Baiji River Dolphin May or May Not Be Extinct

ozmanjusri writes "Major news outlets are reporting that after 20 million years, Baiji (Yangtze River Dolphin) are now officially extinct. This is apparently actually old news; it was announced on a Baiji conservation website in December of last year. One outlet, though, is claiming they may not quite be completely dead yet. The same scientist that filed the report leading the the declaration of extinction is still hopeful: '"This is only one survey and...you can't have a sample in a survey, so you cannot say the baiji all is gone by the result of only one survey," he said. "For example, there is some side channels or some tributaries [where] we cannot go because of a restriction of navigation rules, and also we don't survey during the night-time so we may miss some animals in the Yangtze River." Professor Ding says based on anecdotal evidence, he remains confident the dolphins are still out there. "I'm pretty much sure there are a few of them left somewhere in the Yangtze River," he said. "I keep receiving reports from fishermen, they say they saw a couple of baiji somewhere, sometime."'"

Comments

You Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

This is apparently actually old news; it was announced on a Baiji conservation website in December of last year. I'll do you one better than that, it was apparently reported on fucking Slashdot too.

Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Are you purposely making fun of yourselves? Because to those of us who aren't in on the joke, which is most of us I guess, it looks like the site is run by a bunch of fucking dumbasses.

Re:You Idiots

[ScrewMaster]

... it looks like the site is run by a bunch of fucking dumbasses.

Yeah, but we keep coming back. Who is more the fool ... the fool, or the fool who follows a fool?

Re:You Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

While it's nice to think the Yangtzse dolphin may not be extint, even if there are a couple around there won't be for much longer, it's considered a delicacy and the fisherman are among the reasons they were endangered in the first place.

Re:You Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the other article talks about how the Baiji went extinct. This article talks about how they're not quite extinct yet, maybe. Did you even read the summary?

Re:You Idiots

[j00r0m4nc3r]

You couldn't fool your mother on the foolingest day of your life with an electrified fooling machine!

Re:You Idiots

[speaker of the truth]

Heh, A fisherman reports he saw a baji river dolphin only last week. When asked where he said "on my plate"

Re:You Idiots

[RDW]

Be careful when sampling this delicacy - some of these 'Dolphins' can be a bit chewy:

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/1 1/1527243

A tautology!

[Hikaru79]

After the commercials, "Human Beings May or May Not Be Extinct"!

Re:A tautology!

[Nephilium]

I was hoping I wasn't the only one who read the headline and went, "Yep, everything may or may not be extinct..."

I mean... Boolean logic is relatively well known, and used quite frequently by those who frequent this site...

Nephilium...

Re:A tautology!

[Anonymous Coward]

The previous poster may or may not be entirely homosexual!

Re:A tautology!

[Anonymous Coward]

The previous poster may or may not think he is hilarious! LULZ

Re:A tautology!

[Lemmy Caution]

It is an idiomatic expression, not set theory. It indicates a precarious and undetermined situation. So, unlike a tautology, it does provide information: that the state is unknown, "too close to call."

And the eternal battle between linguists and set theorists continues.

Re:A tautology!

[Scruffy Dan]

I thought that for something to be "officially" extinct there had to be a period of 50 years without any sightings.

As it stands now it is at most unofficially extinct, which is still a huge shame.

Re:A tautology!

[TheCrazyMonkey]

I thought that for something to be "officially" extinct there had to be a period of 50 years without any sightings.

Phew! I was worried that Bigfoot, Nessie, and Elvis might have gone the way of the Dodo.

i read somewhere

[circletimessquare]

that there were 11 in captivity a few years back (they all died), they were trying to breed them in captivity. but they took tissue samples

please, please, please someone tell me the chinese have some of those tissue samples in liquid nitrogen. given some technological progress then, we might be able to bring the baiji back to life in a century or so

otherwise, the chinese deserve international sanctions for losing some of our shared world species diversity. it should be a un mandate with economic consequences that countries are responsible for the lifeblood of the species in their territories

not to mention the fact the chinese need to apologize to their ancestors for losing a part of their heritage. the baiji is a potent chinese symbol to the chinese themselves, and all of china is a little diminished today if the chinese actually neglected something so important to their national identity to the point of losing it permanently. china's history with environmental protection is deplorable. this takes it to the level of moral outrage

but nevermind this cranky westerner. i'll bet my life any random chinese person could better articulate the shame and anger at this horrible crime and tragedy, against china, by the chinese themselves

Re:i read somewhere

[Blakey Rat]

i'll bet my life any random chinese person could better articulate the shame and anger at this horrible crime and tragedy, against china, by the chinese themselves

Species die out all the time. They did before humans existed, and they will long after we've taken our turn and died out. It's not that big a deal.

Re:i read somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's okay if I track you down and shoot you? After all, human beings die all the time. They did before I started locating strangers on the internet and shooting them, and they'll still die long after my bloody killing spree is ended by my death. It's not that big a deal, right?

  Note to parent poster: Death by natural causes is different from death by human intervention. The same goes for collective deaths, A.K.A. extinction.

Re:i read somewhere

[daeg]

The dolphin is one of many past and even more future extinctions caused by China. I'd start buying stock in environmental clean up technology now -- in a few decades their entire country will resemble the Love Canal disaster.

Re:i read somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

The species will never be viable again. Even if there are living specimens, even if there are tissue samples, the gene diversity is way too small to sustain a healthy population. You might be able to create a few in a lab but they will not be good for anything more than curiosity. As for sanctions against China, that is just outwardly ridiculous. UN mandates? You do know that China has veto power, being a permanent Security Council member, right?

It might do you some good to educate yourself on these kinds of things before you start your eco-babble.

And for the Chinese people, who are you to speak for them? I'd wager that the majority of Chinese never heard of these dolphins prior to the extinction report -- in much the same way that few Americans even realized that there was an Alaskan wildlife refuge, prior to the controversy over drilling there. It's a disservice to the Chinese for you to try to use them to further your personal agenda. Don't do it again.

Re:i read somewhere

[grahamd0]

I'm starting to fear that my libertarianism is becoming dangerous, but so what if they're extinct? It's just like pandas, everyone wants them around because they're cute and cuddly, but all they want to do is loaf around and eat grass all day. What good are they? Are they keeping the bamboo population at bay?

Re:i read somewhere

[hormesis]

The UN? Do something? Surely you jest!

Re:i read somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

To expand on the parents point, species go extinct all the time. All over the world. Including in the US.

Re:i read somewhere

[Tablizer]

it should be a un mandate with economic consequences that countries are responsible for the lifeblood of the species in their territories

I doubt the US is saintly in this area. Be careful what you ask for.

Re:i read somewhere

[edwardpickman]

You're forgetting the most important point, how did they taste in sushi? Several million Japanese are dying to find out. See, there are good reasons for cloning.

Re:i read somewhere

[Comatose51]

"the baiji is a potent chinese symbol to the chinese themselves"

I thought they've replaced that symbol with portraits of George Washington instead long ago -- replaced along with any concern for living in harmony with nature (Taoism) or compassion towards other living beings (Buddhism).

Re:i read somewhere

[Nyph2]

please, please, please someone tell me the chinese have some of those tissue samples in liquid nitrogen. given some technological progress then, we might be able to bring the baiji back to life in a century or so This is a common sentiment, and it's basically what I believed would save most of our endangered wildlife till recently. Then I read concilience by E. O. Wilson, and it reminded me that we have never successfully (re)created an ecosystem, we don't understand the natural balance of them well enough on our own. Once the food chain starts going, we won't be able to put it all back together again, without it there to study, we don't really know how it works.
Sure, a new ecosystem equilibrium will come about in the creatures absence, generally one less stable because of the absence, either leaving its food source unchecked(to a degree), or leaving a predator without a meal(once again, to a degree). Once the ecosystem equilibruim lost, it's lost to us forever - especially if you're trying to count on future tech once the ecosystem as it will have drastically changed in the intervening time.

