Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Geekosystem)   Congratulations. We've officially wiped out the Japanese river otter. Humanity, go and sit in the corner. Again   (geekosystem.com) divider line 98
    More: Sad, Japanese, Japanese river otter  
•       •       •

4047 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Sep 2012 at 8:11 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



98 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-13 06:52:37 AM  
i1182.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-13 07:20:37 AM  
Yay us! We are so awesome!
 
2012-09-13 07:54:17 AM  
We suck.
 
2012-09-13 08:00:20 AM  
Who'se we? I didn't do it.
 
2012-09-13 08:06:43 AM  

nekom: Who'se we? I didn't do it.


This.  Go take your guilt somewhere else, subby.
 
2012-09-13 08:11:17 AM  
Well, that sucks. That article taught me the Japanese word for river otter (kawa uso -- it's written in katakana on the stamp), and that it's pretty much a word I don't need to know. :(
 
2012-09-13 08:27:25 AM  
Should have sport hunted them. That way, they would have enjoyed the protection of the hunters. Instead, they were market hunted for their fur. Market hunting, along with subsistence hunting (hunting for food), always results in a reduction in species populations. Sport hunting generally results in the numbers of the targeted species increasing, because sport hunters tend to want to keep hunting, because they enjoy it, and they'll spend a considerable amount of time, money, and political capital to ensure a healthy population of that species endures and thrives.
 
2012-09-13 08:29:40 AM  
Was it delicious?
 
2012-09-13 08:30:30 AM  
Good work, Japan. Now you can concentrate all your efforts on finishing off those whales and sharks.

/otters are freaking adorable :(
 
2012-09-13 08:30:54 AM  
I bet there are tons of pictures of it.
 
2012-09-13 08:31:49 AM  

dittybopper: Should have sport hunted them.


Who the fark would hunt an otter for sport? Never mind, stupid question. People will hunt anything for sport.
 
2012-09-13 08:32:30 AM  
And this will affect everyone's lives... how?
 
2012-09-13 08:38:52 AM  

Mugato: dittybopper: Should have sport hunted them.

Who the fark would hunt an otter for sport? Never mind, stupid question. People will hunt anything for sport.


The idea would have been to make it something you could brag about, that monster-sized river otter you have mounted in your den.

The real problem is that the population crashed in the 1930's, before we had a good handle on conservation issues and how regulated sport hunting can be a powerful long-term management tool. Also. the Japanese government at that time wasn't exactly focused on domestic habitat and species conservation, if you know what I mean.
 
2012-09-13 08:40:50 AM  
We otter be ashamed of ourselves.

Get it? Otter??? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA forget it.
 
2012-09-13 08:42:34 AM  

Mugato: Who the fark would hunt an otter for sport?


Having looked into it, hunting the otters under fair-chase rules would have been a significant challenge: They had a wide home area, and they only came out at night. Also, they were indiscriminate eaters, so attracting them to a specific location so that you could shoot them would have been more of a challenge because there wouldn't have been a specific food item that would be irresistible to them.
 
2012-09-13 08:43:14 AM  

dittybopper: Also. the Japanese government at that time wasn't exactly focused on domestic habitat and species conservation, if you know what I mean.


They aren't now, either. If anything they've gotten more efficient at destroying marine life.
 
2012-09-13 08:45:18 AM  

dittybopper: Mugato: Who the fark would hunt an otter for sport?

Having looked into it, hunting the otters under fair-chase rules would have been a significant challenge: They had a wide home area, and they only came out at night. Also, they were indiscriminate eaters, so attracting them to a specific location so that you could shoot them would have been more of a challenge because there wouldn't have been a specific food item that would be irresistible to them.


God, the human race pisses me off.
 
2012-09-13 08:52:48 AM  

Mugato: dittybopper: Mugato: Who the fark would hunt an otter for sport?

Having looked into it, hunting the otters under fair-chase rules would have been a significant challenge: They had a wide home area, and they only came out at night. Also, they were indiscriminate eaters, so attracting them to a specific location so that you could shoot them would have been more of a challenge because there wouldn't have been a specific food item that would be irresistible to them.

