Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach, title from a Paula Abdul quote
The backstory for today’s adventure is that this is the first scientific question I seriously researched. It is also the reason I don’t trust the “experts” or the “consensus”. In 1988, E. O. Wilson, an ant expert with little knowledge of extinction, made a startling claim that extinction rates were through the roof. He claimed there was a “Sixth Wave” of extinctions going on, and that we were losing a huge amount, 2.7% of all the species per year. This claim quickly went viral and soon was believed by everyone. So back in 2003, a decade ago now, I researched the question, found that Wilson was wrong by orders of magnitude, wrote it up, sent it around to the journals to see if they would publish it, and … well, let me just say that I was not received kindly. I was a voice crying in the wilderness. They didn’t give me a look-in, I was challenging the consensus. As far as I know, I was the only one saying that Emperor Wilson had no clothes … and as a result, I was not encouraged to continue publicizing my views.
But the world goes on, and three years ago I simplified and streamlined my work and published it as a post on WUWT entitled “Where Are The Corpses“. In it, I argued that there was no “Sixth Wave” of extinctions, that Wilson’s numbers were wildly exaggerated, and that current extinction rates (except in isolated islands and Australia) are not unusual in any way. Dr. Craig Loehle rewrote and developed the ideas, and he got it peer-reviewed and published in Diversity and Distributions, available here. Craig wrote about it in a post entitled “New paper from Loehle & Eschenbach shows extinction data has been wrongly blamed on climate change due to island species sensitivity“. Title says it all …
Figure 1. Stacked graph of total historical bird and mammal extinctions by year. This charts of the spread of European species (foxes, cats, rabbits, dogs, humans, weeds, diseases, etc.) to Australia and the islands. The earliest extinctions are from the time Europeans arrived in the Caribbean. There is a second wave of exploration and settlement in the 1700s. Finally, the spread of empires in the 1800’s led to the peak rates around the turn of the last century. Since then, the rates have dropped.
Having written so early and so extensively to try to debunk the claims of massive extinction rates and the bogus “sixth wave of extinction” hyped by the alarmists, I was pleased to receive a note from Anthony pointing out the publication of a new study in Science magazine (paywalled, naturally) entitled Can We Name Earth’s Species Before They Go Extinct? It’s gotten lots of media attention, mostly due to the fact that in the Abstract, they say that estimates of extinction rates are way overblown. My emphasis:
Some people despair that most species will go extinct before they are discovered. However, such worries result from overestimates of how many species may exist, beliefs that the expertise to describe species is decreasing, and alarmist estimates of extinction rates.
I must say, seeing that phrase “alarmist estimates of extinction rates” in Science made me smile, it was a huge vindication. However, I fear that they still have not grasped the nettle. I say that because at the end of the paper they say:
Conclusion
The estimates of how many species are on Earth (5 ± 3 million) are now more accurate than the moderate predictions of extinction rates (0.01 to 1% per decade). The latter suggest 500 to 50,000 extinctions per decade if there are 5 million species on Earth.
Why do I think that their conclusion is so badly flawed?
Like many modern scientists, rather than trying to find the most probable, they simply assume the worst. So they give their calculations assuming a 1% decadal extinction rate. Here’s the problem. That’s no more believable than Wilson’s 2.7% per decade rate. There are about 3,300 mammal species living on the continents (excluding Australia). If we assume that one percent of them go extinct per decade, that would mean that we should be seeing about 33 continental mammal extinctions per decade. It’s worse for birds, a 1% extinction rate for birds would be about 80 continental birds per decade. We have seen absolutely nothing even vaguely resembling that. That’s only slightly below Wilson’s estimate of a 2.7% extinction rate, and is still ridiculously high.
Instead of 33 mammals and 80 birds going extinct on the continents per decade, in the last 500 years on the great continental landmasses of the world, we’ve only seen three mammals and six birds go extinct. Only nine continental mammal and bird species are known to have gone extinct in 500 years. Three mammals and six birds in 500 years, that’s less than one continental mammal extinction per century, and these highly scientific folks are claiming that 30 mammals and 80 birds are going extinct per decade? … once again I’m forced to ask, where are the corpses?
