argumentative essay about endangered animals

 / 

Conservation

In defense of biodiversity: why protecting species from extinction matters.

By Carl Safina • February 12, 2018

A number of biologists have recently made the argument that extinction is part of evolution and that saving species need not be a conservation priority. But this revisionist thinking shows a lack of understanding of evolution and an ignorance of the natural world. 

A few years ago, I helped lead a ship-based expedition along south Alaska during which several scientists and noted artists documented and made art from the voluminous plastic trash that washes ashore even there. At Katmai National Park, we packed off several tons of trash from as distant as South Asia. But what made Katmai most memorable was: huge brown bears. Mothers and cubs were out on the flats digging clams. Others were snoozing on dunes. Others were patrolling.

During a rest, several of us were sitting on an enormous drift-log, watching one mother who’d been clamming with three cubs. As the tide flooded the flat, we watched in disbelief as she brought her cubs up to where we were sitting — and stepped up on the log we were on. There was no aggression, no tension; she was relaxed. We gave her some room as she paused on the log, and then she took her cubs past us into a sedge meadow. Because she was so calm, I felt no fear. I felt the gift.

In this protected refuge, bears could afford a generous view of humans. Whoever protected this land certainly had my gratitude.

In the early 20th century, a botanist named Robert F. Griggs discovered Katmai’s volcanic “Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes.” In love with the area, he spearheaded efforts to preserve the region’s wonders and wildlife. In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson established Katmai National Monument (now Katmai National Park and Preserve ), protecting 1,700 square miles, thus ensuring a home for bear cubs born a century later, and making possible my indelible experience that day. As a legacy for Griggs’ proclivity to share his love of living things, George Washington University later established the Robert F. Griggs Chair in Biology.

That chair is now occupied by a young professor whose recent writing probably has Griggs spinning in his grave. He is R. Alexander Pyron . A few months ago,  The Washington Post published a “ Perspective” piece by Pyron that is an extreme example of a growing minority opinion in the conservation community, one that might be summarized as, “Humans are profoundly altering the planet, so let’s just make peace with the degradation of the natural world.” 

No biologist is entitled to butcher the scientific fundamentals on which they hang their opinions.

Pyron’s essay – with lines such as, “The only reason we should conserve biodiversity is for ourselves, to create a stable future for human beings” and “[T]he impulse to conserve for conservation’s sake has taken on an unthinking, unsupported, unnecessary urgency” – left the impression that it was written in a conservative think tank, perhaps by one of the anti-regulatory zealots now filling posts throughout the Trump administration. Pyron’s sentiments weren’t merely oddly out of keeping with the legacy of the man whose name graces his job title. Much of what Pyron wrote is scientifically inaccurate. And where he stepped out of his field into ethics, what he wrote was conceptually confused.

Pyron has since posted, on his website and Facebook page, 1,100 words of frantic backpedaling that land somewhere between apology and retraction, including mea culpas that he “sensationalized” parts of his own argument and “cavalierly glossed over several complex issues.” But Pyron’s original essay and his muddled apology do not change the fact that the beliefs he expressed reflect a disturbing trend that has taken hold among segments of the conservation community. And his article comes at a time when conservation is being assailed from other quarters, with a half-century of federal protections of land being rolled back, the Endangered Species Act now more endangered than ever, and the relationship between extinction and evolution being subjected to confused, book-length mistreatment.

Pyron’s original opinion piece, so clear and unequivocal in its assertions, is a good place to unpack and disentangle accelerating misconceptions about the “desirability” of extinction that are starting to pop up like hallucinogenic mushrooms.

In recent years, some biologists and writers have been distancing themselves from conservation’s bedrock idea that in an increasingly human-dominated world we must find ways to protect and perpetuate natural beauty, wild places, and the living endowment of the planet. In their stead, we are offered visions of human-dominated landscapes in which the stresses of destruction and fragmentation spur evolution. 

White rhinoceros ( Ceratotherium simum ). Source: Herman Pijpers/ Flickr

Conservation International ditched its exuberant tropical forest graphic for  a new corporate logo  whose circle and line were designed to suggest a human head and outstretched arms. A few years ago, Peter Kareiva, then chief scientist for The Nature Conservancy,  said , “conservationists will have to jettison their idealized notions of nature, parks, and wilderness,” for  “a more optimistic, human-friendly vision.” Human annihilation of the passenger pigeon, he wrote, caused “no catastrophic or even measurable effects,” characterizing the total extinction of the hemisphere’s most abundant bird — whose population went from billions to zero inside a century (certainly a “measurable effect” in itself) — as an example of nature’s “resilience.”

British ecologist Chris Thomas’s recent book, Inheritors of the Earth: How Nature is Thriving in an Age of Extinction, argues that the destruction of nature creates opportunities for evolution of new lifeforms that counterbalance any losses we create, an idea that is certainly optimistic considering the burgeoning lists of endangered species. Are we really ready to consider that disappearing rhinos are somehow counterbalanced by a new subspecies of daisy in a railroad track? Maybe it would be simpler if Thomas and his comrades just said, “We don’t care about nature.’’

Enter Pyron, who — at least in his initial essay — basically said he doesn’t. He’s entitled to his apathy, but no biologist is entitled to butcher the scientific fundamentals on which they hang their opinions.

Pyron began with a resonant story about his nocturnal rediscovery of a South American frog that had been thought recently extinct. He and colleagues collected several that, he reassured us, “are now breeding safely in captivity.” As we breathed a sigh of relief, Pyron added, “But they will go extinct one day, and the world will be none the poorer for it.” 

The conviction that today’s slides toward mass extinction are not inevitable spurred the founding of the conservation movement.

I happen to be writing this in the Peruvian Amazon, having just returned from a night walk to a light-trap where I helped a biologist collect moths. No one yet knows how many species live here. Moths are important pollinators. Knowing them helps detangle a little bit of how this rainforest works. So it’s a good night to mention that the number of species in an area carries the technical term “species richness.” More is richer, and fewer is, indeed, poorer. Pyron’s view lies outside scientific consensus and societal values. 

