News Whaling Petition

[Scouse]

I disagree on abortion. UK government policy is science-led.

There's a world of difference between destroying a fetus that wouldn't survive without huge intervention and killing children because they're girls.


Anyway, back to whales:

120 grey whales left, 20 breeding grey whale females left, yet oil exploration is unlikely to be postponed because of purely financial reasons

 

[rynnor]

20 breeding females? They look doomed regardless of the oil exploration - whales are often getting deafened and beached by military sonar, hit by boats, ingesting plastics that poison them etc.

They should urgently take genetic samples in case we ever become an enlightened species tbh.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

You're stretching the definiton of infanticide a fair bit there. Infanticide is not the same as abortion, at all.

 

[Scouse]

20 breeding females? They look doomed regardless of the oil exploration - whales are often getting deafened and beached by military sonar, hit by boats, ingesting plastics that poison them etc.

They should urgently take genetic samples in case we ever become an enlightened species tbh.

You think that taking genetic samples would help?

Who'd teach the kids how to feed? Who'd look after them properly as they grew up? How would they pass down all the behavioural information that's learned?


120 whales is a viable genetic population. Your implication that they're doomed regardless (and therefore I'm thinking you think they should carry on with the exploration anyway) is even more nonsensical than some of the other things you've mentioned on here.

We're talking about preserving a species. What price that?

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

Bah.

"Sorry rynnor is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her."

 

[rynnor]

You think that taking genetic samples would help?

Its better than losing them completely - I'm not saying dont try to prevent them going extinct but I think it may be a little too late if their numbers are that low in which case taking samples would be something that can be done.

 

[Scouse]

OK. I'll state it again, just so you can't cherry-pick a quote out of context so you can answer a question that suits you, rather than answering the actual question asked:

You think that taking genetic samples would help?

Who'd teach the kids how to feed? Who'd look after them properly as they grew up? How would they pass down all the behavioural information that's learned?

???

 

[rynnor]

I did answer - I said its better than nothing - there are problems with it but who knows what our capabilities will be in the future.

You think 20 breeding females is a viable population? Are your parents from Norfolk?

 

[Tom]

I disagree on abortion. UK government policy is science-led.

There's a world of difference between destroying a fetus that wouldn't survive without huge intervention and killing children because they're girls.


Anyway, back to whales:

120 grey whales left, 20 breeding grey whale females left, yet oil exploration is unlikely to be postponed because of purely financial reasons

Oh look, another badly written BBC article. Gray Whales are not critically endangered, their conservation status is "least concern".

 

[Scouse]

You think 20 breeding females is a viable population? Are your parents from Norfolk?

120 animals, with 20 breeding females, is indeed a genetically viable population.

And even though your comparison with human beings is nonsensical, divisive and (as usual) distractive bullshit - I'll bite:

I'm not saying I'd like to be one of a small number of men fucking an even smaller number of women, but I'd do it to save the human race eh?

Oh look, another badly written BBC article. Gray Whales are not critically endangered, their conservation status is "least concern".

Oh look. Another badly researched opinion from Tom!

Here's a tip old bean: If you're going to check redlist for information to back up your opinion - read the detail to check you're actually right.

The Grey Whale population that we're talking about is separately listed as "critically endangered".

 

[rynnor]

The Grey Whale population that we're talking about is separately listed as "critically endangered".

Thats not extinction though - there are actual species that are in great danger of going extinct but the whales are getting the publicity - crazy.

 

[Scouse]

Thats not extinction though - there are actual species that are in great danger of going extinct but the whales are getting the publicity - crazy.

So in a list that goes (in order):

• Least Concern
• Near Threatened
• Vulnerable
• Endangered
• Critically Endangered
• Extinct in the wild
• Extinct

You're not bothered? Apart from the fact there's not a zoo on the planet that could house a grey whale - you don't give a shit until after an animal's extinct?!

Direct insult time: You're a trolling arsehole


I'm signing off this thread now, thanksverymuch

 

[rynnor]

Extinction = In biology and ecology, extinction is the end of an organism or group of taxa.

Unless its the last population on the globe its not extinction and as Tom pointed out they arent actually that threatened as a species but I see as ever you prefer melodrama to realities.

 

[Scouse]

Eschrichtius robustus (western subpopulation)

 

[Tom]

120 animals, with 20 breeding females, is indeed a genetically viable population.

And even though your comparison with human beings is nonsensical, divisive and (as usual) distractive bullshit - I'll bite:

I'm not saying I'd like to be one of a small number of men fucking an even smaller number of women, but I'd do it to save the human race eh?




