"Extinct" Bird Seen, Eaten

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
When we artificially kill them for whatever reason what are the consequences that is the question. Survival of the fittest is not in the equation when it comes to mankind. We have the ability to kill it all.

All of it. This is not survival of the fittest. The corporate mindthink and dominionisit points of view are excuses to rape it all and say oh little ole mankind cant effect it. We do effect it. I am not talking about getting in the way of nature I am talking about stop going to war on nature.

WTF run amuk.

I don't think we're artificially killing them. The Turnix worcesteri, the species of buttonquail that we're talking about, has a habit of sticking to certain pathways. Human hunters learn about these predictable pathways and trap them. The fact that buttonquails don't fly much doesn't help them.

There's about 16 species of buttonquails, 14 of them from the same genus as the Turnix worcesteri. It wouldn't be a tragedy for this species to die out. A tragedy is when an entire genus is wiped out due solely to human overhunting.

reply to post by Leto


Or when they use the wrong sauce.

LOL i can't believe they ate it.

BUT, if it was the last one of its kind, they were going extinct anyway because it had nothing to reproduce with. But I know there have to be more.

Originally posted by xstealth
LOL i can't believe they ate it.

It is actually really funny in a macabre kind of dark humor way.

There used to be TV show called Northern Exposure and in one episode this Doctor found a frozen Dinosaur that was perfectly preserved in the tundra.

When he went back for it some backwoodsman had taken a chainsaw to it and had it processed and ready to eat!

reply to post by pteridine


There is a big difference between man made extinction and evolution.

Like the difference between a wildfire started by lightening and arson.

Usually an animal fails in evolution because it had a trait that couldn't adapt. Instead of being quickly hunted out by erosion of habitat and the the ecology going whack a do.

While it is true that species become extinct all the time at any given time or day, it has only been in the last sixty years, that all species of life on the earth continue to live at the discretion of one species of animal, man. Prior to this time, the vast multitude of life existed, lived or died without the concerns or will of man or mankind, at least in the sense of an entire species.

I wonder what that really means?

Would it not have made sense to see how old the quail was? If you could tell its age then you would have an idea of whether it really was the last of its kind. A young one would mean that it has parents that are still around.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

When we artificially kill them for whatever reason what are the consequences that is the question. Survival of the fittest is not in the equation when it comes to mankind. We have the ability to kill it all.

All of it. This is not survival of the fittest. The corporate mindthink and dominionisit points of view are excuses to rape it all and say oh little ole mankind cant effect it. We do effect it. I am not talking about getting in the way of nature I am talking about stop going to war on nature.

How did you arrive at this after reading that an obscure species of quail that was thought to be extinct realy isn't?

I don't know the difference between "artificially killing" something and just plain killing it. In this case, I would say that the bird provides protein to humans. Probably, not many of those who look upon this rara avis are thinking corporate; they are thinking hungry. You are overlaying your reality, the reality of not being hungry and living in relative luxury, on people who may just be surviving as best they can. It's easy to be noble when you aren't starving. Tell them that they have to be hungry because you think they shouldn't eat local wildlife.

Defining the "war on nature" would be a first step but would also be so subjective as to make it difficult to agree on a definition. It is readily argued that man is a part of nature so whatever results from his actions is natural.

Originally posted by pteridine
It is readily argued that man is a part of nature so whatever results from his actions is natural.

Agreed, we are part of evolution. If a sentient race from another planet came and wiped us out that would just be part of evolution, we were not fit enough to survive.

reply to post by Leto


That is just a way to justify terrible acts so you can feel better about it. Fact is, any species that wipes out another entire species and throwing its own ecology out of whack is destined to not survive long. It is hard to predict the domino effect.

We are smart enough at this point to know better.


You don't eliminate your food source, just like you don't eat all the corn in one year, you save some seeds for the next.

reply to post by nixie_nox

Nixie,
It's an inconsequential species of quail. It isn't wiped out. If its habits allow for easy capture, it will be wiped out by something anyway.