Pyron wasn’t concerned about his frogs going extinct, because, “Eventually, they will be replaced by a dozen or a hundred new species that evolve later.” But the timescale would be millennia at best — meaningless in human terms — and perhaps never; hundreds of amphibians worldwide are suffering declines and extinctions, raising the possibility that major lineages and whole groups of species will vanish. Pyron seemed to have no concerns about that possibility, writing, “Mass extinctions periodically wipe out up to 95 percent of all species in one fell swoop; these come every 50 million to 100 million years.”

But that’s misleading. “Periodically” implies regularity. There’s no regularity to mass extinctions. Not in their timing, nor in their causes. The mass extinctions are not related. Three causes of mass extinctions — prolonged worldwide atmosphere-altering volcanic eruptions; a dinosaur-snuffing asteroid hit; and the spreading agriculture, settlement, and sheer human appetite driving extinctions today — are unrelated.

Rio Pescado stubfoot toad ( Atelopus balios ). Source: De Investigación y Conservación de Anfibios/ Flickr

The conviction that today’s slides toward mass extinction are not inevitable, and could be lessened or avoided, spurred the founding of the conservation movement and created the discipline of conservation biology.

But Pyron seems unmoved. “Extinction is the engine of evolution, the mechanism by which natural selection prunes the poorly adapted and allows the hardiest to flourish,” he declared. “Species constantly go extinct, and every species that is alive today will one day follow suit. There is no such thing as an ‘endangered species,’ except for all species.”

Let us unpack. Extinction is not evolution’s driver; survival is. The engine of evolution is survival amidst competition. It’s a little like what drives innovation in business. To see this, let’s simply compare the species diversity of the Northern Hemisphere, where periodic ice sheets largely wiped the slate clean, with those of the tropics, where the evolutionary time clock continued running throughout. A couple of acres in eastern temperate North America might have a dozen tree species or fewer. In the Amazon a similar area can have 300 tree species. All of North American has 1,400 species of trees; Brazil has 8,800. All of North America has just over 900 birds; Colombia has 1,900 species. All of North America has 722 butterfly species. Where I am right now, along the Tambopata River in Peru, biologists have tallied around 1,200 butterfly species.

Competition among living species drives proliferation into diversified specialties. Specialists increasingly exploit narrowing niches. We can think of this as a marketplace of life, where little competition necessitates little specialization, thus little proliferation. An area with many types of trees, for instance, directly causes the evolution of many types of highly specialized pollinating insects, hummingbirds, and pollinating bats, who visit only the “right” trees. Many flowering plants are pollinated by just one specialized species.

Pyron muddles several kinds of extinctions, then serves up further misunderstanding of how evolution works. So let’s clarify. Mass extinctions are global; they involve the whole planet. There have been five mass extinctions and we’ve created a sixth . Past mass extinctions happened when the entire planet became more hostile. Regional wipeouts, as occurred during the ice ages, are not considered mass extinctions, even though many species can go extinct. Even without these major upheavals there are always a few species blinking out due to environmental changes or new competitors. And there are pseudo-extinctions where old forms no longer exist, but only because their descendants have changed through time. 

New species do not suddenly “arise,” nor are they really new. They evolve from existing species, as population gene pools change.

Crucially for understanding the relationship between extinction and evolution is this: New species do not suddenly “arise,” nor are they really new. New species evolve from existing species, as population gene pools change. Many “extinct” species never really died out; they just changed into what lives now. Not all the dinosaurs went extinct; theropod dinosaurs survived. They no longer exist because they evolved into what we call birds. Australopithecines no longer exist, but they did not all go extinct. Their children morphed into the genus Homo, and the tool- and fire-making Homo erectus may well have survived to become us. If they indeed are our direct ancestor — as some species was — they are gone now, but no more “extinct” than our own childhood. All species come from ancestors, in lineages that have survived.

Pyron’s contention that the “hardiest” flourish is a common misconception. A sloth needs to be slow; a faster sloth is going to wind up as dinner in a harpy eagle nest. A white bear is not “hardier” than a brown one; the same white fur that provides camouflage in a snowy place will scare away prey in green meadow. Bears with genes for white fur flourished in the Arctic, while brown bears did well amidst tundra and forests. Polar bears evolved from brown bears of the tundra; they got so specialized that they separated, then specialized further. Becoming a species is a process, not an event. “New” species are simply specialized descendants of old species.

True extinctions beget nothing. Humans have recently sped the extinction rate by about a thousand times compared to the fossil record. The fact that the extinction of dinosaurs was followed, over tens of millions of years, by a proliferation of mammals, is irrelevant to present-day decisions about rhinos, elephant populations, or monarch butterflies. Pyron’s statement, “There is no such thing as an ‘endangered species,’ except for all species,” is like saying there are no endangered children except for all children. It’s like answering “Black lives matter” with “All lives matter.” It’s a way of intentionally missing the point. 

Chestnut-sided warbler ( Setophaga pensylvanica ). Source: Francesco Veronesi/ Wikimedia

Here’s the point: All life today represents non-extinctions; each species, every living individual, is part of a lineage that has not gone extinct in a billion years.

Pyron also expressed the opinion that “the only reason we should conserve biodiversity is for ourselves …” I don’t know of another biologist who shares this opinion. Pyron’s statement makes little practical sense, because reducing the diversity and abundance of the living world will rob human generations of choices, as values change. Save the passenger pigeon? Too late for that. Whales? A few people acted in time to keep most of them. Elephants? Our descendants will either revile or revere us for what we do while we have the planet’s reins in our hands for a few minutes. We are each newly arrived and temporary tourists on this planet, yet we find ourselves custodians of the world for all people yet unborn. A little humility, and forbearance, might comport.

Thus Pyron’s most jarring assertion: “Extinction does not carry moral significance, even when we have caused it.” That statement is a stranger to thousands of years of philosophy on moral agency and reveals an ignorance of human moral thinking. Moral agency issues from an ability to consider consequences. Humans are the species most capable of such consideration. Thus many philosophers consider humans the only creatures capable of acting as moral agents. An asteroid strike, despite its consequences, has no moral significance. Protecting bears by declaring Katmai National Monument, or un-protecting Bears Ears National Monument, are acts of moral agency. Ending genetic lineages millions of years old, either actively or by the willful neglect that Pyron advocates, certainly qualifies as morally significant.