This kind of world-blindness astounds me. I’ve heard of living in an ivory tower, but if you were making the claim that it’s raining, wouldn’t you at least look out the ivory windows to see if water were actually falling from the sky? How can you seriously claim that we’re losing dozens and dozens of species per year when there is absolutely no sign of that in the records?
Because the reality is that despite humans cutting down the forests of the world at a rate of knots for hundreds and hundreds of years, despite clearcutting for lumber, despite slash-and-burn, despite conversions to cropland, despite building hundreds of thousands of miles of roads and fences, despite everything … only nine continental mammal and bird species have gone extinct.
That gives us actual, not theoretical but actual, estimates of the historical extinction rates for continental birds and animals. For continental mammals that works out to 3 extinctions per 3,300 continental mammal species per 50 decades equals 0.002% per decade, somewhat below their low estimate of 0.01% per decade. For birds, it’s 6 extinctions per 8000 continental species per 50 decades, which is only slightly lower. If we assume that we’ve missed four out of five of the historical extinctions, very unlikely but I suppose possible, it still works out to only about 0.01%.
So their very lowest estimate, that of an extinction rate of 0.01% per decade, turns out to be a maximum estimate of what we’ve seen on the continents over the last five centuries.
Now, this does not include the islands and Australia. Rates there have historically been quite high. But the high historical rates there, as shown above in Figure 1, are the result of what might be called “First Contact”—the first introduction of numbers of European plants, animals, and diseases to previously isolated areas. But in 2013, there are few islands on the planet that haven’t seen First Contact. As a result, the extinction rates on the islands and in Australia, while still higher than on the continents, are extremely unlikely to have another peak such as they had at First Contact.
Finally, let me say that the low extinction rates should not be any cause for complacency. What my studies have shown is that the real threat to mammal and bird species is not habitat reduction, as incorrectly claimed for the last couple decades. The real extinction threat to birds and mammals is now and always has been predation, either by humans, or by imported “alien” species, particularly on islands. Hunting by humans threatens bonobo chimpanzees and other primates, as well as tigers, rhinoceros, and other mammal and bird species. Hunting is the extinction threat, not habitat destruction, and always has been, whether the hunters were animals or humans.
CODA
People are always giving me grief about how I’m not getting with the picture, I’m not following the herd, I’m not kowtowing to the consensus. I have no problem doing that, particularly given my experience regarding extinctions. For years I was the only person I knew of who was making the claim that E. O. Wilson should have stuck to his ants and left extinctions alone. Wherever I looked scientists disagreed with my findings. I didn’t have one person I knew, or one person I read, who thought I was right. Heck, even now, a decade later, the nettle still hasn’t been grasped, people are just beginning to realize that they were fools to blindly believe Wilson, and to try to manage a graceful climb down from the positions they took.
What I learned in that episode was that my bad number detector works quite well, that I should stick to my guns if I think I’m right, and that I should never, ever, ever place any faith in the opinions of the experts. They were all wrong, every single last swingin’ Richard of them, and I was right. Doesn’t mean I’ll be right next time, I’ve been wrong plenty both before and since … but it has given me the courage to hold on to some extremely minority positions.
It is my strong belief that I will also be vindicated in my claim that the earth’s temperature is regulated, not by CO2, but by a host of interlocking and mutually supportive homeostatic mechanisms that maintain the temperature within a fairly narrow range … time will tell. In my opinion, the experts in the climate field have shown that they don’t know a whole lot more about the real underpinnings of the climate than E. O. Wilson knew about extinctions … but that’s just me, and YMMV.
The very finest of a lovely day to you all,
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Human says:
January 26, 2013 at 8:26 am
I’m not concerned about a scientific consensus. It’s the anti-scientific consensus that has coalesced around carbon alarmism that concerns me. If it were a scientific consensus, that wouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, the science content in their claims is often … well … slim or none.
w.
trafamadore says:
“…could you pls document what you foolishly say?”
Of course I can.
