Wildlife populations plunge almost 60 percent since 1970 -WWF



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/wildlife-populations-plunge-almost-60-percent-since-1970-wwf/ar-AAjrorJ

[joke]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2016 10:02PM by lurking in.

ban the ineffective WWF ~


#humanlivesmatter ~



{ not joke }

GO HUMANS!!

Back in the day, (1960+) when I was a kid, my Parents would take us to Yellowstone Park every Summer. We stopped in the campgrounds and set up a picnic lunch on the picnic tables. Every time, EVERY time, at least one bear would come around and we had to quickly scoop everything up and get in the car. Two decades later, with my own family in tow, we rarely ever seen a bear. Maybe in a meadow somewhere but nowhere else.

Back in the day, (1975+) I used to go deer hunting for the meat, and deer were plentiful. Usually we were on our way home by Noon. From what I hear, deer are not plentiful now. But I don't know.

If wildlife is going to disappear, lets start with mosquitoes, gnats, hornets, yappy dogs, and those little black ants that love my cookie jar.

They actually go to quite a lot of trouble in Yellowstone to keep bears away from roadways. There are plenty in the back country.

I don't know about Utah, but North Dakota and northern Minnesota have a serious problem with too many deer and not enough hunters. Unlike a lot of animals, deer adapt well to human agriculture. If they could just stay out of traffic...

It's likely fundraising time around WWF. They trotted out this identical study a couple years ago and must feel memories have faded enough to rerun the campaign.

An actual examination of the data shows it's not so bad. About half of all species are showing some decline. Many very slightly. About half are increasing, but they won't cite that for some reason.

Here's a critical analysis of their claims from when they pulled this out in 2014: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/30/baseless-claim-from-wwf-half-of-global-wildlife-lost-says-new-wwf-report/

And now one of our friendly moderators may delete this topic?

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An actual examination of the data shows it's not
> so bad. About half of all species are showing some
> decline. Many very slightly. About half are
> increasing, but they won't cite that for some
> reason.

But, they *did* cite what you said they "won't." It's right there in their report, and in all the graphs. Isn't it more than a little disingenuous to claim they're not citing something when they very clearly ARE?

And what do you consider "not so bad?" Half of ALL species are declining. Some a little, some a LOT. What % of species declining does it take to cross your "it's bad" threshold?
Wouldn't a thriving ecosystem have the majority of species thriving and increasing? Doesn't half (or more) of all species being in decline signal we don't have a thriving ecosystem?

> Here's a critical analysis of their claims...

Not much of a "critical analysis." It basically repeated their claims, offered not counter data of any kind, and then concluded with one sentence that was "critical:"

"I fear I don’t find that result either surprising or alarming. Half increasing, half decreasing … and?"

Not surprising from a site that is dedicated to denial of climate change, but hardly "critical." Or even informative.

This one's getting really close to verböten politics, but I'll chime in...

Mostly I'm agreeing with what "ifcouldhie" is saying... Sites like the one linked are strictly Koch and Koch-clone operations, and that "Climategate" header gives me gas.

In my mild-mannered secret identity, I've been active in a couple of wildlife conservancy groups (alas, in these days of "ridesharing" the tip jar ain't what it used to be; I wish I could give more). Here are some indisputable horrors that are occurring on our watch:

Songbirds:

https://web.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Eastern_Songbirds.html

>Since the end of World War II there has been a decline in forest songbird populations over much of the eastern United States. For example, in Rock Creek Park in the middle of Washington, D.C., populations of Red-eyed Vireos have dropped by 79 percent and Ovenbirds by 94 percent. Acadian Flycatchers, Yellow-throated Vireos, Black-and-white Warblers, and Hooded Warblers have disappeared entirely. The decline has not been uniform for all species; the Acadian Flycatcher and others that migrate long distances to tropical America have suffered more than residents or those like robins and towhees that can overwinter in the southern United States. Nor has the decline been equal in all types of forest; the loss of species from woodlots and small forest tracts exceeds the loss from large stretches of forest such as those of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

>One suspected cause is, quite naturally, the rapid destruction of tropical forests where many migrants overwinter. Perhaps deforestation in Mexico, Costa Rica, and Jamaica, for instance, is responsible for the decline of some species, such as the Worm-eating Warbler. But in the last century about half of the forest breeding habitat of that species in eastern North America was destroyed, while there was relatively much less loss of tropical forests in that period. The result may well have been a surplus of wintering habitat. More recent deforestation has wiped out on the order of half of the tropical forests, and perhaps has just about restored the balance between available breeding and wintering habitat.

>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130621-threats-against-birds-cats-wind-turbines-climate-change-habitat-loss-science-united-states/

Monarch Butterflies:

http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-05-22/solving-monarch-butterflys-decline-will-take-more-just-milkweed

Those are just some "charismatic species"; the numbers for amphibians are far worse, period. But hey, frogs are icky slimy critters...

Now watching 'Nature' on PBS, this show is about Giraffes;

it also is signing the chorus about declining populations in Africa.

It's interesting, they mention the various sub-species.


Poachers of many varieties of African animals are a SERIOUS problem, including to the tourist trade which caters to people who want/can afford a safari experience.

they're showing an effort to develop a herd South of the Nile.

Better than a cop show, THAT'S FOR SURE!

Where's "Tarzan" or "Captain Planet" when you need them!???

From standpoint of our children & grand-children, this could be as important as a reliable, pure supply of water...