Do you think endangered species should be left to die out?

[moomin_troll]

just a question forthose who think all animals should be saved if they can.

would u give money each month to help with that or not? i just think its too easy to say no we should help but then where should the money come from?

every xmas we *adopt* an animal, I know its not much but we always *adopt* one that's not as popular in the world IYKWIM?

thats a lovely thing to do. ive been thinking of adopting a tiger for zane, they are his favourite animals but im skeptical and always wonder if that money actualy helps

 

[Blah11]

Thats what my mum does tinkerbelle! Instead of giving us another present, she adopts an animal for us and have done since we were very small. I might do it for amelie its a nice idea as they usually send a little pack with a teddy and send letters etc

 

[moomin_troll]

i think im going to adopt zane a tiger next yr when he will understand abit more

 

[tinkerbelle2]

I didn't think the money would help at first, but there are some companies who allow you to go meet the animal you have adopted, to me that says a lot, the one you are adopting suddenly becomes more then just a piece paper laying in a drawer, last year was a elephant not sure what we are doing this year

 

[SophiasMummy]

Pandas have to eat so much bamboo as it contains hardly any nutrients hence why they eat so much of it, the pandas will be on loan from china as they will still belong to them as do all pandas in zoos all over the world, the pandas are dying out due to hunting and loss of habitat causing bamboo shortage in the wild along with the fact they arnt very good at breeding. The black rhino is now extinct in the wild due to poaching for there horns. All these animals dieng out are because of humans because of what people are doing to the enviroment and people hunting them for nice ornaments or chinese medicines, as far as im concerned why shouldnt we pay out to save the animals whos lives have been destroyed because of humans.

Sorry it turned in to a bit of a rant lol conservation is something im very passionate about and wish I could do more to help with x

 

[Sarahkka]

I absolutely think that we have a moral imperative to go to every measure possible in preventing the extinction of a species. Name me a species that is on a threatened or endangered list that hasn't been put there by our direct action.
I work in conservation and I can't think of one off the top of my head.
The thing is, with animals like pandas, you can treat them as an umbrella species - they need a lot of habitat to meet their needs, so by preserving sufficient habitat for the bigger species, all the smaller species that share that habitat benefit too. Also, as much as I love snakes and spiders, there is just no denying that it's way easier to get support for the conservation of the "charismatic macrofauna" - the big, handsome species like tigers and pandas. The little creepy crawlies are every bit as deserving of conservation efforts, but with the biodiversity crisis we are currently in, I don't know that we have the luxury of time to fight the PR battle for endangered bugs and reptiles, as well as the conservation battle. I teach about it all the time, and I certainly advocate education as a very important tool for conservation, but for effectiveness? I would put my money on the big and glamourous species. Pandas are an international conservation symbol for a reason.

 

[JASMAK]

no...I think we should do all we can, because in most instances, if not all, it is humans that have destroyed the species. That isn't fair.

 

[marley2580]

I think that some animals, such as pandas have gone down an evolutionary dead end and as such would likely have died out anyway. The species that survive are the ones that diversify. So, yes, I do think that maybe it's time to let pandas die out and concentrate on other species.

 

[shortie1990]

The world is evolving, yes some may be because of what is humans have done, but this is part of evolution IMO, if the animals arent strong enough of a species to live in the wild, they've obviously not coping/suitable to adapt to it, (animals which aren't hunted I mean)

Might sound a bit harsh, but the world IS changing, and sadly, this means certain animals can't adapt to it, like polar bears, all the Ice Melting etc, humans are evolving and the work is changing, not necessarily for the best though

 

[deafgal]

no I do not. We have the ability to save these animals, so we should use it. plus we are over populated to the point that if we let these animals die out, it could be very bad for us.

 

[Blah11]

The thing with ploughing all this money into animals like the panda though is that they'll probably NEVER come out of endangered category because theres nowhere for them to go so they'll never have good enough numbers in the wild to survive on their own without breeding programs.

& Deafgal - what relevance is a panda dying out with humans and it being bad for us?

 

[lindseymw]

I think it depends on the animal, Pandas unfortunately I don't think are going to survive Evolution. They struggle to breed in the Wild & in breeding programmes, they have to eat tons & tons of bamboo (you would have thought they'd have evolved to eat other stuff as well?!), I just think they are a lost cause....

Animals that are endangered because they have been hunted to the point of extinction then I do think we need to help.

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

I think they should be left.

If its humans fault ie deforestation then I think we should help but I think Panda should be left in all honesty x

 

[Baby France]

I think it depends. If its proven that it's because of humans that a species is dying out, either through hunting, pollution or destruction of habitat then no - we should do everything to save these species.

However sometimes species die out because they are not a good 'fit'. They don't breed well or a natural non human introduced disease wipes them out. In these cases I think it can be argued that they should be left to their own devices because natural selection in these circumstances is part of evolution. After all, thousands of species have died out long before humans even existed.

I agree!

 

[tallybee]

I think human influences are part of it with any endangered species aren't they? I mean like pandas have other issues too like slow breeding etc but habitat destruction is a large part of the problem. It's impossible to untangle the web of causality 100% anyway

 

[deafgal]

The thing with ploughing all this money into animals like the panda though is that they'll probably NEVER come out of endangered category because theres nowhere for them to go so they'll never have good enough numbers in the wild to survive on their own without breeding programs.

& Deafgal - what relevance is a panda dying out with humans and it being bad for us?

I'm talking about any animals. There are a lot more dying out than you think if we haven't done anything about it. Not good for the ecosystem.



At least Panda don't breed so rapidly like humans.

 

[poppy]

I think we can't compare this to normal evolutionary extinction. Under normal circumstances it takes a long time for an animal to become extinct if they are not adapting usually this is because changes in nature take a long time to enfold. The problem at the moment is that humans are causing massive changes to the habitats of animals. Changes that cause devastating results that animals are not allowed enough time to adapt (as they would normally - the gene pool usually allows certain genetic mutations that allow some of an animal species to survive when the others can't survive) such as overhunting, destruction of an animal's habitat, removing another animal from the food chain etc.

So, I would say that humans have caused the extinction of a lot of creatures during our time on Earth and I would say the vast majority of animal extinctions are due to humans anyway so I do think we should help when we can. Obviously this is difficult financially in all cases, but we should do what we can.

 

[Blah11]

The thing with ploughing all this money into animals like the panda though is that they'll probably NEVER come out of endangered category because theres nowhere for them to go so they'll never have good enough numbers in the wild to survive on their own without breeding programs.

& Deafgal - what relevance is a panda dying out with humans and it being bad for us?

I'm talking about any animals. There are a lot more dying out than you think if we haven't done anything about it. Not good for the ecosystem.



At least Panda don't breed so rapidly like humans.

Its a part of life. Humans are a stronger species unfortunately for them.

 

[deafgal]

in my state, We are only allow to hunt deer in certain season. This is how we step in to protect them. Also, they have little place to go in the wild so we provide a safe place for them. We rarely say "oh, just let them die out"

we eat cows and chicken so we still breed them so they provide us food. We rarely let them die out in the wild either.

The Native Americans took care of the buffalo but we nearly wiped them out.

I think humans were adapted to care for the earth if we don't destroy it first.

Even the ants (in the rainforest??) take care of the earth .. from I understand, they add plants.. if I can find it, I link it to you.

 

[Blah11]

Im not saying go ahead and hunt rhinos for their horns and destroy the rainforest I just think SOME animals are too endangered and too far down the line, wont adapt to the wild that its a 'waste' of money that could be spent elsewhere.