Questions and Answers
I'll need to know at least five endangered animals, their population around ten years ago, and their population today.
The African wild dog
The African wild dog, also known as the Cape hunting dog, is Africa's most endangered carnivore. The term endangered means that it is in danger of extinction and unlikely to survive if the factors causing its decline in numbers continue. Its endangered status is the result of direct persecution by people. More…..
An estimated 19,000 to 25,000 orangutans live in the wild. Another 900 live in captivity.
35,000 to 50,000 Asian elephants are found in the wild.
The California condor can be found in North America. It is the largest North American bird of prey, and is now nearly extinct. Their body length is about 50 inches. The California condor's weight is about 23 pounds and their wingspan is about 8 to 9 ½ feet. The Andean condor can be found in the Andes Mountains, from Venezuela and Columbia to the Strait of Magellan. Their body length is about 50 inches and about 10 feet in wingspan. The Andean condor's weight is estimated at about 26 pounds. The condors are like the vultures. They eat dead cattle, sheep, ground squirrels, deer and horses. At zoos their diet foods are dead rats and mice, fish and the meat of large animals such as sheep and goats. The place where condors and vultures put their eggs is in caves. There are four birds that we talk about on our site so remember to visit the rest.
Estimated between 1,300 to 2,000, the population of blue whales is dangerously low.
Kevin, Liverpool, England.
Here's mine, allthough it does addmitidly sound strange.
The first step is to leagalize their killing for products and privatize their ownership. I know I lost most of you right there, but bear with me. The person who owns these animals is not going to just kill them so they can make a quick profit. No, the good buisnessman will raise them. This process is why cattle are in such abundence in America. Think about it, we slaughter infinite numbers of cattle and yet they are allways still in abundence. The same process is even being applied in bison ranches.
Btw, i did basicly steal this idea from Rush. So sue me.
Anywho, what do you think of my idea and whats one of your own?
Heres some feedback.
Whoever wrote the 1/2 page answer, you lost my attention by like the 6th paragraph.
As for queeny, yes smart means profitable, but you would make more money over time than selling everything at once. So a profitable "rancher" would not just sell everything for a quick profit.
One thing you guys keep throwing in my face is how ranching and domesticating the species is taking advantage of them. Why should we not. Humans have domesticated animals throughout their history, with the obvious examples being horses, cows, chickens, oxen, etc. It's not like the animals are going to complain. Even as some need for them in physical labor has been replaced with machine, they will allways be needed. For example say we domesticated elephants, thats a renuable source of ivory.
Btw, to the person who wrote the 1/2 page answer. It's the weekend now so i had the time to actually read your whole answer. Allthough it had more information about extinct and endangered animals i ever needed to know, my question was what your plan was. Not what is every piece of information you know ont he subject.
Your only suggestion, was a vauge "make a space in you back garden. I dont know about england, but in america you generally don't want animals to go digging through your veggetables. And of course everyone wants more foxes running around in the alleys.
So you are advocating even more exploitation of animals and wilderness? With the intention that this exploitation can make individuals wealthier and provide even more consumer products?
I assume that your 'uninformed' intention is also the protection of species not individual animals and the restoration of (a) habitat on which to farm these animals?
So the result of your plan would be: Exploit more animals, destroy another/many more natural wild spaces in order to house these animals. Resulting in more deforestation for land and animal feed, more greenhouse gas emissions, to produce even more meat which we do not need on many grounds including again greenhouse gas emissions?
Human-caused disturbance in ecosystems rarely turns out well. There are just too many variables involved if the habitat is a human managed one. Attempts in the past to 'save' one species has meant massive loss and damage to other species. Humans are also easily corrupted, have political and financial agendas. Not only in terms of poaching but there are many political drivers for selling nearby private land and converting it to housing/development.
This habitat loss, fragmentation, degradation and increased human disturbance resulting from the development of land near conservation areas further impacts on the private 'conservation' area, again poaching and eco tourism are problems.
Alongside this, many habitats are 'managed' by non indigenous people/companies/government officials, who interfere in systems they do not understand. Where once the ancient tribes manages these habitats and protected them through tradition and stories. Ancient Tribes enriched the systems, not depleted them.
If you believe in evolution, then there is some loss of species. However, much loss is directly caused by modern man and his activities/greed. For this we should take responsibility.
How? The answer for me is not the protection and restoration of habitats after man has exploited them and their resident species have become endangered, but to limit man's own land use and overconsumption to the absolute minimum. We can do this by becoming self sufficient as possible and leaving the wilderness/countryside to do what it does best self-manages and heals itself.
Restoration of habitat means to 'restore' to its previous status. Unfortunately we can never do this. For example Misplaced sentiment/ideology has prevented traditional practices of coppicing from protecting woods which have resulted in devastating losses of ecosystems. In the UK we have 'loved' our woods to death. Kept them frozen in time by not coppicing them and by legislation to protect them.
