Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday May 03 2017, @10:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the humans-aren't-number-one-by-a-mile? dept.

Our latest research reveals that the ecological "pawprint" of domestic dogs is much greater than previously realised.

Using the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, we counted how many species are negatively affected by dogs, assessed the prevalence of different types of impacts, and identified regions with the greatest number of affected species.

Dogs are third-most-damaging mammal

We found that dogs are implicated in the extinction of at least 11 species, including the Hawaiian Rail and the Tonga Ground Skink. Dogs are also a known or potential threat to 188 threatened species worldwide: 96 mammal, 78 bird, 22 reptile and three amphibian species. This includes 30, two of which are classed as "possibly extinct".

These numbers place dogs in the number three spot after cats and rodents as the world's most damaging invasive mammalian predators.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by Burz on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:24PM (1 child)

    by Burz (6156) on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:24PM (#504414)

    So the sharp loss in biodiversity, due to our actions, is just 'nature at work'? Somehow I don't think many ecologists would agree.

    Tip: Don't use terms like "evolution" and "symbiotic relationships" and expect people to consider them only within the myopic "chickens, cows and homes" box you constructed.

  • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Friday May 05 2017, @06:16AM

    by Unixnut (5779) on Friday May 05 2017, @06:16AM (#504708)

    > So the sharp loss in biodiversity, due to our actions, is just 'nature at work'?

    Yep

    > Somehow I don't think many ecologists would agree.

    Quite a few do agree (from those I discussed it with at least). They may not agree that it is a good thing, and that as the animals with the highest intelligence (allegedly) we should put more effort into conservation of other species rather than follow our base natural desires to wipe out anything we don't like (like mosquitoes).

    > Tip: Don't use terms like "evolution" and "symbiotic relationships" and expect people to consider them only within the myopic "chickens, cows and homes" box you constructed.

    Tip for you too: if someone gives some examples to illustrate a particular point, it doesn't make it a box. I am not going to list every single specifies that forms symbiotic relations, nor will I list every single species that has done badly or gone extinct due to being out-competed. The box is in your mind, not mine, apparently, as I never expected people to consider only those.