God, the human race pisses me off.


Why? Seriously, I'm concerned that something I said upset you, and I'd like to understand why you feel that way, and perhaps explain my viewpoint better.
 
2012-09-13 08:54:00 AM  

Mugato: dittybopper: Also. the Japanese government at that time wasn't exactly focused on domestic habitat and species conservation, if you know what I mean.

They aren't now, either. If anything they've gotten more efficient at destroying marine life.


Again, that's market hunting. Hunting for profit. That's *NOT* sport hunting.
 
2012-09-13 08:57:05 AM  

dittybopper: Why? Seriously, I'm concerned that something I said upset you, and I'd like to understand why you feel that way, and perhaps explain my viewpoint better.


Hunting a foot long defenseless animal for fun is something only humans could think of.
 
2012-09-13 08:58:01 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org 

DERP
 
2012-09-13 09:07:03 AM  
Wait.... we are supposed to be surprised that wildlife has trouble living in Japan? Really? Guess most people haven't ever been to Japan. If it isn't Hokkaido, wildlife doesn't stand a chance.
 
2012-09-13 09:11:34 AM  
Now they can introduce a foreign species of otter. Invasives thrive where natives flounder. European otters, speckled neck otters, and North American otters are doing well enough that they can keep importing a bunch if each introduced population keeps dying off. Worse comes to worse they can genetically engineer ferrets to have webbed feet.
 
2012-09-13 09:15:51 AM  

Mugato: dittybopper: Why? Seriously, I'm concerned that something I said upset you, and I'd like to understand why you feel that way, and perhaps explain my viewpoint better.

Hunting a foot long defenseless animal for fun is something only humans could think of.


OK, but we didn't actually do that, and now they are gone. We didn't hunt them for fun, we hunted them for *MONEY*. And now they don't exist.

But what if we *HAD* hunted them for fun instead? If enough people enjoyed hunting JRO's for sport, serious money would have been pumped into saving them. Why? Because people who enjoy doing something generally want to keep on doing it, and they will take measures to ensure that they can keep on doing it.

That's what saved a large number of wild species in the United States: People who enjoyed hunting those species noticed that the numbers were declining mainly due to things like market and subsistence hunting, and they banded together to outlaw that type of hunting and to set aside and preserve habitat, often at their own expense, in order to assure the continuation of healthy populations of those species. Some of those species aren't any bigger than the JRO, either: Witness the bobcat and the wild turkey.

Hunting them seems at first glance to be a paradoxical way to save a species, but that's only if you have a very shallow understanding of the motivations that hunters have: The guy who spends a lot of time and money chasing that record-breaking trophy has a different motivation than the guy who is out to make money or to put food on his table because his kids are starving.

So long as people like you fail to understand that sport hunters are actually on your side, and that they *WANT* to preserve habitat (which btw also benefits non-targeted species that live in those habitats), and to continue to promote healthy populations of game animals, then you will forever be fighting against people with the same goals, just a slightly different motivation.
 
2012-09-13 09:28:49 AM  
www.toughpigs.com
RIP Emmet Otter
 
2012-09-13 09:30:23 AM  
www.japanprobe.com
 
2012-09-13 09:38:52 AM  
southparkstudios-intl.mtvnimages.com 

Know this, time child! ... I shall personally kill the time child, and eat his entrails on my tummy!
 
2012-09-13 09:41:56 AM  

dittybopper: Mugato: dittybopper: Mugato: Who the fark would hunt an otter for sport?

Having looked into it, hunting the otters under fair-chase rules would have been a significant challenge: They had a wide home area, and they only came out at night. Also, they were indiscriminate eaters, so attracting them to a specific location so that you could shoot them would have been more of a challenge because there wouldn't have been a specific food item that would be irresistible to them.

God, the human race pisses me off.

Why? Seriously, I'm concerned that something I said upset you, and I'd like to understand why you feel that way, and perhaps explain my viewpoint better.


