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

U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 243 posts

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#151

Post by ogaitnas »

exporectomy wrote: post #141
wittycardio wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup you said it best, you are indeed horrible

No. You've been indoctrinated to believe that environmentalism is like a religion so that you're a bad person for being an infidel and must not question the flimsy claims that the authorities make.

So much bigotry and ad hominem in this comment yet you have the gall to accuse me of the same. Environmentalism is nothing like religion - it's science based on empirical evidence and not on blind faith. I struggle to see what is so flimsy about the findings of this article.

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#152

Post by ogaitnas »

exporectomy wrote: post #139
anonAndOn wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those narrowly defined species might be the only thing keeping other species alive either directly (eg, pollinators) or indirectly (eg, biome creators). When individual species disappear, we often lose much more as collateral damage.

This seems to the basic understanding most people have. At school, they teach you about food webs and how breaking one link can ruin everything. That's an enticing idea but is it really true? I'm sure there have been some known cases or it wouldn't be in the text books, but is it common enough to get worried about every obscure species?

Planting seeds of doubt about established science are we? I thought HN was pro-science and environment??

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#153

Post by anonAndOn »

exporectomy wrote: post #139
anonAndOn wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those narrowly defined species might be the only thing keeping other species alive either directly (eg, pollinators) or indirectly (eg, biome creators). When individual species disappear, we often lose much more as collateral damage.

This seems to the basic understanding most people have. At school, they teach you about food webs and how breaking one link can ruin everything. That's an enticing idea but is it really true? I'm sure there have been some known cases or it wouldn't be in the text books, but is it common enough to get worried about every obscure species?

How about vanilla going extinct in the wild? Any real vanilla you have ever had was likely hand pollinated (and probably not from Mexico) because the bee that pollinates the vanilla orchid is thought to be extinct and the orchid that depended on it is now on its way out.[0]

[0]https://phys.org/news/2013-12-professor-vanilla.html

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#155

Post by beerandt »

beerandt wrote: post #85
_gmnw wrote: post #4

This is super depressing, it's crazy to see how much the flora/fauna have changed locally in my lifetime. It makes me wonder how much worse it actually is. Is looks like most of these were initially listed in the 80s, not too long after Endangered Species Act passed. Is there some sort of time limit before they officially declare something extinct?

The Ivory Billed Woodpecker hasn't had a confirmed sighting since 1944. Lots of these species have been long gone. But the landowner of that 1944 sighting probably couldn't turn over a rock on his property without fines and lawsuits coming at him, at least until now. ETA: If I'm remembering the stories right, either the last or one of the very last IBW sightings was doubted by officials, because the guy was a farmer…

There's also the perverse incentives of developers and farmers not wanting endangered species to be "discovered" on their property because of the restrictions that will incur.

But what gets really interesting is re-introduction of endangered species, like with sandhill cranes being re-introduced to Louisiana (transplants from other surviving populations).

Is government introduction of an endangered species on/near private land, in a way that will certainly incur restrictions on that land (to protect said species), considered a "taking" under the constitution, or should it be?

More practically, as was the case with the sandhill crane, the government had to make concessions to land owners to get them on board and make the project politically viable.

Now they're protected, but it's a "special/experimental program" where farmers and other land owners aren't restricted in the ways they would be if they were still naturally occurring in that location.

(Of course it's still illegal to shoot them, but every few years someone manages to misidentify a 6 foot tall bird as a goose or something else legal to hunt.)

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#156

Post by beerandt »

bluejekyll wrote: post #149
beerandt wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Ivory Billed Woodpecker hasn't had a confirmed sighting since 1944. Lots of these species have been long gone. But the landowner of that 1944 sighting probably couldn't turn over a rock on his property without fines and lawsuits coming at him, at least until now. ETA: If I'm remembering the stories right, either the last or one of the very last IBW sightings was doubted by officials, because the guy was a farmer…

Not the same species at all, but you just reminded me of the family of three Pileated Woodpeckers that I saw with my parents this summer in rural NY. They are really amazing looking (and bigger than I thought) birds. Hopefully more people will recognize the importance of saving our natural habitats and preserving species like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pileated_woodpecker btw, I'm not saying this particular…

It's funny, because the number of people who regularly claim to have seen an IBW is really high. And 9 out of 10 times you can show them a picture of a pileated, and they instantly realize their mistake.

Idk why people who can't ID fairly common birds get so certain in thinking they've ID'd a really really uncommon one, but they do.

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#157

Post by beerandt »

Johnny555 wrote: post #150
beerandt wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Ivory Billed Woodpecker hasn't had a confirmed sighting since 1944. Lots of these species have been long gone. But the landowner of that 1944 sighting probably couldn't turn over a rock on his property without fines and lawsuits coming at him, at least until now. ETA: If I'm remembering the stories right, either the last or one of the very last IBW sightings was doubted by officials, because the guy was a farmer…

Lots of these species have been long gone. But the landowner of that 1944 sighting probably couldn't turn over a rock on his property without fines and lawsuits coming at him, at least until now. The endangered species act wasn't enacted until 1973, so I think that landowner had plenty of opportunity to do what he wanted with his property.

That's not really a fair comparison/ justification.

I don't know how much "warning" was given for the endangered species act, or if that even matters, since land that's about to be worthless is already worthless.

Also, I have no idea what actually happened in this case. But to speculate/generalize:

IBW were already (obviously) extremely rare in 1944, so there would have been an intense amount of pressure preventing him from "doing" anything with the land, and in a rural, wooded area, there probably weren't many options at the time besides farming it, anyway.

If the guy would have known in 1944 that the endangered species act would be passed in 1973, you'd maybe have a point. But he wouldn't have known.

If the government suddenly told you tomorrow you couldn't sell your house, then claiming it's fair because you could have sold it all the way up to yesterday doesn't do you any good if you had no advanced knowledge of it. And if it were public knowledge, who would want to buy it anyway?

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#159

Post by Johnny555 »

beerandt wrote: post #157
Johnny555 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of these species have been long gone. But the landowner of that 1944 sighting probably couldn't turn over a rock on his property without fines and lawsuits coming at him, at least until now. The endangered species act wasn't enacted until 1973, so I think that landowner had plenty of opportunity to do what he wanted with his property.

That's not really a fair comparison/ justification. I don't know how much "warning" was given for the endangered species act, or if that even matters, since land that's about to be worthless is already worthless. Also, I have no idea what actually happened in this case. But to speculate/generalize: IBW were already (obviously) extremely rare in 1944, so there would have been an intense amount of pressure preventing h…

Also, I have no idea what actually happened in this case. But to speculate/generalize:

Your argument would have more weight if you'd give facts instead of speculating what could have happened.

What actually did happen?

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#160

Post by beerandt »

bpicolo wrote: post #138
beerandt wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hawaii had iirc 14 species of birds on the list that were all native to either one island or a portion of one, with some preferring certain altitudes or only living on certain plateaus, etc. The funny thing about Hawaii though, is that there are only two or three (extremely isolated) places that remain with any true Hawaiian plant habitat, because Polynesians brought their own plants with them that almost universally…

The introduction of the mongoose to hawaii was a big problem for bird biodiversity

There's similar issues with possums in New Zealand, who also have no natural predators there and have flourished. New Zealand wants to eradicate them to save their native birds.

But what's interesting is: the same possum is extremely endangered in it's native habitat in Australia because of so many introduced predators.

So do you go to war to kill the invasive species, even if that contributes to their extinction?

Does it matter that as an invasive species, they might cause multiple species of birds to go extinct?

Lots of interesting ecological, biological, and ethical things to consider.

Post reply on HN