NationStates Jolt Archive

I feel as if we are seeing more and more of nature's beautiful animals threatend to the brink of extinction and then poached basically to it.

It has recently been discovered that wildlife poaching is estimated to have created a lucrative market worth about 10 billion American dollars.

Most of the poaching of endangered or protected animals is taken place in Africa, which offers the biggest market for illegal animals due to it's enormous diversity of wildlife. The animals we love like the cheetah, the lion and the tiger, may be "extinct in the wild" by the time our children and grandchildren come into this world.

Most of the countries in Africa and to an extent in Asia are either too shitty and thus incapable of defending these animals as they are simply struggeling to first protect their citizens, or simply don't care enough about it.

What can be done about this? What can be done to save the animals of the world that are perishing before our eyes? What can be done to conserve the beautiful diversity of wildlife that nature has created. What can we do to help ensure that our children will recognize this:

http://www.kostich.com/Cheetah.jpg

http://www.blue-whale.info/blue_whale_pic.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7e/Black_rhinos_in_crater.jpg/800px-Black_rhinos_in_crater.jpg

Stop talking like that, you'll make the ugly animals feel bad.:(

It's a tragedy, that's for sure, but I'm not sure what can be done to stop it short of complete revolution of both values and social institutions.

Tis not the poor shitty countries in Africa and Asia that should be your target, but changing the demand for these animals. If people stopped buying their fur or asking for powered rhino horn as an aphrodisiac, then poaching would fall and fall fast.

Tis not the poor shitty countries in Africa and Asia that should be your target, but changing the demand for these animals. If people stopped buying their fur or asking for powered rhino horn as an aphrodisiac, then poaching would fall and fall fast.

Fudge some research. Claim that fur and rhino horns cause AIDs. Most people are dumb enough to buy it.

It's PETA style tactics, but what can you do really? Sort of summarily catching and executing poachers that is. All awareness of the rarity is going to do is make the prices shoot up and ultra-rich socialites crave them even more.

Try tripping on acid and watching the BBC's "Planet Earth" series and I guarantee you will be a conservationist for life.

I don't do acid.

Fudge some research. Claim that fur and rhino horns cause AIDs. Most people are dumb enough to buy it.

It's PETA style tactics, but what can you do really? Sort of summarily catching and executing poachers that is. All awareness of the rarity is going to do is make the prices shoot up and ultra-rich socialites crave them even more.

AIDS. not AIDs


None the less, much must be done to kill the demand first. End demand, and the profit collapses.

Sadly, this is only slightly easier than changing nations to defend the animals, and we all have seen how easy that is.

Try tripping on acid and watching the BBC's "Planet Earth" series and I guarantee you will be a conservationist for life.

That's how I ended up with my nation's name. Good times. Good times.

About the wild life -- What can you do? Human development will eventually edge out any non-domesticated animal.

Sort of summarily catching and executing poachers that is.
They already do that.

Although they generally don't bother with the catching part.

i care and i become upset when i hear about these things, but i'd be lying if i said it bothered me so much that i actually went out and did something about it.

Man has been causing mass extinctions around the globe ever since he evolved and spread throughout the continents. In fact, many scientists believe we are currently witnessing a mass extinction comparable to when the dinosaurs disappeared. Of course, it has accelerated with farming and industrialization, but it has been happening for thousands of years. I don't know if it can be stopped without some serious changes.

EDIT:I'd also add that while poaching is one of the most visible instances of extinction, much of the current extinction crisis comes from things not as obvious as tearing a horn of an animal, but rather come from urban sprawl, overfishing, pollution, among other things. Pretty much by living an average western lifestyle, you probably contribute to the extinction of many animals, beautiful or ugly.

Yes, the extinction crisis upsets me greatly - and, frankly, frightens me. Ecosystems are fragile things, and humankind is smashing through them like the proverbial bull in the china shop. We may not find out just how much damage we've done until it's too late.

As for what we can do, there are several things:

- Donate! There are great organizations out there working their butts off to protect endangered species, but most of them are plagued by indifference and underfunding. Every little bit really can help, so pick a few favorite groups, and send them what you can. (You can also go to therainforestsite.com every day, to help a little bit without paying anything at all.)

- EDUCATE. This is the big one. Educate yourself, and then educate others. Find out which species (and don't limit that to animals, please) are most at risk. Find out how and where the products you buy are produced, and whether their production involves the destruction of habitats. Take the time to find out what effect you, personally, are already having on the world and decide if it is really the effect you want to have - and if it's not, change it! To go further, write your political representatives and tell them to support eco-friendly legislation, and to promote environmental education worldwide. The biggest problem a lot of species face is simple human ignorance. Heaven only knows how many creatures have been wiped out over the years because some morons simply didn't know how much damage they were doing.

