JUST a month ago it was considered really good news when another eight Irrawaddy dolphins were found at Chilika Lake in India bringing the total number to 146. The lake is considered a principle habitat for this rare species of freshwater dolphin with the world population estimated at just 900.
Much of the global conservation focus has been on populations of less than 50 individuals classified as ‘Critically Endangered’ by the World Conservation Union in places like the Mekong River and working with local fishing communities to reduce fishing pressure.
But now a New York-based conservation group, the Wildlife Conservation Society, has discovered a population of about 6,000 Irrawaddy dolphins – that’s right six thousand – in the Sundarbans mangrove forest area of Bangladesh.
What good news!
Who could have imaged that there are in fact thousands of Irrawaddy dolphins alive and swimming in Bangladesh.
Some news stories are reporting that, according to conservationists, the newly discovered population is under thread from “climate change and fishing” and that the solution to saving this newly discovered population is to now “restrict fishing in the area to protect the dolphins.”
Even in the face of such new and potentially humbling good news, it seems the world’s conservationists are quick to promote old non-solutions.
I suggest given this new discovery, those involved with the worldwide Irrawaddy dolphin conservation effort consider reassessing their plans and what it known about the biology of this beautiful creature. A little humility can sometimes go a long way.
UPDATE April 3, 2009
The population of nearly 6,000 Irrawaddy dolphins was discovered in 2004. It made headlines around the world on 31st March and 1st April 2009, following the presentation of a paper at a conference in Hawaii. While the IUCN Red List has referenced this large Bangladeshi population for some time, many in the popular press and I have wrongly assumed the world’s population of Irrawaddy dolphins consisted entirely of small and isolated populations of less than 200 individuals.
Thanks to reader Andrew for setting me straight.
*****************
Notes
Wildlife Conservation Society
http://wcs.org/sw-home
Thousands of rare Irrawaddy dolphins found along Bangladesh coast
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/01/irrawaddy-dolphin
Photograph from Isabel Beasley.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The survey estimating 5000+ irrawaddy dolphin in bangladesh was done in Feb 2004. This is what their Red List entry says:
“The species was listed as Data Deficient in 1996, but a great deal of new information has become available and five subpopulations have been listed as Critically Endangered since that time. Where the species has been studied: (1) subpopulation sizes are generally low (10s to low 100s) with the single exception of Bangladesh (approximately 5800), (2) there have been significant range declines, and (3) threats, especially bycatch and habitat degradation, have been well documented and remain severe and pervasive. Even within the largest known population of the species in Bangladesh (see above), opportunistic observations of deaths in drifting gillnets and reports from local fishermen suggest that bycatch rates are not sustainable (Smith et al. 2005).”
Threat from climate change? Yeah, right, by rising sea levels no doubt. A fish threatened by rising sea level? Don’t you just love it?
So there’s a larger population in one place than we thought. Hey, let’s totally rethink our conservation strategy!
Biodiversity – ur doin it rong.
It doesn’t surprise me that you call them fish Ian, nor that you lack the imagination to go beyond “they live in water so the only thing that affects them is the amount of water”.
Folks, you realize this was posted on April 1st! Only an April Fool’s text message….
No FDB, a New York based conservation society “discovered” something the Bangladeshis could have told them any time, if they had bothered to ask. Instead, they looked only so far as was needed to produce a scary story and then ran with it for all it was worth.
Think about it. They checked out the Mekong which, for a dolphin like species centred on the Irrawaddy, requires a 2,000km journey right down past Singapore and another 1,000km north again, over open sea. They also checked out lakes in India, 1,000km to the north but they didn’t look very hard at all just 500km up the coast in Bangladesh.
So what about all the other coastal mangroves between South Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Sumatra and the Thai west coast? Surely they didn’t assume that so-called “river dolphins” will only swim in rivers, did they? Gosh, do you think there might be another 6,000 of them, or more, just waiting in mangroves all over the region, to be discovered by single neurotic poodle owners from New York?
I just can’t wait to tell Captain Planet.
Oh, and thanks for taking the “fish” bait, right on cue. So can you please tell us exactly what climate change impacts they might be vulnerable from? Icebergs perhaps? Bushfires? They’re always good for a headline. Drought?
