Why don't dingoes deserve protection?

[BussyBusta]

I'm not a biologist or ecologist so there's undoubtedly some cold, Jewish bureaucracy playing out here that I can't fully grasp, but I just don't get it.

For those that don't know: dingoes are dogs. To (poorly) summarise, they're dogs that split off from the main dog branch ~35000 years ago but they're just dogs.

Because of this, practically every international conservation organisation does not recognise or even categorise them in terms of conservation status. Any conservation efforts are entirely local to Australia.

I find this incredibly sad, especially when the number of "pure" dingoes is estimated to be really low due to interbreeding with "regular" domesticated dogs.

I'm not arguing that dingoes aren't dogs, but consider: why are they undeserving of conservation if they are? Imagine, a cute biological entity encapsulating 35000 years of development lost and unable to be recaptured. Despite not being a separate species, why is that not worthy of conservation in and of itself?

The argument from the globo conservation authorities doesn't even make sense to me. Dingoes = dogs so they fall into the same category so no need to monitor them for conservation. Well taxonomy is a fucked up thing in general and we also consider dogs to be wolves so why don't we apply the argument in reverse and say that dogs are wolves therefore, no separate listing for them. Dogs are gray wolves and so wild gray wolves don't need seperate conservation and the entire group of gray wolves (including domesticated dogs) is fine. If you apply the logic laterally there's no reason to conserve wild gray wolves specifically other than for sentimental reasons. So why does the dingo not get the same consideration?

It feels really short sighted and, again, bureaucratically Jewish to not consider the value of the dingo as separate biological group, worthing of preserving, simply because it doesn't check the right boxes to get its own fancy classification based on current taxonomical practice and understanding.

 

[McMitch]

Any conservation efforts are entirely local to Australia.

Well yeah, dingoes are endemic to only Australia. There shouldn’t even be a global hegemony that dictates how countries handle their conservation efforts.

In the Australian states where dingoes can exist without destruction to environment and agriculture, they’re protected; in states where they can’t, they’re pests (much like other feral dogs). This is basically the ideal setup, and if they breed themselves out of existence then so be it that’s nature.

 

[News Enjoyer]

They're varmints. They eat kids. Varmints get shot. Simple as.

 

[BussyBusta]

Well yeah, dingoes are endemic to only Australia. There shouldn’t even be a global hegemony that dictates how countries handle their conservation efforts.

In the Australian states where dingoes can exist without destruction to environment and agriculture, they’re protected; in states where they can’t, they’re pests (much like other feral dogs). This is basically the ideal setup, and if they breed themselves out of existence then so be it that’s nature.

I don't disagree with Australia's approach. I'm more criticising groups like the IUCN's approach. Forget for a second how you think conservation should be approached, the internal logic of these groups is that they're the arbiters of determining which animals are endangered, threatened etc. to set conservation prioritisation. And yet their approach to the dingo is largely nonsensical (from a goals perspective) in my view.

It's like middle management "this is the SOP, criteria and rubric" without any critical thinking towards the overall objective.

 

[Mr. Racewar1488]

Like abos, they are an invasive and destructive species that need to be exterminated. Also like abos, they eat human babies.

 

[BussyBusta]

Like abos, they are an invasive and destructive species that need to be exterminated. Also like abos, they eat human babies.

The dingoes (and abos - although I have no fondness for them) were there long before your great grandfather was incarcerated for raping a member of the gentry.
Also anyone who has their baby eaten by a dingo post 19th century has had their line struck by God for a reason.

Edit: lmao you really got buttblasted enough by this to go and "dumb" all my posts in the thread afterwards. Look, criticise abos all you like, I probably agree, but calling them "invasive" doesn't set you apart from them on the IQ scale.

 

[McMitch]

I don't disagree with Australia's approach. I'm more criticising groups like the IUCN's approach. Forget for a second how you think conservation should be approached, the internal logic of these groups is that they're the arbiters of determining which animals are endangered, threatened etc. to set conservation prioritisation. And yet their approach to the dingo is largely nonsensical (from a goals perspective) in my view.

It's like middle management "this is the SOP, criteria and rubric" without any critical thinking towards the overall objective.

I don’t understand where you’re losing the thread: an ineffective bureaucratic organization is ineffective precisely because it adheres to a bureaucracy that is incapable of having the proper perspective on issues it was founded to solve (a tautological statement), further obfuscated by the fact it’s goals are environmentalist-related — a movement notorious for lacking perspective. The reason why it doesn’t work is self-evident and the actual success comes from organizations that have actual boots on the ground in question.

tl;dr disregard globalist pointless wastes of money because people in the actual location have done the real work.

 

[Soup Sammiches]

According to the (fake) nation of Australia, "a dingo.. ate a barbeque"? I don't know they talk funny.

 

[BussyBusta]

I don’t understand where you’re losing the thread: an ineffective bureaucratic organization is ineffective precisely because it adheres to a bureaucracy that is incapable of having the proper perspective on issues it was founded to solve (a tautological statement), further obfuscated by the fact it’s goals are environmentalist-related — a movement notorious for lacking perspective. The reason why it doesn’t work is self-evident and the actual success comes from organizations that have actual boots on the ground in question.

tl;dr disregard globalist pointless wastes of money because people in the actual location have done the real work.

I actually entirely agree with you. We're not at odds here. I guess I'm just venting my disbelief a bit. The sorts of people running these orgs are the same types to talk about the risks of "repeating history." It's just frustrating to see it play out, is all.
I know someone who works for the UN and their boxed-in line of spreadsheet thinking doesn't shock me anymore, but it does still shock me to constantly relearn that all of these globo orgs operate with the same mentality structurally.

Edit: and yeah, there is a comfort to know that actual men on the ground are doing real, impactful work while these academics stroke their clitties.

 

[Pedophobe]

You already sussed it - this is bureaucracy made manifest. It's an imperfect system, limited by the amount of money we give it versus the amount of effort we put in to monitoring how that money gets spent.

There's no anti-dingo faction trying to keep the yellow dog down, they just fell through the cracks of what the NGO definition of an endangered species is.

The alternative would be an all powerful bureaucracy that can do whatever it wants however it wants without oversight or charter restrictions which is probably not what you're after.

Simplest fix might be to reclassify dingoes as a separate species. Call your UN Representative today!

 

[BussyBusta]

You already sussed it - this is bureaucracy made manifest. It's an imperfect system, limited by the amount of money we give it versus the amount of effort we put in to monitoring how that money gets spent.

There's no anti-dingo faction trying to keep the yellow dog down, they just fell through the cracks of what the NGO definition of an endangered species is.

The alternative would be an all powerful bureaucracy that can do whatever it wants however it wants without oversight or charter restrictions which is probably not what you're after.

Simplest fix might be to reclassify dingoes as a separate species. Call your UN Representative today!

Yeah, no real point to my thread in hindsight. Just sad. I like dags. But as @McMitch pointed out, there is real work being done by Australians, in the case of dingoes, so it's not all bad.

 

[Disastrously Dumb]

"A Dingo Ate my Baby"

-Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton

 

[ChefBourgeoisie]

They're the dog equivalent of abos.

 

[Baguette Child]

Dingoes gave us the Australian Cattle Dog, which is singlehandedly the most practical livestock protection animal I've ever employed, so I can't hate them altogether. If one eats your baby you were probably a retard who left it somewhere stupid and thus your lineage deserves to cease.

 

[yolotengo]

We have to protect our sheep industry thus dingoes are no bueno.

 

[Otis Mallebrok]

Farmers hate wild dogs and wolves. Everywhere in the world.