Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elephants without tusks are a response to the selective pressure of poaching

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 90 posts

Re: Elephants without tusks are a response to the selective pressure of poaching

#11

Post by praxulus »

lazugod wrote: post #8

Do poachers have an incentive to kill tuskless elephants too, then, so they don't become more dominant than tusked ones?

Collectively they do, but no individual poacher has much to gain from killing an individual tuskless elephant. It's like a tragedy of the commons, but one that works out well for the elephants.

Re: Elephants without tusks are a response to the selective pressure of poaching

#15

Post by adamnemecek »

praxulus wrote: post #11
lazugod wrote: post #8

Do poachers have an incentive to kill tuskless elephants too, then, so they don't become more dominant than tusked ones?

Collectively they do, but no individual poacher has much to gain from killing an individual tuskless elephant. It's like a tragedy of the commons, but one that works out well for the elephants.

They do kill them so that they don't try to track the animal again in the future.

Re: Elephants without tusks are a response to the selective pressure of poaching

#16

Post by adamnemecek »

I'm hoping that at some point in the future, ML + drones will make poaching a thing of the past. Unfortunately, some African countries, such as Zimbabwe and South Africa, have restrictions on drone ownership.

Also if you want to help, you should consider donating to the International Anti-Poaching Foundation[0][1] which fights these poachers. The founder, Damien Mander[2], is an Australian ex spec-ops sniper who is using his military experience to train the park rangers since they, unlike the poachers, tend to be poorly equipped and trained as well as understaffed. There is also the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust[3][4] which takes care of elephant and rhino orphans (most of them are orphans due to poaching). For $50 a year, you can become a sponsor of a particular orphan and they'll send you photos and updates about how your sponsored animal is doing. You can for example sponsor this little fella [5][6]. It's a great gift.

[0] http://www.iapf.org/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Anti-Poaching_Fo...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Mander

[3] http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sheldrick_Wildlife_Trust

[5] http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp...

[6] http://instagram.com/p/sigT3IAUKb

Re: Elephants without tusks are a response to the selective pressure of poaching

#18

Post by wruza »

darkxanthos wrote: post #13
ChristianGeek wrote: post #5

This is the saddest example of "natural" selection I've heard of.

I think it's the most exciting. I love seeing nature effectively defending itself.

It is not defending, it is losing.

If we use these terms against nature at all. "The planet is fine. The people are fucked." (c)

Re: Elephants without tusks are a response to the selective pressure of poaching

#19

Post by goodcanadian »

ChristianGeek wrote: post #5

This is the saddest example of "natural" selection I've heard of.

I'm too lazy to look up the reference, but a similar thing has been happening with big horn sheep. Their horns are getting smaller as (legal) hunters have preferentially killed the rams with the largest horns.

EDIT: Here are a couple of links: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bighorn-sheep-shrinking-du... https://thegatewayonline.ca/2016/01/alberta-bighorn-sheep-ho...

Re: Elephants without tusks are a response to the selective pressure of poaching

#20

Post by GuiA »

wruza wrote: post #18
darkxanthos wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's the most exciting. I love seeing nature effectively defending itself.

It is not defending, it is losing. If we use these terms against nature at all. "The planet is fine. The people are fucked." (c)

Well, in the grand scheme of things, yes. Really, the most pragmatic argument for preserving the environment is saving ourselves. The universe doesn't care.
Post reply on HN