China’s runaway pollution is close to forcing one of the most beautiful creatures into extinction. The Hong Kong Dolphin Society is reporting that the population of rare Chinese white dolphins (known as pink dolphins for their unique color) are almost wiped out. A tragic picture was captured recently of one of the few remaining mothers trying to support her dead calf in the waters outside of Hong Kong — the victim of extreme pollution in the Pearl River Delta.
The numbers of pink dolphin has plummeted. In 2003, there were only 158. By 2011, there were only 78. Now, they are nearly gone entirely. Toxins in the water have killed off the dolphins like the baby calf. While a tourist attraction, pink dolphins now expose tourists to the sad reality of a country which turns a blind eye to the worsening environmental conditions for animals and people alike.
The species may still be found outside of China, though it is listed as “near-threatened.” The dolphin has long been a symbol of Hong Kong, as it was during the handover from Britain. Now, children will have to look at pictures as the toxins in the waters continue to rise around Hong Kong.
Source: France24
You assume you have something to teach.
“There is some taxonomic debate concerning which populations deserve distinct species status,”
There is no debate about the speciation in this instance. There are two identified species of Pink Dolphin: Sousa chinensis chinensis (the Chinese White Dolphin in question here) and inia geoffrensis (the Amazon River Dolphin).
“but even the most conservative estimates of environmentalists put their number at about 10,000, which is why they are classified as “Near Threatened” status. I think their numbers are likely above 20,000, but I’m not going to argue it. Let’s just use the 10,000 figure.”
I’m not interested in what you think. I’m interested in what you can prove. So let’s not just use the 10,000 figure, Mr. Ipse Dixit. You claim that number, but actual biologists who specialize in dolphins use a totally different number – namely less that 2500 for the Chinese White Dolphin.
You make the counterclaim of a higher population. The burden of proof shifts to you. That’s how debate work. You want balance? Balance doesn’t consist you pulling numbers out of your ass. Either you can prove your assertion or you can’t.
Which is it?
Where did you get the 20,000 or even the 10,000 number?
Cite your sources for your “most conservative estimate”.
Also, your “feelings” are irrelevant to your ability to prove your assertions. If you’re as interested in logic and claim to know as much about it as you claim (which is as demonstrated by your posts to date laughable), then you’d know this. Objective proof is King in the land of logic.
The rest of what you say is just more gyrating gibberish, David. But in the end, who am I more likely to believe that the animal is endangered? A cetacean biology expert and well respected naturalist and conservation groups or some clown who can’t prove what he claims contrary to what the experts claim?
Gene H –
Not interested in doing your homework or even taking time to pull studies that I have read. A simple google search for Sousa chinensis 10,000 brought up this page:
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/20424/0
Briefly reading it, I see that their 2008 numbers for the Pearl River Estuary were half of the 2500 current estimate that you agreed with in your earlier post today. Not a big stretch to think if that number is half of what everybody else is reporting, then the 10,000 number is probably half too. You can do whatever other research you want. Go ahead make me look like an idiot. I really don’t care. The minutia of this is not worth my time right now.
I agree with DavidM who commented above.
Dolphins are used by our government as spies. They can yak into a DolphinoLogue Machine similiar to our Dogologue Machine and the humans can interpret and talk back to em. There were some here at our marina. Mums the word. They are smarter than people or dogs.
“It suggests this “Pink Dolphin” is just about extinct, giving numbers for a small area around Hong Kong of about 78, not disclosing that the true number for the entire estuarine system there is around 2500. The population of these animals elsewhere are well into the tens of thousands and not at all close to extinction.”
Really. Everything I read about this situation says the population numbers for the Hong Kong area are accurate and that the population for the entire delta is less than 2500, however, nothing I found says the total population for this particular species is in the “tens of thousands and not at all close to extinction.”
Where’s your cite and proof of this claim that the species is both plentiful and prosperous? Or is it just your opinion that they number in “the tens of thousands and not at all close to extinction”?
