Castanet

maryjane48 wrote:http://globalnews.ca/news/3737281/canadas-wildlife-decline-wwf-canada-report/

Pure Evil

So, now it's official what I have noticed over the years. Our wonderful, magnificent legacy of wildlife riches are disappearing quickly.


It has been the greatest joy of my life witnessing a cougar at close range (from the safety of my car), bears, perigrines, ermine, fox, cariboo, beaver, hummingbirds, yes, skunks too (gorgeous in every respect), and mourn the loss of these creatures through loss of habitat and wilfull actions of ourselves. Wildfires have done their work too.

In order to mitigate some of the damage I have opened my chequebook over the years to help pay for food for animals in wildlife rehab centers. These creatures have been hit by vehicles, have broken wings after being caught in backdrafts from trucks, been entangled in wires, or wilfully assaulted and other horrible situations. I am not wealthy but I do what I can as I am able to.

Just a thought that I expect no one else to seriously consider: BILLIONS of dollars are spent annually by pet owners, normally dog and cat owners in order to feed them, vet bills, licenses, clothing, beds, transport cages, treats, etc.

I believe it would be so helpful if a couple of dollars per year could be donated by pet owners to offset the costs of wildlife rehab centers.

When one considers the enormous numbers of wild bird deaths due to "housecats" and the harassment of dogs to small mammals, deer, bears and so on, could not a little of the owners' expenditure go towards such a worthy cause? As stated I know this idea won't float anyone's boat, but maybe a few of you would consider this idea.

Will your grandchildren ever see, in the wild, what I have seen? Or, will we lose it all?

What is interesting is Biologists can turn a report to favor either side. I have a relative who used to work with Oil and do studies on the impact of a oil process project.

He openly admitted that you do the study, you tailor the report to suit the needs of the oil company and you do not tell all. Go figure, if you put all the facts down many of these projects would not be a go ahead. Further to, you would never be employed to do another as a biologist.

Don't always believe what you read, there is in many cases underlying reasons for such reports.

This is no different then people suggesting the last hurricane in the east was due to climate change, but the last 138 were not? Really, do you think we the people are all that naive.

Catsumi wrote:Will your grandchildren ever see, in the wild, what I have seen? Or, will we lose it all?

Trick will be to get the grand children into the bush even today, let alone in the future. I have a couple of 18 year old grand kids that freek when a wasp is within 10 feet let alone a walk about in the bush. And after the drama, to the phones to post the "near death" experience.

Like many, my career choice and current location has provided no end of interactions with wildlife, many I'll never forget. Priceless.
Then there was a black bear up a tree in down town Penticton yesterday... ( tranquilized and relocated)

Surrender. Put in a few more dams to reduce the habitat of the salmon. And let's get logging in those areas that the Caribou like. Get it over with. There is no appetite for preserving them. Open up the restrictions on moose and deer hunting and get the job of natural selection over and done with. Animals are inferior to humans and species extinction has been going on forever. And if you're a fundamentalist Christian, recall that the Bible says something about us humans "having dominion over the animals". So we can do what we want to them. The majority of people want to consume and stay in the cities and don't give a hoot about helping the animals and plants. And majority rules. Leftist environmentalists and Greens just don't get it.

Bobvernon

I am pretty sure you wrote that comment with tongue in cheek. I feel like that too. Why the hell care about our natural world when the majority are hellbent on destroying it without a second thought.

So, yes, maybe. Let's just get it over with and get down to wiping them off the globe. Who needs them? Who gives a hang about tomorrow?

Ken7 wrote:What is interesting is Biologists can turn a report to favor either side. I have a relative who used to work with Oil and do studies on the impact of a oil process project.

He openly admitted that you do the study, you tailor the report to suit the needs of the oil company and you do not tell all. Go figure, if you put all the facts down many of these projects would not be a go ahead. Further to, you would never be employed to do another as a biologist.

Don't always believe what you read, there is in many cases underlying reasons for such reports.

This is no different then people suggesting the last hurricane in the east was due to climate change, but the last 138 were not? Really, do you think we the people are all that naive.

Ken7

The population decline of insects (butterflies, esp. the Monarch, bee colony collapse), birds and mammals has been reported over and over again for years in fairly quiet statements. Well, that has now turned to a scream of alarm.

We can and should be taking protective steps to save our natural world to my way of thinking. We share the planet with creatures that are like canaries in a coalmine, and our lives depend on the health of this small globe.

I sometimes fantasize what an alien whizzing by the Earth might think..."what the hell are they doing to their home? It's like they are s:cuss: ing in their own nest!"

If we were suddenly transported to the barren, lifeless moon with just enough amenities to support our lives, what would our thoughts be looking back at "home" ?

The first post I made was a suggestion that perhaps we could mitigate some, just a little, of the damage we have done to wildlife by the donation of a couple of bucks annually to rehab centers.

I guess that's just too much for some, but I really do believe there are people out there reading this that may do just that.