- Make noise! The reason poachers exist is because there are still enough people out there who think a dagger with a hilt made of genuine northern white rhino horn and a preserved gorilla's fist are cool, badass sorts of things to have - and then more people make noise about the fact that they really aren't cool at all, but utterly pathetic, the less of a demand there will be for such things.

Also, for a good (and very funny) starter course in the protection of endangered species, pick up a copy of Last Chance to See, by Douglas Adams - and after you've read it, insist that all your friends and family borrow it and read it, too.

Tis not the poor shitty countries in Africa and Asia that should be your target, but changing the demand for these animals. If people stopped buying their fur or asking for powered rhino horn as an aphrodisiac, then poaching would fall and fall fast.And that'd help with poaching for food & as, well, self defence how? How would it prevent the destruction of habitats thorugh sheer population growth and the subsequent growth of urban areas as well as the agricultural support (Nevermind the, well, poisoning occuring in the transitional phase between 'Yay, we've got industry!' and 'Oops, some of that stuff kills us, lets introduce some limitations on pollution...') they need?

Poaching for the purpose of acquiring and selling luxury items is an incredibly minor problem compared to the above issues. You want to safe biodiversity? Put an end to population growth, and while you're at it, limit the maximum population density to maybe 100/ km^2 (Preferably less).

However, you may find that this is somewhat difficult to achieve.

*snip*

Agreed, the problem is that we're slowly encircling natural habitat, cutting off migration routes, cutting down grazing land and simply interfering with life in motion.

Nature is naturally interlinked, we're severing links day by day - do that with a spider web and you'll see the results soon enough. Each specific cut may not seem a problem but at some point, the entire infrastructure of nature comes crashing down.

There's hardly a nature reserve large enough to accommodate the range required for many animals, creating these pockets merely slow the growing problem and, in turn, lead to less cross-fertilization, more inbreeding and further weakening of a species.

One of the biggest problems for the Cheetah is the Leopard. Cheetahs take a lot of blame for leopard attacks (primarily on livestock) because they're active during the day, when ranchers can see, and leopards are active at night.

The other problem is that a lot of people in the most of the countries where poaching is a major problem don't really have much of an alternative to put food on the table. Proper developmental aid (such as is mainly done by Scandinavian countries) along with wildlife protection programs (these depend primarily on the species and are incredibly varied) are the best answers for a sustainable future.

And then there's the whole "protectin' our culture" bullshit... Basically, some countries need to abandon certain aspects of their cultures, at least on a national level. Half a dozen villages in Russia hunting a whale each? Not so much of a problem. Norway and Japan sending out fleets? Big problem.

poaching is probably the LEAST of the causes of the loss of species diversity. habitat loss due to human activity and encroachment is the big one, and the only real answer to that is to reduce our own rate of fertility in relation to the length of our average lifespan.

and we do NEED species diversity. aesthetics are a bit of a diversion from the real issue too. we need the odd and "unglies" as much as we need the big ferocious and beautiful, though of course we need those too.

we need all the diversity of all the different kinds of creatures there not only are and have been, but have yet to come to be as well.

we need them because they, like us, are part of the life cycle of the plants, which we would not have air to breathe, air we could breathe, without them.

singling out some poor bastard with only a spear to survive isn't going to beniffit anyone or any species. rich loonies with guns who want to go arround shooting everything are another matter of course. as are fur farms.

i think we could get along without the latter two just fine. and i don't think nature is really beniffitting from people only being allowed to keep mundane species as pets. dog and cat populations are also a problem as are humans.

if people were alowed to be generous to other less mundane species, this, it seems to me, would likely be less of a problem. not neccessarily to capture or confine them though. and people would need to be educated as to what the real risks of proximity to such creatures, as well as THEIR real need actually are. but pets, NOT fur farming, or fur hunting.

there is only one legitimate reason to kill anything, well ok, maybe you can come up with one or two odd exceptions, but for the most part anyway, and that is to eat it.

if no creature were ever killed other then to eat of its flesh, that would be one part of the problem, but really the biggest is none the less, habitat loss.

and there's a lot that can be done with HOW we live that could reduce that as well. and i don't mean turning off a light when you leave a room either, though there's certainly nothing wrong with doing so. but reducing human fertility is the big one. reducing consumption of forest products is another, and even, yes the two big ones, number two and three after human population number one, is our totally unneccessary use of combustion in any form to generate electrical energy and propell transportation.

and really alternatives to all of those things exist, which in combination with each other, are just as effective as the less consciencous combinations of dirty but greed gratifying tecnologies we are more familiar with now.

yes it annoys me that so many care so little where the very air they breathe comes from, but no, i don't see scape goating some poor bastard who has to live by killing something to put food on the table is any path to solving that, or any other problem.

and sure i think nonhuman life forms are as wonderful and valuable to themselves and each other as are humans themselves.

but again it really is digressionary, waters down and distracts from the real issues, to put the question of species diversity into merely aesthetic contexts. i can understand the appeal of trying that approach to reach out and involve the simpathies and concerns of a wider human audience, and i do believe everyone needs to be concerned. but not by encouraging them to fool themselves into seeing the question in merely aesthetic terms, nor by scapegoating the lest of the problem and of contributions to the causes of it.