Oh look. Another badly researched opinion from Tom!

Here's a tip old bean: If you're going to check redlist for information to back up your opinion - read the detail to check you're actually right.

The Grey Whale population that we're talking about is separately listed as "critically endangered".

Oh no, a subpopulation of a species of whale in no danger of becoming extinct is about to die out! Whatever will we do?

Fuck me, its like building a housing estate and then claiming that a subpopulation of frogs is critically endangered because of this. Meanwhile the millions of other frogs of the same species don't give a fuck.

Its another shit article from some junior researcher at the BBC, who hasn't got the first clue how to iterate facts so as not to create confusion.

 

[rynnor]

hasn't got the first clue how to iterate facts so as not to create confusion.

I figured that was the point of the article - to whip up some idignation by twisting the story.

 

[Scouse]

OK. SO I'm back in.

Sorry gents. Perhaps I'm not making myself clear.

There's two genetically distinct subpopulations of grey whale. Just two (unlike the millions of populations of common frog you find at building sites and the like, Tom).

Any conservation strategy for the grey whale is dealt a severe blow if you lose one or the other of these two subpopulations. Conservation of the genetic diversity between these two populations is of huge importance and the reason why they are treated, effectively, as separate species.

So, if you're looking for a reason it's important: the science says so

It was supposition on my part that I expected you to know this. I can't expect Conservation Biology to be everyones cup of tea.

 

[rynnor]

There's two genetically distinct subpopulations of grey whale. Just two (unlike the millions of populations of common frog you find at building sites and the like, Tom).

Thats a supposition - they could be genetically identical to the rest - quoting your article 'probably genetically isolated ' - its just an assumption.

The rest of your arguement is based on this assumption.

Next thing to consider is how long have they been isolated? If its just by virtue of being hunted by humans a few hundred years ago then its unlikely to be significant.

It was supposition on my part that I expected you to know this. I can't expect Conservation Biology to be everyones cup of tea.

I didnt realise you were a qualified marine biologist scouse - I thought u worked in IT

 

[Tom]

Apparently there was once a North Atlantic population, which was hunted out of existence.

Lots of internet expertise raising its head here.

 

[storch]

is there any use for harpooned brits? what could one get for a blubbery slimey harpooned brit like this on egay?

 

[Scouse]

I didnt realise you were a qualified marine biologist scouse - I thought u worked in IT

Almost did marine biology at Uni. Kept up my interest. The bird actually is a qualified marine biologist. She now works for a large construction firm making sure the genetic diversity of Tom's frogs is protected in her capacity as an ecologist

Apparently there was once a North Atlantic population, which was hunted out of existence.

To our shame, Tom?


It doesn't take an "expert" to be able to state that genetic diversity is an important lynchpin of conservation biology. Or when we argue on Freddyshouse do we now have to have masters degrees in every subject?

Last time I looked nobody around here was a professional footballer, but we've all got an opinion on the world cup...

 

[rynnor]

It doesn't take an "expert" to be able to state that genetic diversity is an important lynchpin of conservation biology. Or when we argue on Freddyshouse do we now have to have masters degrees in every subject?

Only when you start patronising others as though you are an expert which is what you did.

Even what your passing as a fact - that they are seperate populations is actually a supposition because theres no research to support it - they could overlap the range of others of their species.

I also think your getting confused over genetic diversity - it really requires thousands of generations to pass before the differences become significant.


Also judging by the size of the population its likely that negative genetic traits would become dominant through prolonged in-breeding - thats not valuable genetic diversity.


Edit - you should be out supporting the Pembrokeshire badger tbh - theres no proof they arent a seperate population and no doubt they are valuable for genetic diversity by your definition

 

[Scouse]

Only when you start patronising others as though you are an expert which is what you did.

Lets be clear: You're arguing that you don't care that a distinct subpopulation (that may not or may be genetically distinct - but there's enough of a question in qualified scientists eyes for them to be classified as such for "conservation and management purposes") of whale could be pushed futher towards extinction through avoidable human action.

Regardless of "expertise", it looks to me that you're attempting to make the argument for continued reckless behaviour. Gambling with species, shall we say.

What I stated above wasn't the opinion of an "expert". I've an interest in conservation biology in the same way I have an interest in many subjects. One of the basics (for that's what I'm pointing out) in any conservation policy of this sort is the protection of genetic diversity for the good of a species as a whole.

