Only 3 northern white rhino's left!!

[955i]

It is with profound sadness we announce that 41-year-old Nola, who was one of only 4 remaining northern white rhinos, has died. Nola, who lived here since 1989, was under veterinary care for a bacterial infection, as well as age-related health issues. In the last 24 hours, Nola’s condition worsened and we made the difficult decision to euthanize her. We’re absolutely devastated by this loss, but resolved to fight even harder to ‪#‎EndExtinction‬. We ask you to join us in that fight. Please share your memories of Nola and your condolences with the ‪#‎Nola4Ever‬ hashtag, and let this be a warning of what is happening to wildlife everywhere. ‪#‎RIP‬ sweet girl. You will be deeply, dearly missed.

 

Just wondered what people thought about this now there are only 3 left, given that the reason is not only poaching but big game hunting also?

Edited November 29, 2015 by 955i

[littlerob]

They say about all the endangered we need money and once there gone there gone animals all die out things evolve look at the dinosaurs man didn't kill them off. I have a simple solution clone them or make a test tube one if we could clone a sheep quite a few years ago why can't we do any other animal

Edited November 29, 2015 by littlerob

[955i]

They say about all the endangered we need money l once there gone there gone animals I have a simple solution clone them or make a test tube one if we could clone a sheep quite a few years ago why and we do any other animal

What a wonderfully enlightened position to take about species extinction due to human interference and so eloquently put

Edited November 29, 2015 by 955i

[scotslad]

In theory big game hunting well managed should be helpin to save endangered species by giving them a value to local people and injecting more into the area for wardens/poacher patrols. The problem probably comes in the 'well managed' part given the corruption in many parts.

 

Once an animal gets down to 3 it's pretty screwed really, esp when not overly productive breeding in captivity. Biggest problem will be inbreeding unless they have more DNA (sperm/embryo's) stored elsewhere of more rhino's.

 

Can u flush other rhino species? Not unusual to do it in cattle now u place a fertilised embryo in a different cow, know of some scabby cast cows that were calfing pedigree limosin calf's. Quite expensive thou i think, but obviously worth it in case of rhino.

 

Did packham not say panda's conservation causes more harm to general conservation due to the large sums of money it collects and has had very little real success. While it has released pandas back into the wild don't think any have actually bred succesfully yet. So any relocation is not really succesful yet untl they are self sustaining.

Possibly u could argue not really worth trying to save the white rhino as population will never be vaible with only 3 animals DNA, and money would be better spent elsewhere

 

On a slight tangent some estimates of pure bred scottish wildcat are as low as 30, an animal that is in our country yet no one seems to bother about it, far more corncerned with animals in some distant land that they can do very little about

[955i]

They are looking at using southern's as surrogate mothers at the moment, but its grasping at straws a bit I think.

[scotslad]

Do they have much stored DNA from other individuals?

Can they cross breed the 2 species? In theory very few 100% guaranteed pure bred red deer left in mainland scotland now

 

Sort of debate they're having the now with wildcats how high a % of wildcat is worth saving. Would a hybrid rhino be worth saving as better than none?

 

 

If they knew illness was terminal would there of been a case of letting out into a big enclosure and some rich mupet to shoot it for a vast sum of money??

I'm sure u could get sum one to pay massive money to shoot 1 of the last 4.

Not something that would appeal to most responsible hunters, but if that money brought in could be used for good to save that or an other species?

[Penelope]

The Northern White are a sub species, so crossing with the Southern (nominal) Whites would not be a problem, other than the dilution of the Northern DNA.

 

Do they have much stored DNA from other individuals?

Can they cross breed the 2 species? In theory very few 100% guaranteed pure bred red deer left in mainland scotland now

 

Sort of debate they're having the now with wildcats how high a % of wildcat is worth saving. Would a hybrid rhino be worth saving as better than none?

 

 

If they knew illness was terminal would there of been a case of letting out into a big enclosure and some rich mupet to shoot it for a vast sum of money??

I'm sure u could get sum one to pay massive money to shoot 1 of the last 4.

Not something that would appeal to most responsible hunters, but if that money brought in could be used for good to save that or an other species?

 

Do they have much stored DNA from other individuals?

Can they cross breed the 2 species? In theory very few 100% guaranteed pure bred red deer left in mainland scotland now

 

Sort of debate they're having the now with wildcats how high a % of wildcat is worth saving. Would a hybrid rhino be worth saving as better than none?

 

 

If they knew illness was terminal would there of been a case of letting out into a big enclosure and some rich mupet to shoot it for a vast sum of money??

I'm sure u could get sum one to pay massive money to shoot 1 of the last 4.

Not something that would appeal to most responsible hunters, but if that money brought in could be used for good to save that or an other species?

[Davyo]

There will be some millionaire *** out there some where that will want to shoot all 3 now

[Scully]

If they were farmed for meat they wouldn't be endangered.

