
Cheetahs heading towards extinction as population crashes - Jerry2
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38415906
======
ethbro
Obligatory link to one of the most thought provoking Radio Lab episodes I've
listed to: [http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-
hunter/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/)

Corey Knowlton was eloquent, made his point well, and really made me
reconsider my conservation views in light of my opinions about how the world
actually works.

tl;dr: Without an economic justification, species are destined to go extinct.
Ecologically managed trophy hunting (e.g. culling older animals) provides one
such incentive. Hand wringing and then subsequently forgetting about {insert
endangered news species of the day} provides zero incentive.

------
thieving_magpie
>Another of the big concerns about cheetahs has been the illegal trafficking
of cubs, fuelled by demand from the Gulf states, as reported by the BBC
earlier this year.

~~~
bamurphymac1
Stay classy, petroprinces.

~~~
Havoc
In terms of African wildlife getting screwed over the asia countries are much
worse culprits than the petroprinces.

~~~
John23832
Indeed. Look at the boom in the illegal ivory trade in comparison to China's
economic growth.

------
sidcool
Humans are encroaching on forest lands. The recent Kurzgesagt video states
that overpopulation is not a problem, which is fine statistically, but there
are other implications like these.

~~~
wavefunction
Cheetahs don't live in forests, though I think your point still stands.

------
latch
People say they're against animal cruelty and express concern for the
environment, but they seem unwilling to back that up with action. Could
economic pressure help?

Specifically, since this is being driven by the development of farmland, does
anyone know

1 - Whether eliminating agricultural subsidies would have a noticeable impact,
and

2 - How likely that is to happen?

~~~
pjc50
Different people and different Ag subsidies. Eliminating subsidy in the west
isn't going to make much of a difference to subsistence farming in Africa.

~~~
mark_edward
Yes it would. What many countries do with agricultural subsidies and exports
is effectively dumping. It's to protect domestic farming which is a fine goal
but doing this and taking crap about free trade is a joke, and it really
screws undeveloped countries whose only potential competitive advantage is low
cost of labour. Just look at EU farmers and all the support they get.

------
Element_
What is the preferred charity for wildlife preservation among HN users?

~~~
jfkw
My hometown of Roseburg, Oregon, USA has an AZA-accredited non-profit wildlife
park dedicated to education, conservation and research, with an estimable
Cheetah program:

[http://www.wildlifesafari.net/cheetah.html](http://www.wildlifesafari.net/cheetah.html)

"...Wildlife Safari began breeding cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) in 1972 and
successfully produced a litter the following year. Since then, 178 cheetahs
have been born at the park."

~~~
civilian
My grandfather lived in Roseburg and donated several old horses to the
Wildlife Safari! Sadly, I've never been.

------
AnsemWise
The loss of a significant species like the cheetah would be devastating to the
world psyche. I hope we can do something to reverse this

------
spodek
This article was as much about human population growth, however unstated, as
it was about cheetah population decline.

If you want to see animal populations growing, look at rats, roaches, cows,
and others that benefit from our lifestyles.

If you want cheetahs and other animals not to go extinct, recognize that our
growth models fundamentally conflict with them. The carrying capacity of the
earth for humans is higher without cheetahs than with them.

~~~
guard-of-terra
But what can we do about growth models in Africa? That's where most of
wildlife seems to be.

As far as I understand, European wildlife is quite boring ever since the
glaciers, and then we humans killed most of remaining megafauna. I would
definitely like to see some of those restored.

------
nojvek
Every time I visit my home Nairobi, I am grateful for the country not giving
out wildlife land to make a quick buck. Seeing reserve parks the size of
cities with animals in the wild is breathtaking.

But with big parks and poor Kenyans, it's fairly easily for someone to pay
$10000 to kill an endangered animal. Rhinos, lions, elephants and now
cheetahs.

------
cannonpr
Is there even enough population genetic diversity left at this point ? I
understand that the point varies from species to species.