You specifically stated that all species are “equal”. If your position is that the human species should not go extinct, then your position is ipso facto that no species should go extinct.
Rational discourse is not your strong point, is it?
trafamadore: I understand time just fine. What I do not understand is the arrogance that says we human beings are entitled so every time speck of time and space this earth has from our appearance forward. We missed the dinosaurs, we missed the ice ages, and we will miss things in the future. If we are gone, animals do not have a sense of time and recovery periods are irrelevant. Honestly, recovery periods are irrelevant even if we are around. We do not dictate time and space. Do you get that?????
Gareth Phillips says:
January 26, 2013 at 10:12 am
Thanks, Gareth. While just a little exaggeration such as you made is not that great a deal, you need to multiply it by a million folks each just exaggerating as you did, and we end up with Chicken Little saying the sky is falling. After a couple of decades of people claiming that 2 is 4 and that cutting something in half is the same as there being not one Mistle Thrush in the UK, I’ve had it up to here with folks being at ease with, and even defending, these exaggerations and misrepresentations as just something small.
What happened was, you read a hysterical headline, and you REPEATED IT WITHOUT THINKING. You talk as though that is a small thing. It is not. It is one of the reasons we are in the fix we are in today, because millions of folks like you repeat nonsensical claims without thinking once about whether they are true or not.
You mean that populations of birds change year to year, decade to decade, and century to century? The nerve of the critters, why didn’t someone tell me? Someone please let them know that they should be the same every year, decade after decade.
Good question, no answer.
The web is a zoo, you get a choice of critters if you fancy herding …
All the best, Gareth.
w.
PS—Your citation does provide some good news, in that the population of starlings in the UK is declining as well …
trafamadore says:
January 26, 2013 at 9:39 am
davidmhoffer says: “trafamadore has failed to answer my question about her and the tigers. Why?”
Because you only had two choices and I dont like multiple guess Qs. Oh, and it’s irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh it is relevant and you darn well know it (not to mention that there were three choices not two).
The fact of the matter is that when it becomes personal, when it becomes YOUR life that is on the line, you’d want those tigers dead, extinction be d@mned. If you say otherwise, you are a liar. Nobody would willingly die to save another species from extinction.
You didn’t answer because doing so reveals the truth. You’re fine being all altruistic until the consequences are personal. You’re fine with all the moral arguments about the sanctity of life and how we should care for the planet and respect other species until it is YOU that has to pay the price. As long as the people who starve to death or freeze to death are a long way away where you don’t have to see them die, far away where you can pretend they don’t even exist let alone suffer the consequences of your policies, that’s OK. But as soon as it is YOU that has to suffer, when it is YOU that has to die, then suddenly it is “irrelevant”.
You are nothing but a selfish hypocrite attempting to pass themselves off as altruistic and humanitarian, but when it is YOU that may suffer, you won’t even answer the question.
I’d shoot the tigers in a heartbeat, it would never cross my mind that there was any choice in the matter. It saddens me that were the situation reversed, I have no confidence that you would do the right thing.
Trafamadore, your cause for alarm contains too many ifs. Around these parts, we have a saying that, “If grasshoppers carried six-shooters, they wouldn’t have to be worried about bluejays.”
Humans causing the sixth wave of extinction? Please present the proof for that. We are all awaiting the evidence.
dp says:
January 25, 2013 at 5:54 pm
Thanks, dp. I always like it when someone enjoys the bits of humor and allusion that I tend to scatter about …
w
@davidimhoffer
“trafamadore;
Suppose for a moment that you are trapped in a cage with the last two tigers on earth, a breeding pair. They are very hungry and are advancing on you. Suppose that your only hope is me, because I’m the only person anywhere near who can do anything about the situation, and luckily I have a loaded rifle and know how to use it. For future reference as I will have only seconds to consider my actions should such a situation occur at some point in the future, would you like me to:
a) shoot the tigers
b) shoot you
c) stand by and let nature take its course”
Strange that I should feel the need to come to trafamadore’s defense again, today! But, David, this is really not a fair argument. I suppose that there is something you care about deeply? Let’s say that “something” would be that “there is no such thing as global warmin”g? And now, imagine the hypothetical situation that you could end the whole global warming hysteria by immolating yourself in public…. Would you do it? Of course not, and neither would I. But would that make you a hypocrite? Would that make your concern less valid? You would be a hypocrite only if you asked other people to die for that thing you feel strongly about. I have not heard trafamadore do that.