I ask because your contention that they are not actually endangered is contrary to what the experts say.
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/05/07/Chinas-pollution-putting-pink-dolphins-in-danger/7381367964901/?upi_mf
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-hong-kong-pink-dolphin.html
“[N]ot at all close to extinction” is a big counterclaim there, David.
If you have evidence they are “not at all close to extinction”, not only would I like to see it, but I’m sure Dr. Hung, the World Wildlife Fund and the International Union for Conservation of Nature would be interested too.
Gene H – I have not time nor interest in debating the minutia of this with you. Past conversations have shown me you debate to enrich your ego rather than from an interest to learn. There is some taxonomic debate concerning which populations deserve distinct species status, but even the most conservative estimates of environmentalists put their number at about 10,000, which is why they are classified as “Near Threatened” status. I think their numbers are likely above 20,000, but I’m not going to argue it. Let’s just use the 10,000 figure.
I am not going to do all your homework for you. “Near Threatened” is not as close to extinction status as Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered, Extinct in the Wild, and Extinct. So there are five categories that are worse than their current classification. For analysis purposes for which we actually have data, there is only one status that would indicate something better, and that is the status of Least Concern.
I care about these dolphins and believe we should be concerned about protecting them, so I hate being put into the debate side to which you seem to want to force me. I was only trying to bring some balance and urge us to use facts and logic rather than emotion to persuade corporations and government about environmental issues. The characterization of “Near Extinction Due To Pollution” and then mentioning only toxins as the pollution is a mischaracterization in my opinion. You disagree, fine. I’ve made my point. Let’s leave it at that.
davidm, Welcome to the jungle. Mespo is reasonable, but a few others, not in the least.
This past February when I was in San Diego a “super pod” of dolphins was videotaped just off the coast by a whale sightseeing boat passenger. The video got a lot of play in many venues including, but not limited to, the Huffpost. It was estimated to be 7 MILES WIDE and include ~100,000 dolphins. I don’t know if any were pink, although it was just after Valentines Day.
Not to be melodramatic, but isn’t the 6th extinction believed to be man? I think we’re heading down that path like a runaway train.
David2575 has that annoying habit of taking the cutting edge off the truth with all manner of tangential facts which deprive the reader of the thrust of the article. Must be a new and more intellectualized tactic from the “Party of Stupid.”
mespo –
I live in a strange world where I am called conservative by liberals and liberal by conservatives. I own a corporation so I guess I qualify as one of these greedy corporate owners who is responsible for all these environmental problems. Nevertheless, as a trained biologist, I care about the environment so I join organizations like the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Smithsonian Institute, etc. I also am a member of the NRA at the same time, and I am registered as a Republican for voting, but when it comes to social issues, I am as liberal as they come. I want amnesty for the so-called illegal immigrants and more free and open borders. I consider myself a humanitarian and have established non-profits to help the homeless and impoverished in our society. I’ve been invited by communists and socialists both to speak at universities about my work with the homeless and poor. It is interesting to observe the shock on their faces when I speak freely about God or they discover that I am a Republican. Why you choose to characterize my comment as tangential and make the conversation about me instead of the Dolphins seems very strange to me. If you want me to speak frankly, I will. This article is a flagrant piece of propaganda meant to get ideologues to start singing. It suggests this “Pink Dolphin” is just about extinct, giving numbers for a small area around Hong Kong of about 78, not disclosing that the true number for the entire estuarine system there is around 2500. The population of these animals elsewhere are well into the tens of thousands and not at all close to extinction. The article focuses on toxins because toxins are invisible to most people and as such creates an emotional response of fear. My comments were simply meant to nudge others to consider resorting to rational arguments based in science rather than fluff propaganda pieces meant to activate only ideologues. How can we reach corporate owners who are causing the problems if we are not honest and we refuse to speak their language? Do you really think stirring up people to hate them and insult them is the right approach? We need to base our speech on facts instead of misleading headlines. The ones causing the problems are not stupid. They will turn us off if they catch us in even one lie. I realize that I do not fit into your nice little box of being on the right side, but try to keep an open mind. If you are sad that I detracted from the main thrust of the article, which is propaganda based upon emotion rather than reason, well, guilty as charged I guess. I just think we should reconsider our approach to these issues if we hope to make real progress. I will be in Hong Kong next month for a few days to assess the situation there.
