Star Trek 4: Fishermen want humpback whales off endangered list

[Celethiel]

This does NOT surprise me,

In Montana/Wyoming Ranchers kept up trying to get the Grey Wolf delisted, guess what... it happened...

Their reasons, the populations were large enough, and they were killing our livestock... we want them delisted so we can legally hunt them.

Similar has happened to other species that someone with money, mostly an industry finds to be a nussance and/or a potential for profit.

 

Some species you can not control their deaths, because the Endangered species Act is an American only thing, we can not really dictate to say Brazil cutting down their trees or China killing Rhinos, gorrillas, and such within their territories... or really other peoples territories...

[Thorn Wilde]

Actually, there is international law regarding endangered species. It's an agreement called CITES. 173 countries are currently bound by this agreement.

[Krista]

Humpback whales do have natural living predators - Killer Whales take calves. Since Humpback Whales don't have large birthrates in a female's lifetime. Species such as Humpback whales only need one or two unsuccessful breeding seasons to become threatened or too limited genetically to maintain healthy existence and will become extinct. Them finding 1,000 extra individuals is great, but it's not something that will save them as a species.

 

Specialist animals such as Polar Bears, Giant Panda, most amphibians (Newts, Frogs/Toads, Salamander), whale species, some shark species, and reptiles will become extinct, because they are too limited climate, diet, etc.  Where as the non-specialists are thriving - like most of the Canids and Rodents. (And Humans, by the way).

 

One of the most detrimental things that can happen to a species though is the infestation of non-native animals.  Usually those are non-specialist animals that do not have predators, so they thrive. (Feral Hogs, Red Fox, Giant Snakehead (fish), Burmese Python, Common Carp, Rats/Mice, Cane Toads, and African Honeybees)

[Former Member]

Agreed, though there's a very specific population of humpback whales being requested to be delisted.  That population has seen about a 1500% increase in the past 50 years.  Which is a lot more than 1,000 individuals, it's more in the range of about 20,000, which is why they want the North-Pacific population delisted.  With this population still on the list, it's using up resources that it doesn't need anymore.  Delisting isn't permanent.  If the species falls back into decline, then it can be relisted. But with so many animal species currently on the route of extinction, wouldn't these resources be better used to help more critically endangered species?  This population has grown and is still growing.  There also haven't been any talks about removing the whaling ban, and despite illegal whaling, this population has still thrived, and by the looks of things (barring environmental factors), will continue to thrive.

 

I am by no means an expert or whatnot, but I do believe in the intrinsic value of all species.  I want my children and my children's children to know about the wonderful biodiversity we have.  And to do that, I think we need to divvy up our eggs a little bit more and start spreading the resources around a little more evenly.  The last thing I want is for another Western Black Rhino situation.

[Celethiel]

50 years and 1500 % increase... really...

as I recall Japan ignores the Endagered species list...

besides which Whales are migratory creatures... which means that population will be moving somewhere else later...

 

Not all Canines are thriving, the Wolf isn't so much though it's been delisted... after all it's original population was the entire U.S. it's child the Human mutant known as the Dog is thriving because it's Man's pet...

 

in my opinion, humanity is more or less an investation of a Species... There are far to many of us for how much space and resources there is on this planet.

What do you think would happen if there was a massive world wide crop failure.... the first people to starve would be the Hives that are the big cities.

[iSimba]

[wildone]

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.

 

 

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.

 

Just wading into the conversation now.

 

As far as cloning extinct animals, wasn't there a few books about that, that were turned into movies? Jurassic Park anyone.

 

I seem to remember in the books, chaos theory was explained better than in the movies. Assuming there is an actual theory, I can't help but think of how many times man has f up'd the world with good intentions regarding wildlife. I believe toads were introduced to Australia to control bug populations, now, they have a population problem with them.

 

Pythons are now bounty listed animals in the Florida Everglades. They didn't just swim up there, they were released by humans.

 

Just the idea that someone wants to bring back a species that is now is extinct, scares the hell out of me. Darwin's theory of Evolution that the strongest will survive needs to re taught I do believe. If they went extinct by man's hand, then they should be extinct forever. Not to be cloned from DNA. Since none of us were around when Sabre Tooth Tigers were around, how can we know how the will react or their temperament etc.

 

Too scary to even consider IMHO.

[Kitt]

Just wading into the conversation now.

 

As far as cloning extinct animals, wasn't there a few books about that, that were turned into movies? Jurassic Park anyone.