[955i]

The Northern White are a sub species, so crossing with the Southern (nominal) Whites would not be a problem, other than the dilution of the Northern DNA.

 

 

No, then they would no longer be pure northern and therefore there would be no point to it.

If they were farmed for meat they wouldn't be endangered.

Yes, kill to preserve!!

 

Its the way forward

 

How about not killing some things in the first place?

 

These wonders are not pheasants or pigeons, you do realise that???

Edited November 29, 2015 by 955i

[dob]

Just wondered what people thought about this now there are only 3 left, given that the reason is not only poaching but big game hunting also?

For god sake don't tell that American dentist about this or we will be down to a brace.

[Scully]

 

 

 

Yes, kill to preserve!!

 

Its the way forward

 

How about not killing some things in the first place?

 

These wonders are not pheasants or pigeons, you do realise that???

Many big game animals are farmed purely for hunting or for other reasons. If there was value in either their meat or as trophies or even as a debatable medicine, then they could be farmed, and therefore not go extinct, much like domesticated farm animals; those breeds with value are farmed while others go extinct. They must have some value otherwise they wouldn't be poached. No one puts money into breeding something of no value.

Money talks I'm afraid; it's a sad fact of life.

It's an option that's better than extinction isn't it?

Edited November 29, 2015 by Scully

[scotslad]

Do u know if there is much DNA saved?

 

The 1 that died i see had bad ovaries see they have sent it to europe to see if can harvest any eggs. Seemingly can do this with livestock now if ur quick enough after their death.

 

Unless plenty of indivduals eggs/sperm saved probably a waste of time and money even attempting to save them.

30 yrs down the line u could have built up a decent pop but any genetic defect could show up big time, some inherited disease due to the close breeding.

Probably better to save the time, money and resurces and concentrate on a species u can save. Harsh but true

[955i]

 

Many big game animals are farmed purely for hunting or for other reasons. If there was value in either their meat or as trophies or even as a debatable medicine, then they could be farmed, and therefore not go extinct, much like domesticated farm animals; those breeds with value are farmed while others go extinct. They must have some value otherwise they wouldn't be poached. No one puts money into breeding something of no value.

Money talks I'm afraid; it's a sad fact of life

But is advocating it right?

 

Why not work on stopping the decline in the first place?

 

It suggests that the only use we have for these animals is if we can kill them!

 

As 'ethical' shooters, I can't believe some have this view, no matter how realistic it is now.

 

As for the dentist comment, we have had members on here posting similar pictures just to increase their Richard size!!

[Teal]

Don't have to kill them to put a value on them, eco-tourism places a value on them too. Scully is right they do need money on their head to be saved though. I'm not convinced the save the rhino/elephant/kangaroo slush funds deliver monetary value in the same way. These generally focus on the symptoms not cause, and much of the money seems to vanish.

 

In a lot of places eg: Zimbabwe eco-tourism isn't big business. Often eco-tourism requires quite big investment, as the westerners actually want quite manicured parks with luxury facilities rather than real wilderness. Hence hunting plays an important role -but it could be much more important if managed properly. Like it or not trophy hunting is big bucks, and well managed it ends well for everyone.

[Scully]

But is advocating it right? It's an option to consider if all else fails, as it appears to have done in this case.

 

Why not work on stopping the decline in the first place? Couldn't agree more, but that costs money, and I know of no one who will repeatedly invest for no return.

 

It suggests that the only use we have for these animals is if we can kill them! Pheasants are only of value because of their worth as consumable targets. It is the only reason they are bred in their millions.

 

As 'ethical' shooters, I can't believe some have this view, no matter how realistic it is now. It's a harsh reality I'm afraid. Are you willing to stump up 20 quid a week if it means these rhinos will be saved?

 

As for the dentist comment, we have had members on here posting similar pictures just to increase their Richard size!! I don't see how insulting those who pay huge amounts of money will help your cause. Most people on here shoot living creatures for one reason or another regardless of he size of their genitalia. I find it a tad hypocritical to criticise one while doing similar. e

Each to their own in my opinion.

[955i]

Don't have to kill them to put a value on them, eco-tourism places a value on them too. Scully is right they do need money on their head to be saved though. I'm not convinced the save the rhino/elephant/kangaroo slush funds deliver monetary value in the same way. These generally focus on the symptoms not cause, and much of the money seems to vanish.

 

In a lot of places eg: Zimbabwe eco-tourism isn't big business. Often eco-tourism requires quite big investment, as the westerners actually want quite manicured parks with luxury facilities rather than real wilderness. Hence hunting plays an important role -but it could be much more important if managed properly. Like it or not trophy hunting is big bucks, and well managed it ends well for everyone.

 

 

 

But is advocating it right? It's an option to consider if all else fails, as it appears to have done in this case.

 

Why not work on stopping the decline in the first place? Couldn't agree more, but that costs money, and I know of no one who will repeatedly invest for no return.