This is a serious threat to human survival, and we need to take it seriously soon or we'll pay for it as a species, even as a planet as a whole. The baiji may not be the straw that breaks the camel's back and makes the system start to truly unravel, but it is another destabilizing element, another straw on the back of a weighed down ecosystem.

Re:i read somewhere

[Joe Tie.]

Because they're immensely important to studying how consciousness works. We don't have a lot of ape species to experiment on, but the second tier on the cognitive spectrum is dolphins. Most significant in this aspect are the species which have diverged from the main lines long ago. This one in particular was very unique in that aspect, and we've never gotten around to properly studying it in that regard. Data on how consciousness both functions, and more importantly how it evolves, is now potentially unavailable.

Re:i read somewhere

[Scruffy Dan]

if you want to clone them, you better hope that their behaviour of the dolphins was inherited,a nd not taught by the previous generation

Re:i read somewhere

[dunkelfalke]

read up about biodiversity and also ask you a question:
what good are you? i mean, i don't need you, and i am pretty sure that pretty much 100% of the world population doesn't need you either.

Re:i read somewhere

[geekinaseat]

Don't get me wrong here.. I am a total believer in the fact that we shouldn't screw up the planet for our own selfish needs.

BUT... The parent has a point, many species have become extint in the past and sometimes because of another species becoming more dominant in its habitiat and either eating them or robbing them of their habitat... this is kind of whats going on here, the difference being is that we don't really NEED to make the Dolphins extint in order for us to survive.

Re:i read somewhere

[GPL Apostate]

I'd start buying stock in environmental clean up technology now -- in a few decades their entire country will resemble the Love Canal disaster.

So, you advocate that western investors should sink a lot of money into environmental cleanup R&D so that the Chinese can steal it in a few decades?

Re:i read somewhere

[ColombianKid]

Yeah, it's sad this species has gone extinct....
What if, the UN made it so that EVERY country responsible for making ANY species go extinct receive economic sanctions?

Re:i read somewhere

[grahamd0]

I could probably manage to find a couple of people who need me for something, but you're right if you're suggesting that I don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Will civilization collapse when you die?

I understand that biodiversity is important, but if the evolutionary niche that they fill is no longer viable, they will become extinct. It's been happening for millions and millions of years. Now, TFA said they've become extinct to due to human factors, and that's unfortunate, but what did you do about it? Did you try to move the 700 million people away from their habitat? Did you shut down any Chinese factories or stop any fishing boats?

Climb down off your high horse and stop taking things so personally. Unless you're a Baiji river dolphin, in which case I apologize for my insensitivity to your plight.

Re:i read somewhere

[grahamd0]

Good answer.

Re:i read somewhere

[Jorophose]

If only you could mod someone "+100 Truly Insightful" once a year, I'd do that for parent. The Chinese deserve one hell of a drop-kick to the face right now, letting one magnificient species go extinct. From what I can recall, the Baiji river dolphin is unique.

But let's just pray there's still a large community hiding somewhere...

Re:i read somewhere

[plunge]

The Chinese (and by this, I mean the current government and the culture it enforces) apologize? The one true chosen people who are destined to rule the world?

What universe are you living in?

Remember, this is the same country that once inspired mobs to slaughter these very animals en masse because their glorious leaders declared that they were enemies of the revolution or something (I'm not kidding) because they were magical sacred symbols of a decedent past. That's some scary crazy.

I'm not saying that these attitudes are inherently Chinese or that all Chinese people agree with them, but that's most certainly the prevailing attitude of the Chinese government and the ultra-nationalists whose views rule. Any Chinese citizen who too loudy criticizes the motherland for things like this without official approval would risk their (and their families, since the Chinese government loves to punish and threaten not simply yourself, but ones family as well) well being.

Re:i read somewhere

[Smauler]

otherwise, the chinese deserve international sanctions for losing some of our shared world species diversity. it should be a un mandate with economic consequences that countries are responsible for the lifeblood of the species in their territories

I absolutely agree - see, for example this list of animals made extinct. Sanctions are too good for them.

Re:i read somewhere

[Blakey Rat]

So far I've gotten people telling me to "shut the fuck up" (I believe that's a direct quote), and your lovely death threat.

There's a big difference between me and a dolphin: I'm human. But I suppose you think it's a double-standard to believe that killing humans is wrong and killing animals is perfectly fine... and when you find a spider in your bathroom you gently cradle him in your arms and coo softly as you prepare a bed for him at night.

Re:i read somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Point --> >>>O

You -----> o --- Dum de dum dum... What was that?
              |M|
              / \

Re:i read somewhere

[Bagggy]

Well I guess it depends on what you mean by what good are they. In a sense, no non-domesticated animal is really any good to us. They loaf around all day and eat whatever they eat.

That said, they are the good of being part of a carefully balanced ecosystem that has evolved over millions of years to become what it is. Sure, in the latest years as their numbers became dangerously low, they weren't able to play an important part in that ecosystem by regulating any population of fish/plants they may have eaten, but at a time when we didn't interfere with their environment and their numbers were still up their, they most likely played an important part in their own ecosystem. With their disappearance, that ecosystem is that much weaker now, and that much more vulnerable to leading to multiple Yangtze river species' extinction. One extinction begins to start anothers.

Or who knows, perhaps the baiji river dolphin had truly become ungenetically fit to survive in today's world as the panda is. I don't claim to know the intricacies of that ecosystem or the species within it. My point is that no species extinction is an insignificant thing. It causes changes in a much larger context of the environment than can be immediately noticed.

Re:i read somewhere

[grahamd0]

I didn't mean to suggest that they need to provide any benefit to *us*. I'm personally against killing dolphins, they seem like nice people, but I've heard for the last few years that they were extinct or virtually so, and yet I haven't heard of any horrible effects on their ecosystem from losing them.

Bees, for example, provide an invaluable service to their environment by pollinating a wide variety of plants. If they went extinct, we would notice immediately because of the plant species struggling to maintain their populations.

When wolf populations are diminished, deer populations rise to ridiculous levels until they manage to starve themselves back to sustainable numbers.

I've just never really heard anyone offer any reasons for them to exist other than being cute and cuddly, and nature doesn't care if you're cute and cuddly. In fact, being ugly and devoid of any emotions seems to be generally more preferable in evolutionary terms.

We'll never hear about cockroaches going extinct.

Re:i read somewhere

[Bagggy]

You won't hear about them going extinct, but being ugly or cute and cuddly, every creature plays an important part in its ecosystem. Just like wolves keep deer populations in control, I'm sure at one point the dolphins were keeping fish populations under control.

But nonetheless, at this point in their existence, the baiji dolphin's numbers are too small to be playing a part in the ecosystem, so the damage has been done. Even should a few still be alive, their numbers are certainly too small to fulfill whatever their role might have been. It hasn't torn that ecosystem apart, clearly, but it certainly could do no better than to weaken it.

I do see your point, however. Maybe if we had acted back in the late 80s when their numbers were still significant it would have mattered. Now its been too late for years and their existence has become null and void in their ecosystem, unfortunately.

Tomorrow's headline...

[Blakey Rat]

Two-humped camels may or may not be extinct!

Walruses may or may not be extinct!

Jellyfish may or may not be extinct!

The common house cat may or may not be extinct!

Triceratops may or may not be extinct!

Re:Tomorrow's headline...

[buswolley]

You might or might not be moderated +1 Funny.

Re:Tomorrow's headline...

[Tablizer]

Two-humped camels may or may not be extinct! Walruses may or may not be extinct! Jellyfish may or may not be extinct! The common house cat may or may not be extinct! Triceratops may or may not be extinct!

It's Heisingburg environmentalism. Maybe if we stop observing species, they won't dissappear.

Re:Tomorrow's headline...

[glitch23]

Two-humped camels may or may not be extinct!

Walruses may or may not be extinct!

Jellyfish may or may not be extinct!

The common house cat may or may not be extinct!

Triceratops may or may not be extinct!

I think I know this riddle. Quantum physics right? The Uncertainty Principle?

Re:Tomorrow's headline...