One reason I have been frequenting this blog recently is that you can find a lot of posts here which focus on science, rather than demagoguery. Please, please, can we keep it that way?
Eastern cougar may never have existed: biologist
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/03/07/nb-eastern-cougar-museum-1229.html
Yep. starling populations are falling, as well as sparrows, but magpies, goldfinches, robins( the real ones) are all on the way up. What I wanted to point out before were sidetracked on the mistle thrush issue is that birds in the UK are having some interesting swings in population. As Willis points out, populations do vary, but these are varying in a way not previously recorded, though that is not to say these thing may not have happened prior to records being taken. There are theories as to why this is happening , but most ornithological sources say the wildly swinging populations stats are real. However Buzzards in the UK were almost extinct when I was young, they are now the most common raptor seen in our countryside. It was claimed that DDT was the reason for their decline, but the correlation is not strong.
In New Zealand there is a parrot called a Kia. An amusing and very intelligent bird that is endangered. Mainly due to bounties being paid on the bodies when they were thought of as a pest. They cadge scraps from tourists who occasionally feed them and are admonished and warned not to interfere with their natural behaviour ( as if we already had not done so) The populations remains low.
In Wales we have a bird called a red kite. It was in the same position for similar reasons. We were told, stop shooting it and feed it whenever you get the opportunity, which is what we did. It has now been restored to good health and birds are used to colonise other areas.
Both birds adapted to humans. They were endangered by us, but adapted to use us as a resource. The Red Kites have been allowed to do so, the Kia is prevented from doing so. The Red Kite does well, the Kia remains endangered. So while we may or may not be responsible for extinctions or wildly swinging populations, it does irk when governments stop organisms like the Kia and Red Kite adapting to humans and recovering in their own way. Perhaps what we do is not exterminate species, but prevent their adaption due to our own views of how they should exist.
While some adaptions are not possible (Tigers preying on humans for instance) most should be ok as long as we allow them to adapt and evolve as needed.
D.B. Stealey says:”You specifically stated that all species are “equal”. If your position is that the human species should not go extinct, then your position is ipso facto that no species should go extinct.”
Where did I say that the human species should not go extinct? I think you are a little confused.
John West says:
January 26, 2013 at 10:11 am
OK John, I’ll play.
Can you provide any evidence or historical accounts of a massive die-off of Buffalo toward the end of the 19th century that has been attributed to Foot & Mouth Disease (FMD), or any other disease?
Your source claims that ““In 1871 several thousand hunters were in the field and it is estimated that from 3,000 to 4,000 buffaloes were killed daily.”
That’s an average of about one buffalo per hunter per day in 1871 in whatever field was being described, but some of the hunters were rather better at killing bison. Here’s what Buffalo Bill did one day:
There are numerous historical accounts of the slaughter, and opinions about it, but my gut won’t allow me to post any more right now. Nevertheless, whatever the cause of their demise, I would repeat my closing question from above. If the 60+ million buffalo were alive today, where would they live?
atheok says:
January 25, 2013 at 9:44 pm
Funny that chicken farmers have now apparently stopped shooting falcons, and it’s probably just a coincidence that they did so at about the same time that DDT was banned.
One of my first red flags about CAGW and the CO2 scare was my impression that the environmental movement was being hijacked by the climate alarmists. To repeat what I’ve said, I think it was a good article by Willis, especially because it has generated some discussion that may play a small role in helping the environmental movement get back on track.
Finally, I had a gut extinction of my own late last year thanks to the GII 4 Sydney strain of norovirus.
Exactly! May I also add the word evolution.