 

It suggests that the only use we have for these animals is if we can kill them! Pheasants are only of value because of their worth as consumable targets. It is the only reason they are bred in their millions.

 

As 'ethical' shooters, I can't believe some have this view, no matter how realistic it is now. It's a harsh reality I'm afraid. Are you willing to stump up 20 quid a week if it means these rhinos will be saved?

 

As for the dentist comment, we have had members on here posting similar pictures just to increase their Richard size!! I don't see how insulting those who pay huge amounts of money will help your cause. Most people on here shoot living creatures for one reason or another regardless of he size of their genitalia. I find it a tad hypocritical to criticise one while doing similar. e

Each to their own in my opinion.

 

Both of these points are valid, there is the 'destined to extinction' theory as in the case of giant pandas (very reluctant to breed even in the wild apparently), but at what point do we need to step up, stop making stupid allegories and start doing something?

 

Many on here state that they are for4 conservation and crop protection, how many put the latter above the former.

 

I have asked the question 'what do you do towards conservation' on here before and got a 97% answer of 'nothing'

 

Look after the world people, or before you know it there will be nothing left to look at!!

 

Not criticising pest control, but paying thousands to shoot rare animals just so you can say you have or mount a head/skin, yes that's ****!!

Edited November 29, 2015 by 955i

[grrclark]

It is a really difficult issue to wade in on, for all sorts of reasons scientific, conservational and moral reasons, however what we do is nothing other than animal behaviour.

 

Would an apex predator that is non human have any more cognisance in species eradication than we do, would a lion give any care that it was eating the last gazelle on the savannah, would a polar bear care if it was eating the last lion seal on an ice flow, etc?

 

I would personally say that because we have a wider sense of cognisance that we should be more considerate, but that is a terribly western attitude that we/I suffer from.

 

Edit to remove some stuff that made little sense, too much gin and posting philosophical argument does not mix!!

Edited November 30, 2015 by grrclark

[Penelope]

Not criticising pest control, but paying thousands to shoot rare animals just so you can say you have or mount a head/skin, yes that's ****!!

 

But what if that money is ploughed back in to protect the habitat, provide work/education for the local inhabitants, help anti poaching? Is that still ****!!?

Edited November 30, 2015 by Penelope

[scotslad]

Not criticising pest control, but paying thousands to shoot rare animals just so you can say you have or mount a head/skin, yes that's ****!!

 

But what if that money is ploughed back in to protect the habitat, provide work/education for the local inhabitants, help anti poaching? Is that still ****!!?

 

Well said. Ideally 80-90% of any money raised would be going back to local people for education, training to be trackers, PH's and even researchers and paying them to look after wot ever species it is, the more of them there is the more of a shootable surpluss the more money they make. Not any different to grouse managemnet really. But the people now have a vested interest in the fate of the whole ecosystem they live in

It means local villages could give up farming marginal crops or cattle which struggle and could replace habitat to its former gloryas it now has a value to them.

If that money was also used to put GPS trackers on a lot of animals too, or atleast if all animals where believed to be tracked would be enough.

 

It would also help to stop poaching as most poaching will be done by locals getting paid a very small ammount of money (but a lot to them) , if they were surviving and feeding their families/villages without poaching and making far more money by legally hunting. The few remaining poachers would now be stealing from the village so would have a lot of peer pressure to stop.

 

 

I'd go a stage further and actually posion/threathen to poison some batches of ivory 'herbal medicine'. That would soon stop them taking it.

Or pollute some batches with ostrogen?/ or some female hormone , if ur taking it to be manly i'd imagine something like that would also damage the market.

As long as the rumour was strong enough u wouldnae actyually have to do it.

[The Mighty Prawn]

Similar to Barbary lions, got to a non sustainable level and no hope for a return

 

Whilst it is undoubtedly a bad thing for a species to vanish, there is a strange thing with only large mammals going extinct makes any kind of headline whereas types of very specific other animals can go extinct and nobody really bats an eyelid

[Scully]

Not criticising pest control, but paying thousands to shoot rare animals just so you can say you have or mount a head/skin, yes that's ****!!

 

But what if that money is ploughed back in to protect the habitat, provide work/education for the local inhabitants, help anti poaching? Is that still ****!!?

Then I'd say in a perfect world that's a win win situation. The hunter has his trophy, the PH has his fee, the locals have a feed and money is ploughed back into the locality.

The only people who would object are those sat in resplendent comfort who can well afford to take the high moral ground viewed from their affluent western society.

[Penelope]

I always think of the old adage, 'It pays, it stays'. Sad as that may be it's a fact.

 

Then I'd say in a perfect world that's a win win situation. The hunter has his trophy, the PH has his fee, the locals have a feed and money is ploughed back into the locality.

The only people who would object are those sat in resplendent comfort who can well afford to take the high moral ground viewed from their affluent western society.