WWF: Global wildlife population halved in 40 years... or is it?

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has put out a report that the global wildlife population has decreased by 52 percent between the years 1970 and 2010.

Wildlife populations down drastically

This report has been all over MSM and environmental blogs and websites.

This sounds a bit statistically extreme. The piece of information that is left out of most of the articles is this:

The study Tuesday from the Swiss-based WWF largely blamed human threats to nature for a 52-percent decline in wildlife populations between 1970 and 2010.

It says improved methods of measuring populations of fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles explain the huge difference from the 28-percent decline between 1970 and 2008 that the group reported in 2012.

So, the same group reported in 2012 that there was a 28 percent drop in global wildlife population between 1970 and 2008. But in 2014, that number has increased to a 52 percent drop between 1970 and 2010? They cite improved methods of measuring populations.

I'm supposed to believe that our top scientists were so abysmally awful at measuring wildlife populations in 2012 that they were off by inconceivably massive margins, but in just 2 years have honed their skills to arrive at a new, more accurate statistic that is nowhere near what it was before. It's not even in the same ballpark, really.

By this report it seems to me that they are indirectly declaring that they were so grossly incompetent in 2012 that their estimates were inaccurate to the degree of scientific shame; but now, just 2 years later we should believe the same group of incompetent propagandists are accurate? Or shall we conclude that between 2008 and 2010 there was an additional 24 percent drop?

Obviously, the global wildlife population has decreased since 1970. I do not dispute that; but I think these are garbage statistics that insult our intelligence. There are acceptable margins of error in scientific study; this anomaly is egregious and shatters the credibility of the report, in my opinion.

For those of you that believe the new statistic, I make this point: You would have believed it as "fact" in 2012 when the number was a meager 28 percent reduction since 1970. You also would have accepted it as "fact" if the 2014 number was a 75 percent reduction.

Either "scientists" just aren't what they used to be, or there's something fishy going on.

Peace.

Wow you know you're old when you read "WWF" and instantly think of Hulk Hogan running wild on the Macho Man.

I think the report is exagerated. I grew up in Northern Quebec, Right in the brush and still spend some of my weekends there. I've been seeing much more elk, deer and bears lately than I ever did as a kid. Maybe is some regions the wildlife is dying off but in other's our furry friends and thriving.

a reply to: InTheFlesh1980
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is accurate.
Saddened,but not surprised.
It makes sense-as the human population increases we take more land,build more roads,pollute more water sources.

We have gone from being in balance with mother nature to becoming her number one wreaking crew in only a few dozen generations.

Thanks to the industrial revolution,globalisation,over hunting/fishing and the insane amount of resources we now consume the future looks bleak for our biodiverse world.


Your grandchildren may be very lucky if they see a lion/tiger/elephant in a zoo because there will not be any left in the wild.
Fish will be consigned to the history books in terms of a food source-the oceans will be mostly dead from over fishing and pollution.

Oh yeah,and our lives will be drastically worse in many ways as well(if we even survive)-and it will in part be the fault of us today for letting this happen.

Whats the answer?
The only thing I can think of is an event similar to the asteroid which almost took out the dinosaurs.
Because Humans greed and materialism doesn't look like its going to change any time soon.

Aren't I a jolly chap today-apologies..

I believe they really don't know what they are doing. Yes, it is painfully obvious that there are too many morons out there, killing tigers and elephants, that need to be strung up.

But in two years, they have made this "miraculous" method of accurate counting of animals?

Then why are new animals being found all the time? If these creatures can hide so well for so long, why can't some of the ones we already know about?


I am all about animal conservation. And we really need to step up our game, big time. But I think this is just "fear mongering" for more money for the WWF.

a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

I also find it really difficult to believe the study results. For one, we're supposed to believe that their ability to accurately measure animal populations was terrible in 2012 but improved immensely by 2014 and yet somehow it was accurate back in 1970.

The story to me sounds like propaganda to justify Agenda 21 (often now called 'sustainable living'). And a quick Google search turns up plenty of references that tie the WWF in to that, in fact the UN cites WWF studies and similar studies as justification for the Agenda 21/sustainable living agenda. To me, a lot of that is all too reminiscent of the Georgia guidestones admonition to keep (reduce?) the human population of the planet to 500,000.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for not destroying the planet or half the wildlife on it. And if the study is accurate, that is horrendous news. Hopefully the study is not accurate.

I've volunteered for a number of nature organizations and I spend the majority of my free time in the wilderness, watching how it works and changes, trying to gauge what is happening as scientifically as possible. It is difficult to quantify exactly what changes that you observe are normal are not. That being said, some things are easy to verify. For instance, we've torn down 40% of the worlds forests in the last fifty years alone. You can verify that easily with satellite images. We devastate the oceans fish populations by taking hundreds of billions of fish every year. The devastation is verified because fishermen have to keep trolling deeper and deeper for new species that we would have never considered eating before. They are now literally scraping the bottom of the ocean with their nets (those who are still in business), which is in turn destroying delicate ocean floor habitat.

It would not surprise me at all if the numbers are accurate. Personally I believe that we have doomed humanity. We see these numbers and yet we continue mutilating the planet so we can own the newest Iphone. I think it will affect our lives so severely within 25 years that it will become obvious even to the most lethargic. But by then it will be to late.

This reminds me of the BBC documentary "Human Planet". In the special features they explained that in order to get new high definition footage of large migrating herds (such as caribou, impala, etc) they went back to many places in the world that they had filmed these herds in past decades. Except now they had nothing to film. The large herds are gone and there is only a sprinkling of what once was.

Here is an interesting graph of bird populations in Canada since 1970.

It shows a 10 percent and continuing drop in all birds. Alarmingly it shows a 70 percent drop in aerial insectivores and a 45 percent drop in grassland and shore birds. The graph for the entire North American population is similar.

The surveys were contributed by civilian projects (Such as the Christmas Bird Count and May species count) and also by government and privately funded efforts).

originally posted by: CraftBuilder
It shows a 10 percent and continuing drop in all birds.

I could believe that there has been a 10 percent drop in the bird population of North America since 1970.

Now, going back to my point in the OP: What if, 2 years from now, the same "scientists" that furnished the data for the chart you posted modified the chart to show a 20 percent drop? Would you believe the new data? How confident would you be in the new data knowing that the "old" data from the same research groups was self-admittedly crap?

a reply to: InTheFlesh1980
Science is not about "knowing" anything. It is about using methodology to improve the accuracy/certainty of what we've observed. This is what we are observing at this point, given the tools we have at hand. It's the best we can do at the time and hopefully it is more accurate than what we've accomplished in the past.

I never take a scientific result as fact. I do use it to help make educated decisions.