[The One and Only]

No, logic. "Foo" and "not foo" are complementary statements--one of them is always true, because if either of them is false, the other is true by definition. If not foo, then "not foo". If not not foo, then "foo". Therefore, any statement of the form "foo or not foo" is guaranteed to be true.

Re:Tomorrow's headline...

[eudaemon]

I was stung several times by a jellyfish yesterday... so I can
attest that as of yesterday around noon cst anyway, jellyfish were not in fact extinct.

Just a useless and painfully collected datapoint. OK everyone back to squabbling.

Re:Tomorrow's headline...

[z3ronl]

Dupes may or may not be extinct!

spent the night with it once. . .

[juan2074]

What happens in the Long River, stays in the Long River.

Re:spent the night with it once. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens in the Long River, stays in the Long River.

Ugh, that's disgusting.

Re:spent the night with it once. . .

[Tablizer]

What happens in the Long River, stays in the Long River.

This kind of image comes to mind:

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/IMA/G 468~Pool-Shark-Posters.jpg

They're getting better...

[Anonymous Coward]

They think they'll go for a walk.

They're dead.

[akkarin]

Or maybe not. But probably. Not. On the other hand... of course, if you.. no, no, they're dead. I think. -The Thinker

Re:I need advice

[ScrewMaster]

You spelled "Neil" wrong.

I thought it was a cat?

[HermDog]

Well, who's going to open the box and find out if the dolphins are dead or if they're cats?

They're not dead

[iminplaya]

They're just restin'

Re:They're not dead

[taoman1]

No, they're pining for the fjords.

Re:They're not dead

[iminplaya]

That may or may not be true.

Re:They're not dead

[mrchaotica]

<Morbo>THE YANGTZE RIVER IS NOT A FJORD! GOODNIGHT!</Morbo>

(damn lameness filter!)

Re:They're not dead

[Anonymous Coward]

If your comment is a joke, it's not very funny. If not a joke, you didn't get the joke. Either way, lay off the coffee, buddy.

its a big deal

[circletimessquare]

we caused it. human beings are now the managers of this planet. we're powerful enough to destroy it. so for better or for worse, we have to talk about what we can do, and what we are doing. and if we do something wrong, like cause the extinction of culturally significant animal, then we need to be angry about that and see if we aren't doing the same to some other species

but you go ahead and talk about it's all so like disconnected man... nothing matters dude, yeah

if you don't fucking care, then shut the fuck up, and leave the conversation to people who do care

otherwise, if you open your mouth on the subject, then you do care

so make up your mind:

1. it doesn't matter. so prove it by shutting up
2. it does matter. so go ahead and talk... about how it matters

if you open your mouth again, when the words come out of your mouth, try not to be a moron

Re:its a big deal

[zero_offset]

LOL... "culturally significant animal"...

Well shit, that's a great reason to get all worked up about it.

Re:its a big deal

[The One and Only]

At the moment, I'm starting to suspect that you're responsible for the extinction of your shift keys. And as someone who's had the misfortune of reading your angered scribblings on this issue, let me say that it's culturally significant to me that people capitalize properly.

Re:its a big deal

[Blakey Rat]

we caused it. human beings are now the managers of this planet.

I don't remember signing up for that.

we're powerful enough to destroy it.

Yeah, but:
1) We're not stupid enough to,
2) and you've offered no evidence that the existence of some dolphin in China actually prevents the planet from being destroyed in some way.

but you go ahead and talk about it's all so like disconnected man... nothing matters dude, yeah

I didn't say nothing matters. I said I don't believe this matters. I hope you can see the difference.

if you don't fucking care, then shut the fuck up, and leave the conversation to people who do care

otherwise, if you open your mouth on the subject, then you do care

What if I don't care about the dolphins, but I *do* care about the resources wasted every year in futile attempts to save species that were likely as not going to go extinct anyway? I'm a taxpayer, I have as much right to speak up about it as anybody else. And notice how not telling people to "shut the fuck up" actually can lead to a productive, respectful discussion where alternate opinions are heard.

I'd go as far as saying that I'd never want to be a member of a community whose main philosophy is "if you don't agree with us, shut the fuck up." That's why I generally avoid global warming activists, for example.

if you open your mouth again, when the words come out of your mouth, try not to be a moron

Why don't you tell me how I'm doing? I think I controlled the "moron" pretty well.

May or May not?

[sykopomp]

Schroedinger would be proud and Einstein would piss his pants!!!... I daresay

Exactly, they're just pining

[Vulva R. Thompson, P]

The researchers just need to look for Norway further up the river.

May or may not

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of the outcome, I may or may not be worried about dolphins. Mods, you may or may not now mod be insightful.

Jellyfish aren't extinct.

[Chas]

We have loads of them.

We just call them politicians.

Re:I need advice

[ResidntGeek]

Or maybe you spelled "Niel" wrong.

Thanks for telling me

[MarsDefenseMinister]

I guess I'd better save the one I have in my freezer for a really special dinner, because I won't have to get another one. And the dolphin they're putting in those little cans is often adulterated with tuna, which spoils it in my opinion.

Re:Thanks for telling me

[Tablizer]

Reminds me of a bumper sticker: "Save the whales . . . . . for dinner!"

Re:Thanks for telling me

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet China, we eat dolphins.

Re:Thanks for telling me

[GeckoX]

I know there is a certain kind of morbid humor that is accepted and even encouraged surrounding such tragedies...but do people not sometimes think humor like this is maybe not a good thing?

All it really does is gives us a way of accepting a tragedy such as this as 'inevitable, and not my fault'. Makes it easier to shrug our shoulders and go 'oh well'.

Maybe some things simply shouldn't be joked about. Or at least, maybe if we didn't joke about these things, and took them very seriously, we might as a whole be more likely to stop these kinds of things from happening in the future.

Personally, I see nothing amusing whatsoever in yet another extinction that we as a species are fully responsible for.

Just a thought.

Re:Thanks for telling me

[MarsDefenseMinister]

We're not responsible for it, and people who say that we are usually just want to end the capitalist system. So, don't start with me. All that'll happen is I'll giggle. A lot.

Re:Thanks for telling me

[GeckoX]

Yep, it's that kind of attitude that makes me fear for our collective future.

What do you mean by 'We're not responsible for it'? Us as a species? North Americans? You personally?

How would you feel if every macro species on the planet outside of north america were wiped out? Still hold the same viewpoint? Still be all high and mighty and giggly inside?

My point is, what is wrong with acting to stop these things from happening. Wouldn't that make more sense than giggling like a school girl when atrocities like this do occur?

Further, a TRUE capitalist would be able to figure out how to MAKE money off of saving species like this.

Alas, I know I'm wasting my breath on you, I do realize that, you even stated so quite explicitly. I assumed that when I first responded to you, and expected as much. However, it's not a waste if even one person reads that and stops to think about it for a minute.

We're not as helpless as you've convinced yourself you are.

Re:Thanks for telling me

[MarsDefenseMinister]

Collective future? Sounds vaguely communist to me. I'm more interested in worrying about my own future. I have control over that.

Further, a TRUE capitalist would be able to figure out how to MAKE money off of saving species like this.

What's a true capitalist? And what's your business model? And what's your market? The problem with your laughable statement is that you libs don't want to let true capitalists DO what capitalists DO. What if we could save that dolphin by farming it and turning it into a money making source of food. I can hear it now - "you're industrially farming FLIPPER!".

Hypocrites. You blame the problems on capitalists, saying that if we were really capitalists we'd be able to save the dolphin. But all of our solutions are rejected by environmentalist wackos for fuzzy animal loving reasons. Either you want to save the dolphin, which might mean farming it and productizing it, or you want to treat the dolphin like tiny humans and let it go extinct. Take your pick.

I'm not giggling over the dolphin. I'm giggling because I'm rich despite the best efforts of the birkenstock crowd.

Re:Thanks for telling me

[GeckoX]

You presume way WAY too much.

That's the 2nd reply you've made to me in which you've made many assumptions about many things without knowing anything for certain.