FDB,
Show us whats on your T shirt.
Andrew,
Thanks for your note, I’ve just had a look here: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/15419 .
I can see Smith et al. 2005 cited in the context of Bangaldesh, but it is not clear they discovered the 5,000 plus individuals. Also, the biblio tab doesn’t work at the page. Do you have the Smith et al 2005 reference and if you have it as a pdf could you possibly email it to me.
Thanks again.
Here’s the abstract:
“Independent observer teams made concurrent counts of Irrawaddy dolphins Orcaella brevirostris and Ganges River dolphins Platanista gangetica gangetica in mangrove channels of the Sundarbans Delta in Bangladesh. These counts were corrected for missed groups using mark-recapture models. For Irrawaddy dolphins, a stratified Lincoln-Petersen model, which incorporated group size and sighting conditions as covariates, and a Huggins conditional likelihood model, which averaged models that individually incorporated group size, sighting conditions, and channel width as covariates, generated abundance estimates of 397 individuals (CV = 10.2%) and 451 individuals (CV = 9.6%), respectively. For Ganges River dolphins, a stratified Lincoln-Petersen model, which incorporated group size as a covariate, and a Huggins conditional likelihood model, which averaged the same models described above, generated abundance estimates of 196 individuals (CV = 12.7%) and 225 individuals (CV = 12.6%), respectively. Although the estimates for both models were relatively close, the analytical advantages of the Huggins models probably outweigh those of the Lincoln-Petersen models. However, the latter should be considered appropriate when simplicity is a priority. This study found that waterways of the Sundarbans support significant numbers of Irrawaddy and Ganges River dolphins, especially compared to other areas where the species have been surveyed.”
So the Smith et al 2005 study was estimating a population of between 196 to 397 individuals for the site the conservation group appears to have now found nearly 6,000.
ABUNDANCE OF IRRAWADDY DOLPHINS (ORCAELLA BREVIROSTRIS) AND GANGES RIVER DOLPHINS (PLATANISTA GANGETICA GANGETICA) ESTIMATED USING CONCURRENT COUNTS MADE BY INDEPENDENT TEAMS IN WATERWAYS OF THE SUNDARBANS MANGROVE FOREST IN BANGLADESH
Brian D. Smith *1 Gill Braulik † Samantha Strindberg ‡ Benazir Ahmed § Rubaiyat Mansur ¶
*Wildlife Conservation Society,2300 Southern Boulevard,Bronx, New York 10460, U.S.A. E-mail: bsmith@wcs.org
†Downstream Research Group,3950 S. Fletcher Avenue, Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034, U.S.A.
‡Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, New York 10460, U.S.A.
§Department of Zoology, Chittagong University, Chittagong, Bangladesh
¶The Guide Tours Ltd.Darpan Complex, Plot-2, Gulshan 2, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Marine Mammal Science
Volume 22 Issue 3, Pages 527 – 547
Published Online: 10 Feb 2006
So much for peer review.
You’ve got the wrong paper – that Smith et al. 2006 (not 2005) and you’ve misconstrued the abstract. The paper is largely a discussion of survey methods, and says the ~400 Irrawaddy Dolphins estimated from their 2002 survey are “the inland extent of a much larger population that extends to the shallow and more saline waters of the outer delta (Smith et al. 2005).” The paper you want is Smith et al 2005 which seems to be on the web here:
http://shushuk.org/pdfs/pubs/SC_57_SM5 OB & NP BANGLDSH & MYNMR.pdf
It reports estimates of 5000+ irrawaddy dolphins based on a 2004 survey.
So the population was discovered in 2004, but has only now grabbed some media attention following a paper at a conference in Hawaii: the first international conference on protected areas for marine mammals.
When researchers have discussed their programs to increase numbers in the Mekong or at Lake Chilika … I can’t remember any reference to this large population in Bangladesh. What’s special about the Bangladeshi population that has enable such large numbers to survive?
And the Wildlife Conservation Society, when I last looked at their website a day or so ago, were claiming it as a new discovery. I guess everything is relative?
