# Doomed to Extinction



## Rosemary (Apr 10, 2011)

*‘TOO LATE ‘ to save WA mammals'* 
by Jane Hammond of the Weekend West on April 9th.

The numbat, dibbler and Shark Bay mouse are among a growing list of endangered animals thought *too costly* to save from extinction.

The study by scientists from James Cook and Adelaide universities found that species that fall below a population of 5000 are so vulnerable to extinction that they are beyond saving and should be left to their own devices.

_I know there are so many other horrific problems throughout the world to deal with, but to just let these beautiful mammals become extinct because it is too costly, is beyond my comprehension._


----------



## Vertigo (Apr 10, 2011)

Whilst I sympathise with your thought there Rosemary, I think the reality of a lot of these cases, sad though it is, is that it really can be impractical to save some species. I do not know the details of these cases but typically when you are dealing with loss of habitat or the introduction of superior competition it just becomes mind-blowingly expensive to either recreate their habitat or eliminate the invader, and indeed may not even be possible any longer.

As I say deeply sad but possibly anavoidable.

I know I heard about work going on in I think Madagascar, to create rainforest corridoors to link separated populations of, I think, lemurs, necessary to prevent inbreeding and the inevitable dying our of their population. As I recall this involves the planting of literally millions of trees, and a timescale of something like 20 years and then another 10 or twenty before the trees are mature enough to be useful. The scale of such an undertaking is seriously intimidating.


----------



## skeptical (Apr 11, 2011)

Here in New Zealand, we have brought back from extinction several species whose numbers had fallen below 100.   

In fact, the Black Robin was down to one female at one stage, and now there are more than 200.
New Zealand Chatham Island Black Robin

We are in the middle of another such effort, which is showing every sign of being successful.  Saving the world's largest parrot - the kakapo.
Kakapo

I fail to see the 'logic' in the idea of abandoning species that can be saved.


----------



## woodsman (Apr 11, 2011)

Whilst low numbers make conservation harder it's no reason not to and not an insurmountable impediment. However, it's worth considering the allocation of resources. In the UK we've spent several million pounds on conservation projest for the Bittern. Whicih is on the face of it, worthwhile. There is potential though that the funds could have beendirectedin a fashion which benefited more species on a wider scale. Whilst I don't know exactly what is going on here, without unlimited funds there will always be some species which suffer whilst others benefit.

Sad -true, but likely unavoidable.


----------



## Daisy-Boo (Apr 11, 2011)

Thanks for the links _Skeptical_. Such interesting birds.


----------



## Vertigo (Apr 11, 2011)

The only thing there Skeptical is different species facing different problems will require significantly diffrerent funds to save it. Obviously I don't know the details of either Rosemary's or your cases but I guess the problems facing the mice were just too expensive.

The really sad fact is that we spend vast sums of money producing ways to kill each other and then spare none to save innocent species that have just gotten in our way. The human race has a serious priority problem if you ask me! If we could just stop with the killing, it is scary just how many resources would be released for improving the lot of both ourselves and our environment.


----------



## skeptical (Apr 11, 2011)

Vertigo

You can rejoice.  Pour yourself a celebratory glass of wine.   Your wish is coming true.  Violence is on the decrease.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk


----------



## Vertigo (Apr 11, 2011)

I'm familiar with the argument and I think it is almost certainly true. Pur history and pre-history is littered with levels of brutality that we can barely imagine today. But for a so called civilised society the progress is agonisingly slow . 

But hey that's a whole different subject and I don't want to take this thread off what is a very important topic. My apologies Rosemary.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 12, 2011)

We complain about termites and get rid of the Numbat. Typical. Aren't there still programs running at Perth Zoo for the Numbat and the Dibbler? Hope they don't read that study and decide to give up. Such unique and iconic animals deserve every chance we can give them.


----------



## OmahaRenegade (Apr 12, 2011)

Rosemary said:


> *‘TOO LATE ‘ to save WA mammals'*
> by Jane Hammond of the Weekend West on April 9th.
> 
> The numbat, dibbler and Shark Bay mouse are among a growing list of endangered animals thought *too costly* to save from extinction.
> ...



