# Natures Call To Extinction



## Zamric (Feb 5, 2012)

alot of our (Earths) endangered spieces are in Zoos and they do try to keep a viable breeding program for these unfortunate creatures. 


Sometimes it is good because their decline is because of mankinds interferance. Other times, like with the Panda it is the end of a genetic line that Nature has decided to delete (Pandas don't like each other, avoid each other, mate VERY Rarely and dont care for thier young) That is Natures way.


"YES" we (Mankind) have eliminated from the Earth many spiecies because of our own greed and comfort, i.e. the Tasmanian Wolf. And we are trying the best we can to re-establish new homes and enviroments for the ones we have decimated (kinda).

QUESTION: When Should Mankind step in and interfear with Mother Natures Call To Extinction? (Keep in mind that 99% of ALL creatures that EVER existed on Earth are now extinct)


----------



## dmmj (Feb 5, 2012)

If it is something we caused or helped. then of course we should help, but if it is truly nature deciding that particular species is not viable, I don't think we should interfere. the main thing I guess is deciding which species are at an end,and which we caused.


----------



## GeoTerraTestudo (Feb 5, 2012)

Good question. Sometimes, extinction is our fault; sometimes it's not. In my view, if we are contributing to a species' demise, we should intervene to reverse that trend whenever possible. However, if a species began to decline before human influences began to take effect, then conserving that species might not be a priority.

In the case of the panda, they may not adapt to captivity well (refusing to mate or care for their offspring in zoos sometimes), but that doesn't necessarily mean they are a "dead end." They were doing fine in bamboo forests until humans altered that environment for agricultural purposes. That's why we should help: we are largely to blame for their decline.

Ditto for many tortoises. A lot of tortoises around the world are in decline because, it just so happens that their preferred habitat is our preferred habitat: grasslands and forest edges. In a contest of wills, the tortoises are going to lose to the humans unless we do something to help, like set up preserves or make our development more varied so that some space still remains for them.


----------



## batchick (Feb 5, 2012)

I think this thread grew out of a case I raised about the loss of the very small viable habitat of the geometric tortoise (http://www.tortoiseforum.org/Thread-Tortoises-on-the-black-market#axzz1lWVTbigH)

For me, tortoises raise different questions than, say Pandas or other Big and Big Named animals.
Firstly - the plight of the Panda, or the Jaguar or the *insert large iconic mammal here* - raises enormous awareness of the habitat destruction. They are icons that encourage activism or at least thought. I don't think that outside of a small group of people, the tortoise of a minor breed that most people won't be to tell apart from any other tortoise could have the same impact. So, the argument for preservation in zoos etc falls away a little. Annoying, but true, I think, if we factor in how the average human being responds.

Secondly, no-one keeps pandas or *insert large iconic mammal here* as pets (except for a few 'interesting' folk - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-10775964), but a lot of people will be able to keep something small and environment controllable like a geometric tortoise. That way, there's greater potential for a richer genetic base to be maintained. 

So, my point/issue is: it seems that the private owner may have an important role to play in the ongoing viability of tortoises, and more so than zoos or other preservation organizations. So, ultimately - should we be tracking where these torts are and trying to make sure we are cross-breeding and not ultimately just producing inbred, second cousin tortoises?


----------



## Zamric (Feb 5, 2012)

batchick said:


> I think this thread grew out of a case I raised about the loss of the very small viable habitat of the geometric tortoise (http://www.tortoiseforum.org/Thread-Tortoises-on-the-black-market#axzz1lWVTbigH)
> 
> For me, tortoises raise different questions than, say Pandas or other Big and Big Named animals.
> Firstly - the plight of the Panda, or the Jaguar or the *insert large iconic mammal here* - raises enormous awareness of the habitat destruction. They are icons that encourage activism or at least thought. I don't think that outside of a small group of people, the tortoise of a minor breed that most people won't be to tell apart from any other tortoise could have the same impact. So, the argument for preservation in zoos etc falls away a little. Annoying, but true, I think, if we factor in how the average human being responds.
> ...



You are correct. This was even a reply that got out of hand quickly and decided to post it to it's own thread. I didn't want to HighJack your thread with a diviant course.


----------



## batchick (Feb 5, 2012)

Hey, no worries, Zamric. I thought I'd refer back, so that folk might have a sense of why I was speaking about Geometrics.


