Should Endangered Species Truly Be Saved?

When it comes to Endangered species, or animals facing an extremely high risk of extinction (Sexton and Warhol), it is a scientifically proven fact that it is due to human activity as a whole. To specify, said detrimental human activities include: deforestation/habitat destruction, overpopulation, burning fossil fuels and pollution ("List"). These damaging human acts result in water that is no longer drinkable, poor air quality, unstable ecosystems and change in climate all over the world. One in four mammals and forty percent of amphibians are threatened with extinction because of this, causing our sixth major animal extinction event on Earth ("List"). Forty percent of all living organisms on the planet are threatened with extinction due to these acts, along with: overhunting, overfishing and disease (Sexton and Warhol).

Impolite Polar Bears

A specific example of an endangered species in the animal world would be the polar bear. With their current population ranging anywhere between twenty-two thousand to thirty-one thousand, these apex predators are in a vulnerable state due to climate change. These animals are native to the Artic, and climate change is causing the Artic ice to heat up twice as fast as anywhere else (Kruger). As a result, the ice that polar bears live, fish and migrate on is melting away, causing their habitat to shrink. Statistically speaking, the Artic Ice shrinks fourteen percent every decade. From 1981-2010, it has shrunk one hundred and seventy thousand miles. In retrospect, that area is bigger than Alaska and California combined (Kruger). This results in habitat fragmentation, and it happens faster when industrial companies further destroy this bear's natural habitat by digging for oil on ice that is already melting at dangerous speeds. With the bears environment and home being destroyed, it is harder for mothers to protect and feed their cubs. Thus leading to malnutrition, and furthering into fewer cubs (Kruger). Not only this, but industrial companies going into the Artic raise the destruction by upping the risk of oil spills (Kruger). This is because the more that these ships travel across the cold and frozen artic sea, there's no question that it's a dangerous voyage each time. The frozen ice, or ice glaciers could easily destroy a ship, causing oil spills.

Just Ice

Animals, domesticated or wild, all have their special place in the world. Domesticated animals are considered great companions, and wild animals are important for keeping their appropriate ecosystems under control. When it comes to wild animals specifically, some people aim for protecting species that are considered endangered, or in other words, those that are facing an extremely high risk of extinction (Sexton and Warhol). On the other hand, protecting said creatures is somewhat a waste of our own resources and time. With observing and researching both of these viewpoints, it's fairly easy to see why both sides have these separate beliefs.

Bald Eagle

 Protecting endangered species has been an important part of keeping species in their habitats longer. In fact, the ESA, or the Endangered Species Act, was created in 1973 to not only protect endangered plants and animals, but their natural environments, too. This act places species into two categories: endangered and threatened (Sexton and Warhol). The act has resulted in recoveries of many species, such as the bald eagle and the grey wolf (Whittaker and Morley). However, the act was created to surpass a law previously made in 1966. This is because, Scientists and the Government know that Human activity caused these habitats to be disturbed, which resulted in animal populations declining severely (Whittaker and Morley). With that being said, it is understood that scientists feel the need to protect animals since they're aware that humanity is a danger to these species, not the animals themselves.

Grey Wolf

 On the other hand, not protecting endangered species is also important. It is estimated that anywhere between five million to thirty million species exist on this planet, however, scientists have only described around two million of those animals (Lee and Griswold). Since only a slight portion of species has been discovered and researched upon, this leads to a thought of, "Well, which species of animals are genuinely important enough to risk saving?" This same thought is why it is considered somewhat wasteful to use resources saving threatened animals, if it cannot be proven that they are genuinely helpful to the planet.

There are seven levels that differentiate between different kinds of plants and animals, which are: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species. When looking at these levels, specifics are narrowed down to Genus and Species, causing them to have one of the biggest connections within these levels. Therefore, animals of similar genus only differ from their "cousins" because of their species. This is a benefit point when the argument of not saving specific species comes into play. Scientifically speaking, two animals with the same genus could create the same or similar environmental benefits if they share the same natural habitat. However, if they do not, then this supports saving endangered species. This is because something commonly know as the food chain, a basic visual ideal of how nature keeps environments in line, could be drastically thrown off balance. Essentially, if an apex predator is threatened, and there are no predators like this species, then that natural environment is heavily effected, even down to the trophic level (first and most basic level) of said food chain.

Deep Sea Food Chain

In conclusion, it could be beneficial to save endangered species just as it could be detrimental. A lot of time, effort and energy goes into saving wildlife, whether it be plants or animals. On a scientific level, it's more beneficial to save animals and their natural habitats. If they're not saved, the results of natural habitats being unbalanced are going to directly effect humanity. On the other hand, at a governmental and citizen level, it is quite a waste of those resources when it the species being saved are a small fraction of species that exist. On this level, it is common to question if the right thing is being done, if not everything that should be saved, is genuinely known about. Saving endangered species is an argument scientists and the government are both supporting and questioning.

Pictures:

"Impolite polar bears" by bargodk is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

"Just Ice" by Doug Scortegagna is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

"Deep Sea Food Chain - Bruce Mahalski" by Pieter Pieterse is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

"Bald Eagle" by howzey is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

"Grey Wolf" by Kristi Herbert is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

     Works Cited

"Counterpoint: Saving Every Endangered Species is Not Worth The Cost", Lee, M, Griswold, Marcus. 31 Dec 2017. https://web.p.ebscohost.com/pov/command/detail?vid=2&sid=88edc213-5d62-4a5f-88ec-06a048844eea%40redis

"Endangered Species: An Overview", Sexton, Jennifer, Warhol, Tom. 31 Dec, 2017. https://web.p.ebscohost.com/pov/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=88edc213-5d62-4a5f-88ec-06a048844eea%40redis&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLHNoaWImc2l0ZT1wb3YtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=28675227&db=pwh

"List of Endangered Species", https://awionline.org/content/list-endangered-species?gclid=CjwKCAjwov6hBhBsEiwAvrvN6GoT6pzEh1AUHiIy-aqmcB6PFl5mb9JwIh7h0afokEC7ZQE3IwFZVhoCNqoQAvD_BwE

"Polar Bear: Threats", Kruger, Elisabeth. https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/polar-bear

"Point: Endangered Species Should be Protected", Whittaker, Anne, Morley, David C. 31 Dec 2017. https://web.s.ebscohost.com/pov/command/detail?vid=2&sid=77befca5-5a6a-4d9f-92ec-6ffa874fd928%40redis