When both you and Tom failed to show a grasp of the basics (after I'd provided a link that had the world "subpopulation" underlined, thinking "that'll do the trick") I decided to point it out.

Smugly, yes. As far as I'm concerned I'm entitled to feel that when I've just demonstrated, with basic science, that your argument is incorrect. I'm on an internet forum having an argument after all. I'm not going to play dumb just because you might feel like I'm being condescending


Now on to your argument about "assumptions":

Thats a supposition - they could be genetically identical to the rest - quoting your article 'probably genetically isolated ' - its just an assumption.

The rest of your arguement is based on this assumption

The redlist is there to classify animals based on their likelihood of extinction. It is used for conservation and management purposes. The assumptions of the scientists (who are way more qualified than you and I will ever be) who made the list were strong enough for these highly-qualified people to put the whales in a separate category of their own.

Do you think these scientists are being "reckless" or "prudent" to do so?


In the absence of evidence either way it is clearly prudent to proceed on the assumption that the loss of this distinct group could have devastating consequences for the worldwide grey whale population.

Or we could just take a punt eh? Flip a coin?

 

[rynnor]

Your whole arguement is based on an assumption that these are a seperate sub-species without any proof.

I was serious about the pembrokeshire badger - theres no study proving its not a seperate sub-species so by your logic we should assume it is and give it protection.

Thats the problem when you deal in assumptions not facts.

 

[Scouse]

Your whole arguement is based on an assumption that these are a seperate sub-species without any proof.

I disagree strongly rynnor.

My whole argument is based on the objective assessment of qualified scientists who've studied this subpopulation of grey whales over a number of decades.

They have decided that it's best to classify them as a distinct species for conservation and management purposes. And who are we to argue with the best available science on this subject? I think it would be arrogant to do so.

They've quantified the risks. They've decided to classify them as a separate species.

You are saying that I've come up with this assessment of the whales - but I haven't. Scientists have.


So. To sum up. Lots of science has been done. By eminently qualified people. I just referred you to their work! Here it is again, so you can check I'm not lying. Look look! My name's not anywhere to be seen!!

 

[Tom]

To our shame, Tom?

No, not really. They were all killed by a superior species of animal. No different to anything else in nature.

Lets be clear: You're arguing that you don't care that a distinct subpopulation (that may not or may be genetically distinct - but there's enough of a question in qualified scientists eyes for them to be classified as such for "conservation and management purposes") of whale could be pushed futher towards extinction through avoidable human action.

I doubt their separate classification has anything to do with their genetic makeup, in fact the link you presented seems to suggest its more for convenience than anything else.

When both you and Tom failed to show a grasp of the basics (after I'd provided a link that had the world "subpopulation" underlined, thinking "that'll do the trick") I decided to point it out.

Gosh, yes, lets all bow to your superior knowledge. I am but a candle to the dazzling brightness of your intellect. Or bullshit, perhaps.

Not forgetting, of course, your ability to invent points to support your argument.

 

[storch]

no? hmmm how about this one then

bet he's worth a least £1 on egay, he must weigh in a 400kg.

 

[Scouse]

No, not really. They were all killed by a superior species of animal. No different to anything else in nature.

A "superior species" that has actually evolved to the point where we now know better.

I know you do restoration and, presumably, conservation work near your home, so I reckon you're arguing from a devils advocate standpoint.

Do you really not care that we're putting so many amazing animals into danger of extinction?

I think you do.

Gosh, yes, lets all bow to your superior knowledge. I am but a candle to the dazzling brightness of your intellect. Or bullshit, perhaps.

Not forgetting, of course, your ability to invent points to support your argument.

Well, in my defence, I'm mostly trying to piss rynnor off. You were just collateral damage

But on a serious note, I don't think I've actually invented anything?



Edit:

I doubt their separate classification has anything to do with their genetic makeup, in fact the link you presented seems to suggest its more for convenience than anything else.

I reckon that the classification is such because the scientists involved have decided to err on the side of caution? I mean, it seems in-convenient to me?

If they knew the grey whale population was genetically identical we'd only have the thorny issue of us interfering with the evolution of a separate species for simple financial gain. Which I could get over quite easily tbfh - there's bigger fish in the sea, if you'll pardon the pun

 

[Scouse]

BTW - Does it make me bad that I care more for the whales than the fat wasters storch is posting about?

 

[Krazeh]

BTW - Does it make me bad that I care more for the whales than the fat wasters storch is posting about?

I have to admit i'm a little confused as to why he's posting pictures of what I can only assume are his relatives but whatever makes him happy I guess.