Worry about over fishing if you need to worry about something important.

reply to post by grover


Wow! And such a beautiful bird too.

reply to post by pteridine


Ecology is so complicated that there is no way to assume the effects of a missing species. Even if there are only a few. And it is arrogant to think we can decide what is important, or what it's role is.One species can depend on another who depends on another etc.

When the buffalo were killed off, there was a salamander that lived exclusively in the mud wallows they left behind, that quickly dissappeared. A long with a buffalo orchid, that solely existed by the buffalo passing by and carrying the pollen on their fur and pollinating others. The third effect was that there was major erosion problems, because when the buffalo ran across the plains, their cloven hooves would make divets in the very tough and thick prairie grass, allowing the water to pass into the soil, instead of sheeting off.

But no one knew these things, until the buffalo are gone.

While they are large species, the point is we didn't know the consqquences of their extinction.

While yes, there are much bigger problems to tackle, if we can't protect one insignificant species, how are we ever going to solve the big problems?

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by pteridine

 

While yes, there are much bigger problems to tackle, if we can't protect one insignificant species, how are we ever going to solve the big problems?

We can start by expending our efforts on the bigger problems.

Originally posted by bigvig316
I wonder if it taste like chicken...... j/k

It seems that everything tastes like chicken unless it tastes like beef or fish or (supposedly like us) pork.

Yes its just one species and yes species go extinct all the time... so and your points are?

With each species lost, unless it is replaced by another species, an ecological niche is left vacant and the web of life becomes one strand weaker... and so many losses are totally unnecessary.

Some of you can go so what all you want but I relish the richness and diversity of life... the spectacle of it all makes it... in the words or Rilke...

"It is breathtaking just to be here."

So what just shrugs the beauty and wonder of it all off.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by grover

 

Species go extinct all the time and have since life began. As I remember the celeocanth was being sold in a fish market when it was first seen.

hows about if the tables were turned on you and it was you who was about to become extinct at the hands of a more powerful source....

"please dont kill us all for no reason other than greed" "no, species go extinct all the time bad luck"

theres a difference between natural extinction and extinction due to warrantless greed or illogical thought,theres no need to hunt such birds when theres plenty of other food around.

the lack of empathy shown in so called life appauls me makes we wonder if its really life at all....or is it just programmes written to act like life,to behave in an anti life way.

you cant justify exinction when there are clear alternatives,you can only make excuses.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by pteridine

 

While yes, there are much bigger problems to tackle, if we can't protect one insignificant species, how are we ever going to solve the big problems?

We can start by expending our efforts on the bigger problems.

i agree

i wonder where that problem lies....

reply to post by welivefortheson


You said
" theres a difference between natural extinction and extinction due to warrantless greed or illogical thought,theres no need to hunt such birds when theres plenty of other food around.

you cant justify exinction when there are clear alternatives,you can only make excuses."

Reread your statement ".....there's no need to hunt such birds when there's plenty of other food around." This sounds to me like you have not considered that there might not be plenty of other food around for these people. Do you think a man feeding his family is guilty of warrantless greed?
In case it escaped your notice in your drive to feed the hungry, the bird isn't extinct. It was thought to be extinct. As to "clear alternatives," you haven't proposed any. Perhaps you are just making excuses.

[edit on 2/24/2009 by pteridine]

I know many Filipinos and I can tell you they love to eat.
Seems like the tinier they are, the more eat too, so this report comes as no surprise.

I know someone that claims he may have eaten an endangered bird once. When I asked him what it tasted like he said it was a cross between a bald eagle and a whooping crane.


...Just kidding about the endangered bird but it's really true, Filipinos really love to eat.

I like how the article ask what if it was the last of it's species. Well, if it was the last one, it can't mate and make more. If it was one of two the children would mate and eventually have massive inbreeding.