You know nothing about me, and yet you act like you know everything about me.
Your problems are well outside the scope of this particular topic.

And as it would obviously be a complete waste of time, I won't respond directly to your presumptions.

Re:Thanks for telling me

[MarsDefenseMinister]

Same for you. I didn't kill the dolphins. On the other hand, a case could be made for you that you LET the dolphins die. Apparently it matters to you, and you seem to take responsibilities for their deaths. So, the dolphins are dead DESPITE your best efforts. Sorry about your failure. I didn't do anything to the dolphins, so don't blame me.

Re:Thanks for telling me

[GeckoX]

Ahh, but by joking about their demise, one could argue that you DID do something to aid in their demise.

By your reasoning, if I have some blame in this, then so do you.

To redirect a bit, you seem to be taking this awfully personally for someone that has no guilty conscience...considering that I never once blamed you in any way shape or form. I actually did not condemn you for joking either. I was merely questioning our tendency to joke about these things, and wondering if that in itself may in fact be harmful...KNOWING full well that these ARE just jokes and that no harm is ever intended by making them.

Jokes like that are a defense mechanism, without a doubt. They aren't actually funny, though we all laugh. So why is it that we treat them as funny? Why do we laugh at them?

Some might care to be introspective about this kind of thing. I could care less if you do yourself or not, and do not condemn or blame or think anything actually about you in particular.

Re:Thanks for telling me

[MarsDefenseMinister]

Only if you assume I have a time machine. By your own words, I'm joking about the tasty dead dolphins AFTER they are dead. Of course, I assume that you were concerned about the dolphins before they were dead.

I'm not dead yet!

[vertigoCiel]

The last one seen alive reportedly said "I feel happy! I feel happy!"

FYI--I work with the Main Baiji scientist Pitman

[Anonymous Coward]

If you watch or see Bob Pitman's presentation you will know there are none left. Sad but true. http://swfsc.noaa.gov/news.aspx?id=9816 also, be aware the next to go is the Vaquita dolphin in the gulf of mexico... http://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?id=9758&Paren tMenuId=448

Anyone else see a relation

[Anonymous Coward]

To the story 2 down from this one, darpa now using dolphin tail flippers?
The timing is just a little bit to close to be a coincidence in my books.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

DNA

[Anonymous Coward]

I think people should take DNA from these animals so in the future when we have cracked DNA(if it happens and it should) we can still study it or have a very real Jurassic Park like place. No more boring museum trips.

I'm curious....

[PJ1216]

How thorough do these surveys have to be to finally declare a species extinct? I mean, there's a lot of water, isn't there? I mean, I know this isn't the middle of the ocean, but I'm sure there's a lot of space to cover. Logically speaking, to confidently say something is extinct, wouldn't that require a proof of exhaustion. Literally just checking every possible place and not finding any evidence of the animal. I mean, if they haven't checked everywhere, I don't think they should be saying 'extinct' just yet. If this guy is saying there's hope based on the amount of area they haven't checked, I'm guessing that means its a large area. I think its a bit premature. It's not like there haven't been premature announcements of extinction on species before: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/28/woodpec ker/index.html and http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2 006-03-09-rat-squirrel-survivor_x.htm

Re:I'm curious....

[Anonymous Coward]

1) They did a very comprehensive search (details available through Google).
2) They put it in terms of probabilities not certainties (hence this story with one of the scientists still holding out hope for finding a reserve population somewhere).
3) Species can become "functionally" extinct, when their populations are so low they will not be able to maintain levels in the face of stress and competition.
4) Zoologists use statistical sampling methods for things like population numbers, ranges etc. You can probably find more details on wikipedia or through Google :)
5) They can also compare previous studies of the dolphin against the recent one to obtain estimates on numbers, or lack thereof.

But yep, you are correct, there might some small number out there that just haven't been found. It would be very, very unlikely, and they wouldn't be enough to sustain the species, but it might put the official extinction off for a little bit. However, based on the search, it would take an unwise gambler to assert that they still exist, when the declining population due to human interference, pollution and overexploitation of their habitat was already known.
(Oh, and that ivory-billed woodpecker finding doesn't look to have held up, so it probably is extinct. Turns out that similar species have drumming rhythms that overlap the supposedly unique ones for the woodpecker, and it is easy to confuse markings/sightings of them with other woodpeckers as well.)

Re:I'm curious....

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times do you have to count to zero to be sure?

Re:I'm curious....

[reversecausality]

It's probably irrelevant - if they've become so scarce that the scientists couldn't find any, the population is likely to have dropped below the minimum viable level and inbreeding depression will finish off any stragglers. Unless they've all f-ed off to somewhere remote and unexplored with cleaner water.

Miracle Max

[LightPhoenix7]

See, there's a big difference between mostly extinct, and all extinct. Now, mostly extinct: they're slightly not-extinct. All extinct, well, with all extinct, there's usually only one thing that you can do...

In all seriousness, with so few members of the species, they're effectively extinct, and that's what counts. There may be one or two, but there's zero chance they'll balloon into a viable population. Even if we save genetic samples, we're decades, if not centuries, away from being able to reproduce an entire species, if we can even do that. Even if we have tissue samples from twenty different dolphins, and reproduce them through some hypothetical cloning technique, I'm not convinced that's enough genetic diversity to sustain the species.

Re:Miracle Max

[Jeff DeMaagd]

That's the problem. If you do happen to have a population of twenty, I agree that it's not much. That may not be extinct now, but it's probably just borrowed time.

Re:Miracle Max

[edbarbar]

What makes you think we are centuries away from cloning a species? I think the French tried to clone a wooley mammoth, though it has been extinct for 10K years.

Re:Miracle Max

[Leperflesh]

An organism, particularly a mammal, is far more than its own DNA. Humans have 10 times as many bacterial cells in our bodies as human cells. Dolphins are no different. A baby dolphin no doubt gets cultures of all sorts of bacteria from its mother's milk. Unique symbiotic organisms live on the skin, in the gut, even in the blood in some animals.

Further, the species is adapted to a particular ecological niche - in this case, the Yangtse River.

Further, particularly in mammals, there are learned behaviors that are not genetically-based, which can include food-finding/gathering/hunting techniques, predator-avoiding techniques, mating behavior, child-rearing behavior, and so forth.

If you want to recover a species from its DNA, it is necessary to reproduce all of the co-dependent species on which it relies. You could maybe get a different species of dolphin to act as a surrogate mother (freshwater dolphin would be necessary, I'd think), but it would have the wrong stomach flora, the wrong hormones in its uterus and breastmilk, the wrong rearing behaviors.

What you'd get as a result wouldn't be the species you were trying to save. Not quite, anyway.

We could probably maybe recover an extinct bacterial strain from its DNA today. Recovering something as complicated as a dolphin is, I'd guess, a century or more out, if it is possible at all: and it may not be possible at all.

Re:Miracle Max

[Anonymous Coward]

By that reasoning, there are lot of people that are not humans, because they were raised on milk surrogate. Or that the races are, in fact, different species. You really don't want to go there.

What you're describing is a population, not species. There can be different populations of the same species with different behavior, symbionts, or niches.

Re:Miracle Max

[Dalroth]

>An organism, particularly a mammal, is far more than its own DNA. Humans have 10 times as many bacterial cells in our bodies as human cells. Dolphins are no different. A baby dolphin no doubt gets cultures of all sorts of bacteria from its mother's milk. Unique symbiotic organisms live on the skin, in the gut, even in the blood in some animals.

I've heard this claim before. 10x times a pretty hard number to swallow without some real proof. Where's the study? Where's your source? I've never seen any actual PROOF of this claim. I'd like to.

Re:Miracle Max

[ediron2]

Tell that to condors, whooping cranes, bison and all the other nearly-gones that still aren't gone. With the rather famous and depressing exception of condors, we're pretty good at getting numbers that stave off outright extinction.