Such is survival of the fittest. The weak species die out and the strong survive. I can understand that if, like the Panda, humans hunted it to near extinction. But even then that animal should have to adaptation to overcome such dangers, ie.) higher birthrate in the species, better defensive/offensive traits. I like Pandas...but honestly they're going the way of the Dodo.

These mice are probably going to go away, and something will take it's place in the ecosystem. Honestly it's been happening for millions of years.


----------



## Starbeast (Apr 13, 2011)

It is always so sad when any creature living on Earth becomes extinct.


----------



## Metryq (Apr 14, 2011)

Let's not get too mushy here. As has been pointed out, uncounted numbers of species have become extinct over the course of the Earth's history without human help. While it is true that some species have been eliminated through human effort, it is not always a crime when some species vanishes, but sometimes crimes are committed in the name of the status quo:

*Killing Owls to Save Owls*



> Anyone remember the Great Spotted Owl Controversy? Back in the late 80s and early 90s, it was the first major instance of the environmental movement (with the cooperation of Al Gore and the Clinton administration) using the Endangered Species Act to accomplish their stealth goal — in this case driving productive mankind out of millions of acres of federally owned old-growth forest.
> 
> When a judge ruled that cutting down trees endangered the picky owl’s habitat and had to end, it sparked widespread protests and marches by soon-to-be out-of-work loggers.
> ...
> ...



Nature is not static, but some feel it should be. And anything that changes must be Man's fault.


----------



## mosaix (Apr 14, 2011)

Slightly off topic, but it appears that modern man was once close to extinction.

The dna of two individual humans has many more similarities than, say, two individual chimps. Scientists think that this is because the human population was once reduced, possibly, to as few as 100 individuals.


----------



## Vertigo (Apr 14, 2011)

I had heard that before Mosaix, but is that not just the "northern" humans. I believe it is only the case for non Africans and that the African population was unaffected by whatever caused it. If I am right it is possible that is is simply down to it having only been a very small population that managed to leave Africa in the early days (it is thought to be less than 200 that made it out). That might sound a bit extreme but actually at the time it would have been very difficult for primitive man to have left Africa as it was more or less surrounded by either water or desert and it is believed there was only a very short window of opportunity for leaving Africa via the Bab-el-Mandeb straits across the Red Sea, which due to lower sea levels at the time was a a considerably shorter crossing than now.

Recent African origin of modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## skeptical (Apr 14, 2011)

Both are true, Vertigo.
Europeans have even less genetic variability than Africans, but Africans have less than chimps.   The idea that once (before emmigration to Europe and Asia), the human species was very low in numbers is now pretty widely accepted by scientists.


----------



## Vertigo (Apr 15, 2011)

OK I had heard about it; just wasn't sure if it was before or after the emmigration from Africa, thanks!


----------



## OmahaRenegade (Apr 15, 2011)

Metryq said:


> Let's not get too mushy here. As has been pointed out, uncounted numbers of species have become extinct over the course of the Earth's history without human help. While it is true that some species have been eliminated through human effort, it is not always a crime when some species vanishes, but sometimes crimes are committed in the name of the status quo:
> 
> *Killing Owls to Save Owls*
> 
> ...



Yes, when it doubt man is bad 
Normally it's just nature doing its thing.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Apr 16, 2011)

Sh*t happens. Get used to it. It's going to happen to us, too ...


----------



## Rosemary (Apr 16, 2011)

I know they have their own little notch in the food-chain and are taken by other native fauna.  Perhaps I should have mentioned that these little creatures are now mainly hunted by introduced vermin, such as the fox and feral cat.  

I don't see that as 'nature doing it's thing'!  Completely all the fault of humans is my personal opinion.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 16, 2011)

An Essay on Life

I would like to point out the unique nature of the entire Australian ecosystem. The world's driest inhabited continent has created (in an evolutionary sense) a different approach to survival than that seen in countries richer in basic resources such as water, reliable rainfall and young, fertile soils; restraint. 

In the short term introduced species do very well here as they lack the restraints our native species have developed in order to survive in the long term. It is due to these restraints that Australia harbours an extraordinary diversity of endemic plants, mammals (mostly marsupial), reptiles, birds, frogs, insects and even monotremes, despite 75% of the land mass being either arid or semiarid.

