinate.  All because of some industrial pesticide to keep the unwanted bugs away.

 

ORGANIC FARMING for the win.

[hh5]

Discounting the gay population ... there are straight couple's that adopt too ... not sure about single parent adoptions

but our people fight against allowing gays to adopt ... thats laws we need to change to preserve our species as well as laws we need to prevent abuse to adopted children

 

the russians disallowed adoption out of their country ... they feel that it affects the russian population as well as claiming how inhumane americans are to russian children 

 

We're 7 to 8 billion on this planet, we combat the desert creeping which claims our fertile lands at an alarming rate which affects our food supply and climate ... there's argument that there is too many people on earth to feed ... we're cutting too much of our forest that provides O2

We combat the human effect of encouraging the desert creeping effect as well

ie: in china there is the wool industry ... the farmers let the goats eat the surrounding plant life near the desert ... goats eat much more than the grass they eat all the way to the roots ... with a lot of farmers doing this practice the chinese gov't realized how much desert creeping the farmers are introducing ... since then the gov't has put regulation into effect to curb this practice

ie: in america we had the dust bowl .... we had to change our farming practices

 

its a debate out there on whether earth is overpopulated or not ... or that we're not farming enough or iwe've cut down too much of the forests 

 

Our own global economics where prices are high ... also affect our family planning as gov't cut social programs that aid reproduction

that is another factor to curbing our population in comparison to the chinese gov't who has laws on how many children you can give birth to or be fined for going above the allowed limits

 

 

I've always seen homosexuality, from a purely scientific view point, as mother nature's population control. By making some people gay, you get couples who can't have children of their own (not naturally, anyway), but who can adopt and raise children that other people have birthed. 

[hh5]

are we very dependent on pollination to create a food supply?

aren't there plants that provide food that doesn't require pollination? 

I would certainly be of the opinion that cloning is okay in those circumstances.  

 

Good point about the bees too.  There are already too many places where natural pollination just can't physically happen because of how much we're demanding be pollinated by so few natural pollinators.  Almonds for example represent one of the largest crops that has managed pollination.  Bees are flown in from all over the country in the US to pollinate california almonds.  And in Sichuan China, there are physically no bees to pollinate their pear trees, so every year hundreds of people go out and hand pollinate.  All because of some industrial pesticide to keep the unwanted bugs away.

 

ORGANIC FARMING for the win.

[Former Member]

Most root vegetables and tuberous vegetable don't need pollination, but all fruits need pollination as well as nuts and seeds.  So it really is a huge deal whether or not we have bees, which are dying off very quickly as a result of CCD, or colony collapse disorder, in which all of the bees just suddenly leave their colonies and don't come back.  No one knows why this is happening such large scale, but even domesitcated bee hives have had this happen.

[hh5]

if wheat, corn, soy bean needs pollination ... if so it impacts lots of things

perhaps bees got poison or intoxicated ... and maybe they don't want to die in the nest

 

Most root vegetables and tuberous vegetable don't need pollination, but all fruits need pollination as well as nuts and seeds.  So it really is a huge deal whether or not we have bees, which are dying off very quickly as a result of CCD, or colony collapse disorder, in which all of the bees just suddenly leave their colonies and don't come back.  No one knows why this is happening such large scale, but even domesitcated bee hives have had this happen.

[iSimba]

We need more africanized honey bees! Just...not anywhere near me!

[Former Member]

They honestly don't know what is causing the CCD.  And I wouldn't want more africanized honeybees.  They're way too aggressive and while they pollinate about as well as european honey bees, they cause more harm than good, in my opinion.  

 

As for wheat, wheat and corn are both wind pollinated, not 100% about soy beans, but there's really nothing to worry about for the staples.  It's more for the fruits and things, cucumbers, zuchinni, peppers, berries etc.

 

I honestly just think we need to get our heads out of the sand and DO something to change the things that are going wrong.  But with being the carrot danglin in front of the people who have the funds to change things, it's a long road.