“The total population of Irrawaddy dolphins in the world is estimated to be around 900 and in India Chilika lagoon is their principal habitat,” chief executive of the Chilika Development Authority Sudarshan Panda told IANS.
February 20th, 2009
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/population-of-endangered-dolphin-rises-in-orissas-chilika-lake_100157704.html
I’ve just placed the following text in the above blog post:
UPDATE April 3, 2009
The population of nearly 6,000 Irrawaddy dolphins was discovered in 2004. It made headlines around the world on 31st March and 1st April 2009, following the presentation of a paper at a conference in Hawaii. While the IUCN Red List has referenced this large Bangladeshi population for some time, many in the popular press and I have wrongly assumed the world’s population of Irrawaddy dolphins consisted entirely of small and isolated populations of less than 200 individuals.
Thanks to reader Andrew for setting me straight.
I have been a little unfair to the neurotic New York poodle owners. At least they found the extra 6000 dolphins, which is more than the IUCN could do.
It should also be pointed out that the mere fact of the spread of this species from the Phillipines to India makes it clear that they are not just a fresh water species. The strait between Taiwan and the Phillipines is 500km of open sea with narry a river delta to be found. The open water between Singapore and Borneo is also 500km wide. Lower sea levels during glaciation periods may have assisted coastal transit but the fact of extensive coastal transit is incontestible.
My guess is that there are a lot more of this species out there yet to be discovered.
And did I read correctly? There was also a stack of Ganges Dolphins to be added to that list as well?
It’s Philippines Ian.
As air breathing mamals we can swim in fresh or salt water.
Whoa! You guys for real? Ms Marohasy tsks tsks peer-review but can’t even get her own story straight! Keep trying Jennifer. You’ll get an environmentalist bash in there somewhere. Do you actually look at facts or just post and smear and hope no one notices?
At least Mr Mott is assisting you ably. Hey Ian, maybe you can look up information on what the dolphins do and where they live. Yeah, maybe they are not entirely freshwater after all and of course there would be no knock of effects of climate change on an estuarine species. The pair of you are a laugh. And the drongo just puts the icing on the cake. Hey, I’m amused! What a great world you guys live in. Meanwhile, back in the real world….
Sara,
Back in the real world …
What exactly is the most effective strategy for saving the Irrawaddy dolphin?
What can we learn from the population of 6,000 – is this population stable, increasing or decreasing in abundance?
Why did the mainstream media report just last week that this was a newly discovered population when it was discovered in 2004?
PS Could the Bangladeshi population of 6,000 be a source of dolphins, through natural migration, for places as far away as the Mekong? New research suggests dugongs migrate much further than previously thought.
Good point Jennifer. The IUCN is big on segmenting single populations into sub-populations and then describing migratory ebbs and flows within that population as “local declines”. That was their MO for Hudson Bay Polar Bears and surprise, surprise, here we go again with Irrawaddy Dolphins.
Note how Sara is keen to concede points, like the fact that they are not purely fresh water species, but doesn’t take the mainstream media to task, or the research community, for allowing that false impression to stand for so long. So she dresses it up as some sort of reprimand for my supposed failure to look this up earlier. What a classic.
The facts are that all the public statements by the research community have allowed the community to falsely conclude that these dolphins were fresh water dependent and, hence, more vulnerable to human impacts on river systems.
So how about you spare us all the boorish undergrad sneer and tell us how many of this species might be hanging out in all those mangroves on the Sumatran coast, Sara?
How about Jennifer and Ian look up information for themselves instead of blamming the research community and media for their ignorance? The research community has been upfront. How you can blame the research community for giving YOU a false impression they were purely freshwater is laughable. Sara has not conceded anything. She has given you freely available information about Irrawaddy dolphins which is well-known about the species. The sneer is all yours Ian, although you’re too stupid for an undergrad. Do your own work, but make it accurate. Remember, you lot demand it from others.
Surely you don’t want to save the Irrawaddy Jennifer? There are obviously enough of them, in fact those naughty research types keep hiding their true numbers. Consider them safe from extinction, like your dugongs and polar bears.