In the case of these dolphins, getting a maintenance population the *hell* out of China seems more likely to work than refuge creation: china still doesn't seem to grok the 'canary in a coalmine' concept that rampant pollution and resource overuse has a limit that China is sprinting past. 'The solution to pollution is dilution' only works in moderation. Hundreds of people per square mile and unrestricted polluting aren't moderation.

What chaps my ass is the number of *people* that have excuses for extirpating or extincting species: no use to us, jobs creation is more important, 'god gave man dominion over animals', believing personal difficulties (can't find a job, cost of living, cost of college) make *them* endangered, etc.

Re:Miracle Max

[LightPhoenix7]

Yeah, and that's why I said a hypothetical cloning mechanism. Really, without a way to make differentiated cells undifferentiate, and then tell them to grow, and get them to grow, that's a lot of technology we don't have. The latter is the only one we're even close to, and far from any sort of scale that would allow for us to magically make dolphins. That's a good call on the bacteria, however I don't think those things are absolutely critical, when the goal is just recreating the species. Humans can live without their gut flora, though they do offer digestive and protective functions. In theory though, we could conserve gut flora (just swab and freeze in appropriate media) a lot more easily than tissues and DNA, and perhaps that should be done as well.

Re:Miracle Max

[StikyPad]

I can categorically state that mating behavior and child rearing is completely instinctive in all mammals, with the possible, though unlikely, exception of ourselves. Hunting techniques may not be instinctive, but they are generally developed by playing with siblings. What to eat may not be instinctive, but animals are well equipped to find the foods they commonly eat: dogs have great noses, cats have excellent vision, dolphins have echo-location, etc. Most mammals will start out trying to eat anything, and if they survive, they'll develop a taste for what they do and don't like. Some are too particular for their own good, like pandas and koalas, but most can eat a wide variety of food.

As for bacteria, the gastrointestinal tract of a normal fetus is sterile. After birth, bacteria from the surrounding environment colonize the gut (no pun intended), so it's not likely that some "essential bacteria" would be lost in the extinction.

Additionally, there would be no need for a surrogate mother to breastfeed the dolphins.. formula should suffice, which is used for just about every animal born in captivity today, especially in labs and zoos.

"Recovering" a species is little different from cloning it, and it's certainly not a century out, especially considering that successful cloning has been happening on a regular basis for the past decade.

I'm not arguing that species should be exploited just because we can "undo" or mitigate the damage; I'm just saying that if we really want to recover a species, we probably can.

yes

[circletimessquare]

if it's a culturally significant animal, there is more reason to get worked up about it

exactly what is wrong with that observation? what do you not understand about it?

Re:yes

[zero_offset]

Extinction is pretty serious, regardless of whether that species matters to us or not. Congratulations, you've discovered a whole new category of "shallow"... worsened by the fact that apparently the main "cultural significance" of this animal is/was that it's tasty enough to fish into extinction. There's a Catch-22 for you.

I'm by no means a greasy-haired wild-eyed foaming-at-the-mouth green-nazi hippie douchebag, pretty nearly the opposite in fact, and I certainly don't buy into the "stewards of the planet" bullshit, but extinction that is pretty clearly caused by human activity -- worse yet, incidental and easily avoided activity -- still makes me queasy.

The point I'm trying to make is that extinction is so serious that whether the species was useful or important to us or not is completely irrelevant.

mod parent up

[circletimessquare]

thank you for saying what i should have said, more insightfully and as less of a hot head

I stipulate that it is dead - so what?

[NotQuiteReal]

Let's say ALL the cute animals, and homo sapiens eventually die out. For whatever natural or man-made reason.

So what?

As long as there is some life left, there will be a "what's next".

Do you really care who is at the top of the food chain a million years from now?

Re:I stipulate that it is dead - so what?

[euphopiab]

You, sir, earn an e-cookie. It seems as though every time a species becomes extinct, when the cause can be slightly connected to industry and/or human intervention, it is made public and everyone frets. I think that a vast majority of the people on this planet think the world is limited to maybe 200 species, and every time one dies it's like the world is decaying. There are, however, millions of species, and new species are constantly developing and, yes, dieing naturally ( and if you consider humans unnatural, than sometimes unnaturally ). In fact, the death of these dolphins may open up breeding grounds for new fish to mutate in and bring about new species. And yes, if the species had been of a water slug, no one would care. Cute is always a plus in the entertainment industry.

Re:I stipulate that it is dead - so what?

[Joe Tie.]

I don't care too much if we're around, or dolphins for that matter. What I do care about is sentient life, animals able to contemplate their own consciousness. It's taken a really long time for that to evolve, and I'm not so certain that the planet has enough time left to get it into a tool using state, and off planet. Right now sentience has us as a representative. There might be more in space, but I do care that the only species we're a 100% sure of lives on. Dolphins, too, I care about for their place as a second tier species in regards to ourselves. They're very different, and not likely to ever get into advanced tool use due to their water bound state. But they're still a nice look into the mirror as far as language using mammals go.

Re:I stipulate that it is dead - so what?

[GPL Apostate]

I'm not so certain that the planet has enough time left to get it into a tool using state, and off planet.

What does that have to do with anything?

The whole 'off planet' thing is just teevee shows that you've plainly watched too many of. Try to focus your concerns on what is here, and now, in reality.

yes, education is needed

[circletimessquare]

the baiji has been important to the culture of china going back thousands of years, they were regarded as river goddesses. the chinese also venerate their ancestors. so, the chinese have just killed an animal that their ancestors regarded with great respect. there, there's some more of my western patronizing and condescending to speak on behalf of the chinese

and yes, there should be international sanctions against china for this crime. yes, there probably won't be. because of course, if a crime is committed, and no one is punished for it, it's not a crime, and you have to respect that nothing will be done about it

there, that's some more eco-babble for you. because, of course, outrage over the death of a venerated species is nothing but empty headed liberal eco-babble

the chinese killed off a culturally significant species. oh well, who cares

Re:yes, education is needed

[The One and Only]

Since it was culturally significant to the Chinese, I suspect the Chinese are the ones who care. But wait! They're the ones who killed it off! Guess they didn't really care that much.

Re:yes, education is needed

[p0tat03]

Hi. Chinese guy here. And yeah, you are being patronizing.

It's true that the baiji are somewhat significant in Chinese culture, but to the point you seem to think it is. Personally nobody I knew ever thought about them, or indeed were aware of them outside of field trips to some science museum. The whole "ancestors placed importance in baiji" and "Chinese venerate ancestors" is just one big non-sequitor I'm not even going to touch.

Keep in mind that the significance of the river dolphins was limited to an isolated geographical region, where the vast majority of Chinese did *not* reside. Maybe there are people living on the banks of the yangtze mourning their loss, but for the other 99.99% of Chinese people out there, things haven't changed a bit.

Now... Regarding your previous comment. While it's certainly unfortunate and sad that the baiji have been killed off due to human actions, in the end who is responsible? Want to dig Mao out of the ground and put him on trial for instituting the Great Leap Forward that encouraged such reckless killings? Good luck with that. In the end, commercial fisheries, massively increased boat traffic, and the construction of the Three Gorges Dam were primary contributors to the extinction of these dolphins. IMHO all of these have been critical to raising the standard of living and quality of life for the Chinese people. I wish we could have both (human prosperity and ecological conservation), and perhaps we could have under more effective leadership or more resources, but those were the cards we were dealt.

What would a serious conservation effort require to preserve these creatures? Stop using the Yangtze as an industry shipping lane? Spew even more toxic gases into the atmosphere by constructing the huge number of fuel-burning power plants that the Three Gorges Dam could replace? Stop fishing the Yangtze and deny a critical food source for the local population? I hate to be so human-ist about everything, but between the survival of humans the the survival of a bunch of dolphins, it's pretty clear which I pick.

So now the baiji are (probably) all dead. What did we receive out of that deal? Millions of Chinese are now far more prosperous than they were before. Remote regions are no longer starving, and many now have access to proper food, shelter, and medicine. The situation in China, especially the rural areas, is not pretty, but for the most part it's a lot better than it was before.