Depending on the person, people can read or hear something and come up with entirely different conclusions. Interesting how this part of the article seems to have been missed, or maybe ignored.

And, while many at-risk wildlife populations in Canada are in freefall, overall the country is ahead of the rest of the world in terms of species conservation.

“The good news is that relative to countries worldwide Canada is actually going pretty well,” said Sarah Otto, a professor of biology at the University of British Columbia and director of its Biodiversity Research Centre. “World wide, there has actually been 50 per cent declines in the number of individuals within most vertebrate populations.”

Perspective is lost on some.

Jag...do you think that this is GOOD news for wildlife???

The results are still the same, but at a varying rate of extinction.

C'mon now !

Perspective. Very important. I never believe eco terrorist scientists. Never. Especially when they use terms that have no basis in reality. The doom and gloom of their extinction hysteria is criminal. Lies basically. Constant "the sky is falling" rhetoric with no consequences for their gross exaggerations. They use finite predictions using ONLY worst case scenarios. Reality is not their forte.
They talk about dams messing up fish even though many dams have been changed to allow fish to safely bypass the dam. All future dams have systems designed in them to allow fish to bypass freely. The Sockeye that I ate last year that was caught in Osoyoos Lake is an example of lessons learned and that are being implemented in all new projects and continue to be implemented in older projects. We spend Millions of tax dollars on conservation, scientists, reclamation etc.
I am not happy at all with this report as I believe it is one sided by eco terrorist scientists. Not happy because I know that there is probably more to the study than what is being reported to the media and I do not trust them one tiny bit. I'm not happy because there will be many that will buy into the study without any skepticism. I'm skeptical by any eco terrorist study. There is no good news from any eco terrorist study...ever. Does not fit their agenda. We will never make them happy as it is their nature to put man as the devil always doing wrong.

It’s considerabke hubris to say “I don’t believe scientists”

It’s amusing that you will so easily dismiss dire claims based on scientific studies with educated predictions of the future based on statistical data.

Yet you’ll believe economists...

JagXKR wrote:Perspective. Very important. I never believe eco terrorist scientists. Never. Especially when they use terms that have no basis in reality. The doom and gloom of their extinction hysteria is criminal. Lies basically. Constant "the sky is falling" rhetoric with no consequences for their gross exaggerations. They use finite predictions using ONLY worst case scenarios. Reality is not their forte.
They talk about dams messing up fish even though many dams have been changed to allow fish to safely bypass the dam. All future dams have systems designed in them to allow fish to bypass freely. The Sockeye that I ate last year that was caught in Osoyoos Lake is an example of lessons learned and that are being implemented in all new projects and continue to be implemented in older projects. We spend Millions of tax dollars on conservation, scientists, reclamation etc.
I am not happy at all with this report as I believe it is one sided by eco terrorist scientists. Not happy because I know that there is probably more to the study than what is being reported to the media and I do not trust them one tiny bit. I'm not happy because there will be many that will buy into the study without any skepticism. I'm skeptical by any eco terrorist study. There is no good news from any eco terrorist study...ever. Does not fit their agenda. We will never make them happy as it is their nature to put man as the devil always doing wrong.

I think the banner for this thread is misleading and would opt for "many species at risk due to human actions" instead. It is far too early to lay blame for vanishing songbirds, etc. entirely at the climate change doorstep.

Although you seem to be a very unhappy and distrustful person, I am very happy for you that you got your salmon and ate it too.

A couple of weeks ago a scientist was being interviewed on Quirks-quarks (I think) and his take on the situation of species being displaced by foreign invaders (mussels, for example, starlings and sparrows displacing songbirds) made me stop in my tracks. He said that although it was heartbreaking to see our natural world changing so rapidly he thought it was pointless and expensive trying to save it. In 100 years or more/less, he said, the invasions, the losses, the irrecoverable past will be wiped away and humans will just have to live with the results. In fact, we may just become very happy with skies full of crows, pigeons, starlings, lots of rats and cockroaches, and perhaps, on one perfect day, a woodpecker sighting.

Take photos and videos of the world around you if you want to share with grandkids.

The future world, should declines continue (pretty well guaranteed) is one I won't be around in. So, why do I care? I try hard not to, but how can I not?

Omnitheo wrote:It’s considerabke hubris to say “I don’t believe scientists”

It’s amusing that you will so easily dismiss dire claims based on scientific studies with educated predictions of the future based on statistical data.

Yet you’ll believe economists...

Please do not misquote me. I believe scientists. I do not believe eco terrorist "scientists". Especially when every prediction they've made has not come true. None. And I would never believe someone who chooses to ignore the biggest factor of heat retention by the earth in any of their predictions. Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas yet the IPCC "scientists" will NOT consider it as a factor in any of their theories. Real scientists would not do that. They are a joke and a black eye to real scientists. True junk science.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/ ... house-gas/

As for economists.......*bleep*?