----------



## Laura (Feb 5, 2012)

Did you know there are more tigers in private hands as 'pets' then there are wild tigers in the Wild? probably in the state of texas alone..
But breeding a bunch of mutt tigers to make more and more with the hopes of saving them from extinction, is moot unless there is Wild to put them in.. Safe Wild.. it doenst exist anymore.. too many people.. too much poaching, chinese medicines etc.. 
on a slightly different direction.. if you fight to save, say the Gorillas. They are a large species.. loved.. you fight for them and thier land and habitat.. you also help save many of the smaller creatures that also live where they live, but are less 'loved' or known. www.wildnet.org wildlife conservation network... if you want to get involved or help support this is a good one.. or Project Survival thru www.cathaven.com no rich CEO's no high overhead.. ALL your money doanted goes to the cause.


----------



## GeoTerraTestudo (Feb 5, 2012)

batchick said:


> I think this thread grew out of a case I raised about the loss of the very small viable habitat of the geometric tortoise (http://www.tortoiseforum.org/Thread-Tortoises-on-the-black-market#axzz1lWVTbigH)
> 
> For me, tortoises raise different questions than, say Pandas or other Big and Big Named animals.
> Firstly - the plight of the Panda, or the Jaguar or the *insert large iconic mammal here* - raises enormous awareness of the habitat destruction. They are icons that encourage activism or at least thought. I don't think that outside of a small group of people, the tortoise of a minor breed that most people won't be to tell apart from any other tortoise could have the same impact. So, the argument for preservation in zoos etc falls away a little. Annoying, but true, I think, if we factor in how the average human being responds.
> ...



Great post. When it comes to pets that come from threatened or endangered species (such as tortoises), I very much consider pet owners as a kind of collective Noah's Ark - an institution for the protection and perpetuation of those animals. For this reason, I think we should be reasonably conscientious about which animals we allow to breed with each other. Interspecific hybrids are right out, and hybrids between subspecies should generally (but not necessarily) be avoided as well. As for pedigree, we should definitely make sure that we are not inbreeding these animals. Moreover, we should switch from catching animals in the wild to breeding them in captivity as soon as possible.

As for charismatic megafauna, conserving them can have a very beneficial effect on the environment they live in, because they can serve as umbrella species that help protect all the little creatures that share their habitat, as well as the habitat itself. So, although pandas are not the only organisms worth saving in China's bamboo forests, it does make sense to focus on them, because that will also help save other animals and plants as well.

Finally, wildlife conservation is meaningless without taking human welfare into account. If people don't have what they need, then they will burn down forests and over-hunt big game in order to survive. This has been going on for 200,000 years, and will continue to go on, unless we can take care of each other, so that we no longer need to deplete wildlife populations.

One way to do this is to set up sustainable resource use with the native environment. This means using plants and animals (usually native species) that require little maintenance, and that don't promote environmental degradation. This also means curbing material consumption, so that we don't use more resources than we have to. It also means curbing our population growth, so that we don't outstrip the water, food, and space available to us.

Unless all these pieces of the puzzle are in place, our environmental problems will only get worse.

BTW - There are no tortoise breeds (not yet, anyway). The geometric tortoise (_Psammobates geometricus_) is a naturally occurring, endangered species.


----------



## batchick (Feb 5, 2012)

Absolutely right on the Gorillas. The keystone species idea is just that - if you save the big iconic species, then you make the chances better for the rest. There are some questions though about exactly how that works - what size remnant 'wild' works for a Gorilla? Which plants are necessary? And, then, do those principles work for all other species that co-exist there. But, in general it is a good principle and those kinds of projects need all the support they can get.

But, what about the small, un-iconic endemic to tiny areas species where there aren't Gorillas or Pandas or Blue Whales? We've got a species of frog near us that basically survives on three sites, one is the reserve inside a horse race course. Horse racing is going out of business since we got the Lottery. If developers want to buy up the race course and build on it, it is pretty well over for that frog. Do we try and save it?


----------



## GeoTerraTestudo (Feb 5, 2012)

Laura said:


> Did you know there are more tigers in private hands as 'pets' then there are wild tigers in the Wild? probably in the state of texas alone..
> But breeding a bunch of mutt tigers to make more and more with the hopes of saving them from extinction, is moot unless there is Wild to put them in.. Safe Wild.. it doenst exist anymore.. too many people.. too much poaching, chinese medicines etc..
> on a slightly different direction.. if you fight to save, say the Gorillas. They are a large species.. loved.. you fight for them and thier land and habitat.. you also help save many of the smaller creatures that also live where they live, but are less 'loved' or known. www.wildnet.org wildlife conservation network... if you want to get involved or help support this is a good one.. or Project Survival thru www.cathaven.com no rich CEO's no high overhead.. ALL your money doanted goes to the cause.