Re:yes, education is needed

[Sinbios]

Well, no, dolphins AREN'T people. Oh, nice fallacy there. Cuz the death of dolphins as a side effect of economic development is totally like killing American Indians.

Re:yes, education is needed

[petsounds]

It is sad that China cannot learn from the mistakes of the west. Your China is like America in the 1950s. All properity, all industry, no ecology. In 40 years, China and the world will be weeping at the ecological damage you have wrought upon the earth. Already you are poisoning your own people with smog. The Three Gorges Dam is an environmental, archaeological, and socioeconomic disaster. Important archaeological sites have been submerged, whole towns have been moved, and the Yangtze ecosystem will be forever altered. The Chinese government is ignorant, foolish, and power-hungry. This isn't much different than many western governments, but they have the benefit of some amount of public accountability due to their democratic leanings. China is being led down a dark path by people who are sacrificing China's natural resources in exchange for short-term benefits.

Re:yes, education is needed

[p0tat03]

There are similarities between China and America of the 50s, but they're not as analogous as you might think.

America in the 50s was in an economic boom like never seen before, but for the most part its population was already relatively prosperous. Education, shelter, food, and medicine were generally available, which is a far cry from China in the present (or worse, in the past).

China has a ludicrous number of people who still do not have access to food, medicine, and shelter. There are still villages starving to death left, right, and center. In this environment the impetus to improve economically (which really is the only way to more food, shelter, and medicine) is much stronger than merely to improve an already acceptable life.

I too question the usefulness of the Three Gorges Dam, and I also believe that not enough was done to minimize the environmental and archaeological impact of its construction. That being said, the dam notwithstanding, much of what China has done to destroy its environment was a toss-up between pulling villages out of starvation vs. preserving a forest. In those cases the choice is rather obvious.

Re:yes, education is needed

[tehcyder]

Hi. Chinese guy here. And yeah, you are being patronizing.

You write English quite well for a foreigner. Well done!

yes, the nihilist's game: "it doesn't matter"

[circletimessquare]

let me take you to right to the end game of the nihilist's position:

1. if nothing matters, kill yourself. or at least shut up and stop posting on slashdot. it doesn't matter, right? so why are you talking about it if it doesn't matter?

2. okay, then it does matter. so keep talking. but stop saying statements that contradict your demonstrated desire to say something about the subject matter. namely "it doesn't matter"

on any ideological issue, there is being for it, being against it, and not caring about it

not caring about an issue IS a valid position for you to take if you want. so prove you don't care. shut up and go away. otherwise, you do care. in which case, celebrate the death of the dolphin, or express your anger or sadness about it

but coming into a topic of discussion and announcing that the topic doesn't matter is not a logically coherent position. if you talk about it, it matters to you. if you don't talk about it, it doesn't matter to you.

but talking about how something doesn't matter to you. what the hell is that point of view supposed to mean to anyone else? it's hypocrisy at best. no one is tying you down to a computer terminal, holding your eyes open with toothpicks, putting your fingers on a keyboard, pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to comment on slashdot. so prove it doesn't matter: shut up, and go away

Re:yes, the nihilist's game: "it doesn't matter"

[grahamd0]

let me take you to right to the end game of the nihilist's position:

1. if nothing matters, kill yourself. or at least shut up and stop posting on slashdot. it doesn't matter, right? so why are you talking about it if it doesn't matter?
1. I don't claim to be a nihilist, but nice try.

2. okay, then it does matter. so keep talking. but stop saying statements that contradict your demonstrated desire to say something about the subject matter. namely "it doesn't matter" 2. Perhaps "it doesn't matter" is a valid point in the discussion. Resource A is being wasted on problem X. It may be worthwhile to discuss the validity of problem X in order to determine value lost of resource A. The entire discussion may, in fact, be irrelevant and by pointing that out I save those engaged in it a valuable resource, namely: time.

on any ideological issue, there is being for it, being against it, and not caring about it

not caring about an issue IS a valid position for you to take if you want. so prove you don't care. shut up and go away. otherwise, you do care. in which case, celebrate the death of the dolphin, or express your anger or sadness about it
but coming into a topic of discussion and announcing that the topic doesn't matter is not a logically coherent position. if you talk about it, it matters to you. if you don't talk about it, it doesn't matter to you.

but talking about how something doesn't matter to you. what the hell is that point of view supposed to mean to anyone else? it's hypocrisy at best. no one is tying you down to a computer terminal, holding your eyes open with toothpicks, putting your fingers on a keyboard, pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to comment on slashdot. so prove it doesn't matter: shut up, and go away
Or, I could seek to inform myself of other's opinions about the subject at hand with a question. "So what if they're extinct?" is actually a question. I'll note for the record that you didn't answer it, despite your implied love for our aquatic friends or, at least, the subject of debate in general. Excellent use of misdirection. Why don't you correct my spelling while you're at it?

Re:yes, the nihilist's game: "it doesn't matter"

[mrchaotica]

There is a fourth option: perhaps he doesn't care about the particular subject, but just likes to argue.

Re:yes, the nihilist's game: "it doesn't matter"

[jamesh]

And a fifth... YHBT YHL HAND

Re:yes, the nihilist's game: "it doesn't matter"

[grahamd0]

Perhaps I do care about the dolphins and I like playing the devil's advocate.

Re:yes, the nihilist's game: "it doesn't matter"

[mrchaotica]

No, sorry, that's just a restatement of option four.

(not a Troll..)

[newr00tic]

And as we all know, Koalas are Little Bitches (http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000451.html.)

.

Read and laugh.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT UP

Re:If only ...

[Tablizer]

.. they had frickin' lasers on their heads. Nobody would mess with 'em then.

Maybe that's what they are doing. They'll come back and say, okay, now its you human's time to feel the brink of extinction. zzzt zzzzt...

Evolution?

[professorfalcon]

You mean after 20 million years, they didn't develop machine gun flippers to protect themselves??

Re:Evolution?

[sydbarrett74]

Yeah, but they couldn't out-swim the sea bass who had frickin' lasers attached to their heads.

It's NegroEs dumasses !!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's NegroEs dumasses !!

Unless from America, then American-African, or American of African decent (presumed to be true), or GGGGrand father was slave sold by Africans to slave "traders" sold to rich "people" to make pancakes and pick cotton, some of whose decendents went on to fly in WW II. I think that wraps this topic up nice.

Re:It's NegroEs dumasses !!

[Anonymous Coward]

One could say that - being of African decent -- about everyone today, baring L. Ron Hubbard's line , whom we all know hail from far, far away (very far).

Re:It's NegroEs dumasses !!

[Anonymous Coward]

> baring L. Ron Hubbard's line

Ugh, no! I know geeks are into some weird pr0n, but really, draw the line somewhere!

Re:It's NegroEs dumasses !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha, wow, you are awesome

Holy Redundant Lasers, Batman!

[Etherwalk]

I love that the lasers are modded redundant. It makes the little boy in me say YAY! Maybe-or-maybe-not-extinct-dolphins who already have lasers! It's like a superhero waiting to happen. Thinking he's the last of his kind, a young Baiji River Dolphin sets out to restore peace and justice to the world's rivers.

(Oh, and he has a laser.)

What really happened

[Rudisaurus]

Professor Ding says based on anecdotal evidence, he remains confident the dolphins are still out there. "I'm pretty much sure there are a few of them left somewhere in the Yangtze River," he said. "I keep receiving reports from fishermen, they say they saw a couple of baiji somewhere, sometime."'"

... and they were delicious!

Heck yes.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Of course I care who is at the top of the food chain. They'll be paying for my social security for the next million years after that point. Based upon the evidence I've collected showing that I have never actually died before, I see no reason why it should happen before 2 million years from now, provided I avoid car crashes, werewolves, and vitamin K-19.

It's obvious to me what happened.

[smokeala]

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

Re:I blame George Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Did Bush shit on your face?

Did a Jew shit on your face?

Did an American shit on your face?