Because there are people alive that actually take joy in killing something. I eat meat because I'm supposed to as a human (and because it's delicious), but I cannot fathom how someone can actually consider taking a life as an enjoyable experience.
 
2012-09-13 09:56:09 AM  

LL316: Because there are people alive that actually take joy in killing something. I eat meat because I'm supposed to as a human (and because it's delicious), but I cannot fathom how someone can actually consider taking a life as an enjoyable experience.


Not that it's relevant to the thread, but what creeps you out more, the hunter mentality or the mentality that allows a perfectly ordinary person to get a job at a slaughterhouse where they kill lambs all day?
 
2012-09-13 09:56:51 AM  

Mugato: Hunting a foot long defenseless animal for fun is something only humans could think of.


Hunting just for the hell of it has been observed in wild animals.
 
2012-09-13 10:02:01 AM  

Friskya: And this will affect everyone's lives... how?


It won't, Otters were never an irreplaceable niche in the regional ecology and even if they had been Japan's ecology has been outright farked for some time now.
 
2012-09-13 10:02:45 AM  

Mugato: dittybopper: Why? Seriously, I'm concerned that something I said upset you, and I'd like to understand why you feel that way, and perhaps explain my viewpoint better.

Hunting a foot long defenseless animal for fun is something only humans could think of.


What about dingos hunting babies?
 
2012-09-13 10:03:38 AM  
Way over 90% of all the things that were once alive on this planet are gone. Extinct.

WE DIDN'T KILL THEM ALL.


/Leave nature alone
 
2012-09-13 10:04:37 AM  
And not a fark was given that day.
 
2012-09-13 10:08:29 AM  

dittybopper: Mugato: dittybopper: Why? Seriously, I'm concerned that something I said upset you, and I'd like to understand why you feel that way, and perhaps explain my viewpoint better.

Hunting a foot long defenseless animal for fun is something only humans could think of.

OK, but we didn't actually do that, and now they are gone. We didn't hunt them for fun, we hunted them for *MONEY*. And now they don't exist.

But what if we *HAD* hunted them for fun instead? If enough people enjoyed hunting JRO's for sport, serious money would have been pumped into saving them. Why? Because people who enjoy doing something generally want to keep on doing it, and they will take measures to ensure that they can keep on doing it.

That's what saved a large number of wild species in the United States: People who enjoyed hunting those species noticed that the numbers were declining mainly due to things like market and subsistence hunting, and they banded together to outlaw that type of hunting and to set aside and preserve habitat, often at their own expense, in order to assure the continuation of healthy populations of those species. Some of those species aren't any bigger than the JRO, either: Witness the bobcat and the wild turkey.

Hunting them seems at first glance to be a paradoxical way to save a species, but that's only if you have a very shallow understanding of the motivations that hunters have: The guy who spends a lot of time and money chasing that record-breaking trophy has a different motivation than the guy who is out to make money or to put food on his table because his kids are starving.

So long as people like you fail to understand that sport hunters are actually on your side, and that they *WANT* to preserve habitat (which btw also benefits non-targeted species that live in those habitats), and to continue to promote healthy populations of game animals, then you will forever be fighting against people with the same goals, just a slightly different motivation.



You reminded me why good ol' teddy wanted to make the national parks.

To shoot American bison in the face.
 
2012-09-13 10:19:44 AM  

dittybopper: Mugato: dittybopper: Why? Seriously, I'm concerned that something I said upset you, and I'd like to understand why you feel that way, and perhaps explain my viewpoint better.

Hunting a foot long defenseless animal for fun is something only humans could think of.

OK, but we didn't actually do that, and now they are gone. We didn't hunt them for fun, we hunted them for *MONEY*. And now they don't exist.

But what if we *HAD* hunted them for fun instead? If enough people enjoyed hunting JRO's for sport, serious money would have been pumped into saving them. Why? Because people who enjoy doing something generally want to keep on doing it, and they will take measures to ensure that they can keep on doing it.

