'Extinct' river dolphin shows up in China

[UM-Bot]

Chinese conservationists believe that they have spotted an extinct dolphin species in the Yangtze river.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/299727/extinct-river-dolphin-shows-up-in-china

[Nnicolette]

While we dont seem to trust each other enough to call that evidence... Personally i would call a bunch of them jumping out of the water pretty good evidence they exist. Especially spotted by fishermen who are familiar with the area and species. 6 years isnt long to be unseen, many species are rediscovered after a much longer stint of absence. Its silly how people act like anything in the world they havent seen lately isnt there. Especially concerning animals. I mean we crowd together in cities and act like we see everything but is every inch of the forest and riverbottom under surveillance or something? No. We dont see everything.
 

[Indihar]

I hope this turns out true, but it was worth it already to see the response of the butt hurt dude who thinks them extinct:  "Extreme claims for the possible survival of probably extinct species require robust proof," said biologist Samuel Turvey who has authored a book detailing the extinction of the dolphins.

He calls a simple report of a sighting "extreme," and then goes on to compare unfavorably the "possible" survival of, to his own indeterminate "probably" extinct.    

[Nzo]

Well knowing the Chinese, if its not extinct anymore it surely will be extinct soon. Dolphin Chow Mein anyone?

 

[psyche101]

11 hours ago, Nnicolette said:

While we dont seem to trust each other enough to call that evidence... Personally i would call a bunch of them jumping out of the water pretty good evidence they exist. Especially spotted by fishermen who are familiar with the area and species. 6 years isnt long to be unseen, many species are rediscovered after a much longer stint of absence. Its silly how people act like anything in the world they havent seen lately isnt there. Especially concerning animals. I mean we crowd together in cities and act like we see everything but is every inch of the forest and riverbottom under surveillance or something? No. We dont see everything.
 

Maybe it is best to err on the side of caution. it would be a big let down for the species to extinct twice. 

But it does seem pretty hopeful, and a six week expedition does not sound exhaustive. Let's hope the report is accurate. 

[+DieChecker]

If true this would be great news. 

[paperdyer]

17 hours ago, Indihar said:

I hope this turns out true, but it was worth it already to see the response of the butt hurt dude who thinks them extinct:  "Extreme claims for the possible survival of probably extinct species require robust proof," said biologist Samuel Turvey who has authored a book detailing the extinction of the dolphins.

He calls a simple report of a sighting "extreme," and then goes on to compare unfavorably the "possible" survival of, to his own indeterminate "probably" extinct.    

He's just worried about his book sales going to hell-in-a-hand-basket.

[Lobotomy]

21 hours ago, Nzo said:

Well knowing the Chinese, if its not extinct anymore it surely will be extinct soon. Dolphin Chow Mein anyone?

 

Racist scumbag. Perhaps you should concentrate on the preservation of your own native species instead of lecturing to others about it. Counted many wolves or bears in your back yard lately? Thought not.

[qxcontinuum]

eat him... what are you waiting for ?

[Timothy]

On 13/10/2016 at 4:36 AM, Nnicolette said:

While we dont seem to trust each other enough to call that evidence... Personally i would call a bunch of them jumping out of the water pretty good evidence they exist (1). Especially spotted by fishermen who are familiar with the area and species (2). 6 years isnt long to be unseen, many species are rediscovered after a much longer stint of absence (3). Its silly how people act like anything in the world they havent seen lately isnt there. Especially concerning animals. I mean we crowd together in cities and act like we see everything but is every inch of the forest and riverbottom under surveillance or something? (4) No. We dont see everything. (5)
 

(1) Yes it would be, if it were documented and determined that it were actually the correct species. One boat was 100m away, the other 300m away. 'The team didn’t manage to capture conclusive evidence that what they saw was a baiji dolphin. Song said the camera they were recording with wasn’t able to capture the animal in detail because it was wide-angle'.
---Which also begs the question, why not have recording equipment on board capable of accurately recording something which is not that far away!? These days, you can pay ~$100 for a camera which records in 1080p and has 10x optical zoom.
So that is hardly 'evidence. Also, although I read something which claimed otherwise, there are a multitude of other species in the Yangtze which could be misidentified as this dolphin.