Is that why you're so pissed off? Why, you should be mad at the whole world because everyone would shit on your face.

A shameful tragedy

[dircha]

This unique life form is now gone forever. The lessons we could learn by studying it are now lost to eternity. Its unique role in the ecosystem is forever lost.

We destroyed it. We literally choked the life out of it.

Who are we to do this? Are we so confident in our superiority as to believe that a little temporary convenience to dump toxic industrial wastes is worth the complete loss of this life form?

We were up in arms when a islamic government destroyed man made statues of buddha merely hundreds of years old, and yet we as a world sat quietly as a life form 20 million years old was forever wiped from the universe?

I am ashamed to be a human being. If another being or race came to earth and looked down at what we have done with our world and to one another, I would expect them to treat us no better than we have treated this defenseless creature. We are parasites, rotting away the life of a beautiful and wondrous creation.

Tasty!

[Trikenstein]

I can keep them on my check list of things to eat before I die!

Pandas suck.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a better example of an evolutionary dead end? They have one food source, and while plentiful, provides them next to no nutrition, they hardly ever breed, when they do they have a high infant mortality rate... What do they do anyway, they dont occupy a place in a food chain other than bamboo->panda. But they're cute so people care more than species that aren't going extinct due to natural causes.

So what happens to Brazil and the like?

[Anonymous Coward]

The demolition of the rain forests wipes out 5 species per day or something like that?

Not me

[NEOtaku17]

The cool thing about being an individual is that I am only responsible for my own actions. When someone from my "race" invents something I don't claim credit just because he has the same color skin as I do. In the same way I don't beat myself up over the stupid shit other people do. Many humans are immoral and ignorant. Some are not. Everything I do myself is entirely my fault and cannot be blamed on anyone else. I have no excuses. You are only yourself. Nothing more.

Wake up. Globalwarmingists are KILLING this planet

[Anonymous Coward]

The most urgent threats to biodiversity are:

1) habitat destruction
2) poaching
3) pollution

This is it! This is how species like the Baiji disappear. Nothing else matters! And so maybe this is off-topic, but is anybody wondering if globalwarmingists even realize? or care?

I mean, does anyone even pay any attention to them anymore? Their lists of "top ten ways to help curb global warming"? LOL, who are these people? Honest, hard-working folks, I suppose. Concerned for us all. Right, but has ANYTHING come from the truckloads of grant money and reels of airtime they've squandered over the years? What have all these pages and pages of nonsense they've printed demanding we all buy energy-smart water heaters and carbon-neutral calculators accomplished? So they convinced some poor folks to buy a hatchback and lower the thermostat on their pool heaters? Pffft, OMG... so what? "Join us!", they celebrate, "...in congratulating Juanita Lopez of San Diego, CA, who has just become the one millionth hybrid driver!" Hooray! Sure, what a wonderful contribution Juanita has made to help the critically endangered rodents that cling to their existence in the Chaparral in her canyon. And as all the neighbors witness Juanita arrive in her chic new car, who is there in Juanita's kitchen window waiting to greet her? Her precious puffy Persian kitty of course! Cleaning the freshly-disemboweled mole entrails from its cute puffy paws! Catches one every day, that kitty! Her nana is so proud!

I just don't get it. With all that's going on in the world, with all the species lost every year, why do we get WEEK after WEEK and magazine cover after magazine cover dedicated to 'global warming'? God sakes, how many photoshop drawings of glowing Suns and flaming Earths and flooded skyscrapers do we need to see on the cover of Newsweek before we can just MOVE ON? How many times will Katie Couric run that same ridiculous segment where some sweaty old lady gets asked in the heat of the day if she feels warmer this particular afternoon than she did in 1958? WHO CARES? For ten months, Katie Couric has begun every newscast with six minutes of Bush bashing, followed it with some vapid global warming update, and ended it with bad ratings. What is the point? Katie Couric sends her field reporter in a taxi to scope out Central Park for camera-ready sunbathers, and meanwhile 6,000 miles away the last Chinese River Dolphin emerges from its filthy Yangtze, draws it's final breath, and descends into the abyss for eternity.

I don't know what to say. Shucks, if there is indeed another Chinese River Dolphin out there somewhere, I can't even imagine what sort of loneliness and sickness it must be enduring right now. Who knows, if it manages to survive just a while longer, perhaps President Hillary's carbon dioxide tax will bring it salvation.

Fishermen

[Capt James McCarthy]

"I'm pretty much sure there are a few of them left somewhere in the Yangtze River," he said. "I keep receiving reports from fishermen, they say they saw a couple of baiji somewhere, sometime."'"

Ah, alcohol. May your wonders never fail to amaze me.

Oblig

[nih]

I'm feeling better!

Re:FYI--I work with the Main Baiji scientist Pitma

[theguru]

I'd say the vaquitain in the Gulf of Mexico are already gone, if they ever existed, because they have only ever been known to live in the Gulf of California.

You can never pin down the date of extinction.

[jonadab]

Unless you are truly omniscient (simultanously aware of everything everywhere all the time), which most of us aren't, you can never know for sure when any given kind of animal is extinct. You can know when it was last verified and/or last reported that something was *not* extinct, but when you say that you think something is extinct, you're always speaking from a lack of knowledge, saying, in effect, "We are not _aware_ of any of these still being alive."

With large surface-dwelling megafauna (e.g., wooly rhinos), it is generally reasonable to assume (in the modern era, with most of the world explored and cheap communication fairly ubiquitous) that if you can go a few decades without verifying a living specimen, they're probably extinct -- although there a slim chance you've missed them somehow. With smaller things and water-dwelling things (_especially_ anything that lives in the deep ocean), it's harder to know.

On the one hand, dolphins are fairly large, and thus easy to spot compared to smaller fish, and a river is not so hard to check as the ocean. Nonetheless, one survey could still miss them easily enough, especially if there aren't very many.

Then too, with things that live in rivers, there's the question of whether they can enter and leave the river at various times (dwelling ad interim in lakes and/or the ocean). We know there are fishes that do this, most famously salmon, so it's a question worth asking.

Only a matter of time

[toby]

Not extinct yet? Check back in a few months, they'll be sure to be. But hundreds of species are on death row thanks to human greed and thoughtlessness, including the pangolin (UK Guardian):

5,000 of the world's rarest animals have been found drifting in a deserted boat near the coast of China.

The pangolins, Asian giant turtles and lizards were crushed inside crates on a rickety wooden vessel that had lost engine power off Qingzhou island in the southern province of Guangdong. Most were alive, though the cargo also contained 21 bear paws wrapped in newspaper.

According to conservation groups, the haul was discovered on one of the world's most lucrative and destructive smuggling routes: from the threatened jungles of south-east Asia to the restaurant tables of southern China. ...

Despite the ban on pangolins, many restaurants offer their meat. The Chaoxing restaurant in Shenzhen said yesterday that pangolin was available but was only suitable for large dining parties.

"The animal is very big - about 10kg," said a waitress contacted by telephone. "We serve it in hotpot. That is the tastiest way." ...

A Guangdong chef ... described how to cook a pangolin. "We keep them alive in cages until the customer makes an order. Then we hammer them unconscious, cut their throats and drain the blood. It is a slow death. We then boil them to remove the scales."

So while we thoughtlessly wipe out species after species, at least we treat every individual with unimaginable cruelty first. Yay humans.

Re:Only a matter of time

[Detritus]

The Chinese government could stop this if they wanted to. Screw fines, seize and close any restaurant that has critically endangered wildlife on the menu. Back home, when they had problems with poaching, they changed the law to allow the game wardens to seize the vehicles of poachers. Not only did they have to pay a hefty fine, they also lost their rifle and their shiny new pickup truck. That really got their attention.

From Douglas Adams' "Last Chance To See"

[cgrayson]

I just finished reading Douglas Adams' excellent 1990 book, Last Chance To See, in which he travels the world with zoologist Mark Carwardine, searching for a few extremely endangered species. One of them was the Yangtze river dolphin, or baiji.

