The U.S. government should not designate endangered species!

830 words 8 Comments

The U.S.government should not designate endangered species!

    Did you know that most “animal saving” organizations spend up to millions of dollars each year to help save endangered species? “According to the most recent data from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), federal and state spending to protect threatened and endangered species came to $348 million in 1995, including $18 million spent on land acquisition.” (Baker). This can be a big problem. Some think that we need to save endangered species for the fate of an ecosystem, yet some think we don’t for extinction is a part of evolution. In this context, this word evolution means the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. Species should not be designated as endangered for these efforts waste a lot of time and money and people need the money more than animals do.

 

The U.S. government should not designate species as endangered because it would solve

the underlying issues that cause species to go extinct: climate change and overhunting. We are in the 6th mass extinction right now, and the cause is humans ourselves, mostly because of overhunting/overfishing. Another reason is because of climate change. “The shady pursuit of endangered bird eggs made international headlines in May 2006 when Colin Watson, widely considered Britain’s most notorious illegal egg collector, died after falling from a 12-meter tree, allegedly while hunting a rare egg.” (Gross). In other words, people overhunt endangered animals more for the “rarity” of that animal. In addition, people overfish/ overhunt endangered animals for the rarity. “The bluefin tuna, which has been endangered for several years and has the misfortune to be prized by Japanese sushi lovers, has suffered a catastrophic decline in stocks in the Northern Pacific Ocean, of more than 96%, according to research published on Wednesday.” (Harvey). Essentially, people overfished the Bluefin Tuna for the delicious taste and for sushi. In short, if we were to “get rid of the name endangered”, more people would think the animal is less rare and not hunt it, so we don’t have to make a wildlife preserve to save them.

 

Saving and endangered species is also way too much money, more than the

richest man in the world. People spend way too much money on endangered species. “With over 1,641 listed species, these bureaucratic costs alone can add up to hundreds of millions of dollars over time” (Gordon). Basically, people spend too much money on endangered species. Also, organizations will spend too much money over time. “…but who would have guessed that it takes $1.3 million per year to save a single species?” (Discovery). In other words, this means that the GAO have had success in saving a species, but that doesn’t this is every single organization. To circle back at what they said, we don’t need to save and endangered species, it is way too much money.

 

Instead of spending money on the animals, we should spend it on the starving children

and families. If we have enough money to spend millions of dollars on animals, why can’t we just use that’s money to spend on starving families. “800 million people will go to bed chronically under-fed: 200 million of them are children.” (Renton). Basically, there are more starving families in the world, than the money we spend on saving animals. In addition, families have, and still are, dying of starvation. “…children suffering from deadly, severe acute malnutrition, and the diseases that ravage little ones weakened by hunger.” (Save The Children). In other words, people die from this disease because of the lack of food. In conclusion, people should spend more of that money that we are using for the animals, for the people that are starving to death.

 

Others might argue overhunting/ overfishing is by people just doing it for the fun of it,

yet if people out there are mostly doing it for the money. For example, Steven Purcell and Trevor A. Branch, states “Desirable, high-value species are harvested first to maximise profits.” (Purcell). However, if they don’t stop, instead of spending it on animals, spend it on starving children or hospitals that are treating diseases . For example, the F.M.S.C. organization states “Every year, millions of children die from preventable causes such as pneumonia, diarrhea, malaria and undernutrition. Today, hunger still causes nearly half of deaths in children under 5 years old.* From this data, FMSC estimates at least 6,200 children die each day from undernutrition.” (F.M.S.C). In short, most poachers do there job for money and f they don’t stop, we should spend our money on the starving or people with cancer or diseases.

 

Species shouldn’t be designated as endangered for people spend far too much

on this and that we should spend that money on the starving. Most species are extinct today and should probably stay extinct. People keep on wasting money and resources on animals. If people continue doing this, there will be no money or resources left for our own human needs.

 

8 Comments

  • This was a very good story. Well devolped and i like the topic. Good job!

  • I really like this. I agree with you there are kids in Africa and Asia who have no food and we should give them food. We shouldn’t look for endangered animals when kids are dying at a young age.

  • Mary Jo, I see where you can agree with this point, but I do respectfully disagree. To some people animals are like their children, and a lot of people have fun trying to save them as that is what they are passionate about. I do see where you are coming with donating the money for like starving people, but a lot of people are homeless because they used to much alcohol or they did drugs. Being homeless and not have the money will teach them to clean themselves up, and to get back on their feet.

    • I see… but the reason why most people get off their feet is because of the hospital making sure they are okay and helping them get better…

      ;)

      • So them learning that doing such a thing is good for them

        • They are helping they get better in mental and physical health. So if they are homeless, they hospital will help them get off their feet.

          ¯_(ツ)_/¯

  • I agree with you that we should be spending money on starving children and people that have diseases, but I don’t think that we should completely blow off the animals.

    • Okay, but you have to realize, there are more companies for animals than there is for ourselves, we need to a least forget about animals that aren’t as “important” and use that money for the poor or needy.

  • I really like you article and I think you can go very far with it!

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What is the sum of 3 and 5. Please spell out the answer ~ Ex: seven

Inspired by this IDEA WRITE YOUR OWN POST ABOUT THIS Read more from Mr. Leisering's Class
Post Privacy Published on January 10 | Society
  • Print This Post
post tags:   
image attribution:
  • #donteventrytogoagainstme
  • Report Abuse
Share this Post
Do You Want To Report Abusive Content?