(2) There could be any number of reasons why locals would claim to have seen it; tourism? The may have been paid (which would be a tiny sum for us)?

(3) Six years is not long, however the efforts to establish if the species still existed were substantial enough to declare it extinct.

(4) Who acts like that? There's always a pretty well documented reasons to suggest something is or isn't there. You might not understand how that works, but it doesn't mean that the process isn't there, or doesn't happen.

(5) If you crowd together with people in cities who suggest they see everything, you should probably educate them as to why we do not see everything.

[Nnicolette]

54 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

(1) Yes it would be, if it were documented and determined that it were actually the correct species. One boat was 100m away, the other 300m away. 'The team didn’t manage to capture conclusive evidence that what they saw was a baiji dolphin. Song said the camera they were recording with wasn’t able to capture the animal in detail because it was wide-angle'.
---Which also begs the question, why not have recording equipment on board capable of accurately recording something which is not that far away!? These days, you can pay ~$100 for a camera which records in 1080p and has 10x optical zoom.
So that is hardly 'evidence. Also, although I read something which claimed otherwise, there are a multitude of other species in the Yangtze which could be misidentified as this dolphin.

(2) There could be any number of reasons why locals would claim to have seen it; tourism? The may have been paid (which would be a tiny sum for us)?

(3) Six years is not long, however the efforts to establish if the species still existed were substantial enough to declare it extinct.

(4) Who acts like that? There's always a pretty well documented reasons to suggest something is or isn't there. You might not understand how that works, but it doesn't mean that the process isn't there, or doesn't happen.

(5) If you crowd together with people in cities who suggest they see everything, you should probably educate them as to why we do not see everything.

Did you just ask me why the fisherman didn't have better recording eqipment onboard? Lol

It should be a little obvious that every inch of the riverbottom wasnt watched by people at all times. We dont know the wherabouts of every animal in the forest and they do thier best to keep it that way too.

[Timothy]

1 minute ago, Nnicolette said:

Did you just ask me why the fisherman didn't have better recording eqipment onboard? Lol

It should be a little obvious that every inch of the riverbottom wasnt watched by people at all times. We dont know the wherabouts of every animal in the forest and they do thier best to keep it that way too.

I don't understand your reply? Please elaborate.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Timonthy said:

(3) Six years is not long, however the efforts to establish if the species still existed were substantial enough to declare it extinct.

As skeptical as I am, I just cannot say that it sounds convincing to be honest, from the link:

The last confirmed sighting of the Chinese river dolphin was in 2007, a year after scientists declared the species functionally extinct after failing to find any during a six-week search.

Six weeks does not sounds all that extensive, our own Government did a year long search after one sighting of a Thylacine before finally giving up - this from Wikipedia:

 In 1982 a researcher with the Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service, Hans Naarding, observed what he believed to be a thylacine for three minutes during the night at a site near Arthur River in northwestern Tasmania. The sighting led to an extensive year-long government-funded search.

Even though the Thylacine was last seen in 1931, it was only classified as endangered in 1936, an animal has to be missing without sightings for 50 years to officially declare it extinct. The Thylacine was only declared officially extinct, and removed from the Tasmanian Wildlife Charter in 1986. In the meantime, it was considered endangered. 

Seems stupid to declare and animal endangered when it disappear, but thats bureaucracy I guess. 6 weeks sounds like a poor effort, I would not be hanging my hat on that one. I just hope if they are confirmed, and it seems they must be as the Yangtze is a Fresh Water River, and other Freshwater Dolphins are fairly rare, only 7 species exist on earth. The Finless Porpoise is the only other one in that part of the world (others are in India and South America) and they look quite different, also not know to be acrobatic. I think one would notice even at 100 meters to be honest. 

I reckon this one is worth holding out hope for myself. I just hope they can preserve the species if that is the case. They do not do well in captivity apprently, no Freshwater Dolphins do, most die after like 3 months apprently. I wonder if there is someplace a few could be relocated to to help the species survive - if they have survived that is. 

