Crosscheck wrote:
Sure, but they're using the word "extinct"...which they're in no danger of at all.
False advertising pisses me off.
a simple minimum viable population analysis will prove you wrong. 3,200 in the wild is not a large number at all, especially when their recruitment rate (those that make it to sexual maturity) is less than their death rate, so r<d, meaning the population will continue in a downward trend.
please note that the bengal is a "k" species, meaning it is a parentally raised offspring, unlike fish. these "k" species do not invest in energy of laying 10,000 eggs, hoping 20 will survive, but giving birth to 2-4 cubs every 2-4 years and investing time and energy to raise them. some cubs will be lost in the wild to stochastic factors such as weather and anthropogenic forces such as habitat destruction (primarily fragmentation).
bear in mind that the smaller a population gets, the higher the probability that genetic issues will take hold, such as demographic bottleneck, heterozygousity (the pairing of unlike alleles) all resulting in genetic diversity, which will lower the overall fitness of a subpopulation and metapopulation. it also increases the probability of severe stochastic forces extirpating or damaging populations. look at the tasmanian devils right now...they are suffering from a cancer that is transmissable through saliva...this has been found to be because of the founder's effect on the population, meaning they are so genetically similar, none of them has immunities to it.
with the feline need for large habitats and minimal intersections with other felines, chances of fertilization will be low. felines are also promiscuous, so many littler will have more than one father, enabling "the strong to survive" so with less stochasicity in the fertilization of the litters, genetic diversity is lost. this is ALWAYS a bad thing.
also, for scale's sake, the american bison was estimated to be down to 500 animals at it's low point, and they were almost unable to be saved from extinction. most bison are not 100% bison anymore, but have some varying degrees of alleles from other similar species, mostly all even toed ungulates, like musk ox and other bovines.
they may say "extinct" but that is most likely due to the common person's lack of intelligence in this micro area of conservation biology including the severity of declining population sizes. very few can realize how small 3200 is and what that actually means in the health of an entire species spread across 3 continents. i know you're a man of many talents, cross, but it seems to me that this is one area you are either against or simply not enlightened, and neither is a bad thing.
you do however, often acknowledge that the general public is stupid and uninformed. it is easy to see that few people would acknowledge 3200 animals as being an "endangered" number...but they are. and the thought that the two pronged attack (hunting and habitat destruction) increases the odds in a positive synergistic manner will elude the majority of people. so they HAVE to use "in danger of being extinct"...because they are. even if it seems like a slippery slope or straw man fallacy- it really isn't.
also, just because i need to say this, zoo animals should count for nothing when estimating any sort of population.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
