Animals that desperately need our help!

[animal_expert01]

Ok this thread is where you post what animals have no chance of surviving the next 15 years. Ok here is my list...

Northern white rhinoceros (4 left)

Yangtze giant soft shell turtle (4 left

Javan rhino (between 70 to 15 animals left)

South China tiger (between 50 to 10 animals left)

Amur leopard (between 80 to 30 left)

Ethiopian wolf (between 500 and 100)

Saola (estimated to be less than 700)

 

[devilfish]

Only 4 Northern white rhino now left.

King cheetah are unlikely to 'die out' given that they're cheetahs with a genetic mutation rather than a threatened taxon in their own right. If anything, they're becoming more common with growing interest from private keepers in the Middle East.
There are many more than 10 at the moment.

 

[animal_expert01]

Ok I have removed them from the list

 

[Chlidonias]

you also need to modify your time-frame. None of these species will become extinct in the next one or two years (the only two which would be possible are the rhino and turtle).

 

[DavidBrown]

Ok this thread is where you post what animals have no chance of surviving the next 15 years. Ok here is my list...

Northern white rhinoceros (4 left)

Yangtze giant soft shell turtle (4 left

Javan rhino (between 70 to 15 animals left)

South China tiger (between 50 to 10 animals left)

Amur leopard (between 80 to 30 left)

Ethiopian wolf (between 500 and 100)

Saola (estimated to be less than 700)

How do you know that some of these species have no chance of surviving? There are several packs of Ethiopian wolves in protected areas. Amur leopard numbers are increasing and there is a captive assurance population. There are intensive conservation actions being undertaken for saola and Javan rhinos.

 

[animal_expert01]

It's animals that you think have no chance of surviving

 

[Arizona Docent]

The Ethiopian wolf (I think, not sure) has always had a relatively small population and exists only in one region. As far as I know they are relatively well protected and I see no reason for them not to continue into the foreseeable future.

Amur leopard as stated has a good captive insurance population. The wild population has been stuck around thirty for at least one or two decades, so while this is tiny they seem to not be declining at least. There is a new effort to bolster the wild population with captive stock, so I am quite hopeful they will rebound.

South China tiger (which may or may not be a valid subspecies) exists only in captivity for quite some time and I see no reason why the captive population would die out. As you may or may not know there is a recent rewilding and breeding compound set up in South Africa (though this is not without controversy).

 

[Arizona Docent]

I think many of us know that the group (I forget the correct term, is it phylum?) which is in the most trouble as a whole are amphibians. I do not know the names of many specific amphibians, but I fear there is a long list of them that would qualify for the category of no chance of survival.

 

[TheMightyOrca]

I think many of us know that the group (I forget the correct term, is it phylum?) which is in the most trouble as a whole are amphibians. I do not know the names of many specific amphibians, but I fear there is a long list of them that would qualify for the category of no chance of survival.

I too am concerned about amphibians.

As for some specific species... I really, really hate to admit it, but I don't have much hope for the vaquita. Conservation is gonna have to go pretty hardcore to save them, and I fear that won't happen in time... The population is estimated at less than a 100, and may be lower than 50. Some researchers are doing a survey right now.

 

[savethelephant]

Athough there are only 4 (or another really small number) now, if conservation allowes it, the whole species could come back.
For example- Bison in wild: Only had 22 and 300 in total individuals
Mauritius Kestrel- Only 4 individuals and 1 breeding pair and now they have gone from extinct to endangered.
Pere david deer, mongolian wild horse, Panamanian golden frog, etc... Are all conservation success stories where it seemed hopeless until people decided that they wanted to save this species.
So never say a species is completely hopeless.(Unless of course the remaining individuals are all one sex...)

 

[Azamat Shackleford]

Hainan gibbon: only 25 or so left

Rabb's fringe-lipped tree frog: 1 left!