Do we really wish a world with only what we “rely on for food and shelter?” Do animals have no value if we don’t eat them?

How can we even decide which species we “directly depend’’ upon? We don’t directly depend on peacocks or housecats, leopards or leopard frogs, humpback whales or hummingbirds or chestnut-sided warblers or millions of others. Do we really wish a world with only what we “rely on for food and shelter,” as Pyron seemed to advocate? Do animals have no value if we don’t eat them? I happen not to view my dogs as food, for instance. Things we “rely on” make life possible, sure, but the things we don’t need make life worthwhile.

When Pyron wrote, “Conservation is needed for ourselves and only ourselves… If this means fewer dazzling species, fewer unspoiled forests, less untamed wilderness, so be it,” he expressed a dereliction of the love, fascination, and perspective that motivates the practice of biology.

Here is a real biologist, Alfred Russell Wallace, co-discoverer of evolution by natural selection:

I thought of the long ages of the past during which the successive generations of these things of beauty had run their course … with no intelligent eye to gaze upon their loveliness, to all appearances such a wanton waste of beauty… . This consideration must surely tell us that all living things were not made for man… . Their happiness and enjoyments, their loves and hates, their struggles for existence, their vigorous life and early death, would seem to be immediately related to their own well-being and perpetuation alone. —The Malay Archipelago, 1869

At the opposite pole of Wallace’s human insight and wonder, Pyron asked us to become complicit in extinction. “The goals of species conservation have to be aligned with the acceptance that large numbers of animals will go extinct,” he asserted. “Thirty to 40 percent of species may be  threatened  with extinction in the near future, and their loss may be inevitable. But both the planet and humanity can probably survive or even thrive in a world with fewer species … The species that we rely on for food and shelter are a tiny proportion of total biodiversity, and most humans live in — and rely on — areas of only moderate biodiversity, not the Amazon or the Congo Basin.”

African elephant ( Loxodonta africana ). Source: Flowcomm/ Flickr

Right now, in the Amazon as I type, listening to nocturnal birds and bugs and frogs in this towering emerald cathedral of life, thinking such as Pyron’s strikes me as failing to grasp both the living world and the human spirit. 

The massive destruction that Pyron seems to so cavalierly accept isn’t necessary. When I was a kid, there were no ospreys, no bald eagles, no peregrine falcons left around New York City and Long Island where I lived. DDT and other hard pesticides were erasing them from the world. A small handful of passionate people sued to get those pesticides banned, others began breeding captive falcons for later release, and one biologist brought osprey eggs to nests of toxically infertile parents to keep faltering populations on life support. These projects succeeded. All three of these species have recovered spectacularly and now again nest near my Long Island home. Extinction wasn’t a cost of progress; it was an unnecessary cost of carelessness. Humans could work around the needs of these birds, and these creatures could exist around development. But it took some thinking, some hard work, and some tinkering.

It’s not that anyone thinks humans have not greatly changed the world, or will stop changing it. Rather, as the great wildlife ecologist Aldo Leopold wrote in his 1949 classic A Sand County Almanac , “To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.”

Related Articles

Marina silva on brazil’s fight to turn the tide on deforestation.

By Jill Langlois

Solomon Islands Tribes Sell Carbon Credits, Not Their Trees

By Jo Chandler

With Sea Turtles in Peril, a Call for New Strategies to Save Them

By Richard Schiffman

More From E360

Scientists are trying to coax the ocean to absorb more co2, jared kushner has big plans for delta of europe’s last wild river, a nuclear power revival is sparking a surge in uranium mining, despite official vote, the evidence of the anthropocene is clear, at 11,500 feet, a ‘climate fast’ to save the melting himalaya, octopuses are highly intelligent. should they be farmed for food, nations are undercounting emissions, putting un goals at risk, as carbon air capture ramps up, major hurdles remain, how china became the world’s leader on renewable energy.

Should We Change Species to Save Them?

When traditional conservation fails, science is using “assisted evolution” to give vulnerable wildlife a chance.

Credit... Photo illustration by Lauren Peters-Collaer

Supported by

• Share full article

By Emily Anthes

Photographs by Chang W. Lee

This story is part of a series on wildlife conservation in Australia, which Emily Anthes reported from New York and Australia, with Chang W. Lee.

• Published April 14, 2024 Updated April 16, 2024

For tens of millions of years, Australia has been a playground for evolution, and the land Down Under lays claim to some of the most remarkable creatures on Earth.

It is the birthplace of songbirds, the land of egg-laying mammals and the world capital of pouch-bearing marsupials, a group that encompasses far more than just koalas and kangaroos. (Behold the bilby and the bettong!) Nearly half of the continent’s birds and roughly 90 percent of its mammals, reptiles and frogs are found nowhere else on the planet.

Australia has also become a case study in what happens when people push biodiversity to the brink. Habitat degradation, invasive species, infectious diseases and climate change have put many native animals in jeopardy and given Australia one of the worst rates of species loss in the world.

In some cases, scientists say, the threats are so intractable that the only way to protect Australia’s unique animals is to change them. Using a variety of techniques, including crossbreeding and gene editing, scientists are altering the genomes of vulnerable animals, hoping to arm them with the traits they need to survive.

“We’re looking at how we can assist evolution,” said Anthony Waddle, a conservation biologist at Macquarie University in Sydney.

It is an audacious concept, one that challenges a fundamental conservation impulse to preserve wild creatures as they are. But in this human-dominated age — in which Australia is simply at the leading edge of a global biodiversity crisis — the traditional conservation playbook may no longer be enough, some scientists said.

“We’re searching for solutions in an altered world,” said Dan Harley, a senior ecologist at Zoos Victoria. “We need to take risks. We need to be bolder.”