Phil,
I would like to better understand the Irrawaddy dolphin and its biology and ecology. I am a biologist – with a BSc and PhD – because the natural world fascinates me.
As regards wanting to “save them” … there are so many people in the world who want to save something, but I am increasingly of the opinion they would do a better job at the “saving” if they first understood what they were trying to save.
No Phil, Sara provided no information and neither have you. And if you comprehension capacity was not so highly selective you would have noted the quote above from a widely reported Indian official still claiming there was only 900 Irrawaddy Dolphins.
“The total population of Irrawaddy dolphins in the world is estimated to be around 900 and in India Chilika lagoon is their principal habitat,” chief executive of the Chilika Development Authority Sudarshan Panda told IANS.
February 20th, 2009
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/population-of-endangered-dolphin-rises-in-orissas-chilika-lake_100157704.html ”
Note that the text in the above link also refers to Songkhla Lagoon in southern Thailand as the other major population centre. Both of these locations are fresh water lakes that are subject to seasonal connection to the sea. The implication being that the species is not mobile and is fresh water dependent.
Phil, you might have retained a bit of credibility if you had not tried to suggest that Jennifer was at fault for failing to correct public misconceptions sooner. If there has been a public misconception as to the nature of the species and its habitats then responsibility for that misconception rests squarely with the research community who have generated all of the media coverage. The media may have got it wrong but there was only one group that was in a position to correct this, and they didn’t.
So try as you might with your ad homs, Sara and Phil, the IUCN and their cronies have been caught out spinning scare stories from very limited data, again. They didn’t bother to look for any dolphins in places that did not fit the narrative and then manufactured a threatened species status on the limited populations of dolphins in the few places that did fit the narrative. And you have the gall to call that science.
It seems neither Sara nor Phil have been overly concerned at the misconceptions being flogged by Wikipedia, with this extract from their coverage of Chilika Lake.
“The only other sub-populations of Irrawaddy Dolphins are found in a 190 km (118.1 mi) stretch of the Mekong River in Lao PDR and Cambodia (about 70–100 freshwater individuals); in a 420 km (261.0 mi) stretch of the Mahakam River, Indonesia (about 33–50 freshwater individuals); Malampaya Sound, Philippines (about 77 individuals) and in a 370 km (229.9 mi) stretch of the Ayeyarwady River in Myanmar (about 59 freshwater individuals). Less than 50 were reported in Songkhla Lake in Thailand.[33] [38][39][40] With no more than 474 Irrawaddy dolphins reported worldwide in 2007, The Chilika dolphins comprise at least 29% of the total world population and are the largest subpopulation in the world.”
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilka_Lake
Of particular interest is the way the local tourism industry has worked in concert with the research community to mislead the public for their own vested interests.
Wikipedia states;
“Some Irrawaddy dolphins used to be sighted only along the inlet channel and in a limited portion of the central sector of the lake. After the opening of the new mouth at Satapada in 2000, they are now well distributed in the central and the southern sector of the lake.[30]The number of dolphins sighted has varied from 50 to 170. A 2006 census counted 131 dolphins and the 2007 census revealed 138 Dolphins. Out of the 138 dolphins, 115 were adults, 17 adolescents and six calves. 60 adults were spotted in the outer channel followed by 32 in the central sector and 23 in the southern sector.[35]”
Note, formerly only found along the inlet channel but with increased access to the sea they are now more numerous and more evenly distributed. And this has taken place AFTER measures have been taken to halt a DECLINE in salinity caused by INCREASED water freshness. And note that with only 6 calves in the 2007 census, the population increase of 7 animals (from 131 to 138) could not have been caused by increased births.
And this population increase could not have been caused by a reduced mortality from human activities, despite the researcher’s spin. Wikipedia states;
“Boat based dolphin watching tours impact dolphin behavior and cause several accidental dolphin deaths each year.[36] CDA conducts an annual census of dolphin deaths. They report 15 deaths in 2003-04, 11 in 2004-05, 8 in 2005-06 and 5 in 2006-07. 40% of the 2006-07 deaths were by mechanised boats.[35]”
So these deaths only dropped by 3 from 8 in 2005-6 to 5 in 2006-7, leaving at least 4, and possibly more, of the increase from either reduced natural mortality or increased migration from the open sea. Or it could also just be our old mate “survey error margin”, with 4/131 equalling 3%.