S. Meyer;
One reason I have been frequenting this blog recently is that you can find a lot of posts here which focus on science, rather than demagoguery. Please, please, can we keep it that way?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The alarmists are proposing draconian measures that would sentence billions to lives of misery and death. They do on the backs of science that simply does not stand up to scrutiny, this thread being a fine example. Politics, science, and economics are inextricably intertwined. That’s the reality of the way the world actually works. Deal with it.
S. Meyer;
You would be a hypocrite only if you asked other people to die for that thing you feel strongly about. I have not heard trafamadore do that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because you look at her arguments in isolation, you do not consider the broader consequences. Then you call ME a demagogue. LOL.
Hi Willis and:
John West says:
January 26, 2013 at 10:11 am
– a bit on extinct Buffalo in Yukon Territory:
“Recent interviews with First Nation elders in southeastern Yukon also support the assumption of bison still being present in the Ross River and Liard area last century, with the last bison disappearing early this century (1900s)”
http://www.yfwcm.ca/mgmtplans/bisonplan/history.php
Not in the report above: It is anecdotal there were a few buffalo in the Carmacks area of central Yukon noted by gold rush visitors but it was reported that they had disappeared, probably after a few severe winters with deep snow.
In 1970, while in a prospecting camp on an island in the Snag River (island because of the abundance of Grizzly bears) just east of the Kluane Range in southwestern Yukon, my map work was interrupted by a helicopter landing on the island. I quickly rolled up my map and put away aerial photos to ensure competitors wouldn’t surmise what my plans were and went out to greet my guest – a big, hearty, red-headed bushy fellow who indeed was with a competing exploration party. He was a young fellow from the Netherlands and he was in a great excited state – I thought there must have been an accident. He motioned me to climb aboard and as I buckled in he said he had run into a large herd of Muskoxen. I assured him that they most likely were not Muskoxen this far south. A few minutes later, airborne, we spotted the herd – it was a couple of dozen buffalo with their winter wool coming off in skeins and decorating the buck brush. They looked fat and healthy and, of course, I realized we were in the “no snow” shadow on the east side of the Kluanes – no buffalo conservation park was this. I reported their presence by radio to the Yukon Forest Service at the time and they assured me that it was probably a “couple of moose”. I’m not sure what their status is a present but I note that the Yukon government website above doesn’t mention them today. Where I was was a pretty unbeaten track in those days. It seems that the people who look after our “biodiversity” do it largely from airconditioned offices.
Steve P says:
“That’s an average of about one buffalo per hunter per day in 1871 in whatever field was being described, but some of the hunters were rather better at killing bison.”
The answer is in the question. Buffalo Bill didn’t go hunting 365 days/year. When he went hunting he killed a lot of buffalo, but when he didn’t he killed a lot of whiskey bottles or whatever he was into; hence the average.
” Can you provide any evidence or historical accounts of a massive die-off of Buffalo toward the end of the 19th century that has been attributed to Foot & Mouth Disease (FMD), or any other disease?“
Short answer: Nope. (Darn it)
Long answer: Exposure to European diseases would have started much earlier than late 19th century. Lewis and Clarke knew they were back to civilization when they saw domestic cattle instead of buffalo , so exposure to cattle on the fringes of their range was occurring at least by the early 19th century and probably much earlier than that. Also, not just “die offs” but a pronounced reduction in reproductive ability being a major mechanism for a ~60 million herd with potentially a 20% annual growth rate to not be able to out produce some additional ~1.5 million losses per year. (Assuming these estimates are in the ball-park.)
Thanks for playing.
What I could really use is some evidence of munitions production during the period, but haven’t been able to scrounge anything yet. That might give me a clue, yea or nay.
Willirs says: “Since that “100x” number has no support except for your propensity to make wild statement, I’m sorry, but I won’t “take that number and go with it.” Anyone who believes numbers based on your unsupported word is”
Mmmm. Let’s see. The background extinction rate for most groups is like 5 in a million/year, I used 10 because it was easier to do the calculations. But, for mammals (thinking birds too, someone should check) the number is lower, something like 1/M/yr. (Mammal/birds are harder to kill off I guess.) So there are what, 5000 species of animals and some 100 have gone extinct in the last 200 years, a time when you would expect 200*5000/1000000 extinctions, which happens to be 1. So there is my 100X. Or we can do the calc for birds. There are about 200 extinct in the last 200 years and there are about 10000 species, so you would expect 200×10000/1000000, which happens to be 2. So there is my 100x again. So we can play with the numbers back and forth, but you really arent going to change that number much.