The extinction vortex

The helmeted honeyeater is a bird that demands to be noticed, with a patch of electric-yellow feathers on its forehead and a habit of squawking loudly as it zips through the dense swamp forests of the state of Victoria. But over the last few centuries, humans and wildfires damaged or destroyed these forests, and by 1989, just 50 helmeted honeyeaters remained, clinging to a tiny sliver of swamp at the Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve.

Intensive local conservation efforts, including a captive breeding program at Healesville Sanctuary, a Zoos Victoria park, helped the birds hang on. But there was very little genetic diversity among the remaining birds — a problem common in endangered animal populations — and breeding inevitably meant inbreeding. “They have very few options for making good mating decisions,” said Paul Sunnucks, a wildlife geneticist at Monash University in Melbourne.

In any small, closed breeding pool, harmful genetic mutations can build up over time, damaging animals’ health and reproductive success, and inbreeding exacerbates the problem. The helmeted honeyeater was an especially extreme case. The most inbred birds left one-tenth as many offspring as the least inbred ones, and the females had life spans that were half as long, Dr. Sunnucks and his colleagues found.

Without some kind of intervention, the helmeted honeyeater could be pulled into an “extinction vortex,” said Alexandra Pavlova, an evolutionary ecologist at Monash. “It became clear that something new needs to be done.”

A decade ago, Dr. Pavlova, Dr. Sunnucks and several other experts suggested an intervention known as genetic rescue , proposing to add some Gippsland yellow-tufted honeyeaters and their fresh DNA to the breeding pool.

The helmeted and Gippsland honeyeaters are members of the same species, but they are genetically distinct subspecies that have been evolving away from each other for roughly the last 56,000 years. The Gippsland birds live in drier, more open forests and are missing the pronounced feather crown that gives helmeted honeyeaters their name.

Genetic rescue was not a novel idea. In one widely cited success, scientists revived the tiny, inbred panther population of Florida by importing wild panthers from a separate population from Texas.

But the approach violates the traditional conservation tenet that unique biological populations are sacrosanct, to be kept separate and genetically pure. “It really is a paradigm shift,” said Sarah Fitzpatrick, an evolutionary ecologist at Michigan State University who found that genetic rescue is underused in the United States.

Crossing the two types of honeyeaters risked muddying what made each subspecies unique and creating hybrids that were not well suited for either niche. Moving animals between populations can also spread disease, create new invasive populations or destabilize ecosystems in unpredictable ways.

Genetic rescue is also a form of active human meddling that violates what some scholars refer to as conservation’s “ ethos of restraint ” and has sometimes been critiqued as a form of playing God.

“There was a lot of angst among government agencies around doing it,” said Andrew Weeks, an ecological geneticist at the University of Melbourne who began a genetic rescue of the endangered mountain pygmy possum in 2010. “It was only really the idea that the population was about to go extinct that I guess gave government agencies the nudge.”

Dr. Sunnucks and his colleagues made the same calculation, arguing that the risks associated with genetic rescue were small — before the birds’ habitats were carved up and degraded, the two subspecies did occasionally interbreed in the wild — and paled in comparison with the risks of doing nothing.

And so, since 2017, Gippsland birds have been part of the helmeted honeyeater breeding program at Healesville Sanctuary. In captivity there have been real benefits, with many mixed pairs producing more independent chicks per nest than pairs composed of two helmeted honeyeaters. Dozens of hybrid honeyeaters have now been released into the wild. They seem to be faring well, but it is too soon to say whether they have a fitness advantage.

Monash and Zoos Victoria experts are also working on the genetic rescue of other species, including the critically endangered Leadbeater’s possum, a tiny, tree-dwelling marsupial known as the forest fairy. The lowland population of the possum shares the Yellingbo swamps with the helmeted honeyeater; in 2023, just 34 lowland possums remained . The first genetic rescue joey was born at Healesville Sanctuary last month.

The scientists hope that boosting genetic diversity will make these populations more resilient in the face of whatever unknown dangers might arise, increasing the odds that some individuals possess the traits needed to survive. “Genetic diversity is your blueprint for how you contend with the future,” Dr. Harley of Zoos Victoria said.

Targeting threats

For the northern quoll, a small marsupial predator, the existential threat arrived nearly a century ago, when the invasive, poisonous cane toad landed in eastern Australia. Since then, the toxic toads have marched steadily westward — and wiped out entire populations of quolls, which eat the alien amphibians.

But some of the surviving quoll populations in eastern Australia seem to have evolved a distaste for toads . When scientists crossed toad-averse quolls with toad-naive quolls, the hybrid offspring also turned up their tiny pink noses at the toxic amphibians.

What if scientists moved some toad-avoidant quolls to the west, allowing them to spread their discriminating genes before the cane toads arrived? “You’re essentially using natural selection and evolution to achieve your goals, which means that the problem gets solved quite thoroughly and permanently,” said Ben Phillips, a population biologist at Curtin University in Perth who led the research.

A field test, however, demonstrated how unpredictable nature can be. In 2017, Dr. Phillips and his colleagues released a mixed population of northern quolls on a tiny, toad-infested island. Some quolls did interbreed , and there was preliminary evidence of natural selection for “toad-smart” genes.

But the population was not yet fully adapted to toads, and some quolls ate the amphibians and died, Dr. Phillips said. A large wildfire also broke out on the island. Then, a cyclone hit. “ All of these things conspired to send our experimental population extinct,” Dr. Phillips said. The scientists did not have enough funding to try again, but “all the science lined up,” he added.

Advancing science could make future efforts even more targeted. In 2015, for instance, scientists created more heat-resistant coral by crossbreeding colonies from different latitudes . In a proof-of-concept study from 2020, researchers used the gene-editing tool known as CRISPR to directly alter a gene involved in heat tolerance.

CRISPR will not be a practical, real-world solution anytime soon, said Line Bay, a biologist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science who was an author of both studies. “Understanding the benefits and risks is really complex,” she said. “And this idea of meddling with nature is quite confronting to people.”