And of course, we don’t know how many of the boat kill were old animals close to death anyway and too slow to avoid a situation that younger animals would easily have avoided.
Off topic , but here are two examples from recent threads where Jennifer Marohasy misleads readers ( consciously lies?):
1) Regarding polar bears Ms Marohasy has claimed that they aren’t threatened by climate change , however the recent international polar bear summit in Norway stated this:
“The meeting of the parties to the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears in Tromsø has established that climate change has a negative impact on polar bears and their habitat and is the most important long term threat facing polar bears.
Senior advisor Dag Vongraven from the Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI) is part of the international group of Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG). Photo: M. F. Nesse / NPI
The representatives of the beers` nations Canada, USA, Russia, Denmark-Greenland and Norway said in a summary from the meeting that climate change is the polar bears worst enemy. Countries refer that climate change affects every nation on Earth and reaches well beyond the five parties to the Agreement so the parties look to other fora and national and international mechanisms to take appropriate action to address climate change.
The final document from the meeting can be found as pdf-file at the top right of this page.
The conferences web site
http://npweb.npolar.no/english/subjects/1237469255.54
2) Jennifer Marohasy claims that never have so many birds flown over North America as now:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/more-birds-in-new-york-is-good-news-%e2%80%93-sorry-about-the-airbus/#more-4036
However the latest study on birds in North America claims this :
”
March 2009. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has released the first ever comprehensive report on bird populations in the United States, showing that nearly a third of the nation’s 800 bird species are endangered, threatened or in significant decline due to habitat loss, invasive species, and other threats.
Conservation successes
At the same time, the report highlights examples, including many species of waterfowl, where habitat restoration and conservation have reversed previous declines, offering hope that it is not too late to take action to save declining populations. ”
” Habitat decline
“While some bird species are holding their own, many once common species are declining sharply in population. Habitat availability and quality is the key to healthy, thriving bird populations,” said Dave Mehlman of The Nature Conservancy.
Significant declines
Surveys conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey, including the annual Breeding Bird Survey, combined with data gathered through volunteer citizen science program such as the National Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Count, show once abundant birds such as the northern bobwhite and marbled murrelet are declining significantly. The possibility of extinction also remains a cold reality for many endangered birds”
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/usbird-cencus009.html#cr
And Jennifer if you’re truly and honestly interested in the topic , why don’t you e-mail the IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group and pose some questions. These guys are very helpful and always reply.(?)
Now Birdie, don’t try to change the subject. And please allow this simple message to sink in, we do not accept the ideological mutterings of the IUCN as gospel. Jennifer is the kind of person who likes to check the facts and that is why so many of us are here.
My post above exposes the inconsistencies in reporting on the Chilika Lake population which, right now on wikipedia is being described as 29% of the world Irrawaddy Dolphin population, some 5 years after the IUCN claims to have accepted the ‘discovery’ of 6000 additional animals in Bangladesh. It seems that none of the well funded research community were particularly concerned about the public being misinformed because the truth being misrepresented was outside the industry’s preferred narrative.
I note that the dry season area of the lake is only 740km2 which means that the current population of 147 animals is at a density of 1 animal to 5km2. Apply that ratio to the shallow verges of the Bangladeshi/Burmese/Thai/Malaysian coast and there could be a huge population of this species waiting to be discovered.
It is also worth noting that the dry season salinity levels of Chilika Lake reach 45,000ppm which is considerably saltier than ocean levels at 35,000ppm. And it is the reduction in salinity levels, reduced alkalinity and invasion of fresh water weeds that were responsible for Dolphin habitat decline. So much for our “fresh water” dolphin.
And in a timely example for those bogans who are still struggling to get their tiny brains around solving the problems of Lake Alexandrina, in SA, the addition of an extra opening to the sea produced a major improvement in habitat quality in Chilika Lake and boosted populations of threatened species.
All of this is completely outside the official IUCN/Greenpimp/WWF narrative.
why hasn’t Sea World purchased a family of Blue Dolphin?
it would be worth a few bob surely.