In the case of Australia, "too bad so sad - survival of the fittest" is all very well - but in the short term view only. Humans introduce feral animals and plants from the resource-rich climes of Europe - these species outcompete the native species - the natives die off. Such is life. But in Australia, in the longer term this cycle continues until everything dies. A species that breeds quickly, consumes large amounts of resources, and grows quickly, will sooner or later hit the wall in a country where resources are husbanded carefully because they are scarce. Biodiversity will plummet as the resources required for the introduced species to survive are consumed faster than they can be replaced (many Australian plants, for instance, require fire to germinate their seeds, or even fire and then flood - seeds can sleep in the soil for years waiting for the right conditions - and most of the semiarid and arid species of tree and bush are slow-growing because of the lack of water and the heat). This process is already nicely underway in Australia, which is why efforts are being made to conserve threatened species and control pest species.

Which brings us to the question, why is biodiversity valuable? Obviously its valuable to Nature. Just as she abhors a vacuum, she also strives towards diversity (I'm being poetic - I am not really ascribing personality and intention to Nature - it is merely a way of describing what happens in the natural world). Australia (and NZ is a smaller but no less excellent example) are showcases of what Nature can achieve when certain constrictions are applied, when the broad palette is just not there. In Australia's case we have geographical isolation, low rainfall, infertile soils, variable climate and a tendency to extreme weather - flash flooding, prolonged drought, bushfires, cyclones in the northern half). Some of those achievements are truly remarkable - here are a few that spring to my very-amateur-naturalist's mind:

*the diapause in kangaroos - the embryo can be put into "suspended animation" for a lengthy period until conditions improve (ie enough water) and the joey is more likely to survive. Other remarkable reproductive adaptations to the harsh climate include males not producing sperm if it is too dry, and the female's ability to simultaneously produce two different kinds of milk, enabling her to feed an older joey "at foot" and a young joey "in pouch".
*the continuing survival of monotremes, those most primitive of mammals, who lay reptilian-style eggs yet suckle their young
*development of the highly energy-efficient hopping gait of the macropod family (kangaroos, wallabies, etc), enabling them to cover large distances at much faster than walking pace using hardly more energy.
*the incredible reduced brain of the Koala, which has nearly half its cranial cavity filled with fluid - another energy-saving method (the brain takes a lot of energy to maintain), enabling the Koala to survive almost completely on nutritionally poor, toxic eucalyptus leaves (cute as button thick as plank).

Nature in Australia has selected for efficiency, broadly speaking. Low consumption, slow growth. Lots of flowering hardwoods, not many large mammals, hardly any large carnivores, a plethora of small, efficient creatures, insects, birds, reptiles. Plants that flower after rain, or don't flower if rain doesn't come. Frogs that burrow deep underground and sleep, suspended, until the rain comes. The world's only dryland moundbuilding bird, who lives off the moisture of dew and insects (endangered because of foxes). It is a system with very specific checks and balances against overpopulation and resource wastage.

This diversity can only exist on its own terms -the terms that created it. When creatures are brought in that evolved under completely different terms - terms where resources can be fought over, where survival depends on the swift hunter, the agile runner, the quickly-growing plant - those creatures will ultimately destroy the fragile balance of this very specific biodiversity.

The animals Rosemary named all have their little jobs to do. In the case of the Numbat, no one else does that job (specialised termite eater). I guess the termites won't mind. Should we? All three of the animals named are largely under threat because of predation - the fox and the cat, both introduced predators. They did not evolve in Australia and the only equivalent Australian predator (the various members of the marsupial Quoll family, the largest of which is cat-sized) breeds more much slowly and is short-lived. (Quolls are all threatened species themselves of course). But what will the cats and foxes, those quick-breeding, effective hunters, do when they have eaten all the native birds and small mammals? The three mentioned by Rosemary are the tip of the iceberg. Survival of the fittest won't help the introduced species when they have nothing to eat. Eventually that's what it will come to. And the terms will not have changed: Australia will still be the world's driest inhabited continent, with poor soils, variable climate, erratic rainfall, extreme weather tendencies. And when all the "easy food" is gone, the hungry ferals, the rabbits and goats and pigs and cats and foxes, will eat eachother and die, because they have no constraints on their breeding (quite the contrary), or their eating habits (natives tend to have more efficient digestive systems or more generalised diets, leading to less plant degradation and less predator kills). Valuable lesson of nature there? Efficiency = doomed to failure. Greed = self-defeating. Restraint = really valuable in hindsight.