But there is growing interest in the biotechnological approach. Dr. Waddle hopes to use the tools of synthetic biology, including CRISPR, to engineer frogs that are resistant to the chytrid fungus, which causes a fatal disease that has already contributed to the extinction of at least 90 amphibian species.

The fungus is so difficult to eradicate that some vulnerable species can no longer live in the wild. “So either they live in glass boxes forever,” Dr. Waddle said, “or we come up with solutions where we can get them back in nature and thriving.”

Unintended consequences

Still, no matter how sophisticated the technology becomes, organisms and ecosystems will remain complex. Genetic interventions are “likely to have some unintended impacts,” said Tiffany Kosch, a conservation geneticist at the University of Melbourne who is also hoping to create chytrid-resistant frogs . A genetic variant that helps frogs survive chytrid might make them more susceptible to another health problem , she said.

There are plenty of cautionary tales, efforts to re-engineer nature that have backfired spectacularly. The toxic cane toads, in fact, were set loose in Australia deliberately, in what would turn out to be a deeply misguided attempt to control pest beetles.

But some environmental groups and experts are uneasy about genetic approaches for other reasons, too. “Focusing on intensive intervention in specific species can be a distraction,” said Cam Walker, a spokesman for Friends of the Earth Australia. Staving off the extinction crisis will require broader, landscape-level solutions such as halting habitat loss, he said.

Moreover, animals are autonomous beings, and any intervention into their lives or genomes must have “a very strong ethical and moral justification” — a bar that even many traditional conservation projects do not clear, said Adam Cardilini, an environmental scientist at Deakin University in Victoria.

Chris Lean, a philosopher of biology at Macquarie University, said he believed in the fundamental conservation goal of “preserving the world as it is for its heritage value, for its ability to tell the story of life on Earth.” Still, he said he supported the cautious, limited use of new genomic tools, which may require us to reconsider some longstanding environmental values.

In some ways, assisted evolution is an argument — or, perhaps, an acknowledgment — that there is no stepping back, no future in which humans do not profoundly shape the lives and fates of wild creatures.

To Dr. Harley, it has become clear that preventing more extinctions will require human intervention, innovation and effort. “Let’s lean into that, not be daunted by it,” he said. “My view is that 50 years from now, biologists and wildlife managers will look back at us and say, ‘Why didn’t they take the steps and the opportunities when they had the chance?’”

Emily Anthes is a science reporter, writing primarily about animal health and science. She also covered the coronavirus pandemic. More about Emily Anthes

Chang W. Lee has been a photographer for The Times for 30 years, covering events throughout the world. He is currently based in Seoul. Follow him on Instagram @nytchangster . More about Chang W. Lee

Advertisement

93 Endangered Species Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best endangered species topic ideas & essay examples, ⭐ good research topics about endangered species, 👍 simple & easy endangered species essay titles, ❓ research questions about endangered species.