 

[lintworm]

The Ethiopian wolf (I think, not sure) has always had a relatively small population and exists only in one region. As far as I know they are relatively well protected and I see no reason for them not to continue into the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately there are only 2 wild populations that are long term viable, the largest occuring in the Bale mountains, which is a national park on paper, but was never officially gazetted (so far for Ethiopia's work on conservation) and export of wild animals is prohibited (to it is legal to hunt mountain nyala...). If large mammal extinctions will take place in Africa then it will be in Somalia / Ethiopia....

 

[ZooElephantMan]

Do people think that Northern White Rhinos will be saved by cloning or is it a losses cause? (Just wanting opinions)

 

[Spixii]

Javan rhino (between 70 to 15 animals left)

The population is regularly reproducing. It is confirmed and widely accepted to be at more than 70 animals at this point. They are successfully planting vegetation which is consumed by Javan Rhino.
As well as implementing a secondary habitat.
Unless Mt. Ujong Kulong erupts violently, the Javan rhino is not going anywhere. Definitely not with in 1-2 or 15 years.

 

[dublinlion]

I am convinced that the days are numbered for all the rhino species unless there is a rapid change in the medical/cultural beliefs of people from china/indochina. There is so much money to be made that as the few remaining wild ones disappear, then even reserve and zoo animals will be targeted and it will become ever harder to protect them. A while ago an Irish zoo had to put extra security to guard the rhinos through the night as there was a gang breaking into museums to steal specimen horns. Money talks loudest.

 

[wildzoo]

When you think people wiped out mega fauna on all other continents except Africa you realize mega fauna doesn't co-exist with people. We aren't lamenting the extinct Rhinos of Siberia. Only because your witnessing it in your life time does it seem a shame to lose them. Truth is extinction has been happening all through out history. Extinction is a natural and normal part of life. The truth hurts but someone had to say it.

I would make suggestions for possible ways to save these Rhino but any reply I do make on here will only get shot down. And that is precisely the reason why we find ourselves with animals going extinct. Because people who are involved in animal conservation don't listen to anyone but themselves. If they were open to more ideas, such as allowing the keeping of said animals as pets, perhaps viable captive populations could have been established.

But it's too late for that now. Now we will never know.

 

[DDcorvus]

When you think people wiped out mega fauna on all other continents except Africa you realize mega fauna doesn't co-exist with people. We aren't lamenting the extinct Rhinos of Siberia. Only because your witnessing it in your life time does it seem a shame to lose them. Truth is extinction has been happening all through out history. Extinction is a natural and normal part of life. The truth hurts but someone had to say it.

I would make suggestions for possible ways to save these Rhino but any reply I do make on here will only get shot down. And that is precisely the reason why we find ourselves with animals going extinct. Because people who are involved in animal conservation don't listen to anyone but themselves. If they were open to more ideas, such as allowing the keeping of said animals as pets, perhaps viable captive populations could have been established.

But it's too late for that now. Now we will never know.

Actually Asia has coexisted with most of their megafauna till now. Only now the megafauna populations are crashing. So saying that they cannot coexist while they did for thousands of years is contradictory. And keeping rhinos in a pet situation is not going to save them.

And conservationists do tend to listen to people outside of their field if they come with good arguments. But I am curious about your proposals for rhino conservation.

 

[Batto]

When you think people wiped out mega fauna on all other continents except Africa you realize mega fauna doesn't co-exist with people.

What DDcorvus already said.

Extinction is a natural and normal part of life. The truth hurts but someone had to say it.

Extinction of species is indeed a part of life. Artifical anthropogenic accerlation of this process, however, isn't.

I would make suggestions for possible ways to save these Rhino but any reply I do make on here will only get shot down. And that is precisely the reason why we find ourselves with animals going extinct.

Less hurt ego, less hubris, please. Species go extinct for various reasons, quite often in correlation with human consumerism. Bickering on a little zoo fan internet forum hasn't wiped out any species so far.

If they were open to more ideas, such as allowing the keeping of said animals as pets, perhaps viable captive populations could have been established.