This sentimental but ignorant attitude towards the management of woods, means woods will continue to die and so will all the associated flora and fauna. Trees and woods are living things, as such, they have an age limit as all living things do. People managed woods by the traditional methods for hundreds of years which artificially extended trees' lives.
In the UK our native trees are on the edge of their climatic range, seed production is extremely sporadic and successful growth from seed to mature tree is rare in nature. Which is why we have forests with trees that are a thousand years old, there have been no replacements; the old existing trees have not been naturally replaced by self seeded saplings.
As there are no naturally grown replacements it will be the end of the woods as we know them in the UK.
Our attempts to retain diversity are worsening the situation. For example our arrogance is leading to unnecessary loss of diversity through man's actions. To give one example, we excuse ourselves of reducing diversity by having seed libraries, in which thousands of seeds are stored.
However, many of these seeds are considered to be no longer viable. Others, even if they are viable, will not have made the necessary adaptations needed to survive. The only way to do this is allowing the plants to grow naturally, migrate and adapt. By storing seeds in this way and using it as an excuse to allow destruction of habitats then we are 'freezing' those seeds to that moment in time.
Mushroom 'Mycelium' are regulating the earth's ecosystems, recycling carbon, nitrogen and other essential elements as they break down plant and animal matter to create new soil. They are essential for the health of our soil and ecosystem. Mycellium are the 'missing' keys to both human and the Earth's health. Trees and other green plants could not grow and reach maturity without symbiotic associations with mycelium, the network of fungal threads in the soil that act as interfaces between plant roots and nutrients.
But we are losing them before we can even identify them. We are reducing biodiversity, through man's activity from clear cutting forests to developing land which stops them migrating and adapting. We are destabilizing nutrient cycles, which results in crop failures, loss of diversity and the need for ever more invasive farming techniques/chemicals to be used so contributing to global warming.
The existence/absence of mycellium (fungi) in the soils is vital to the Earth's survival, hence mankind's but we are preventing their migration and adaptation by urban development. Mycellium can take hundreds of years to be re-established, if at all. It is OUR actions that are preventing it continuing. We can take our chances on adaptation, but if it does not survive, we do not.
Ideally, we could leave all woodland alone and it would renew itself however, this is not possible. So even if we do manage to grow trees from seed away from the woods, the character of a plantation will never come close to matching that of an ancient wood.
However, most trees in UK can not be replaced for a number of reasons, for example: oaks are afflicted by American Oak Mildew which they have little or no resistance to and it is thought to modify their ability to grow in a Woodland situation, ie being able to cope with shade and dry conditions. This tends to affect their viability.
These woods have not adapted to environmental changes, they can not be replaced and they have not self seeded because of climate change. Evolution teaches us that organisms adapt to environmental changes or DIE out. Mankind, by his actions is speeding up the rate at which many species are dying out.
You are right cattle are in abundance, this intensive beef and dairy industry is leading to mass deforestation of rain forests, is one of the major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, one of the major contributors to water pollution and starvation in developing countries. Watch the video link below and then you will understand why your ideas are such poor ones.
If endangered animals or plants go extinct due to climate change, should we be concerned? Other animals and plants have gone extinct over the history of earth, if it's totally natural and uninfluenced by man should we try to prevent it?
Entertain the thought though, if you possibly can, that global warming is natural, and the cause unknown (remember, at one time continental glaciers covered much of the northern hemisphere). So we could in theory not be influencing as we think. Imagine that the global warming is natural, should anything be done than to save endangered species?
Endangered animals are not going endangered because of global warming. Throughout the earth's history, animals have gone endangered to extinct over and over and over and over and over again. It's part of evolution, its part of nature and it is just a fact of life. If there are species which are going endangered way before their time is up and it is because of direct conflict with humans than yes I am willing to save them. But if they are going endangered because a disease woke up and targeted them, or they can't compete with similar species within their own habitats or if it is just their time to go then I believe humans should just suck it up and sit back and watch what mother nature can do. If we just did that, once, I think we could learn a lot. It would show us how vulnerable we are to heading in the same direction. What if all of a sudden an ancient strand of virus woke up and just began eliminating the human species? Who will save us then? It's just mother nature at her best.
We humans think we can control the universe, and control destiny. Things happen for a reason, and the extinction of species is a damn good reason. It allows something better, and more suited for a particular environment to come along and manage that environment. Every species on this planet manages their environment in some way or the other. It's just a matter of who does the best at it, and who does the worst at it. That's when extinction kicks in.
Sorry to upset most of you with my "cruel and evil words". But I think you people should just start thinking a little bit better.
Oh…global warming is natural too. Why can't anybody just accept that? Look at the geological evidence, and evidence in old species of trees. ITS PLAIN AND CLEAR THAT GLOBAL WARMING HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST! We are just due or overdue for another climate change. Another great mystery of humans is why we think we know everything and can't accept life in general…