 

I seem to remember in the books, chaos theory was explained better than in the movies. Assuming there is an actual theory, I can't help but think of how many times man has f up'd the world with good intentions regarding wildlife. I believe toads were introduced to Australia to control bug populations, now, they have a population problem with them.

 

Pythons are now bounty listed animals in the Florida Everglades. They didn't just swim up there, they were released by humans.

 

Just the idea that someone wants to bring back a species that is now is extinct, scares the hell out of me. Darwin's theory of Evolution that the strongest will survive needs to re taught I do believe. If they went extinct by man's hand, then they should be extinct forever. Not to be cloned from DNA. Since none of us were around when Sabre Tooth Tigers were around, how can we know how the will react or their temperament etc.

 

Too scary to even consider IMHO.

It never fails to amaze me how humanity can have the hubris to think its all about them - man "caused" an extinction, "man should stop an extinction", "man should correct an extinction thru cloning."

 

Weather cycles have existed for millions of years before "man" ever wandered into the picture. They create abundances and shortages of foods, as well as climate changes, affecting all life populations.  Extinctions occurred long before humans learned to walk on two feet. Have we accelerated the process in some cases?  Most definitely.  But who is to say it would not or could not have happened anyway?  The dinosaurs all died off for a reason and I highly doubt it was because of humans.  In spite of all the movies, were they not gone long before man discovered fire?

 

The big argument seems to be that humanity has caused problems by monkying with the environment.  So how would continuing to do so by re-introducing extinct species IMPROVE that situation?

[Thorn Wilde]

It never fails to amaze me how humanity can have the hubris to think its all about them - man "caused" an extinction, "man should stop an extinction", "man should correct an extinction thru cloning."

 

Weather cycles have existed for millions of years before "man" ever wandered into the picture. They create abundances and shortages of foods, as well as climate changes, affecting all life populations.  Extinctions occurred long before humans learned to walk on two feet. Have we accelerated the process in some cases?  Most definitely.  But who is to say it would not or could not have happened anyway?  The dinosaurs all died off for a reason and I highly doubt it was because of humans.  In spite of all the movies, were they not gone long before man discovered fire?

 

The big argument seems to be that humanity has caused problems by monkying with the environment.  So how would continuing to do so by re-introducing extinct species IMPROVE that situation?

 

All true. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our level best, now that we know how, to preserve the animals now threatened by our stupidity in the past. I think we do have a responsibility, as the most technologically and, most likely, intellectually advanced species on our planet, to take care of the rest of it.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Thorn Wilde

[Kitt]

There is a big difference between stopping the destruction of the environment and protecting endangered species and totally screwing around with the future by reintroducing extinct species. I just feel there is a lot more to consider.  Just because we CAN do something now like cloning an extinct species doesn't mean we SHOULD.  Did we or can we correct the reason they died out in the first place? Do we even understand fully why it occurred? Was it a result of something man caused or was it simply that the species had run its course to conclusion and could no longer adapt?? Would it be right to start a cloning and breeding program and re-introduce an animal only to have the same issues kill it off again?

[hh5]

do we have to worry about the clone over populating a region or killing off another species?

[Sasha Distan]

on the subject of extinctions and endangered species... should we not pour our resources into saving the wild animals who actually help the planet rather than the big fluffy cute ones?

 

As one of Chuck Palahniuk's characters once said "I want to put a bullet between the eyes of every panda who won't screw to save their species"

[Thorn Wilde]

All animals help the planet. They all play vital parts in its ecosystems. 

 

One of the animals I worry about the most is the bumblebee. And the honeybee. They are vital to the survival of so many species of plant, and they're slowly diminishing in number. I caught my mum's cat hunting a bumblebee yesterday, nearly threw a fit. Nobody kills bumblebees in my vicinity and gets away with it.

[Sasha Distan]

All animals help the planet. They all play vital parts in its ecosystems. 

 

One of the animals I worry about the most is the bumblebee. And the honeybee. They are vital to the survival of so many species of plant, and they're slowly diminishing in number. I caught my mum's cat hunting a bumblebee yesterday, nearly threw a fit. Nobody kills bumblebees in my vicinity and gets away with it.

 

My point is that some, like bees, are much more vital than others. Panda's are a really long way down the list of animals we should save because the environment needs them. but they're cute and black and white, so they get funding.

[Aditus]

Cloning extinct species IMO is only interesting for scientists, not for the general idea of preserving animals, plants etc. I really doubt that a cloned sabre-tooth tiger would ever find its way out of the lab or the zoo, though. It's far too valuable to be shot by a hunter, die of an illness it never was confronted with in its time on earth, or be killed off by the present animal population. It's scientists flexing their muscles, who can do what under the vail of 'Think what we could learn could we study extinct animals.'