Meanwhile a completely unique ecosystem will be gone. If you think I'm exaggerating look into it a bit. Parts of it will survive but not in health (even huge gum trees have been found to suffer from parasites and die prematurely when the tiny insectivorous birds - the ones the cats love - leave an area). 

Being such a self-involved species as we are, we often use Mother Nature for our own purposes. We study her for insights to help us live longer, cure diseases, tackle engineering problems and environmental problems. Can we learn from the embryonic diapause of kangaroos? From their highly efficient digestive systems that produce almost no methane, though they eat mostly grass? From the termite resistant native pines? We use eucalyptus oil and tea tree oil (antifungal and antibacterial, that one), we love macadamias. What else will we discover? What does it take before we value an ecosystem?

I'm with you Rosemary. Humans caused it, humans should be responsible. And seeing that nature is resilient, and change is part of life, anything we can do to give the natives time to adapt is never a waste.


----------



## Metryq (Apr 16, 2011)

Excellent post, Procrastinator. I take all your points as you intended and agree that sometimes Mankind is to blame for upsetting ecosystems. However, I also wanted to comment on the phrase "survival of the fittest" which gets bandied around with little thought as to what it means. The man in the street might automatically say it means the creature with the fastest reflexes, greatest strength, biggest teeth and claws, etc.

In Australia, those that are "fittest" are obviously the ones winnowed by nature to have certain conservative traits. When they are gone and the extreme predators die off, a new ecosystem of creatures will adapt to Australia and start that part of the cycle over again. The planet has done it countless times. The amount of time that would take, on a human scale, amounts to "never." 

Our brains make us the most potentially adaptable animal on the planet, which is why we can be a nuisance to all the rest. All too often Mankind has forced the _environment_ to adapt to _him_. At the moment Mankind knows just enough to be dangerous, but I think we're finally getting around to actually using our brains—otherwise this whole thread would never have started.


----------



## skeptical (Apr 16, 2011)

In fact, I think the 'wonderful biodiversity' of Australia  (debatable - apart from marsupials, it is no better than, say, Africa) - is mostly a result of the minimal effect of humans until recently.   However, even Australia has had its human generated extinction event.  About 50,000 years ago, over 100 megafauna species died out.  Giant kangaroos, marsupial lions and many others.   Coincident with the arrival and dispersal of the first humans in Australia.

The Pacific Islands, 12,000 years ago, had the most wonderful bird diversity on planet Earth.   The Polynesians colonised by canoe, and 2,000 species were rendered extinct.   A similar event happened in the Caribbean.  In America, the arrival of humans caused a massive die off of mega fauna - just like Australia.  For Europe, the date is further back.  But where is the European lion?  The Irish elk?   Even our cousins, the Neanderthals?   and so on.

Here in New Zealand, things were much more recent, since humans did not set foot here till 1200 AD.  Up until then, we had giant moa, giant eagle, adzebirds, and so on, very common.   Within 150 years of the arrival of the first humans, 36 species of bird, including all the largest, and many other non-avian species, were gone for ever.

Only in Africa do we fail to see this pattern. That is because humans evolved in Africa, and the ecology had changed to adapt to the presense of humans long ago.

I think the common thread is pretty damn obvious.   Modern man often feels guilt about extinctions.  Our ancestors did much worse!   At least modern man is making efforts to prevent further extinctions, and encourage native ecologies.   More power to those efforts!


----------



## mosaix (May 5, 2011)

mosaix said:


> Slightly off topic, but it appears that modern man was once close to extinction.
> 
> The dna of two individual humans has many more similarities than, say, two individual chimps. Scientists think that this is because the human population was once reduced, possibly, to as few as 100 individuals.



This was referred to in New Scientist last month. The figure they mentioned was 'in the low thousands'.


----------

