April 26th, 2010
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/photogalleries/100426-endangered-species-rarest-animals-2010/?now=2010-04-26-00:01
Summery: The island gray fox is very close to extinction, and their population is less than 1,000. The wildlife conservation society has stated that the island gray fox is the "rarest of the rare." This fox is the smallest of all foxes, and only lives in the channel islands of California. Their population is going down due to predation and diseases. Golden eagles are swooping down on them for the kill, while the diseases are from domestic dogs that were introduced to the islands. A report has been released that highlights 12 other critically endangered species. These animals including, the island gray fox, have the highest risk of extinction. The report also says "Extinction is a tragic, especially if it is preventable." This report is by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
Opinion: I think that this article is a warning telling us what could happen to not just the island grey fox, but all endangered animals, extinction. We as a counrty, and as a planet, need to do something about it. I think that some of our taxes should go to paying for the survival of these species. When the report said "Extinction is a tragic, especially if it is preventable", I felt the same way. And because extinction is preventable in most cases, I think we should do something about it. This could include what I had previously stated, which was cutting our income taxes, and giving some of it to helping endangered animals, such as the island gray wolf. I think this will definetely help in keeping enangered species from falling into the category of extinction if we set this as a goal and follow it.
Questions:
1. What do you think we should do about these critically endangered animals?
2. Do you think we can prevent extinction in all cases? why or why not?
3. When do you think a particular species goes from endangered to critically endangered?
Wow. That was deep. Well, in the sense that it really meant a lot. I totally agree with what you are saying, Kyle. I mean, why should we as a planet put up with something as awful as the extinction of an animal, when it can be prevented?
ReplyDelete1) I think that there should be more organizations donating to critically endangered species to help them stick around. No one can exactly force people to start an organization or donate money, but if I myself have to start one later in life, then so be it. 2) In most cases, humans can prevent extintion, but that doesnt mean that they necisarily should. It really all depends on the reason as to why the species is going extinct and where and what the species is. 3) A particular species goes from endangered, to critically endangered when there are very, very few organisms in that species still alive. Probably less than one hundered (or around there) and only a handful, if any, in captivity.
I have a question on this post, if you had a million dollars, would you give it to cancer research or helping endangered species? It is a tough question, but should we help our own species, or other species? No right answer, but I wonder what you guys think.
ReplyDeleteIf I had a million dollars, most likely I would donate it to saving endangered species. Many people have donated large sums of money in helping cancer research. Scientists have made progress, but still no major discovery has been made. This could help saves lives in the future, but not right now. If you donated the money to endangered species, the money would be put to use right away, and possibly even save a species from extinction. This post is in response to Mrs. Deluca's question "if you had a million dollars, would you give it to cancer research or helping endangered species?".
ReplyDeleteI think that it's really sad that so many animals are becoming endangered. I agree that extinction is tragic, especially if its preventable. No animals should go extinct because we should be helping them to make sure they survive and are taken care of. If we can save them with a little help, then we definently should. No animal should have to suffer just because we didn't help them enough.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question, "What do you think we should do about these critically endangered animals?". I think that we should start making more fundraisers and donate money so we can save them. I also think that a little bit of everyones taxes should go to helping the animals. Although people wouldn't be very happy if their taxes were raised, the animals will be able to be saved and that's all that matters. Animals can't make money to save themselves and they're going to need a little help to get by.
Hey, I'm back again to answer Mrs. DeLuca's question about the million dollars. I can't exactly say that I would give all the money to either or. I would have to do research about the organizations: If they have insufficient funds for their goals, or if their funds are currently sufficient. If the funds are insufficient, then I would donate the money to the organization to make it so that their funds are sufficient, or at least closer to being there. If the funds are already sufficient, I would save the money, gather interset on it and donate it when the time is right.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything that Maddy said. We shouldn't let species go extinct if we don't have to; that just doesn't seem right. However, it is sometimes beyond our control. In answer to question number 2, I think that in some cases we should help endangered species not become extinct, mainly if it was because of something humans caused, like pollution or even an exotic species. However, I also believe that we shouldn't mess with everything. Nature may have a way that its supposed to play out (if you believe that kind of stuff, which I do to some extent), and we shouldn't be running around saving every animal we see. What if by saving that animal, we cause the extinction of another animal that was more important to the ecosystem? There's alot we don't know about the way nature works, and we aren't in a position to be messing with it.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mrs. DeLuca's question about the million dollars, I would do what Maddy said. Both are worthy causes, but at the time one might need a bit more funding. It would depend on many circumstances.
This article was really sad! I agree with everything you guys have said. We shouldn't let species go extinct when we can help them. Also, if we let a species go extinct when it was mostly our fault they went extinct, that's just not right. In response to your second question, sometimes that is beyond our control, but if we can help them in anyway we should definitely help them.
ReplyDeleteTo Ms. DeLuca's question, depending on the circumstances, i would give it to the orginization that needs it the most.