The Issue Of The White Rhino

John Wiens, an evolutionary biologist at Stony Brook University in New York says, “There is a terrible urgency to saving threatened species and habitats.” He continues in saying “As far as I can see, there is little urgency for bringing back extinct ones. Why invest millions of dollars in bring a handful of species back from the dead, when there are millions still waiting to be discovered, described, and protected?” This is a problem for many scientists and Paul R. Ehrlich states in his article, The Case of De- Extinction:It is a Fascinating but Dumb Idea, says that “It is much more sensible to put all the limited resources for science and conservation into preventing extinctions, by tackling the causes of demise….” This is proving that de-extinction is a bad idea because of the facts that it is more important to put money and research into conservation efforts. By focusing on de-extinction. We are tearing away our focus on these efforts and putting it into something that may or may not work. Something never tested that could possibly hurt not help the environment. Paul R Ehrlich also states that “De-extinction seems far- fetched, financially problematic, and extremely unlikely to succeed.” With de- extinction hindering conservation efforts and being unlikely to succeed it is clear that we should not even attempt de-extinction. However hindering conservation efforts is only one way that de-extinction is a bad

back extinct animals is very controversial but we need to bring them back to restore ecosystems

Recently, DNA testing has been employed to create a genetic database of endangered animal species. Using this information, scientists have even cloned animals.

Everything in life happens for a reason, and this includes the extinction of species with and without human involvement. To reverse the process of de-extinction as some people put it “amounts to playing God” (96). Although the science behind bringing a species back is admittedly amazing, there are other ways the time and money could be spent. Spending money on animals that are on the brink of extinction, and developing techniques for successfully growing their population, are much more viable options. Frankly, de-extinction, although very remarkable, is not something that should be heavily pursued. Apart from observing a woolly mammoth lounge around behind a thick pane of glass, there is very little reason to use de-extinction to revive one. Our efforts should be turned to the millions of species that currently inhabit the earth, known and

The scale and pace of change is dramatic; for example, the extinction of species is occurring at around 100-fold pre-human rates4. The population sizes of vertebrate species have, on average, declined by half over the last 45 years5. More than 2.3 million km2 of primary forest has been felled since 20006. About

In nature, there are cases where species go extinct due to humans or for uncontrollable reasons. Recent scientific development has allowed a new idea called de-extinction the act of cloning extinct species using DNA samples from the past and biotechnology. However, extinct species should not be brought back to existence as the idea of de-extinction diverts attention and funding from protecting many endangered species that can still thrive in their environment. Another issue that arises with de-extinction is that resurrected species could become pests in their new environment.

Many species vital to ensuring that today’s environment will thrive are becoming extinct. If a species is slowly dwindling, and in imminent danger of becoming nonexistent, this species is considered to be endangered. “One in four mammals, one in eight birds, one third of all amphibians and 70% of the world’s assessed plants on the… IUCN Red List are in jeopardy” (IUCN, 2016). According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, or IUCN, upwards of 16,000 species are threatened with extinction, including both plants and animals (IUCN, 2016). Before becoming endangered, a species will show warning signs, either by starting to lose biological diversity or by losing the habitats for that species to flourish in, or in the worst case, both. The word endangered can sometimes be confused with threatened, extirpated, or extinct. Extirpated refers to the state of a species where its population has died out in a certain area or range, but other populations of said species still exist elsewhere (Olden, Julian D., 2008). When a species is considered threatened, or vulnerable, this refers to the state of the species being susceptible to endangerment and extinction (“Extinction crisis escalates”). So if a species is threatened, the first signs of endangerment come along, which are similar signs to that of a species in danger of becoming threatened, including lack of genetic diversity, or overhunting may be evident. (“Extinction crisis escalates”). When a species is labelled

Conservation of our biodiversity not only demonstrates foresight, it protects the natural resources so vital to our own continued existence. The value of any single species to an ecosystem is immeasurable; the environment will not endure without its species, despite size or niche. These animals are not dispensable. And, they are apt to face extinction in the not too distant future, unless a resolve for their preservation is insisted by the public and enforced by governments internationally.

The National Wildlife Institute has published “Conservation Under the Endangered Species Act: A Promise Broken”. Their critique of the Act includes questioning the programs undertaken as a result of the Act have played sufficient roles in the recovery of species that were delisted, as well as questioning the allocation of funding to programs intended to aid listed species.