I gather it is ok for Ian Mott to use ad homs but not others? Off to a promising start already in reasoning with the class clown. Jennifer’s credibility may be somewhat improved if she dumped you as her yapping sidekick. If there is one rule here for Ian and one for others Jennifer, please let us all know now.
I’ll again ask, how about you look up the information yourself? You can obviously google, so leave the safety of your ever-reliable Wiki and try looking for more specific information on Irrawaddy Dolphin habitat. Go on…you can do it.
You write “And of course, we don’t know how many of the boat kill were old animals close to death anyway and too slow to avoid a situation that younger animals would easily have avoided.” Of course? How do you know this information was not collected? Guessing (as consistent from you as ad homs) that young dolphins can avoid boat strike and hit ones are old animals turns this post into something comical. You demand science but put yourself forth as some sort of self-proclaimed expert who assumes, guesses and relies on Wiki! So according to the dolphin expert Ian Mott, young dolphins don’t get hit by boats and any suggestion otherwise is lies, all damn lies. Too funny!
The entire Irrawaddy Dolphin research community is not at fault for any “misconception” about habits you or Jennifer may now have, or for the media coverage. Generalising because you have an issue with most research again makes you more the village idiot than someone wanting to debate a topic rationally. An Indian official is not a researcher. The media are not usually researchers. Ian Mott is not a researcher. Jennifer Marohasy has a PhD in entomology. Sorry Ian but I’m not overly concerned with anything on Wiki or that appears in the media when it comes to facts. There are so many other sources available to get information from or cross-reference. Why limit yourself, unless you are afraid your comfy world view may be shattered?
“Now Birdie, don’t try to change the subject. And please allow this simple message to sink in, we do not accept the ideological mutterings of the IUCN as gospel. Jennifer is the kind of person who likes to check the facts and that is why so many of us are here.”
Thanks for the input Birdie. Suggesting contact with researchers makes sense doesn’t it? Investigative blogging and all that. Facts perhaps, and all that. No doubt Michael Jackson’s blog is more factual. Ian who is the royal “we”? Queen Jennifer and her corgi Ian? You have no trouble accepting Wiki as gospel but not the IUCN. Again, too funny. Jennifer likes to check facts? That is why so many of us are here? Careful Ian, your drool will stain the royal carpet. There have been countless examples on this blog of poor researching and posting anything other than facts. This thread is the classic example, as Andrew has demonstrated. Someone else wrote somewhere that the standard procedure here is for Jennifer to post something alarming and likely to get the usual tribe frothing and them run away and post something else to draw attention elsewhere. Shock and awe.
Janama, why would Sea World “purchase” Blue Dolphin? Australia had up until recently Irrawaddy Dolphins. They are now recognised as a closely related species called Snubfin Dolphins. Although given some posters inability to accept recategorising species, perhaps we can still consider them Irrawaddy Dolphins. Now that’s science.
Phil Morris, you really do have a serious blockage somewhere between the ears, don’t you?
I said, “And of course, we don’t know how many of the boat kill were old animals close to death”. But you turned it round to mean the direct opposite by claiming “So according to the dolphin expert Ian Mott, young dolphins don’t get hit by boats and any suggestion otherwise is lies, all damn lies. ” So which part of “WE DON’T KNOW” is confusing you Phil?
But thanks for the info on Australian Irrawaddy Dolphins. So what would be the world population of these animals if the Australian population, which would no doubt still be able to interbreed, was included in the tally?
Phil, questioning your comprehension is not an ad hom. And readers can easily look back over the above thread and see that the only ad homs have come from you. You falsely accuse me of ad homs, then accuse Jennifer of double standards for not policing my non-existent ad homs, and then let go with a full spleen vent and spittle shower of your own.
But keep it up matey. Your lack of substance is a revelation.
In the mean time, surely the name Irrawaddy Dolphin is a misnomer. The so-called fresh water dolphins have now been found to make up less than 8% of the known population while the majority are found in coastal mangroves.
The researchers wanted rarity for their own career interests so they only went looking for rarity. They found what they were looking for. It is a bit like using the description of Tasmanians to define what an Australian is.