Edited October 14, 2016 by psyche101

[Timothy]

6 weeks isn't long, but it came after being declared 'functionally extinct' 10 years ago. 'The animal was declared “functionally extinct” in 2006 after researchers from six countries failed to find a single dolphin, and concluded there were too few left to save the species.'
Yes it would be great if it weren't extinct, my post was more in response to Nnicolette and how she responded to OP.

The Thylacine is obviously not a very good example in this case...

Declaring anything endangered when is disappears would be a pretty massive oversight from whoever was in charge.

[psyche101]

5 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

6 weeks isn't long, but it came after being declared 'functionally extinct' 10 years ago. 'The animal was declared “functionally extinct” in 2006 after researchers from six countries failed to find a single dolphin, and concluded there were too few left to save the species.'
Yes it would be great if it weren't extinct, my post was more in response to Nnicolette and how she responded to OP.

The Thylacine is obviously not a very good example in this case...

Declaring anything endangered when is disappears would be a pretty massive oversight from whoever was in charge.

Actually 2007. Really, not all that long ago. And that was the 6 week search, which strikes me as short for something as large as the Yangtze.

That was why I mentioned the Thylacine, not so much the Animal, but the extensive searches we have done. 

[+Hammerclaw]

They'll eat it. A people who'll eat duck feet and bird nests will eat anything that doesn't eat them first.

[Nnicolette]

Me? I think psyche answered pretty well. Why would you need ME to tell you why the fishermen didnt have better recording equipment? I dont know them  but they are fishermen not photographers i figured that answer should be pretty obvious. 

Or did you want me to respond to the part where you said i dont understand the process of deciding whether something is there or not? 

What should i say besides that an i credibly shortsighted and arrogant opinion. Both my parents worked for the forest service thier whole lives i have actually participated in this type of activity many many times. I have in fact travelled up creeks documenting wildlife numbers examining fish specimens counting salmons and salamanders and checking habitats and no, i dont live in a city. So i was trying to be polite but if you really want me to respond to what you said about me yeah.... Your not quit as informed as you like to believe. Happy now?

[oldrover]

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Even though the Thylacine was last seen in 1931, it was only classified as endangered in 1936, an animal has to be missing without sightings for 50 years to officially declare it extinct. The Thylacine was only declared officially extinct, and removed from the Tasmanian Wildlife Charter in 1986. In the meantime, it was considered endangered. 

I agree with the bulk of your post, I think a six week search is silly. It's woefully inadequate. 

Now for the pedantism, the thylacine was last seen alive for certain on September the 7th 1936. Hence the 50 year rule coming into effect in 86. Wild animals were still being captured as late as 1933. The year the famous last captive was caught. Probably. And they weren't so much declared endangered as granted legal protection in 1936. Which is sort of reasonable, as no one thought they were extinct in the wild then, as they almost certainly weren't.

 

[oldrover]

About the Baji in general, as far as I'm aware it's current ICN conservation status is 'Critically Endangered'. Not extinct. It may be regarded as functionally extinct, but that's not the same as there not being any left.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/12119/0

So they may well have seen some, but I'm with those who feel that without any evidence it's hearsay. If that sounds harsh, think about it. If we accept eye witness testimony alone for the presence of an endangered species, then we've still got the thylacine, great auk, stellar's sea cow, megalania, diprotodon, and so on. 

It might be suggestive, and it might warrant a lot of time and expense trying to verify it, but it isn't proof. 

[psyche101]

On 10/15/2016 at 4:24 AM, oldrover said:

I agree with the bulk of your post, I think a six week search is silly. It's woefully inadequate. 

Yeah, that's the main point I am getting at  

On 10/15/2016 at 4:24 AM, oldrover said:

Now for the pedantism, the thylacine was last seen alive for certain on September the 7th 1936. Hence the 50 year rule coming into effect in 86. Wild animals were still being captured as late as 1933. The year the famous last captive was caught. Probably. And they weren't so much declared endangered as granted legal protection in 1936. Which is sort of reasonable, as no one thought they were extinct in the wild then, as they almost certainly weren't.