=^^=
.../\...

Why are animals which look pretty worth more than other animals?

Most of the countries in Africa and to an extent in Asia are either too shitty and thus incapable of defending these animals as they are simply struggeling to first protect their citizens, or simply don't care enough about it.

bollocks, not even the glorious lands of Europe (and to a lesser extent) America can protect animals from illegal poaching especially what with Malta

Norway and Japan sending out fleets? Big problem.

I had no idea huge industrial fishing fleets where the heart of Nordic-Japanese culture:confused:

Why are animals which look pretty worth more than other animals?

because we have all felt like a male panda at one point ;)

Why are animals which look pretty worth more than other animals?Because it's easier to convince people the cougar needs more protection than the bighorn sheep, even if it isn't true.

I had no idea huge industrial fishing fleets where the heart of Nordic-Japanese culture:confused:It's the excuse or argument usually used to justify it, though internationally, they have to use "scientific research".

Because it's easier to convince people the cougar needs more protection than the bighorn sheep, even if it isn't true.

Hey, bighorn sheep are pretty impressive as animals go. I was thinking more along the lines of say the axolotl, poor bastard. Or pretty much any insects.

Anyway, just had to say 'conservationists' who only care about the cool animals annoy me.

Hey, bighorn sheep are pretty impressive as animals go. I was thinking more along the lines of say the axolotl, poor bastard. Or pretty much any insects.

Anyway, just had to say 'conservationists' who only care about the cool animals annoy me.Bighorn sheep nearly died out because Californians love cougars too much, actually. In fact, the Sierra Nevada Bighorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Nevada_Bighorn_Sheep) is considered a full two slots lower on the endangered scale than the cougar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar). And because the Bighorn isn't as cool as the cougar, California enacted legislation that effectively prevented the protection of Bighorn sheep.

And then there's the whole "protectin' our culture" bullshit... Basically, some countries need to abandon certain aspects of their cultures, at least on a national level. Half a dozen villages in Russia hunting a whale each? Not so much of a problem. Norway and Japan sending out fleets? Big problem.Of course, within limitations, neither would be a problem - I'm all for sustainable exploitation, and practically speaking, as bad as the jap. & nor. whaling looks, the total number of whales killed through hunting strikes me as unlikely to be a risk for the targetted species.

Why you'd bother when there's hardly a market (Japanese: We like to piss off evil gaijin; Norway: We like to piss off evil EUers) is another question, but whatever.

's far as the oceans go, I'm considerably more worried about their pollution (Be it through 'Stable' waste such as, erm, plastic bags, or the creation of dead zones by way of undesirable chemicals) and overfishing in general (At present, we usually fish any given species of fish for... A decade or so, before it collapses) than about whales.

singling out some poor bastard with only a spear to survive isn't going to beniffit anyone or any species. rich loonies with guns who want to go arround shooting everything are another matter of course. as are fur farms.The poor bastards tend to have AKs, not spears... But nevermind.

I am, however, mystified as of what exactly your objection to fur farms is. They're not exactly hurting biodiversity, nor causing the extinction of species. In fact, the opposite is the case, what with them ensuring that wild specimen are hunted less.

Why are animals which look pretty worth more than other animals?'cause they're more fun to pet.

On a more serious note, I'd argue that it's rather like with politics - you've a 'Public Face' (Whether it's a prettyboy in a suit or a panda doesn't make all that much of a difference), and if that prettyboy/ panda gets attention, chances are, you can push the whole program. Or large parts of it, anyway.

Reality is that a sad panda (Or worse, bottlenose dolphin. Despite its global distribution and adaptability meaning that it's not even remotely endangered. As in, considerably less so than Tuna. Yet, people cry about dolphins entangled in webs more than about collapsing fish stocks >.<) causes more interest than a list with the dozen or so species going extinct each year. 's long as the attention the panda gets also serves the purposes of conservation on a greater scale, I don't mind it.

It can, of course, be overdone (As noted by Laerod, re. cougar & bighorn sheep), but oh well.

Of course, within limitations, neither would be a problem - I'm all for sustainable exploitation, and practically speaking, as bad as the jap. & nor. whaling looks, the total number of whales killed through hunting strikes me as unlikely to be a risk for the targetted species.Except it is a risk for the whale species. Whales used to be so numerous that people couldn't imagine it would even be possible to push them to the point they are now.

