the fabrication of animal extinction.

[waruikazi]

Greg Miles wrote this in response to this article about the true rate of animal extinction, Species loss almost twice as slow as thought - Australian Geographic

I have written on this before end repeat it below.

I don't like this emphasis on
the word EXTINCTION. It is like anything less that absolute extinction is OK.

What Hubblle et al have done is apply
academic narrowness to the debate. This is an important problem with science in
my view. This problem emerges when people focus down onto a small aspect of
something and under such forensic examination, the big picture gets lost. And
yet it is the Big Picture that counts.
So, to respond at the simplest
level to this item I would argue that the absolute number of extinctions that
have happened in the past 200 years, or ten years, is not all that
important.
What is important is 'trending'.
IE how is the extinction thing trending. Up, down or flat? And what are the
drivers of extinction? And how are these drivers
trending?

I would argue that what IS important is the
number of species that are at risk of extinction. I believe that right around
the world we are just seeing the tip of an emerging iceberg in terms of
extinctions.

Firstly I would argue that (in terms of
conservation of species) by the time an animal becomes rare (or 'near
threatened' in jargon) it is already nearly too late. In other words Hubbell is
putting emphasis on absolute extinctions, when in fact he should be worrying
about the status of a species long before it becomes extinct or even rare
(Assuming that Humans are the cause of this rareness). This is because
the importance of a species on our planet is not whether or not it is extinct,
but whether or not it can fulfill its evolutionary role in the natural
environment. What the Cane Toad has done in north Australia is a great example
of this. Using Hubbell's measure, the toad is not a problem as it has not
caused one extinction (as far as we know). But this fails to recognise that the
Cane Toad has single handedly removed Quolls, Goannas, Phascogales, Death
Adders, King Brown Snakes and Olive Pythons etc. from the natural ecological
processes. As far as the landscape is concerned it does not matter a rats bum
if these species are technically 'extinct'. This is because they are now
PRACTICALLY extinct, in terms of their role in the landscape. This is called
Ecological Extinction.

Then, when you add the African Grasses and
Mimosa and Salvinia to the equasion - it is easy to see that in 50 years there
will be stacks of other species reduced to "ecological extinction". But maybe
Hubbell sees this as OK? In the whole of arid Australia from Port Augusta in
the south to Ningaloo in the west and Longreach in the east, we see Buffell
Grass doing the same as African Grasses in the north. But this is
OK because Buffell Grass may not cause any absolute extinctions?!!!

In fact, most of our conservation efforts
need to be focussed on Near Threatened species; not those that are close to
extinction. For these, it is already too late. Those that are close to
extinction should be the subject of captive breeding programs, but I would call
these "Counter Extinction" strategies, not "Conservation"
strategies.

Next we have the problem of all species not
being equal. So if people are arguing that 'reports of our extinctions have
been exaggerated', one need to look at what species are involved - to put this
into a relevant context. EG would you give equal weight to the extinction of
the Cape York Pin-striped Land Snail and the Sumatran Rhinoceros? It may be
very anthropocentric of me, but I would rather see the Rhino saved than the
snail. Or Orang-utans vs the Centralian Rock Rat? So, I think that most people
would agree with me that what species go extinct is, more important than
how many. As another example - the Top End of the NT appears to have had a
shocking extinction rate amongst our land snails. Probably due to human induced
changes in fire regimes. But you don't read much about that. But you do hear
about what toads have done to quolls.


Ah - but you might argue that we are just
putting a human biased value on what is important or not - quolls are prettier
than land snails.


OK, then lets look at it from a purely
ecological point of view: Are all species equal in the eyes of nature (not
humans)? Ask your self - is one of these more important than another if they go
extinct: - the Pin-striped land Snail or Antarctic krill?!!!!!!

I could go on about things such
as:

• How do you determine if something is extinct or not?
  This is not easy and can take decades.
• Are we including microbiological species in the ledger,
  or only animals we can see?
• Are we - as custodians of the earth - going to be happy
  in the knowledge that all we have to worry about are the numbers of absolute
  extinctions and not about all those thousands of spp. which are being reduced to
  Ecological Extinction?
• What about the problem of regional extinctions? NSW has
  lost Eastern Quolls which still persist in Vic. Should NSW be happy about
  that?

but Iwon't.

--
Greg Miles

 

[SnakeNBake]

Thanks mate, good read. He has some thought provoking ideas.