Rhinos are lousy pets:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA3QfPXVVr8

What you seem to forget in your endorsement for (commercialized) ex-situ conservation is that husbandry changes animals in various, sometimes far-reaching ways. By eliminating external pressures such as predators, parasites, hunger, competition for food/mates etc. while introducing others (constant contact to humans, food replacement, different climates etc.), we change the animals in our care. Sometimes subtly, sometimes with ostentation (colour morphs, for example). More or less unwillingly, we domesticate, allowing "the runts of the litters" to reproduce.
Let me illustrate this to you by a simple example: let's say we catch 15 specimens of an endangered species of gazelle from the wild to establish an ex-situ founding population. During capture, five animals die due to stress of capture, traumatic injuries etc. In the introduction and establishment period, another five die due to various reasons (diseases, age, stress, injuries, miscarriages, intraspecific aggression, malnutrition etc.). In the end, we have five specimens that seem to have settled well and maybe even start to breed steadily. But are these the specimens that will provide optimal offspring for future reintroductions? Or have we (unwillingly) seeded out the most skittish (not the worst attitude when you're preyed upon in the wild) and are now keeping and reproducing animals that are calmer and thus better suited for captivity, yet not consequently for reintroduction? Unfortunately, our scenario ends as our gazelles contract paratuberculosis from a group of closeby kept goats and can therefore never be reintroduced. Interspecific disease transfer is still quite an issue in ex-situ husbandries, in particular in zoos.

So is ex-situ breeding always a bad thing? No. Depending on the species and situation, it has its merits (very often in collaboration with experienced private breeders). It's just not an universal cure-all.

 

[wildzoo]

Actually Asia has coexisted with most of their megafauna till now. Only now the megafauna populations are crashing. So saying that they cannot coexist while they did for thousands of years is contradictory. And keeping rhinos in a pet situation is not going to save them.

And conservationists do tend to listen to people outside of their field if they come with good arguments. But I am curious about your proposals for rhino conservation.

I am talking about in general. Geez. Why do you then go use the one example where this is an exception and make out my argument is contradictory. The Americas, Europe, North Asia and Australiasia are a large chunk of the world last time I checked.

What DDcorvus already said.


Extinction of species is indeed a part of life. Artifical anthropogenic accerlation of this process, however, isn't.



Less hurt ego, less hubris, please. Species go extinct for various reasons, quite often in correlation with human consumerism. Bickering on a little zoo fan internet forum hasn't wiped out any species so far.


Rhinos are lousy pets:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA3QfPXVVr8

What you seem to forget in your endorsement for (commercialized) ex-situ conservation is that husbandry changes animals in various, sometimes far-reaching ways. By eliminating external pressures such as predators, parasites, hunger, competition for food/mates etc. while introducing others (constant contact to humans, food replacement, different climates etc.), we change the animals in our care. Sometimes subtly, sometimes with ostentation (colour morphs, for example). More or less unwillingly, we domesticate, allowing "the runts of the litters" to reproduce.
Let me illustrate this to you by a simple example: let's say we catch 15 specimens of an endangered species of gazelle from the wild to establish an ex-situ founding population. During capture, five animals die due to stress of capture, traumatic injuries etc. In the introduction and establishment period, another five die due to various reasons (diseases, age, stress, injuries, miscarriages, intraspecific aggression, malnutrition etc.). In the end, we have five specimens that seem to have settled well and maybe even start to breed steadily. But are these the specimens that will provide optimal offspring for future reintroductions? Or have we (unwillingly) seeded out the most skittish (not the worst attitude when you're preyed upon in the wild) and are now keeping and reproducing animals that are calmer and thus better suited for captivity, yet not consequently for reintroduction? Unfortunately, our scenario ends as our gazelles contract paratuberculosis from a group of closeby kept goats and can therefore never be reintroduced. Interspecific disease transfer is still quite an issue in ex-situ husbandries, in particular in zoos.

So is ex-situ breeding always a bad thing? No. Depending on the species and situation, it has its merits (very often in collaboration with experienced private breeders). It's just not an universal cure-all.

Do you have any idea how frustrating it is for someone to listen to you say this. And then if an animal was in immediate danger of extinction, such as the Tasmanian Devil, you would say it was ok to breed animals ex-situ for the purposes of conservation.