 

Not quite in the 20's they already realised the Thylacine was nearing extinction, and some took steps at that point, which as we find now was far too late. In 1928 the Tasmanian Advisory Committee for Native Fauna recommended a reserve similar to the Savage River National Park to protect any remaining thylacines, with potential sites of suitable habitat including the Arthur-Pieman area of western Tasmania. But the searches are like I say more what I am getting at. There has been extensive searches, in addition to ones like Jeremy Griffith and dairy farmer James Malley's attempts with camera traps and following sightings claims to the creation of the Thylacine Expeditionary Research Team. They seem rather significant efforts by comparison. 

[Timothy]

On 15/10/2016 at 1:18 AM, Nnicolette said:

Me? I think psyche answered pretty well. Why would you need ME to tell you why the fishermen didnt have better recording equipment? I dont know them  but they are fishermen not photographers i figured that answer should be pretty obvious. 

Or did you want me to respond to the part where you said i dont understand the process of deciding whether something is there or not? 

What should i say besides that an i credibly shortsighted and arrogant opinion. Both my parents worked for the forest service thier whole lives i have actually participated in this type of activity many many times. I have in fact travelled up creeks documenting wildlife numbers examining fish specimens counting salmons and salamanders and checking habitats and no, i dont live in a city. So i was trying to be polite but if you really want me to respond to what you said about me yeah.... Your not quit as informed as you like to believe. Happy now?

Hi again,

Well, firstly, I never mentioned the equipment of the fishermen. 'The team didn’t manage to capture conclusive evidence...' Referring to the conservationists in the article of course.
I did mention that it would only take a tiny sum to pay the locals, to boost tourism, not to buy camera equipment.

This is why I numbered my post. To clarify where I was coming from and make it easy to respond to.

psyche101; I don't disagree with what you're saying.

Edit: I'm having issues with the 'quote' function.

On 15/10/2016 at 1:18 AM, Nnicolette said:

Your not quit as informed as you like to believe. Happy now?

I'd like you to answer my initial post.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Timonthy

[Nnicolette]

1 hour ago, Timonthy said:

Hi again,

Well, firstly, I never mentioned the equipment of the fishermen. 'The team didn’t manage to capture conclusive evidence...' Referring to the conservationists in the article of course.
I did mention that it would only take a tiny sum to pay the locals, to boost tourism, not to buy camera equipment.

This is why I numbered my post. To clarify where I was coming from and make it easy to respond to.

psyche101; I don't disagree with what you're saying.

Edit: I'm having issues with the 'quote' function.

I'd like you to answer my initial post.

What is wrong with you? Yes i hear that you would like me to tell you why the fishermen did not have equipment onboard that can record 1080p and has 10x zoom. I figured the answer was pretty obvious even before the first time i answered. Attention thirsty much? It was random that i came back and read that rubbish again but for future reference demanding that certain other readers post back responding to the same dribble twice is hardly going to change anything besides irritating them with your ridiculousness a second time. 

Heres one for you... Why didnt YOU buy them a better camera if it bothers you so much having fishermen out there without the best equipment in the water?

Just stop asking me anyways. I must have been mistaken for polite so i will point out that i don't really care what you would like me to do.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Nnicolette

[Nnicolette]

.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Nnicolette
Double post

[Timothy]

16 hours ago, Nnicolette said:

What is wrong with you? Yes i hear that you would like me to tell you why the fishermen did not have equipment onboard that can record 1080p and has 10x zoom. I figured the answer was pretty obvious even before the first time i answered. Attention thirsty much? It was random that i came back and read that rubbish again but for future reference demanding that certain other readers post back responding to the same dribble twice is hardly going to change anything besides irritating them with your ridiculousness a second time. 

Heres one for you... Why didnt YOU buy them a better camera if it bothers you so much having fishermen out there without the best equipment in the water?

Just stop asking me anyways. I must have been mistaken for polite so i will point out that i don't really care what you would like me to do.

The issue is you misreading my post and thinking that I referred to the fishermen having equipment (which I never did) and then responding in the way you did.
I did not once (or twice) ask you about the equipment of the fishermen.

So, one last time: The fishermen and the team of conservationists are different people. I never mentioned anything to do with the fishermen having any kind of equipment. If you are a team of conservationists (even an amateur team) going on an expedition to try and spot a thought-to-be-extinct species, you think you'd bring a few  decent cameras...