Island argument for extinctions has been around for a long while, but what is hurting now is the amazing lost of habitant on the continents, thus creating a new kind of “islands”, ecological ones, and as those islands disappear, the species do too. Superimpose on that the fact that we dont know the complete scale of loss of insect and other invertebrates, some of which have habitants that had only a few acres in the Amazon to start with, many we don’t even know exist. So when Eldredge or Wilson come up with these numbers–what are they, 2000-3000 species per year?–it’s based on 10,000,000 species that used to loose 30 species a yr now at a new extinction rate 100x greater, a pretty sad situation, but their logic seems reasonable. There was a article in Nature last week that argued those 2000-3000 numbers should be a little lower, but not allot.
I think Wills isnt looking for the bodies in the right place…he needs to be on his hands and knees in the Tropics, home to most of the Earth’s species.
And, what happens to this extinction rate if the Earth’s temperature goes up? Most biologist dont believe it will go down.
@ur momisugly Gary Pearse
I guess the whole question of whether a successful species can be overharvested to extinction boils down to the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns for me. At some point, the energy/money one puts into finding that last herd of buffalo way up in the Yukon is more than one could possibly get out of it. This of course doesn’t work if the price just goes up to match the scarcity for irreplaceable substances perceived to have some medicinal or magical benefit.
S. Meyer says:
January 26, 2013 at 11:44 am
@davidimhoffer
“trafamadore;
Suppose for a moment that you are trapped in a cage with the last two tigers on earth, a breeding pair. They are very hungry and are advancing on you….. But, David, this is really not a fair argument….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually it is. Only in my case it is coyotes… This is a friend of my Brother-in-law link My next door neighbor lost his entire heard of goats, another friend a herd of sheep and Pat, a third friend lost all her calves. It is no longer safe to leave the house without a gun especially at dawn and dust in my area. Coyotes are not the only predators around either. Around here there are mountain lions, red wolves (released) melanistic jaguars (released) and of course bear, bobcats and red and gray fox. (Note the release of the jaguar (in Florida) was on the internet at the site linked but has been wiped. There was also the report of a pair to be release sighted at a rest area in the Smokies.)
As far as the cats go we are told we are seeing things, the eastern cougar/mountain lion is extinct, there are no black melanistic jaguar Yadi ya… OOPS Mountain lion killed in Conn. had walked from S. Dakota I guess the wild life boys can not deny this one. Since it is illegal to shoot them it is Shoot, Shovel and Shut-up so no concrete evidence is ever seen by ‘officials’
atheok says:
January 25, 2013 at 9:44 pm
Um….
Funny that chicken farmers have now apparently stopped shooting falcons, and it’s probably just a coincidence that they did so at about the same time that DDT was ban….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The chicken farmers quit shooting falcons because they quit raising them free range and instead they raise them in commercial chicken houses Something like 80% – 90% of all American chicken (and pork) are raise in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. (CAFO)
SteveP: Yah! When it becomes a Federal crime with major financial penalties, shooting birds of prey, carrion birds and others (like seagulls) stopped getting shot, mostly. Funny thing, it was right at the same time that the Federal poison bait campaign against coyotes ended.
Excellent post about Buffalo Bill and his experience was not the only one. Bat Masterson and his brother initially tried their hands at being mule skinners and went into sheriff work as a preferred alternative to skinning buffalo, all day in the hot sun. Many unemployed and out of work miners sought to become buffalo hunters with deadly results to the buffalo. http://www.nanations.com/buffalo/southern_herd.htm as a source; even if this source does have an opinion about buffalo.
and I agree Steve; it is an excellent article by Willis. And your posts are supportive and informative. I wanted to highlight the differences between the mores of yesterday and today and your post offered the opportunity.
