Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday December 08 2016, @12:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the when-your-newborn-drops-2-meters-to-the-ground... dept.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has warned that giraffe populations are declining:

A dramatic drop in giraffe populations over the past 30 years has seen the world's tallest land mammal classified as vulnerable to extinction. Numbers have gone from around 155,000 in 1985 to 97,000 in 2015 according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

The iconic animal has declined because of habitat loss, poaching and civil unrest in many parts of Africa. Some populations are growing, mainly in southern parts of the continent. Until now, the conservation status of giraffes was considered of "least concern" by the IUCN. However in their latest global Red List of threatened species, the ungainly animal is now said to be "vulnerable", meaning that over three generations, the population has declined by more than 30%.

[...] While researchers believe that some local populations may not survive, there is optimism that that the long term future of these tall creatures can be secured. The success in keeping giraffe numbers high in Southern Africa has much to do with the management of game parks for tourists say experts, who believe that the extra attention that the IUCN listing will now attract will benefit the species. "South Africa is a good example of how you can manage wildlife, there is a lot of moving of animals between different conservation areas, it is a very different scenario than in most of the rest of Africa." said Chris Ransom from the Zoological Society of London.


Original Submission

Related Stories

OBQ: [How Much] Should We Bioengineer Animals to Live in Our Damaged World? 29 comments

In October, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) released its biennial Living Planet Report, detailing the state of the planet and its implications for humans and wildlife. The report warned that two-thirds of global wildlife populations could be gone by 2020 if we don't change our environmentally damaging practices.

At the Singularity University New Zealand (SUNZ) Summit we met up with Dr Amy Fletcher, Senior Lecturer in Political Science at the University of Canterbury, who spoke on the topic of public policy and exponential technology at the Summit. As part of our regular "One Big Question [OBQ]" series we asked her whether we should consider bioengineering animals that could live in the world we're creating, rather than die in the one we're destroying?

That sort of relates to the whole de-extinction debate, and again, I would pay money to see a woolly mammoth. But I do take the point that the world of the woolly mammoth is gone, whether we like it or not, same with the moa – I mean this comes up a lot in criticisms of the bring back the moa project. You've got to have huge swathes of undeveloped space - maybe we still have that, but we don't have as much as we did in the 16th century.

I guess it comes back to not making the perfect the enemy of the good. Working in conservation, extinction issues like I do, I meet a lot of people who are deeply opposed, actively opposed, say to zoos. I think in an imperfect world, I'd rather have animals in a well run and ethical zoo than not have them at all. But I do have colleagues in the animal rights movement who say, if we don't value them enough to let them live in their natural environment, then we should pay the price of having them go. It's sort of that same thing, I mean, if the alternative to living in a world of simply humans, rats, cockroaches and pigeons is bioengineering animals, I would have to say, alright yeah, we're going to have to do that.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by FatPhil on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:06PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:06PM (#438706) Homepage
    They put them in custom made horseboxes, drive them to other parts of the country, but didn't pay attention to the low bridges.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:19PM (#438710)

    yes

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @03:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @03:50PM (#438750)

    Really.

    Male giraffes have been observed to engage in remarkably high frequencies of homosexual behavior. After aggressive "necking", it is common for two male giraffes to caress and court each other, leading up to mounting and climax. Such interactions between males have been found to be more frequent than heterosexual coupling. In one study, up to 94% of observed mounting incidents took place between two males. The proportion of same sex activities varied between 30 and 75%, and at any given time one in twenty males were engaged in non-combative necking behavior with another male. Only 1% of same-sex mounting incidents occurred between females.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Giraffes

    • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday December 09 2016, @10:45PM

      by edIII (791) on Friday December 09 2016, @10:45PM (#439455)

      One could also conclude they are just bi-sexual nymphomaniacs, and the females are simply disinterested in sex. Especially anal. Sounds like any female giraffes that need some action only need to approach a male to get it.

      Perhaps, there is a different problem causing their decline? Maybe a two legged animal with a penchant for gangraping mother nature?

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @04:24PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @04:24PM (#438756)

    Nothing you saw was illegal - In the countries it was filmed

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by richtopia on Thursday December 08 2016, @04:27PM

    by richtopia (3160) on Thursday December 08 2016, @04:27PM (#438757) Homepage Journal

    I should be a journalist with that subject line. I just like posting this XKCD link to remind how wild animals are very much a minority on the planet now:

    https://xkcd.com/1338/ [xkcd.com]

    • (Score: 2) by jcross on Thursday December 08 2016, @05:47PM

      by jcross (4009) on Thursday December 08 2016, @05:47PM (#438774)

      Sure, if you only count us mammals. We're still very much an unproven design compared with say, arthropods.

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday December 08 2016, @06:02PM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday December 08 2016, @06:02PM (#438780) Journal

    Stephen Colbert all taught us the way to raise populations of African megafauna -- edit Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]! Back in the days before the current "post-truth" era, when there was only stuff like truthiness [wikipedia.org] and "wikiality," Mr. Colbert showed us that we can all make a difference in bringing back the elephant... Why not with the giraffe as well?

    But why stop with merely raising the numbers on Wikipedia? I'm putting out a call to all those who feel trollish from time to time -- does this headline feel right to you? I thought not. Just like Pizzagate, there has to be more to the story. I submit that "giraffe" here is actually a codeword for "child porn," and the liberal media is telegraphing a signal to producers that we need to amp up the production again. I mean, it's all over the summary: "populations are growing... mainly in southern parts"?! The "ungainly animal is now said to be 'vulnerable'..."? And let's not even get into the "game parks" designed for these apparent "tourists"!

    All those amateur "fake news" folks publishing fact-deficient accounts are just fighting on the wrong battlefields. Shouldn't we take this war to Wikipedia and "save the giraffes" before it's too late?!

    [The above is meant to be satire, but I know according to Poe's law, some will not perceive it as such.]

  • (Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday December 08 2016, @09:57PM

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 08 2016, @09:57PM (#438887) Journal

    I read an article earlier today (which I can't find now) which said that giraffes are being hunted now in Africa for their bone marrow because it is said to be a "cure" for HIV/AIDS.

    Why?

    I really do fear for the future of the Human Race.