Video whaling :
http://www1.nrk.no/nett-tv/klipp/476741
I can understand why you wouldn’t put your real name to that crap, Anon.
No blockage Ian. You, however, are now doing some sort of pirouette with half-flip and landing flat on your face. You are now denying that you suggested that only old dolphins close to death would get hit as young dolphins could easily avoid boats? Perhaps you have brain damage from too many back flips? And well done Ian. You have done exactly as predicted and gone with the idea of an Australian Irrawaddy Dolphin. And yet you demand science. I gather you mean science fiction, as that is what we keep getting here.
“Phil, questioning your comprehension is not an ad hom. And readers can easily look back over the above thread and see that the only ad homs have come from you. You falsely accuse me of ad homs, then accuse Jennifer of double standards for not policing my non-existent ad homs, and then let go with a full spleen vent and spittle shower of your own.”
Really Ian? So you were Mr Nice to Sara? Do you really live in a world where you believe your double-standards are acceptable? The spittle is all yours. What a lovely little outburst from you. Careful again not to stain the royal carpet.
I’m sure the researchers wanted rarity Ian. Of course they do. That is how they fund their research and continue to maintain credibility in the real world of science. Why don’t you do what Birdie suggested and contact some? Jennifer certainly wont. Maybe you can ask them about the origins of the dolphin’s common name too? Obviously whoever named that dolphin must have been a researcher, as they blatantly lied about its habits. You might want to tell the researchers that the dolphins are found in estuarine waters too, as you seem to think they don’t know this information…of was that you? I’m sure they’d love to answer your questions and be enlightened by your knowledge. You being the expert and all could set them straight and the world would be a better place. Too funny!
Lack of substance? It’s all here…thanks Ian and Jennifer.
The readers can make up their own mind, Phil. You claimed I said the direct opposite to what I actually wrote. Sara didn’t mind using a term like “drongo” so she got a rebuttal, a rebuttal is not an ad hom, in the real world that is. And if the research community have been so hard done by they can always join the discussion. It must be terribly frustrating for them to have to rely on gentlemen of your calibre for their defense.
Back at the facts.
The so-called fresh water dolphins of Chilika Lake put up with dry season salinity levels that are higher than oceanic salinity.
Those same fresh water dolphins tended to concentrate near the sea mouth rather than in the wet season fresh water further inland.
The species itself is most abundant in tidal mangroves with 92% of the currently known population found in places other than the locations the researchers liked to look for them.
And the mainstream media and key on-line sources continue to mislead the public by persisting with the outdated population counts some 5 years after the main population was properly documented.
The research community has done very little to correct this serious misrepresentation because the truth is contrary to their funding justification narrative.
And the so-called eco-tourism industry has had absolutely no qualms whatsoever in exploiting gullible consumers with false advertising.
The real world is something you and Jennifer seem not to recognise. Yes Ian, the research community would be bothered visiting Jennifer’s blog. It has world class commentary such as that from yourself! You really do live in a fantasy world.
Thank goodness you are here to set the world straight on the Irrawaddy Dolphins and highlight the flaws of those evil researchers. Thank goodness for the expert armchair mainstream googler Ian Mott. Too bloody funny.
And that was your idea of ‘substantiation’ was it, Phil?
You are so clearly out of your depth that all you can do is the blog equivalent of a silly, vacuous grin. The longer you spend here the obvious it is that you feel a political need to defend the research status quo but lack the traction to score a single point. If it is all beneath you, as you repeatedly claim without substantive comment, then why are you still here?
I come here to publicly laugh at idiots ike yourself who have nothing better to do with their time than post crap to try and justify their existence! Just keep telling yourself those researchers mislead the world because the Irrawadyy Dolphin expert Ian Mott was clueless about what habitats they live in. And that’s just the start. Like I said, it’s all an amusement factor for me, and you are the prize exhibit that just keeps going and going.
So you’re just a sneering wanker who lacks the knowledge or ability to present a credible case, eh?
You’re just a wanker Ian who lacks knowledge. Plenty of proof here for all too see. Keep it up!