Why is it ok to breed any animal ex-situ and claim it is conservation? It is not. It's interference at best.

So your saying a large chunk of rock hurtling out of space and hitting the earth is an ok form of extinction; while anything human induced is not. Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds? The large chunk of rock is hardly any different to what we see today with humans.

I state my opinions as they come to me. Then people here shout them down every time. There has been no bickering on my part until today.

You talk about changes arising in the animals due to ex-situ breeding but you fail to recognize that once given the opportunity to live in the wild animals tend to revert back to a wild state. We see this with pigs. We see this with bees.

What’s Happening To The Bees? – Part 5: Is There A Difference Between Domesticated And Feral Bees? @ Scientific Beekeeping

Do what you want. I can see now why so many people don't care about animal conservation.

What you conservationists are doing is not working- yet you keep doing it. If that is not telling you something then I don't know what will.

 

[Batto]

The Americas, Europe, North Asia and Australiasia are a large chunk of the world last time I checked.

So is Asia. Omitting it was a general flaw in your argumentation.

Do you have any idea how frustrating it is for someone to listen to you say this.

You're not "listening", you're reading, as my statement was written, not spoken. Wrong verbs, mate. Some might find your constant omittance of question marks at the end of questions rather frustrating, too...

And then if an animal was in immediate danger of extinction, such as the Tasmanian Devil, you would say it was ok to breed animals ex-situ for the purposes of conservation [?]

If the situation requires it, yes. One shouldn't rely on it as an only option, though. Suitable in-situ options should be considered first.

Why is it ok to breed any animal ex-situ and claim it is conservation? It is not. It's interference at best.

You have to differentiate: is it a professional long-term project in which experts on said species/population are seriously involved? Or is it just a fancy label hastily added to justify breeding (cue ""White tiger")? Both might be considered as "interference"-but their individual effects and results will differ significantly.

So your saying a large chunk of rock hurtling out of space and hitting the earth is an ok form of extinction; while anything human induced is not. Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds? The large chunk of rock is hardly any different to what we see today with humans.

I beg to differ; despite the usual misanthropist's rant, humans aren't a natural disaster, but part of Earth's ecosystem. As such, we're part of the bigger picture-and therefore responsible for preserving its diversity. One could argue that saving a species such as the Montserrat oriole from threatening volcanic activities is unnecessary interference; I'd say it's justified.

And do you really think the global human population would not try everything to prevent the meteroite from crashing? We, as a species, don't like accepting defeat (explaining the popularity of the "Rocky" franchise ).

I state my opinions as they come to me. Then people here shout them down every time. There has been no bickering on my part until today.

Maybe you should think your inspirations and opinions through before announcing them. Then you would not be "shouted down". And sorry, but your previous correspondence on this forum with various discussion partners has not been all too friendly...

You talk about changes arising in the animals due to ex-situ breeding but you fail to recognize that once given the opportunity to live in the wild animals tend to revert back to a wild state. We see this with pigs. We see this with bees.

Dedomestication isn't an universal solution and not easily appliable to all species, may they be wild or already domesticated. Important traits, genetic diverdity as well as species-/habitat-specific adaptions and characteristics are lost. Animal losses due inadequate adaption can be very high or even devastate whole populations-something animal right activists will hardly tolerate.

So far, feral horses, dogs or cattle have not miraculously turned into tarpans, wolves or auerochs. Sometimes, these ferals can be useful to more or less successfully fill vacant ecological niches as replacements. But like in everday life, the "originals" tend to do a better job in this.

Do what you want. I can see now why so many people don't care about animal conservation.
What you conservationists are doing is not working- yet you keep doing it. If that is not telling you something then I don't know what will.

What I see here is a (presumably young) enthusiastic person who does not want to see the faults of his/her reasoning-and has a monumental chip on the shoulder when corrected. Get over this attitude, and everyone will benefit.

At least in rich countries, people care a lot about animal conservation. But as in many other things, they bicker over inanities, with drastic results for efficiency. This discussion is just one among many...