• Endangered Species: Modern Environmental Problem Some of the activities which cause danger to these species include the following; This refers to loss of a place to live for the animals and can also be expressed as the ecosystem or the […]
• Senegal River Delta: An Endangered Ecosystem According to Kotschoubey, the primary reason for the degradation of the area is the lack of water due to human activity. We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
• Zoos for Conservation of Endangered Species However, at the moment, they could be considered important scientific and research centers that investigate the current situation related to species and create conditions needed for their survival and further preservation.
• Environment: Endangered Species Global warming also increases the risk of storms and drought, affecting food supply, which may cause death to both humans and animals.
• Javan Rhinos: Wildlife Trading of Endangered Animals Out of the five rhino species, Javan rhinoceros is the most threatened species despite being in the ecosystem for millions of years, playing a crucial role in shaping the landscape by its feeding style.
• Endangered Silverback Gorillas Central Africa is the only place where mountain gorillas can be found, and the area of concern is confined to about 780 square kilometers of medium altitude forests northwest of Rwanda, southwest of Uganda, and […]
• The Santa Ana Sucker as an Endangered Organism The Santa Ana Sucker is one of the endangered fish species and it is found in the freshwaters of California. For instance, the International Union for Conservation of Nature listed the Santa Ana Sucker as […]
• Australia’s Endangered Diverse Marine Ecosystem Climate Change and population increase are becoming increasingly difficult to perceive distinctly, especially when the question is about the loss of a diverse marine environment.
• Can Cloning Technology Be Useful for Endangered Species? This is because animal cloning is popularly understood as the creation of a copy of another animal, much the same way as the capability to create twins but in the laboratory.
• Building a Sanctuary for Endangered Species It is proposed that the power generation in the island would utilize solar and wind resources with the intention of complying with environmental standards and establishing a pollution free green way of living on the […]
• Endangered Wild Equids by Patricia D. Moehlman The article is focused primarily on what can be done to try to save these species for the future and presents a plan that has been adopted by the IUCN The World Conservation Union.
• Endangered Species Act’s Effects on Real Estate S; the ability to obtain permits, entitlement, and approvals necessary for the development of real projects, and unexpected delays in the timing thereof; and implementation of laws as Endangered Species Act.
• Endangered Species Act for Ecosystem Management Despite the importance and significant impact of ESA, the policy is inherently flawed and remains criticized by experts who emphasize the need for an overhaul of the legislation. The ESA continues to function and serve […]
• Invasive and Endangered Species: Kudzu and Gopher Frog Kudzu was introduced from Asia in 1876 for fodder and prevention of soil erosion. It favors areas with ample sunlight and thrives in almost any type of soil.
• The Role of Zoos in Endangered Species Protection Adopting the endangered species requires the zoos to have sufficient funds to meet the needs of the animals and to maintain the facilities.
• Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, Endangered Species Some laws that cover the endangered species have been declared controversial in the way they place the species in the lists and the criteria used when removing the animals from the lists.
• Irish Red Deer as an Endangered Species The red deer spends most of the time feeding and it has the ability of maintaining fat reserves to use during the winter season when there is scarcity of food. The color of the red […]
• Environmental Studies: Saving Endangered Species One of the major concerns of the XXI century, the shrinkage of the Atlantic Forest, will inevitably trigger the disappearance of an even greater number of species populations.
• The History of the Endangered Languages and the Ways of Their Preservation The aim of this report is to discuss the problem of the endangered languages preservation taking into account the historic and cultural conditions of their development as well as the impact of the modern time. […]
• Endangered Species Issue in the United States Thus, the extinction of wolves in our ecosystem will results in an increase in the ungulates population comprising of unhealthy and undesired preys. With more wolves in an ecosystem, the number of ungulates will reduce.
• Should the Endangered Species Act Be Strengthened? The main reasons why the endangered species act act should be strengthened in United States are the act is the only piece of legislation that is responsible for the protection of flora and fauna and […]
• The Ocean’s Rarest Mammal Vaquita – An Endangered Species The vaquita looks like a curved stocky porpoise, and it is the smallest of all the porpoises in the world. This is a matter of concern and ought to be investigated if the survival of […]
• Vaquita – Endangered Species The vaquita looks like a star curved stocky porpoise and it is the smallest of all the porpoises in the world.
• Environmental Attitudes, Motivations, and Contingent Valuation of Nonuse Values: Endangered Species
• Irreversible Land Use and the Preservation of Endangered Species
• Service Providing Units, Existence Values, and the Valuation of Endangered Species
• Closing the Barn Door: Construction and Endangered Species Restrictions
• Engaging Fishers’ Ecological Knowledge for Endangered Species Conservation: Four Advantages to Emphasizing Voice in Participatory Action Research
• Public Preferences for Endangered Species Recovery: An Examination of Geospatial Scale and Non-market Values
• Endangered Species and Uncertainty: The Economics of a Safe Minimum Standard
• Keystone Species and the Importance of Raising Endangered Species Awareness
• Endangered Species and Natural Resource Exploitation: Extinction vs. Coexistence
• How Trophy Hunting Can Help Many Endangered Species
• Agricultural Water Security and Instream Flows for Endangered Species
• Endangered Species Conservation, Cultural, Economic, and Political Constraints
• Integrating Land Cover Modeling and Adaptive Management to Conserve Endangered Species and Reduce Catastrophic Fire Risk
• Funding and Support for People Responsible for Protecting Endangered Species
• Strategies for Improving the Cost-Effectiveness of Endangered Species Management
• Elephant Ivory and the Convention on International Trade In Endangered Species
• General Information About the Endangered Species Act in the United States of America
• Endangered Species and Environment: Human Moral Obligations
• Allocating Scarce Resources for Endangered Species Recovery
• Optimal Compensation for Endangered Species Protection Under Asymmetric Information
• Economic Growth and Threatened and Endangered Species
• Biodiversity and Endangered Species: Bald Eagle
• Takings, Compensation, and Endangered Species Protection on Private Lands
• Financial Issues and the Protection of Endangered Species
• Interspecies Management and Land Use Strategies to Protect Endangered Species
• Human Overpopulation and Its Effects on Endangered Species
• External Causes That Affect the Survival of Endangered Species
• Preemptive Habitat Destruction Under the Endangered Species Act
• Endangered Species: Keystone Law or Waste of Money
• Threatened Species and Endangered Species: What’s Different
• Charismatic Megafauna: How These Species Are Influencing the Endangered Species Act
• Black Rhino: Critically Endangered Species
• Allocating Conservation Resources Under the Endangered Species Act
• Horizontal Implementation, Divided Government, and Other Forms of Public Policy Involved With Clean Water Act and Endangered Species
• Cloning Animals and the Salvation of Endangered Species
• Habitat Conservation Plan: Endangered Species, Biodiversity, and Environmental Problems
• Conserving Endangered Species Through Regulation of Urban Development
• Perverse Incentives and Safe Harbors in the Endangered Species Act: Evidence From Timber Harvests Near Woodpeckers
• Animal Rights and Endangered Species
• Political, Economic, and Cultural Constraints That Limit the Application of Ecology in Conserving Endangered Species
• What Types of Species Are Included in the Endangered Species Act?
• What Is the Important Role of Zoos in the Conservation of Endangered Species?
• How Does the Endangered Species Act Protect the Environment?
• Endangered Species: Are Animal Rights Respected?
• How Many Endangered Animal Species Are There on the Planet?
• Are All Conservation Measures for Endangered Species Legitimate?
• What Kinds of Species Are Endangered?
• Can Minnesota Justify Taking the Grey Wolf off the Endangered Species List?
• What Changes Should Be Made to the Endangered Species Act?
• What Are the Causes and Effects of Endangered Species?
• What Are the Benefits of Endangered Species?
• Can Animal Cloning Save Endangered Species?
• What External Causes Affect the Survival of Endangered Species?
• How Overpopulation Caused Animal Extinction and Endangerment?
• Why Is It Important to Save Endangered Species?
• What Is the Convention on International Trade In Endangered Species?
• How Do Environmental Problems Affect Endangered Species?
• How Does Pollution Cause Endangered Species?
• How Do Endangered Species Affect People’s Lives?
• How Does Logging Affect Endangered Species?
• Is the Government Doing Enough to Protect Endangered Species?
• What Are the Cultural, Economic, and Political Constraints on Species Conservation?
• Why Is the Topic of Endangered Species Controversial in Modern Society?
• Why Does the US Have So Many Endangered Species?
• How Is the Recovery of Endangered Species?
• What Are the Tasks of the Endangered Species Working Group?
• How Many Species Are on the Endangered and Threatened List?
• What Are the Moral Obligations of Humans to Endangered Species?
• How Can Protect and Management of Endangered Plant Species?
• What Are the Facts About the Endangered Species of Grizzly Bears?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 27). 93 Endangered Species Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/endangered-species-essay-topics/

"93 Endangered Species Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 27 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/endangered-species-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '93 Endangered Species Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 27 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "93 Endangered Species Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/endangered-species-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "93 Endangered Species Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/endangered-species-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "93 Endangered Species Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/endangered-species-essay-topics/.