~~~
arkad
This may vary for cheetahs, but a good case study is european bison[1] who was
restored after WWII from 12 animals, population now ~4.5k.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_bison](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_bison)

------
DodgyEggplant
This is an area where the startups and disrupting efforts completely fail. We
read and learn from so many blog posts about "startup X is shutting down" \-
but what about species? Would be nice to see wildlife and animals as priority
(e.g. for Ycombinator). Also, movie makers like Disney who make fortunes from
animating animals, should contribute. Otherwise, the only animals we will see
is a Pixar movie.

~~~
w1ntermute
The reason there's no interest is because the primary concern for investors
like YC is generating a high return on investment. No matter what feel-good
stuff Sam Altman might say about YC's goals in basic income research or other
non-profit initiatives, at the end of the day, they have to deliver returns to
their LPs.

~~~
murukesh_s
But Governments can. They are already spending billions of dollars and a major
chunk of that goes wasted due to inefficiency, corruption, red-tape etc. The
kind of stuff that big organisations like IBM or HP had that startups came and
disrupted by being more efficient and nimble. Imagine if Governments can setup
and run a transparent organisation like YC whose sole purpose is to promote
startups in those important areas like environment conservation and clean
energy without worrying about profit.

I can imagine that many startups and founders are willing to let go of their
unicorn dream and jump aboard (including me).

------
icosoheadroom
How bad of a thing would it be to place all ~7,000 into captivity, to preserve
the species?

How likely is that to fail, and how detrimental would it be to individual
cheetahs?

~~~
neximo64
Theyde loose the ability to naturally hunt and over-trust humans.

Cheetahs aren't like pidgeons they're predators and the best place for them is
in the wild.

The problem is this then that they go after life stock and be killed for it.
In Namibia there are NGOs that for free, will take them off you.

Of course the problem remains you've lost your livestock and people want
revenge. It's the same story for African wild dogs (perhaps the most
successful predators).

~~~
icosoheadroom
Given that the alternative is their eternal absence, and the total loss of a
species, options are quickly disappearing.

The best place is in the wild, but the worst place is as stuffed relics in
museums. When their numbers dwindle low enough, I'd expect the species would
be lost to unsustainable inbreeding producing compounded birth defects.

Incidental taming and domestication as a side effect of preserving the species
might be better than no species at all. At least habituation to human contact
is a reversible process. Rendering a species feral becomes an option, once
their numbers are strengthened.

------
mrcactu5
this sounds pretty disastrous.

------
jimjimjim
a hyperbolic proposal: poachers of any endangered wildlife should be caught
and released into wildlife enclosures without weapons where they can be hunted
by animals for food. fund it by installing cameras and sell it as reality tv.

~~~
latch
If you read the article, you'd know that the problem isn't poaching, it's loss
of habitat. The article more specifically calls out farm land.

In that case, essentially all eater share blame proportional to the energy and
land efficiency of the food type they eat.

~~~
jimjimjim
true. I did read the article but it's more socially acceptable to want
poachers to come to harm than to express an opinion of wanting expansion of
human settlements in africa to cease.

~~~
grzm
_it 's more socially acceptable to want poachers to come to harm_

Interesting opinion. I agree that there's a common human tendency to look for
someone to blame, so bringing poachers to justice might look like an easy
solution rather than changing behavior. The article discusses ways of
attacking the problem of range preservation.

Is the opinion of wanting poachers to come to harm (rather than be criminally
penalized) one you share yourself? If not, do you have figures that back this
up?

~~~
jimjimjim
please note the use of the word 'hyperbolic' in the original post.

I guess my point was driven by thoughts around preservation of endangered
animals in general rather than just this specific case. There are animals
where poaching IS the major problem.

and I guess i don't want specific harm done to them, i would much rather they
just didn't do it.

but what does 'criminally penalized' look like in your opinion when the
poachers might have no assets to fine, no reputation to lose and no fear of
prison?

~~~
grzm
Yes, you used "hyperbolic" to describe your proposed solution. Your
justification of it (in your followup) shouldn't be, and that is what I was
responding to. Attributing exaggerated opinions to others is one way
discussions get derailed.

As for criminal penalties for poachers, I'd want to learn a lot more about the
situation before weighing in. That said, prison can serve multiple purposes,
one being a deterrent, and another, preventing future infractions by removing
the individual from society. The latter is congruent, at least in part, with
your desire that they don't poach.