Laura, yours is an excellent post as well. However, I have to point out that conservation of large carnivores, such as big cats, is very difficult, not only because they require a lot of space and a reliable prey base, but also because they come into conflict with humans, because they not only occasionally prey on livestock, but they also injure or kill people from time to time.

Don't get me wrong: I would live to conserve big cats and other carnivores as well. But it's an uphill battle when local people are trying to protect their sheep, goats, or cattle, or when they lose their limbs or their life every now and then to a lion in Africa, a tiger in India, or even a cougar here in the West.

The best way for big cats and other large carnivores to survive is in the wilderness, as far away from humans as possible. Sadly, there is less wilderness available as humanity grows, so that means that it is getting harder for big cats to coexist with us.



batchick said:


> Absolutely right on the Gorillas. The keystone species idea is just that - if you save the big iconic species, then you make the chances better for the rest. There are some questions though about exactly how that works - what size remnant 'wild' works for a Gorilla? Which plants are necessary? And, then, do those principles work for all other species that co-exist there. But, in general it is a good principle and those kinds of projects need all the support they can get.
> 
> But, what about the small, un-iconic endemic to tiny areas species where there aren't Gorillas or Pandas or Blue Whales? We've got a species of frog near us that basically survives on three sites, one is the reserve inside a horse race course. Horse racing is going out of business since we got the Lottery. If developers want to buy up the race course and build on it, it is pretty well over for that frog. Do we try and save it?



Note - Charismatic megafauna serve as umbrella species, but they are not necessarily keystone species. Keystone species exert a disproportionately large influence on the ecosystem they live in - like beavers, which are fairly small and not particularly abundant, yet turn woodland streams into ponds, and attract all sorts of large animals, like moose and carnivores.

If gorillas were to go extinct, the forests they now live in probably wouldn't change that much, but it would be a tragedy to lose such intelligent animals.

As for that race course, that is an interesting case. Ironic that an endangered species should thrive in the middle of an institution devoted to exploiting animals. My suggestion: turn the abandoned race course into a preserve.


----------



## Pond_Lilly (Feb 6, 2012)

Zamric said:


> alot of our (Earths) endangered spieces are in Zoos and they do try to keep a viable breeding program for these unfortunate creatures.
> 
> 
> Sometimes it is good because their decline is because of mankinds interferance. Other times, like with the Panda it is the end of a genetic line that Nature has decided to delete (Pandas don't like each other, avoid each other, mate VERY Rarely and dont care for thier young) That is Natures way.
> ...



The "Mother Nature" argument has been evoke way too often imho. I have a major problem with that mainly because of the fact that humans have not figured out as of yet the complexities of fauna/flora plus ecosystems interplay. Someone said if gorillas would go extinct, the forest will remain. Well, it is way too simplistic approach to the issue. Those very few studies we have showed that biodiversity is a key to a healthy ecosystem because they have been perfected by eons of evolutionary changes and adaptations. Sure we can just have squirrels and crows, but would the ecosystem not be affected by that? We do not know. 

tl;dr biodiversity is the key for healthy ecosystem

Next, the role of humans in animals extinction. Again, many employ over simplistic approach and say, just let the panda be gone, who cares, its a species with narrow specialization, so be it. Let vaquita to be gone and Yangtze dolphin is gone forever already. The thing to think about is again, human hubris that assumes that we can pollute, destroy, kill and exterminate and then just wash our hands and blame it on mother nature and species (as usual blame the victims). The thing is, however that ecosystem and species are locked in sophisticated web, we are oblivious to. Even though we caused some direct damage, such as polluting or overfishing Yangtze, we are also causing tons of indirect damage that is harder to track and because of that it can be easily dismissed.Think how the greatest species extinction is currently underway in China and think about why.

For example, Florida manatees. Boats aside, they suffer and die in great numbers from the cold stress. Mother Nature some say, but I say not so fast. Historically, manatees have been going to hot springs by using routes their mothers taught them. Because many areas got developed, it completely messed up these routes. Next, the weather itself. Climate change is the reality and one of its manifestations is weather extremes, which is exactly what we had in Florida past few winters. So indirectly, once again humans' activities affect manatees. 

I would say that at this point in our civilization development, it is extremely hard to find some "pure" mother nature influences that have not have some human influences, direct or not. Perhaps, quakes, but some even say that increased seismic activities are due to insane oil and gas exploration where they destabilize sensitive areas or create voids by getting stuff out of the Earth.