[Thorn Wilde]

Cloning extinct species IMO is only interesting for scientists, not for the general idea of preserving animals, plants etc. I really doubt that a cloned sabre-tooth tiger would ever find its way out of the lab or the zoo, though. It's far too valuable to be shot by a hunter, die of an illness it never was confronted with in its time on earth, or be killed off by the present animal population. It's scientists flexing their muscles, who can do what under the vail of 'Think what we could learn could we study extinct animals.'

 

You have a valid point, but I would still say 'don't go there'... Although the prospect of seeing a real, live dodo really tickles my fancy.

[hh5]

News alert

 

 

Geert Vons concurred stating, "Scientists agree that you study behavior or dietary patterns when the animals are alive. It's well known that this is about selling and eating the whale meat."

 

But a spokesman for the Japanese governmental team, Noriyuki Shikata, insisted there were more than 500,000 minke whales in the Antarctic region and that Japan's research program needs at least 815 minke whales per year for its studies and that these levels were sustainable and would not further endanger the mammals as the rates are substantially below the mammals' reproductive levels.

 

Japan Defends Whaling Program In UN's Highest Court

Japan is opening its defense of the country's controversial whaling program in the seas around Antarctica during hearings at the United Nations' highest court.

 

Based on their written pleadings, lawyers for Tokyo are expected to argue Tuesday that the International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to hear the dispute with Australia and New Zealand over the annual hunt and slaughter of hundreds of minke and fin whales in the Southern Ocean.

 

Japan also will argue that its whaling is for scientific research and therefore permitted under the 1946 convention that regulates whaling.

 

Lawyers for Australia told the court last week that the whaling is a commercial hunt dressed up as science and should be stopped.

 

The 16-judge world court will take months to issue a judgment.

 

 

Edited July 2, 2013 by hh5

[wildone]

What the hell kind of research would require 815 whales to be killed?.......a year?

 

Sounds like bullcrap to me.

[JamesSavik]

Actually, there is international law regarding endangered species. It's an agreement called CITES. 173 countries are currently bound by this agreement.

 

A similar number signed the Biological and Chemical Weapons convention- some while running biological and chemical weapons programs so large that they spanned hundreds of installations and hundreds of thousands of workers. Nations lie when its in their best interest. They are also known to sign "politically correct treaties" for political purposes and then do absolutely nothing to enforce them.

 

 

CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder) is caused by a virus spread by mites that afflict honeybees. It has nothing to do with Monsanto or GMO corn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder

 

I can believe that some animal populations can recover enough to find their way off of the endangered list. I'm not sure that this is the case with humpback whales. A lot more population studies need to be done.

 

I am less than impressed by some environmentalists hysterical claims. They do more harm than good. When they are proven wrong, it destroys credibility that they will need in a REAL crisis.

[Sasha Distan]

soup research?

[hh5]

so if when the bees are gone .... are we gonna promote horney people to pollinate la femme le tomato?

 

 

http://blog.ted.com/2013/06/12/the-big-bee-bummer-marla-spivak-at-tedglobal-2013/

 

Our supermarket produce aisles would look very, very bare without bees. As MacArthur Fellow Marla Spivak explains on the TEDGlobal stage, this is something we should all be extremely concerned about: the dramatic drop in bee populations that’s been taking place over the past seven years. (Read The New York Times’ take on the especially scary drop in just the last year.) In the United States alone, shares Spivak, while there were 4.5 million bess in 1945, thee are now about 2 million.

 

“Bees are not out there pollinating our food intentionally — they’re out there because they need to eat,” says Spivak. “In the process, they provide this valuable pollination service.”

 

There are 20,000 species of bees. One of the most famous is, of course, the bumblebee, which vibrates a flower as it eats nectar, releasing a pollen burst onto its body. When bumblebees aren’t available to do this work, people have to painstakingly hand-pollinate crops using a paintbrush or a tiny handheld vibrator (which is seriously called a “tomato tickler”). It’s a time-consuming, costly process and it’s probably what happened to the last hothouse tomato you bought.

 

Another popular bee is the honeybee, which Spivak calls the “charismatic representative” for the other bee species. A honeybee colony contains 40,000 to 50,0000 individuals, all communicating and making decisions. Honeybees even have social healthcare. They separate out sick individuals to keep the colony healthy, and they scrape propolis resins from flowers and use this natural antibiotic to seal the hive.