That's what saved a large number of wild species in the United States: People who enjoyed hunting those species noticed that the numbers were declining mainly due to things like market and subsistence hunting, and they banded together to outlaw that type of hunting and to set aside and preserve habitat, often at their own expense, in order to assure the continuation of healthy populations of those species. Some of those species aren't any bigger than the JRO, either: Witness the bobcat and the wild turkey.

Hunting them seems at first glance to be a paradoxical way to save a species, but that's only if you have a very shallow understanding of the motivations that hunters have: The guy who spends a lot of time and money chasing that record-breaking trophy has a different motivation than the guy who is out to make money or to put food on his table because his kids are starving.

So long as people like you fail to understand that sport hunters are actually on your side, and that they *WANT* to preserve habitat (which btw also benefits non-targeted species that live in those habitats), and to continue to promote healthy populations of game animals, then you will forever be fighting against people with the same goals, just a slightly different motivation.


Wasn't that a contributory factor in the extinction of the Yangtze River Dolphin? By the time all the different conservation agencies could agree on how to go forward......ta-daa! All dead.

If you're spending all your time arguing with other people trying to achieve the same basic goal at the expense of ever achieving that goal, you're part of the problem.
 
2012-09-13 10:23:39 AM  
Old news. Japan has already moved on.

latimesblogs.latimes.com
 
2012-09-13 10:26:36 AM  
Compared to the slaughter when the Americas were first settled, this is nothing. 73% of large land mammals wiped out in less than 500 years.
 
2012-09-13 10:28:12 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-13 10:35:23 AM  
i35.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-13 10:45:23 AM  

dittybopper: Hunting them seems at first glance to be a paradoxical way to save a species, but that's only if you have a very shallow understanding of the motivations that hunters have: The guy who spends a lot of time and money chasing that record-breaking trophy has a different motivation than the guy who is out to make money or to put food on his table because his kids are starving.
So long as people like you fail to understand that sport hunters are actually on your side, and that they *WANT* to preserve habitat (which btw also benefits non-targeted species that live in those habitats), and to continue to promote healthy populations of game animals, then you will forever be fighting against people with the same goals, just a slightly different motivation.


Oh great, yet another extinction thread where you get to talk about we can save the world by turning everything into a commodity.

I have nothing against sport hunting, but maybe some people would like to think of animals as something other than another product that we choose to let live or not. You know, there's a school of thought that says that maybe animals and natural resources have other purposes than to serve US--the one species that already uses 40% of every natural resource in the world (and it's probably even more now.)

Putting a price tag on everything doesn't "save" it. It just makes it one more thing for us to control and manipulate. Those aren't "wild" animals, they're more like zoo animals, kept in a habitat for our use. The whole idea is fundamentally repugnant, but you couldn't see this in a million years. I can see YOUR point of view, and unfortunately, that is how the world is run, but I don't share it. On the other hand, you dismiss people who think like me as some kind of starry-eyed children who don't understand the world. And yet the world works fine that way, if humans beings could stop thinking that the whole planet, and everything on it, belongs to them.

People who think they can control everything in the world and make it do their bidding are self-centered and greedy. And delusional, since our complete fark-up of handling the natural world is evident everywhere. And yet your solution to our dilemma is even MORE control.

I know I'm talking to a wall, so I'll just drop a few quotes from E. O. Wilson, my farking hero, and leave.

"Humanity is part of nature, a species that evolved among other species. The more closely we identify ourselves with the rest of life, the more quickly we will be able to discover the sources of human sensibility and acquire the knowledge on which an enduring ethic, a sense of preferred direction, can be built."

"To be anthropocentric is to remain unaware of the limits of human nature, the significance of biological processes underlying human behavior, and the deeper meaning of long-term genetic evolution. "
 
2012-09-13 10:59:29 AM  
I'm sure that it tasted pretty good with some eel sauce.
 
2012-09-13 11:06:51 AM  

LL316: Because there are people alive that actually take joy in killing something. I eat meat because I'm supposed to as a human (and because it's delicious), but I cannot fathom how someone can actually consider taking a life as an enjoyable experience.