----------



## GeoTerraTestudo (Feb 6, 2012)

Pond_Lilly said:


> The "Mother Nature" argument has been evoke way too often imho. I have a major problem with that mainly because of the fact that humans have not figured out as of yet the complexities of fauna/flora plus ecosystems interplay. Someone said if gorillas would go extinct, the forest will remain. Well, it is way too simplistic approach to the issue. Those very few studies we have showed that biodiversity is a key to a healthy ecosystem because they have been perfected by eons of evolutionary changes and adaptations. Sure we can just have squirrels and crows, but would the ecosystem not be affected by that? We do not know.
> 
> tl;dr biodiversity is the key for healthy ecosystem
> 
> ...



I would characterize your post as a form of what's known as the "Rivets Analogy to Nature," which has some pros and some cons to it.

The Rivets Analogy to Nature states that an ecosystem is like an airplane, in that it is put together by a bunch of small parts, and it can only withstand a certain number of those parts being removed before it can no longer fly. In the case of an airplane, those small parts are rivets; in the case of an ecosystem, they are species. If you remove a few rivets, a plane can still fly. But if you remove a whole bunch of rivets, the plane will crash. By extension, if you remove a few species, an ecosystem can persist. However, if you remove many species, the ecosystem will collapse. The point of this analogy is to admonish us to be careful about how we take apart ecosystems, because things may seem fine for a while, until we have taken out one piece too many, and then the whole thing falls apart, taking us down with it.

The analogy is a useful one, but it has its limitations. As I said, not all species have equal weight in an ecosystem. Thus, it's not only the number of rivets removed that matters, it's also which rivets, because some are in strategic places, and more critical to the performance of the system than others.

Again, it would be a tragedy to lose even those species that are not particularly influential, because so many organisms have value beyond their influence in a food web. But in terms of sustainability, some species can be reduced or even removed without affecting overall ecosystem composition or dynamics. The problem, of course, is that it is very difficult to know which species can be reduced, or by how much, without jeopardizing the integrity of the whole system.


----------



## DeanS (Feb 6, 2012)

If man had not intervened, several of today's species would already be gone...

African elephant (and quite possibly, the Asian elephant)
Asiatic lion
cheetah
African wild dog (which along with the African lion, was almost obliterated just by the introduction of domestic dogs...AWDs contracted rabies and 90% of Africa's big male lions died from distemper...the latter seems to be stabilizing...but the wild dog will probably be extinct in the wild before the cheetah)
giant panda
all tiger species
all gorilla species
all great whales

Need I continue?!?!

Most of China's remaining pandas are preserve-raised. These pandas are raised together...and get along quite well. They are separated at maturity...but are less aggressive at mating time than their ancestors were...because they have been behavior-modified to do so!


----------



## ascott (Feb 6, 2012)

Yet Dean....which of those animals would not have been forced to carry the burden in a negative manner in their life if not for mans behavior towards them and their environment to begin with? 

After all had the big bang not happen we humans could very well still be corner hiders chewing on our magnificent thumbs in fear....

Also..."I" feel that we as part of the species in our world are not equipped to be the ones to decide which rivet is more important than another....however the harm comes into play when we fool ourselves into thinking we are....


----------



## Zamric (Feb 6, 2012)

Mankind without a doupt has seriously dammaged many eco systems beyond repair. We have wiped out spieces and the lack of those will also take out others.

WE as a spieces are learning from our mistakes and will have to make amminds for those failures! But nothing can change the fact that MORE spieces WILL go extinct by "Mother Natures Call" simply because they can no longer exist without a spieces already gone by Our Hand or Natures. 

We can not "Make" these creatures evolve and adapt fast enough and if we could, they would no longer be what we where trying to save.


----------



## ascott (Feb 6, 2012)

> Mankind without a doupt has seriously dammaged many eco systems beyond repair. We have wiped out spieces and the lack of those will also take out others.
> 
> WE as a spieces are learning from our mistakes and will have to make amminds for those failures! But nothing can change the fact that MORE spieces WILL go extinct by "Mother Natures Call" simply because they can no longer exist without a spieces already gone by Our Hand or Natures.
> 
> We can not "Make" these creatures evolve and adapt fast enough and if we could, they would no longer be what we where trying to save.



Absolutely.


----------



## JacksonR (Feb 10, 2012)

I wouldn't say nature selected the panda to go extinct. Man* has destroyed its bamboo forest, and long ago even hunted them. They certainly do* care for their young....and they do* tolerate each other when breeding.


----------