In the middle of one of the biggest, longest, noisiest, dirtiest thoroughfares in the world lives the reincarnation of a drowned princess, or rather, two hundred reincarnations of a drowned princess...

If they are all the same drowned princess, then she must have led a life of exquisite sinfulness to have had the conditions of her current lives repeatedly inflicted on her. Her reincarnations are constantly being mangled in ships' propellers, snared in fishermen's nets full of hooks, blinded, poisoned, and deafened.

The thoroughfare in question is the Yangtze River, and the reincarnated princess is the baiji, the Yangtze river dolphin.

It's an excellent, funny, touching and sad book; now with this news, even sadder. Things actually sounded like they might work out for this particular species, back when Adams was there. Guess not. So, maybe there are a few poor individual dolphins out there in the murk, maybe not. If there are, I doubt it's for long.

Re:From Douglas Adams' "Last Chance To See"

[Frobisher]

They're making a TV series follow-up with Stephen Fry at the helm. See Another Chance To See.

"Mostly Extinct"

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that anything like "kind of pregnant"?

On the efficacity of propaganda models

[Scrameustache]

This is apparently actually old news; it was announced on a Baiji conservation website in December of last year. I'll do you one better than that, it was apparently reported on fucking Slashdot too.

Seriously, what is wrong with you people? They're the victim of sublime propagandistic obfuscation. On the very next day that the extinction was announced, China flooded the world with this so-called news: "World's tallest man saves Chinese dolphins".

Of course, no one force-fed plastic to those captive Dolphins, that was a totally real and coincidental event that involved a spectacular circus freak, warm-fuzzies for all, and the words "china dolphin" to clog the news tubes. You would have to be some kind of conspiracy nut to think China would look after its image so fiercely when the Olympics are looming close. Obviously, this was nothing but a coincidence involving captive animals and a sideshow freak, nothing more, nothing more. It did not succeed at pushing out real news from the media, and neither did it succeed at pushing out real, depressing news from the collective consciousness. This is another one of those tin-foil hat ideas, don'tyou give it any thought.

"May or May Not Be"?

[BarnabyWilde]

Not a trace of weaseling there.

Like there's a third choice.

Schrödinger's Dolphin?

[protolith]

I Didn't RTFA, so I'm going to assume TFA is a discussion about the Quantum state of Sea Life.

Re:Schrödinger's Dolphin?

[Torvaun]

"Noah's ark is a problem."
"Really?"
"We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5,000 species of mammal on the same boat."

And the prize for tool of the year goes to...

[Nursie]

Seriously, WTF?

GW is a climate phenomenon caused by us chucking crap into the atmosphere.
Pollution is another problem with a similar source. Both are really big issues affecting humans and other animals, both are due to our activity.

So how where they cooked?

[HornWumpus]

I just want to know the traditional way. Regular dolphin is so fatty, I'm wondering if Baiji was leaner.

Think of all the kids that will never taste Baiji!

[HornWumpus]

There lives will be forever diminished because they will miss this culinary treat.

Repopulation

[XavierFan]

Now we need to repopulate the waterways with scuba divers wearing these...

so long,

[Anonymous Coward]

and thanks for all the fish!

straw man

[circletimessquare]

how much additional effort would it have taken the chinese to save the dolphin from extinction?

you seem to say that economic development, the three gorges damn, etc.: it required the dolphin go extinct. really? so china can exert great effort to build a damn, but not the tiniest of effort to save a dolphin?

fact is, it is now the eternal shame of the chinese for killing this creature. not according to this westerner. don't ask me, ask your grandchildren

they won't mind at all that your poor choices means the china they inherit is permanently reduced

please: i want you to tell me with your obvious conscience free certainty about everything being great and wonderful about modern china that your grandchildren would never do that

go ahead, tell us all about how no mistake was made

(snicker)

Re:straw man

[InakaBoyJoe]

Passing the buck.

The parent's post is probably the most balanced view in this discussion. A trade-off exists between human development and the dolphin, and there wasn't a practical way to save the dolphin without serious consequences for human development. There's your first question answered.

Between your rhetoric about "eternal shame of The Chinese" you belie your ignorance. "so china can exert great effort to build a damn[SIC], but not the tiniest of effort to save a dolphin?" The reason you are even hearing about this issue today is because of the existence of conservation efforts, some of them -- shocker -- even run by The Chinese.

Now, back to passing the buck, you ask the original poster to explain what China practically could have done better, but that's really your responsibility as the critic here. If you can't offer anything constructive, you're just another hypocritical armchair activist.

which americans regret doing to the indians

[circletimessquare]

but i guess you're telling me that the chinese aren't burdened by something as pesky as a human conscience, huh?

the death of the baiji is obviously a mistake. it would have required the slightest of attention and effort to prevent it. except china didn't do that. and now china has eternal shame for that

but don't bother responding to me. i'm obviously an arrogant american

you should be worrying about what your grandchildren are going to think about your poor choices

oops! sorry! china never makes poor choices!

pffffft

Re:which americans regret doing to the indians

[p0tat03]

Slightest of attention. Pray tell, Mr. Marine Biologist, what would it have honestly taken for the Chinese to preserve this species?

Obviously much effort was expended trying to breed the baiji in captivity, none of which to any success. So... Considering that the animals could not be bred in captivity and thus restored somewhat, the only way is to protect them in their environments. So... What does that mean? Denying (or at least greatly reducing) ship traffic along the Yangtze? Banning of all net fishing in the river?

In an ideal world it would have been possible to save the baiji at a minimal economic cost to the nation. But that is not the way it was.

My grandchildren will have a far lesser chance of dying at childbirth, far better health throughout their lifetimes, and they will not starve. Indeed, they will have opportunities to excel and make a better life for themselves and their grandchildren. They will live in warm houses, instead of freezing under a corrugated aluminum shack. My grandchildren will regret that certain issues had to be sidelined in the name of progress, but they will not question the value of this progress.

Re:which americans regret doing to the indians

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, here's one American who hasd no problem with killing off the indians. They were on OUR land, dude!

They were assh*les who were in the way. And now who gives a d*mm about a fish? I bet they didn't even taste good.

If you don't use it, you lose it. That's what made America the greatest country in the world. So I guess indian bitches were no good in the sack, otherwise there'd still be some around today.

Go America! Go Texas!!

Slightest of attention

[circletimessquare]

liquid nitrogen

thanks for you time, retard

Re:Slightest of attention

[p0tat03]

The world is not like Jurassic Park, retard. A single DNA sample, or even a crate full of samples, will never give enough genetic diversity to successfully restore the species. And given that we can't keep these guys in captivity without them dying on us... what, pray tell, would be the point in preserving this species, when they absolutely cannot survive in the present condition of the wilderness? So we can clone a bunch of them, stick them in aquariums, subject them to cruelly short lifespans, just so we can feel a bit better about ourselves for preserving a species from extinction, even though no more can be found in the wild (which, IMHO, *is* extinction)?

Extinction is a myth

[toriver]

As countless religions keep arguing, just because you don't observe something (ie. God, unicorns) doesn't mean it does not exist.

Y'all gotta have FAITH.

yes

[circletimessquare]

because you have the next 200 years of scientific progress already figured out

(snicker)

yes,,,but

[Anonymous Coward]

does netcraft confirm it?

Re:You Idiots Theyr'e DEAD, Jim!

[aqk]

>> Yeah, but we keep coming back. Who is more the fool ... the fool, or the fool who follows a fool?

Sweetie, I'll follow you ANYWHERE.

Just tell me that this stuff on my plate is Cod.

hmmnn.. wait! didn't the seals eat all the cod?

Re:DNA- how about yours?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we should take DNA from YOU.

And then make sure it is not replicated.

In other news....

[Bugs42]

Chinese fishermen found a glass bowl in the river with the words "So long and thanks for all the fish" engraved on the side.
Film at 11.

Re: Your careless reply

[Anonymous Coward]

... reveals more, succinctly, about the state of mind in China, and why the dolphins are extinct than any other argument posted here.