It's not just the taking of a life. It is the entire experience around it. To quote Jose Ortega y Gasset, one doesn't hunt in order to kill, one kills in order to have hunted.

In other words, I could replicate the entire set of actions I take when I hunt, except unarmed, but then what would be the point? To get a picture? I can simply strap a trail camera to a tree and collect the pictures at my leisure. I wouldn't have to get up at 4:00am to drive 45 minutes away and walk for an hour in the freezing dark to get to my hunting location. I wouldn't get to watch the woods come alive. I wouldn't have a chipmunk scurry over my boot, or the grey squirrel look at me quizzically, trying to figure out if I'm a threat. Or the chickadee thrum right past my ear. I wouldn't get to share that look with the coyote, both of us out hunting. The honking of geese overhead. The faint snort-wheeze of an unseen deer that knows I'm in the area, or perhaps the puzzled look of a doe, trying to decide if that unusual looking tree stump a mere 10 yards away is something to be worried about. Her stamping her foot, trying to get me to move. Me staying frozen, until she decides I'm not dangerous and she goes back to browsing.

Most of the time I go out hunting, I come home empty handed. I'm OK with that. In fact, that makes it *MORE* enjoyable, from my standpoint. Over the years, I've made it progressively harder for myself. I only hunt primitive (flintlock long rifle for gun season, hickory longbow for archery). That's the road I've chosen to take. This year, I'm taking it a step further: I'm using heads I knapped myself from flint and/or obsidian:

i45.tinypic.com

That single shaft, along with the 11 others I purchased at the same time, represented almost $5 that goes directly to wildlife conservation programs. If I couldn't hunt, I probably wouldn't have bought them.

Every year, I purchase a hunting license. That is a direct payment of something between $30 and $80 right into my state Department of Environmental Conservation.

In the past, I've purchased ammo, guns, etc., all of which are subject to those taxes

The point being is that I, and all my friends that hunt, whether primitive or not, wouldn't spend anywhere near as much time, money, or political capital on conservation issues if we weren't allowed to hunt. What would be the point?

Conversely, if we enjoyed killing for the sake of killing, we'd just get jobs in slaughterhouses. Personally I have no desire to work in an abattoir, nor to the best of my knowledge do any of my hunting compatriots. It's not just about the killing, but at least the potential for killing has to be in there, or it isn't hunting.

So why is this wrong? Because an animal dies? Is it not better to keep species alive, and to permit it to thrive as a whole by sacrificing a small percentage of their number to those who enjoy the entire experience?

Sport hunters are *NOT* your enemy. You should look past your unwarranted distaste for their chosen sport and understand that we want to preserve and protect the ability to hunt wild animals in their natural habitats, and that a major consequence of that is that not only are the game species protected, but all the other species that live in those habitats benefit as well, even if they aren't hunted.
 
2012-09-13 11:28:13 AM  
Eastern Elk
Whitetail Deer
Black Bear
Wild Turkeys
Wild Ducks
NA River Otters
Beavers
Wolves
Catamounts
All were saved by Hunter/ trappers. Can you name a creature saved by environmentalists? Roosevelt, Audubon and Leopod started the idea of protecting nature and were hunters.
 
2012-09-13 11:28:19 AM  

cryinoutloud: dittybopper: Hunting them seems at first glance to be a paradoxical way to save a species, but that's only if you have a very shallow understanding of the motivations that hunters have: The guy who spends a lot of time and money chasing that record-breaking trophy has a different motivation than the guy who is out to make money or to put food on his table because his kids are starving.
So long as people like you fail to understand that sport hunters are actually on your side, and that they *WANT* to preserve habitat (which btw also benefits non-targeted species that live in those habitats), and to continue to promote healthy populations of game animals, then you will forever be fighting against people with the same goals, just a slightly different motivation.

Oh great, yet another extinction thread where you get to talk about we can save the world by turning everything into a commodity.


You still don't understand my point, do you?