• Animal Testing Topics
• Extinction Research Topics
• Zoo Research Ideas
• Oceanography Research Ideas
• Coral Reef Essay Topics
• Landfill Essay Titles
• Hunting Questions
• Biodiversity Research Topics
• Animal Ethics Research Ideas
• Wildlife Ideas
• Ecosystem Essay Topics
• Botany Essay Titles
• Animal Welfare Ideas
• Medical Anthropology Paper Topics
• Deforestation Research Ideas

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Endangered Species — Circle of Life: Why Should We Protect Endangered Species

Circle of Life: Why Should We Protect Endangered Species

• Categories: Animals Endangered Species

About this sample

Words: 959 |

Published: Jan 15, 2019

Words: 959 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Works Cited

• Caro, T. M. (2007). Behavior and conservation: a bridge too far? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22(7), 394-400.
• Ceballos, G., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2002). Mammal population losses and the extinction crisis. Science, 296(5569), 904-907.
• Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544 (1973).
• Honey, M. (2019). Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change. WW Norton & Company.
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press.
• Palmer, C., Finnoff, D., Shogren, J. F., & Pfaff, A. (2005). Economic models of wildlife trade and conservation. In Conservation and globalization (pp. 33-61). Island Press.
• Primack, R. B. (2014). Essentials of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc.
• Rands, M. R., Adams, W. M., Bennun, L., Butchart, S. H., Clements, A., Coomes, D., … & Kapos, V. (2010). Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science, 329(5997), 1298-1303.
• Redford, K. H., & Sanderson, S. E. (2006). Endangered species, endangered knowledge, endangered environments. Endangered species research, 2(1), 1-5.
• Wagner, D. L. (2016). The plague of insects. Yale University Press.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Science Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 786 words

2 pages / 1259 words

2 pages / 881 words

4 pages / 1801 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Endangered Species

Fully aware that Southeast Asia contains six of the world’s 25 biodiversity hotspots, according to Nature magazine, Deeply concerned that Southeast Asian countries face the highest rate of habitat loss and have the highest [...]

In the early days, estimates of abundance of species were derived at large geographic scales through the administration of questionnaires to local people (Sugiyama and Soumah 1988). Scientists have unanimously agreed that for [...]

Endangerment is a bigger issue, one of them that includes the animals as well as the atmosphere where they interact with each other and live. To solve or elevate this problem every aspect related to this need to be studied. So, [...]

In March 2000, Coca Cola, under its Indian subsidiary Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Private Limited (HCCBPL), commenced operations at its bottling plant at Plachimada, in the southern state of Kerala. Over the next few years, [...]

For the past century, man has become innovative and he invented an energy which is very strong and reliable; this is the nuclear energy. At the start of the 21st-century man used nuclear energy to make nuclear bombs especially [...]

Niels Bohr was a man who was born in Copenhagen in the year 1885, on the 7th of October. Niels Henrik David Bohr was already in the clear to be a strong influence to the scientific community. Bohr was raised in an educated [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Research Paper

Endangered species.

Controversies about endangered species center on the value of species and the cost of protecting and preserving them and their habitats. There are debates about whether a particular species is going extinct and whether a particular policy actually does protect a designated species. Natural resource extraction (logging, mining, grazing), land and road development into wildlife habitats, and increased recreational use are all central issues in this controversy.

Species extinctions have occurred along with evolution. As plant and animal species evolve over time, some adaptations fail. As human population has increased, along with our hunting, farming, and foraging capacities, plant and animal species have begun to disappear faster. Pollution, climate change, and other significant environmental impacts can destroy species in sensitive niches in the food chain. In most cases species are endangered because of human impacts, but each case can present its own issues.

The evidence for human impact on species in the United States is often based on successful eradication programs for problem pests. Knowledge about species extinctions grew as environmentalists, hunters, researchers, and others observed extinctions and near-extinctions of several species, such as the buffalo and pigeon. Endangered species create a great concern for productive bioregions and ecosystem integrity. They can represent a significant part of the food web, and their loss can forever weaken other parts of that food web. Eventually, this great social concern for endangered species found its way into law, now one of the main tools used by advocates on either side of the debate.

Debate over Saving a Species

Debates arise about whether a species is in danger of becoming extinct. When a species is designated endangered, more debate ensues over whether it is worth saving and what governmental polices might help to preserve it. One consideration is the species’ habitat. Should activities that might benefit humans—such as mining, logging and grazing—be permitted? Should industrial and residential development continue? Should recreation be limited in wildlife areas?

Species Have Disappeared Naturally

As plant and animal species evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, some became extinct because they failed to adapt appropriately to the natural world. Scientists think that an increasing human population accelerated the process of extinction. Hunting, farming, pollution, climate change, and other human encroachments on species’ environments can destroy species in sensitive niches in the food chain. What to do about these activities and conditions is subject to debate.

The evidence for human impact on species in the United States is often based on successful eradication programs for problem pests. Knowledge about dwindling species has resulted from the observations of hunters, researchers, environmentalists, and others. Examples are the much smaller number of American bison and the extinction of the passenger pigeon, which has not been seen in the wild since the 1920s. Endangered species can be a great concern for bioregions and the ecosystem. They can be an important part of the food chain, and their loss can weaken other parts of that chain. Eventually, the concern for species becoming endangered found its way into laws that have become a subject of debate.

U.S. Laws Stir Controversy

The 1966 federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) sets the policy for species preservation. It is controversial and involves issues such as long-term leases of public lands, private property, and defensible science. Scientific controversies include ecosystem risk assessment, the concept of a species and how it has been interpreted for ESA application, and conflicts between species when individual species are identified for protection and others are not. One such controversy is over the preservation of the habitat for the spotted owl in Oregon, which prevented logging. Approximately 60 logging mills subsequently closed. There are current discussions about whether saving the owl’s habitat saved the bird (note: why was saving the bird important?). Endangered species designation can affects natural resource extraction such as logging and mining by prohibiting or limiting it.

Before a plant or animal species can receive protection under the ESA, it must first be placed on the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. The listing program follows a strict legal process to determine whether to list a species, depending on the degree of threat it faces. The law has levels of designation: An endangered species is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The federal government maintains a list of plants and animals native to the United States that have potential to be added to the federal list of endangered species.