 

Bees have survived for over 50 million years. So something is very wrong when they are dying en masse. This is happening for four interrelated reasons, all related to changes in farming practices after World War II, says Spivak. While there’s been a 300% increase in production of crops that require bee pollination since WWII, we’ve started using much more synthetic fertilizer, and created crop monocultures, systematically eliminating the flowering plants that bees need for survival. At the same time, we’ve started using pesticides, and now every batch of pollen that a honeybee collects has at least six traces of pesticides in it — including neonicotinoids. These pesticides move through plant tissue; parasites take a bite and die. But neonicotinoids make bees intoxicated and disoriented, and in high enough concentration it can kill them.

How to Pollinate Tomato Plants by Hand

Another option is to pollinate tomatoes by hand. Not only is this easy but it can be quite effective. Pollen is normally shed from morning to afternoon, with midday the most optimal time to pollinate. Warm, sunny days with low humidity are ideal conditions for hand pollinating.

However, even if conditions are less than ideal, it never hurts to try anyway. Oftentimes, you can simply shake the plant(s) gently to distribute the pollen.

However, you may achieve better results by giving the vine a little vibrating instead. While you can purchase commercial pollinators or electric vibrator devices to hand pollinate tomatoes, a simple battery-operated toothbrush is really all you need. The vibrations cause the flowers to release pollen.

Techniques for hand pollinating vary so use whatever method works best for you. Some people simply place the vibrating device (toothbrush) just behind the open flowers and gently blow on or shake the plant to distribute the pollen. Others prefer to collect the pollen in a small container and use a cotton swab to carefully rub the pollen directly onto the end of the flower stigma. Hand pollination is usually practiced every 2-3 days to ensure pollination occurs. Upon successful pollination, the flowers will wilt and begin fruiting.

 

 

Vibrators sales are gonna go through the roof but the irs will disallow the deduction of the equipment

Edited August 4, 2013 by hh5

[Former Member]

This really is terrible.  Another reason to eat organic!

[iSimba]

Nah, this is good! Think of all the jobs we can create for people to tickle the tomatoes and such

[hh5]

if u do clone a woolly make sure its two or pack of them

dolly died of lonelyness plus complications

Regenerating a Mammoth for $10 Million

Like big kids everywhere, I would love to see it happen. The idea of resurrecting woolly mammoths fires the imagination on all cylinders. Last week interest in this marvellous notion was reignited by Professor Ian Wilmut, the man who cloned Dolly the sheep, ruminated about how it might be done. The answer, in brief, is that it pushes at the very limits of plausibility, but there's a tiny chance that, within 50 years or so, it could just happen.

 

Even if this minute chance is realised, please don't mistake de-extinction (as the resurrection business is now widely known) for reviving lost faunas and the habitats they used. At best it will produce a public cabinet of curiosities, at worst new pets for billionaires. There is an obvious, fatal but widely overlooked problem with de-extinction. The scarcely credible task of resurrection has to be conducted not once but hundreds of times, in each case using material from a different, implausibly well-preserved specimen of the extinct beast. Otherwise the resulting population will not be genetically viable.

---

 

Scientists are talking for the first time about the old idea of resurrecting extinct species as if this staple of science fiction is a realistic possibility, saying that a living mammoth could perhaps be regenerated for as little as $10 million.

 

The same technology could be applied to any other extinct species from which one can obtain hair, horn, hooves, fur or feathers, and which went extinct within the last 60,000 years, the effective age limit for DNA.

 

Though the stuffed animals in natural history museums are not likely to burst into life again, these old collections are full of items that may contain ancient DNA that can be decoded by the new generation of DNA sequencing machines.

 

If the genome of an extinct species can be reconstructed, biologists can work out the exact DNA differences with the genome of its nearest living relative. There are talks on how to modify the DNA in an elephant’s egg so that after each round of changes it would progressively resemble the DNA in a mammoth egg. The final-stage egg could then be brought to term in an elephant mother, and mammoths might once again roam the Siberian steppes.

 

 

[hh5]

lol expect more DDT in your imported veggies lol 

Climate change 'driving spread of crop pests

Climate change is helping pests and diseases that attack crops to spread around the world, a study suggests.

 

Researchers from the universities of Exeter and Oxford have found crop pests are moving at an average of two miles (3km) a year.

 

The team said they were heading towards the north and south poles, and were establishing in areas that were once too cold for them to live in

 

.

Edited September 2, 2013 by hh5