Animals as a commodity are the purview of market hunting. Market hunting is perhaps the greatest threat to conservation of species that modern man has seen. It's up there with habitat loss, and it's been cause or a major contributing factor in the extinction of many species.

I'm talking specifically about decommoditizing animals. Making them worthless as an economic commodity, but valuable as a recreational opportunity.

You don't like it? OK, I get it. It's not your thing. Fine. I'm not saying you have to personally go out and hunt. That doesn't change the reality of the situation, though, that regulated sport hunting is a powerful tool to preserve and protect species.

Look at the species in question: The Japanese River Otter. They were hunted because their pelts were valuable: They were largely market hunted to extinction. Oh, sure, the hunting stopped when someone noticed there were few left, but by then there were too few to survive other threats like loss of habitat.

*THAT* is the sort of hunting that we should all decry. Sport hunting, however you might not like it, has the opposite effect: People who enjoy hunting a species as a sport want to keep on doing it, so they will take steps to make sure they can do so in the future. It's not about profit for the hunter, he gains literally nothing but the experience: For all that I spend, including my time, I could buy meat cheaper. But traveling to the grocery store and buying that meat doesn't awaken those primitive predatory instincts. That deep, reptilian part of the brain that has been part of our existence as animals for hundreds of millions of years. 

Redirecting that instinct that we all have towards goals that we all agree are laudable (preservation of species) should be a no-brainer, so I'm genuinely puzzled by obviously smart people who are opposed to it.
 
2012-09-13 11:31:17 AM  
I didn't kill it, and I'm not Japanese. Anyhow, the world has bigger fish to fry.
 
2012-09-13 11:37:41 AM  
I should point out, that there is a point reached where sport hunting as a conservation tool isn't viable: When populations get down into the triple digits, then there is really little that sport hunting can do. While you could set up a lottery for a very limited number of permits, set higher fees, and put strict limits on the size/sex of the animal, at that point you are going to attract very few hunters.

For regulated sport hunting to be a viable conservation tool, there has to be some minimum number of individuals of that species, probably in the thousands to tens of thousands.
 
2012-09-13 11:44:58 AM  
I know a couple folks are looking down on dittybopper re: hunting, but he's making some good points. He's being reasonable about it, which means a necessary verbosity, so let me sum up my agreement:

1. Sport hunting funnels a lot of money into conservation, and ironically into the community. Tourism, etc.
2. Sport hunters care deeply about environmental matters and species populations (except that dumbass with an F150 and a rifle, but most sport hunters HATE that guy).
3. Sport hunting kills far less animals than those who hunt for food or to sell animal products. We could declare X species impossible to kill (ie: Bald Eagles), but that's not gonna work for most species.

Ergo: Sport hunting is the most efficient AND sympathetic (yes, really!) way of maintaining certain animal populations in the modern world, until we come up with a better way (More parks? Lots of cameras? Move to Antarctica?).
 
2012-09-13 11:52:38 AM  
Too bad about the otters.

They do still have a viable breeding snow monkey population...unless Nolan Ryan has them all on the pill.
 
2012-09-13 11:53:06 AM  

Aidan: I know a couple folks are looking down on dittybopper re: hunting, but he's making some good points. He's being reasonable about it, which means a necessary verbosity, so let me sum up my agreement:

1. Sport hunting funnels a lot of money into conservation, and ironically into the community. Tourism, etc.
2. Sport hunters care deeply about environmental matters and species populations (except that dumbass with an F150 and a rifle, but most sport hunters HATE that guy).
3. Sport hunting kills far less animals than those who hunt for food or to sell animal products. We could declare X species impossible to kill (ie: Bald Eagles), but that's not gonna work for most species.

Ergo: Sport hunting is the most efficient AND sympathetic (yes, really!) way of maintaining certain animal populations in the modern world, until we come up with a better way (More parks? Lots of cameras? Move to Antarctica?).


One point you failed to mention is improving the habitat for elk leads to better habitat for non game creatures.
 
Displayed 50 of 98 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report