Small but Important Step

When the U.S. Congress passed the Endangered Species Preservation Act, the law was deemed a small but important first step toward species preservation. The law allows listing of only native animal species as endangered and provided limited means for the protection of species so listed. The Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Defense were to seek to protect listed species and to preserve the habitats of such species. Land acquisition for protection of endangered species was also authorized by law. In 1969, another law was passed to provide additional protection to species in danger of worldwide extinction. The next law was the Endangered Species Conservation Act. This law bans the importation and sale of such species in the United States.

World Wakes Up to Problem

The 1969 act also called for an international meeting to adopt a convention on the conservation of endangered species, and in 1973 a conference in Washington led to the signing of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). It restricts international commerce in plant and animal species believed to be actually or potentially harmed by trade. After that conference, the U.S. Congress passed the ESA of 1973. This law combined and strengthened the provisions of earlier laws. It also had the effect of intensifying the controversy.

Its principal provisions follow:

• U.S. and foreign species lists were combined, with uniform provisions applied to both categories of endangered and threatened.
• Plants and all classes of invertebrates were eligible for protection, as they are under CITES.
• All federal agencies were required to undertake programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and were prohibited from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action that would jeopardize a listed species or destroy or modify its critical habitat.
• Broad prohibitions were applied to all endangered animal species, which could also apply to threatened animals by special regulation.
• Matching federal funds became available for states with cooperative agreements.
• Authority was provided to acquire land for listed animals and for plants listed under CITES.
• U.S. implementation of CITES was provided.

Although the overall thrust of the 1973 act has remained the same, amendments were enacted in 1978, 1982, and 1988. Principal amendments are as follows:

• Provisions were added to Section 7, allowing federal agencies to undertake an action that would jeopardize listed species if the action were exempted by a cabinet-level committee convened for this purpose.
• Critical habitat was required to be designated concurrently with the listing of a species, when prudent, and economic and other effects of designation were required to be considered in deciding the boundaries.
• The secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture were directed to develop a program for conserving fish, wildlife, and plants, including listed species, and land acquisition authority was extended to such species.
• The definition of species with respect to populations was restricted to vertebrates; otherwise, any species, subspecies, variety of plant, or species or subspecies of animal remained listable under the act.
• Determinations of the status of species were required to be made solely on the basis of biological and trade information, without any consideration of possible economic or other effects.
• A final ruling on the status of a species was required to follow within one year of its proposal unless withdrawn for cause.
• Provision was made for designation of experimental populations of listed species that could be subject to different treatment under Section 4, for critical habitat, and Section 7.
• A prohibition was inserted against removing listed plants from land under federal jurisdiction and reducing them to possession.
• Monitoring of candidate and recovered species was required, with adoption of emergency listing when there is evidence of significant risk.
• A new section requires a report of all reasonably identifi able expenditures on a species-by-species basis that were made to assist the recovery of endangered or threatened species by the states and the federal government.
• Protection for endangered plants was extended to include destruction on federal land and other taking when it violates state law.

Several amendments dealt with recovery matters:

• Recovery plans are required to undergo public notice and review, and affected federal agencies must give consideration to those comments.
• Five years of monitoring of species that have recovered are required.
• Biennial reports are required on the development and implementation of recovery plans and on the status of all species with plans.

Roll Call of the Imperiled

As of June 2010, a total of 1,220 species of animals and 798 species of plants in the United States were listed as threatened and endangered or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered. Forty-nine bird and animal species are currently proposed for listing, with 252 species in the United States designated as candidates for endangered status.

Over the years, 557 habitat conservation plans (HCPs) have been approved. According to law, a HCP outlines ways of maintaining, enhancing, and protecting a given habitat type needed to protect species. It usually includes measures to minimize adverse affects and may include provisions for permanently protecting land, restoring habitat, and relocating plants or animals to another area.

As of 2010, administrators approved 1,043 species for recovery plans. A recovery plan is a document drafted by a knowledgeable individual or group that serves as a guide for activities to be undertaken by federal, state, or private entities in helping to recover and conserve endangered or threatened species. Recovery priority is also determined in these plans. There can be differences of opinion as to how high a priority certain species should have in a recovery plan. A rank ranges from a high of 1 to a low of 18, and these set the priorities assigned to listed species and recovery tasks. The assignment of rank is based on degree of threat, recovery potential, taxonomic distinctiveness, and presence of an actual or imminent conflict between the species and development activities.

The regulations for protection of endangered species generally require protection of species habitat. As our population grows and development expands into natural areas, the protection of wildlife habitat becomes more important and more difficult. Preservation of riparian (water) migratory pathways, private conservation efforts, and applied scientific research all hold promise for species preservation. However, the need for wildlife habitat preservation will still impair the ability of some property owners use their land as they wish. The controversies around species preservation are likely to be around for a long time.

As human habitation extends into more wild areas, more species are likely to become extinct. Coral reefs are rapidly dying in many parts of the world and with them, many of the species that thrive there. There are strong world conservation efforts for species protection but also strong political conflict when it comes to that kind of preservation. As more information on human environmental impacts on marine environments develops, so too will lists of endangered species.

Also check the list of 100 most popular argumentative research paper topics .

Bibliography:

• Barrow, Mark V. Jr., Nature’s Ghosts: Confronting Extinction from the Age of Jeff erson to the Age of Ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
• “Endangered and Extinct Species Lists,” http://eelink.net/EndSpp.old.bak/ES.lists.html
• Goble, Dale D., J. Michael Scott, and Frank W. Davis, eds., The Endangered Species Act at Thirty. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.
• Office of Protected Resources, “Species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).” http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/
• Shogren, Jason F., and John Tschirhart, eds., Protecting Endangered Species in the United States: Biological Needs, Political Realities, Economic Choices. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, “Endangered Species Program.” June 2010. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/about/index.html
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, “TESS Database Species Report.” June 2010. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/
• Westley, Frances R., and Philip S. Miller, Experiments in Consilience: Integrating Social and Scientific Responses to Save Endangered Species. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Related Posts