I was a woods and mountain hiker back in the sixties and seventies and between the outdoors, assisting a farmer and trying to raise my own food I was considered a far left wacko. Odd how the harder the work is, the less people think of you… Somewhere in the 1990s – new millenium, the eco-nuts moved the left goalpost so that friends now consider me conservative. and yes, hijacked the environment movement is an excellent description for it.
My parents were great depression era children. One of my bosses told me about when he was young, chicken for dinner was a rare and special event. He was in his teens before they had a turkey for thanksgiving dinner. I felt that my youth was privileged compared to his and he was less than a decade older. When I was young, wasting food was considered a heinous act by my parents and some of that has stayed with me. I may be conservative to others, but I do know what it takes to put beef, chickens, rabiits, and so on onto the kitchen table. Back then, I knew what they ate and I knew what I was eating.
Raise some chickens, rabbits, quail, pheasant, turkey, duck, goose and so on, for food when the alternative may be (has been) beans or potatoes and it gets personal real quick when predators help themselves to the food. a farmer friend once told me that obviously I needed to raise enough for both my family and the wild predators. That was well after the beans or potatoes period of my life and I was able to laugh. Wasn’t so funny to me before that.
If you’ve ever read Carlos Castenada’s work, you’ll encounter a part in one of his books, (“Journey to Ixtlan” comes to mind, but I may mis-remember,) where he describes his youth and how he hunted hawks extensively during one period of his life. Before killing hawks became illegal, it was considered a valid activity; especially for hawks big enough to take domestic animals.
Wasn’t wrong then, just isn’t right now.
On the subject of extinctions, look at the title of this recent article from the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21162197
But can we name them before we discover them?
Lol.
Gail Combs;
Actually it is. Only in my case it is coyotes… This is a friend of my Brother-in-law link My next door neighbor lost his entire heard of goats, another friend a herd of sheep and Pat, a third friend lost all her calves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is the part that the trafamadores and S Meyer’s of the world don’t seem to grasp. It isn’t just that your neighbours lost goats, sheep and calves. It is also that there was less food for human beings as a consequence. The trafamadores of the world don’t get this because they walk into a grocery store any day of the week and the shelves are stocked with food. It never occurs to them that there are places in the world where that simply isn’t true. The western world has enough money to stock those shelves, the third world doesn’t. We live in a global economy and the fact of the matter is that those lost goats, sheep and calves meant that there was less food somewhere in the world, at higher prices, and people went hungry and perhaps died as a consequence.
Every time a tract of land is set aside to protect come species from extinction, that is a tract of land that no longer is being farmed, and for people in the world on the edge of starvation, that means that some of them get pushed over the edge.
I’m not arguing against protecting endangered species, far from it. But at the same time a coyote with a full belly of lamb means a baby dying in its mother’s arms somewhere else in the world. That’s the harsh reality that people like tramafadore casually dismiss. As long as they don’t SEE that baby die, they can pretend it doesn’t happen and that they don’t have anything to do with the misery of others. All they can see is the full shelves when they walk into the grocery store.
Worse, the best way to protect the environment is to do what the western world has done. Raise living standards through the use of cheap energy. Birth rates fall and pressure on the world’s resources falls accordingly. Keep people in poverty, particularly energy poverty, and their birth rate sky rockets, meaning more pressure on earth’s resources, more mouths to feed, and less land left over for the wild life to remain wild. When push comes to shove though, if there isn’t enough food to go around and choices have to be made between feeding humans and letting them starve…. even tramafadore understands she’s rather eat than be eaten, she just doesn’t want to admit it.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 26, 2013 at 10:44 am
“PS—Your citation does provide some good news, in that the population of starlings in the UK is declining as well …”
I can corroborate that. Because they’ve all migrated to my house. I estimate the colony to be 1000+. Every evening, They take over a thicket of cat-tails on my property, not as a dormitory but as a meeting place. A European Starling Woodstock-style convention. They carry on all night with every birdcall possible as they are great parrot-like imitators. They take great entertainment in my occasional evening walks, as I am met with every catcall ,tweet, , twitter and whistle imaginable. Much like Willis faces when he posts an article here.