Why are animals which look pretty worth more than other animals?

Because nobody wants a necklace made of dead cockroaches.

Except it is a risk for the whale species. Whales used to be so numerous that people couldn't imagine it would even be possible to push them to the point they are now.Nope. Commercial whaling by the two aforementioned countries amounts to slightly over 2000 minke whales and a few dozen fin whales/ year; total population of the two species is in the range of several hundred thousand/ over a hundred thousand, respectively, with local populations in the hunting grounds (North Atlantic and North Pacific, respectively) being about a third that.

As long as hunting within present limits continues, I don't foresee a threat (Well, not from the hunting... The astouding level of pollution the North Pacific in particular is experiencing is another matter). This would almost certainly change if Norway and Japan got free reign again, of course - but this appears to be unlikely.

Fudge some research. Claim that fur and rhino horns cause AIDs. Most people are dumb enough to buy it.

Why fudge the research? With a skillful band of ninjas, you could actually poison them(probably not with HIV however).

It is somewhat depressing that there are more tigers in Texas than there are in India.

Look at what we did to the wolves. Chances are the same thing will happen to any predator around there. Unless they manage to tame rhinos, chances are that, with the number of people on earth, the rhinos will be gone too.

As for the blue whales... I can only really blame all those people who insist that it's good for the economy. Fools as they are, I doubt they realize the result of hunting them at this stage.

Nope. Commercial whaling by the two aforementioned countries amounts to slightly over 2000 minke whales and a few dozen fin whales/ year; total population of the two species is in the range of several hundred thousand/ over a hundred thousand, respectively, with local populations in the hunting grounds (North Atlantic and North Pacific, respectively) being about a third that.

As long as hunting within present limits continues, I don't foresee a threat (Well, not from the hunting... The astouding level of pollution the North Pacific in particular is experiencing is another matter). This would almost certainly change if Norway and Japan got free reign again, of course - but this appears to be unlikely.

Hunting within those limits will only occur so long as they are pressured to not hunt many more. They could easily hunt them to extinction in ten years if they got free reins.

Nope. Commercial whaling by the two aforementioned countries amounts to slightly over 2000 minke whales and a few dozen fin whales/ year; total population of the two species is in the range of several hundred thousand/ over a hundred thousand, respectively, with local populations in the hunting grounds (North Atlantic and North Pacific, respectively) being about a third that.

As long as hunting within present limits continues, I don't foresee a threat (Well, not from the hunting... The astouding level of pollution the North Pacific in particular is experiencing is another matter). This would almost certainly change if Norway and Japan got free reign again, of course - but this appears to be unlikely.So what you're basically saying is that it's ok to further diminish the populations of whales, because the main thing killing them is the pollution?

Look at what we did to the wolves. Chances are the same thing will happen to any predator around there. Unless they manage to tame rhinos, chances are that, with the number of people on earth, the rhinos will be gone too.

As for the blue whales... I can only really blame all those people who insist that it's good for the economy. Fools as they are, I doubt they realize the result of hunting them at this stage.Blue whales haven't been hunted for quite a few decades.

There's more than one species of whale, you know... And the ones commercially hunted do, err, not include blue whales.

So what you're basically saying is that it's ok to further diminish the populations of whales, because the main thing killing them is the pollution?No. I'm saying that hunting on the scale it's done these days does not have a significant effect on the population sizes in question.

There. If you manage to missinterpret this, too, I'll be quite impressed.

Tis not the poor shitty countries in Africa and Asia that should be your target, but changing the demand for these animals. If people stopped buying their fur or asking for powered rhino horn as an aphrodisiac, then poaching would fall and fall fast.

Well said. As long as there's a market for it in developed countries it's no use labelling poachers in developing countries as the crux of the problem. And as long as we kepp the market open for it it doesn't matter what anyone thinks or how appalled anyone is. It'll keep happening.

Blue whales haven't been hunted for quite a few decades.

There's more than one species of whale, you know... And the ones commercially hunted do, err, not include blue whales.

No. I'm saying that hunting on the scale it's done these days does not have a significant effect on the population sizes in question.

There. If you manage to missinterpret this, too, I'll be quite impressed.

This is not always true, in my biology class last quarter, we read about Bighorn Sheep in the American West, where conservation programs had been set up allowing a small number of hunts to pay for maintenance of conservation programs. However this small amount of hunting targeted the largest and biggest horned males, which caused human selection on the animal, favoring quicker developing, less naturally suitable males. The same phenomena has been noted with some fish, where fish that can get through the net are selected for, but they are too weak to survive against certain predators, some of which used to be prey. Even though hunting has stopped, the damage is often already done.