David,
No one is suggesting that habitat loss is not critical, but clean water is just as critical. Even if habitat losses are reduced, if you don’t clean up the water, what good is the habitat gains?? The calf mentioned in the article didn’t die because of habitat loss.
Darren, You really need to put more emphasis on valuing greed. That’s the upside to wrecking the environment. It costs more to do things that don’t harm the environment. Since making a profit is the reason for most development, that’s why it’s done and protecting the environment just cuts into profit and doesn’t feed the greed.
Davidm2575’s explanation of other possible causes interestingly points out the myriad ways human activities in the Pearl River Delta, population 60 million, are destroying their wildlife and land they live on.
Is there an upside to wrecking the environment? No? Let’s stop doing it.
Seems simple enough.
David,
Why the focus on toxins in the water?? Are you kidding? It doesn’t matter if you breathe air if you are inhaling toxic fumes and drinking toxic water and eating organisms tainted by the toxins.
rafflaw – yeah, in theory you are right, but the science suggests habitat loss to be more important as a culprit than toxins. In one study of 28 dolphins (12 adults & 16 juveniles) found dead during a three year period, most carcasses did not have excessive levels of toxins. In an earlier two year study that looked at the liver tissue samples from 25 dolphins, heavy metal contaminants were within normal levels. The environmentalists in Hong Kong working to help save these animals say the problem is habitat loss through development projects.
“What if the story of our times is this: And then there was one planet, and it was going down.” -Tom Engelhardt
And Then There Was One
Imperial Gigantism and the Decline of Planet Earth
By Tom Engelhardt
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175696/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_the_last_empire/
Ditto what RWL Sid that Gene said….
Gene,
I couldn’t say it better! I read in the news that mankind has removed 20%-25% of the Amazon Rain Forest. We are horrible stewards.
Just read last night that they are not able to find any clouded leopards in the wild any more. They were beautiful animals.
We’ll notice once its too late.
I wish the headline did not lead readers to think that these Dolphins are on the verge of extinction. In actuality, these Dolphins are no longer able to reproduce successfully in this one particular river system and so they are going elsewhere.
Also, why the focus on toxins in the water? Dolphins are air breathers like us, and while toxins might affect their food supply, the people in the area seem to blame construction projects like the Chek Lap Kok New Airport in Lantau Island, the building of the Tung Chung New Town, North Lantau Expressway and the Tsing Ma Suspension Bridge. The construction causes silt, turning the water murky and brown. The Dolphins are said to die also because of the explosions and heavy boat traffic. Instead of toxins killing off the Dolphins food supply, overfishing is blamed and also the attitude of fisherman toward the Dolphins. Fisherman perceive the Dolphins as a nuisance, competing with them for the same food and getting trapped in their nets and damaging them.
I don’t mean to detract from the article, but too often our message of protecting the environment gets lost on corporation owners who are causing the problems when we either overstate our case with misleading headlines or too narrowly define the problem. When they look into it further to see if they are at fault, they become dismissive of us and our message, considering us to be dishonest or perhaps overzealous. We should work hard to provide an honest, full analysis of problems like this one.
All that environmental destruction so that the rest of us can have little plastic trinkets that we don’t need wrapped in yet more plastic.
When I was a kid, there were two primary examples naturalists gave warning of man made extinction: the dodo and the carrier pigeon. Just this morning, the television woke me as I use it for an alarm. A show about tigers was talking about their scarcity in the wild. I thought to myself, “Soon there won’t be any wildlife to tell children about.”
Mankind is often a thoughtless arrogant steward.
“Canary in the coal mine” … one of many?