Once humans migrated to North America and Australia, they killed or ate large animals, potentially wiping out entire species. Desertification, deforestation, erosion, and soil salinization were all human measures to build more cities. Changes in climate and diseases brought by domesticated animals were also linked to the extinction of large animals from Eurasia. The Pleistocene re-wilding of North America has two aspects: restoring past potential and preventing new extinctions with more protected populations. C. Josh Donlan from “Restoring America’s Big, Wild Animals” argues that although species such as camels, lions, and mammoths that disappeared 13,000 years ago cannot be brought back in the same form, restoring close relatives is a possibility and can potentially economically and culturally benefit ecosystems. Donlan then proceeds to explain the importance of large animals, his strategy, and challenges of reintroducing large creatures. On the other hand, Dustin R. Rubenstein, Daniel I. Rubenstein, Paul W. Sherman, and Thomas A. Gavin from “Pleistocene Park: Does Re-Wilding North America Represent Sound Conservation for the 21st Century?” assert that humans should focus on preventing the extinction of new animals since bringing back vanished species is improbable. In fact, restoring North America to its pre-human state may be detrimental to current species and ecosystems.

Breeding wildlife in captivity is done for multiple reasons including preventing extinction of species (Captive). Yet, is captive breeding the only way to prevent extinction? Several breeding programs also partner with a reintroduction program. These two programs could slow extinction or better yet stop it. Captive breeding programs attempt to breed the wildlife in zoos. Zoos are required to have a studbook. In the book are records of parents, deaths, and births of each individual of a particular species. The data is analyzed and a repost is sent to a program’s coordinator (Captive). Reintroduction programs takes rehabilitated and descendants of captive breeding individuals attempting to reestablish the species in their natural habitat (Reintroduction). There has been success and failures with both programs.

Licht, Millspaugh, Kunkel, Kochanny, &, Peterson. (2010) states the concept of wolf recovery hinders the acceptance of reintroduction because it is limited to the numbers of wolves, instead of promoting wolf reintroduction as the key to a healthy ecosystem (Licht, et. al., 2010). And that wolves provide benefits to education, ecological, recreational, and science (Licht, et al, 2010). The case studies they reviewed were from Coronation Island, Alaska where reintroduction occurred, since there was no active management the wolf population declined and deer populations rebounded (Licht, et al, 2010). They also studied Wind Cave National Park and determined while it had no existing wolf population, based on the park’s size, believes it could support

Bill Freedmen, author of “Endangered Species—Human Causes Of Extinction and Endangerment” notes, “scientists approximate that present extinction rates are 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than the average natural extinction rate.” These distressing numbers should be acted upon to save the endangered species and avoid the catastrophic change to this planet if these species were to become extinct. In order to produce change, people need to recognize that habitat loss, climate change, and poaching are all factors in why our animal species are going extinct.

The main goal of the Endangered Species Act is conserving endangered and threatened species and the ecosystem on which they depend(Endangered Species, 51). One of the greatest strengths is its foundation in scientific principles(Bily, 52). Habitat protection is essential if species are to be conserved and the goals of the Endangered Species Act are to be met(Bily,53). Habitat provides the unique food, shelter, and other complex requirement that each species needs to survive(Bily, 53). The listing process needs to proceed as promptly as possible(Bily, 53). Objective scientific information and methods should be used in listing species(Bily, 52). Their use in listing decisions is inconsistent with biologically defense principles(Bily, 53) Thirty-five percent of the animals listed are still stable or has increased(Bily, 51). Ten percent of the candidate species still waiting to be on the list have suffered that fall(Endangered Species, 51). Two percent of the animals have had a full recovery(Bily, 52). The animals that have been provided protection has been achieved(Bily, 51) The bald eagle has had a great recovery and its population is growing very well(Bily, 52). According to an article less than one percent of the animals listed have gone extinct(Bily, 51). The recovery of the peregrine falcon is very good(Bily, 52).

In the argument of “Should We Bring Back Extinct Species” by Joseph Bennett and Ben J. Novak it is discussed whether or not species that were once dead could be brought back to life. Scientist should not bring back extinct species.This all sounds like a real jurassic park dinosaurs could make a come back but why should scientist bring back an extinct species when we can’t even keep our still living animals alive. Joseph Bennett the assistant of biology from Carleton University states “Those who support bringing back extinct species will say that doing so will help support other species. But scientist already have important species-such as elephants tigers, and rhinos-that are in serious trouble.” If scientist were to concentrate on resurrecting