Scientists Urge Endangered Listing for Cheetahs
A comprehensive assessment of cheetah populations in southern Africa supported by the National Geographic Society reveals the dire state of one of the planet's most iconic big cats. In a study published today in the open-access journal PeerJ, researchers present evidence that low cheetah population estimates in southern Africa and population decline support a call to list the cheetah as "Endangered" on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List.
With partial support from the National Geographic Society's Big Cats Initiative, an international team of 17 researchers, led by Florian Weise of the Claws Conservancy and Varsha Vijay of Duke University, analyzed more than two million collared cheetah observations from a long-term study by the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research and another 20,000 cheetah observations from the research community and the general public. Their findings show that free-ranging cheetahs were present across approximately 789,700 square kilometers in Namibia, Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe between 2010 and 2016.
[...] The study estimates only 3,577 adult cheetahs exist in this extensive area, which is larger than France, and a majority (55 percent) of individuals are found within only two habitats. This estimate is 19 percent lower than the IUCN's current assessment, supporting the call for the uplisting of cheetahs from "Vulnerable" to "Endangered."
The distribution and numbers of cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) in southern Africa (open, DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4096) (DX)
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @03:40AM (18 children)
They would gladly eat your toddler. They might even eat you; they will at least fuck you up pretty badly.
The pros do not outweigh the cons.
(Score: 5, Funny) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @03:54AM (4 children)
What are you, an African villager?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Hartree on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:21AM (2 children)
He's also at odds with the people I know who have worked at big cat shelters who find cheetahs are pretty laid back compared to some of the others. They also don't have the weapon type claws that most cats do.
Part of the relative danger is temperament, but much of it is size. When a housecat gets feisty it's usually not that big a deal. When a tiger does, you can end up dead.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:29AM
They seem more like canine - they live/hunt in a pack, lack retractable claws, built and run like greyhounds.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:35AM
They aren't lions or tigers. I'll grant you that. (nor hippo, cobra, puff adder...)
A group of healthy young men can even chase one down and then give it a beating. (requires good eyes and some space; they get ahead but can't keep going)
None of this changes the fact that they are dangerous to humans. They are a hazard. We don't need them.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @06:52AM
African villagers have a right to be safe.
This right is often denied. Here is one of many such cases. Forcing them to be unsafe, or to move into filthy urban environments and be differently unsafe, isn't at all nice.
We see the attitude here in the US as well. Nobody is releasing wolves in San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, or New York. Somehow though, the people in those places get to decide that wolves should be set loose upon those deplorable Trumpanzees.
That is not at all considerate. Put a wild animal in your own apartment if you like them so much.
(Score: 5, Funny) by frojack on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:20AM (2 children)
Solution to the wild horse problem [nationalgeographic.com].
Import them into the western US.
Take lessons from the Australians. They've a lot of experience introducing foreign animals to solve other animal problems. Maybe they would take a few Cheetahs to take care of the rabbits. What could possibly go wrong.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:32AM
Those dummies imported all them gorillas, but surprise, there is no winter to kill them off in that penal colony.
(Score: 3, Funny) by coolgopher on Wednesday December 13 2017, @05:40AM
The cheetahs would face stiff competition from our feral cats...
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:13AM
Then maybe you shouldn't be feeding them your toddler. Or yourself for that matter.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:32AM (7 children)
ok, so your solution is to kill all the predatory animals who can harm humans.
you're an idiot, and you can leave the conversation now.
your vote will be taken into account, but I can already tell you that society will not do as you want.
(Score: 1) by starvingboy on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:23PM (6 children)
No offense, but I think you might be wrong. There are an awful lot of animals on the endangered species list that are dangerous to humans. It would seem that if human society finds you threatening, your days are numbered.
Chickens/Cows/pigs on the other hand, are doing just fine.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:50PM (1 child)
wolves are being reintroduced in places where they were hunted to extinction.
conservation efforts are also focused on bears in several places, even though bears kill and eat people who get in their way.
obviously, once you start talking about much poorer societies (such as those found in Africa and Asia), it becomes a battle for survival, and humans will not give a shit about the fat white people who complain about the killing of species.
hence the need to talk to the UN about it, and come up with an acceptable solution (I am not that fat, but I am a white european, and I am of the opinion that the various big predators should not go extint).
by acceptable solution I mean "don't kill the animals or the humans. fix the human economy so that they don't need to use the animal habitat for anything, therefore reducing contact between humans and animals".
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday December 14 2017, @04:26AM
A paper that touches on WHY wolves were hunted to extinction...
"When do wolves become dangerous to humans?"
Short answer: any time humans are not in groups and armed with guns.
http://www.vargfakta.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Geist-when-do-wolves-become-dangerous-to-humans-pt-1.pdf [vargfakta.se]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by arulatas on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:28PM (1 child)
This is why Dodos are extinct. They were very dangerous to the ship going humans who killed them. /s
----- 10 turns around
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday December 13 2017, @05:07PM
It's a common misconception that humans hunting the Dodo birds is what led to their extinction. We definitely caused them to go extinct, but more so due to the introduction of invasive species. "The impact of the introduced animals on the dodo population, especially the pigs and macaques, is today considered more severe than that of hunting.[89]" -- Wikipedia
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:52PM (1 child)
Pigs are plenty dangerous to humans. They WILL eat you, given the chance.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Thursday December 14 2017, @01:08AM
And don't get me started on goats - those bastards will push you off any high point with glee. And if there's no high point around, they'll settle for plain ground and still push you off. #banthegoats
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:14PM
what a fucking pussy. i hope you're trolling.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:46AM (1 child)
people would not kill them.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:27PM
slow clap