8323325

Endangered Animals: Why They Need Help

Even though some people believe that the United States should be investing in more
necessary issues, the U.S. should be investing more in helping endangered animals because
by doing so it will help decrease the overall extinction rate around the world, Animals have
a big impact on agriculture and farming, and most ecosystems depend on animals to keep
them going.
The United States government should invest more in helping endangered animals
because the extra help could lower the overall extinction rate. Over the recent years the animal
extinction rate has increased by significantly high numbers. Although extinction happens
naturally in the wild at a standard rate of 5 species a year, Scientists estimate we're now losing
species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every
day. In sum the extinction rate of the worlds animal species is increasing at a rate that scientists
cant even keep up with the lost. As figure 1 shows, Endangethe rate of Extinction in the 1920s
started to rise well above the standard background rate it once held. (Vassen, Frank. The
Extinction Crisis). sing in step with the product of population growth times the growth in
affluence.

8323325

This shows how the current work being put into helping is not enough to slow the process of

extinction. So if more is invested by the U.S. government it could possibly reduce the rate.
Another way the extinction rate is negatively impacted is by human interaction. Some
people fail to realize that the way they treat the environment affects it a lot more than they think.
Conservation experts have already signalled that the world is in the grip of the "sixth great
extinction" of species, driven by the destruction of natural habitats, hunting, the spread of alien
predators and disease, and climate change. This evidence defends that human interaction in
environments have a negative effect on animal life. Therefore the government should increase
endangered animal awareness among U.S. citizens to help prevent any further damage on the
already high extinction rate.
The last way the extinction rate is negatively impacted is by how the U.S. is currently
handling and dealing with the situation. This may not sound like a negative impact but what the
U.S. is doing is not enough. For example The National Wildlife Federation works to maintain
healthy populations of fish, wildlife, and plant species through promoting broad-based

8323325

conservation efforts such as State Wildlife Action Plans. These current efforts of help are not as
efficient as they could be says Frank Vassen from the National Wildlife Federation. Therefore it
is said that the U.S. government should invest more on helping with this issue and by helping
with the extinction rate the U.S. would be helping with the overall stopping of endangered
species.
In order for the U.S. to help and invest in endangered species, the U.S. first must know
what their doing wrong that's causing extinction. All around the world humans have been the
biggest factors in animal extinction due to mass pollution. Pollution is the spread of waste in an
environment which substances substantially harm individual species metabolisms. This waste
ranges from things like simple street trash to chemicals from industrial factories, all made by
man(Jowit, Juliette). This quote explains how careless humans can be with their waste in the
environment. So in order to reduce pollution the government would need to invest in
eco-friendly was to rid waste.
Another way the U.S. has negatively impacted the issue is the act of Illegal and legal
hunting around the country. Hunting has been a worldwide problem all over which in some cases
leads to specie reduction. The studies, appearing today in the journal Science, conclude that
after early humans migrated into Australia and the Americas, the heavyweight animals of these
new- continents were driven to extinction within a few thousand years. Even though this piece
of evidence refers to the beginning of time it gives a clear explanation of how human hunting can
deplete a species out of existence.
The last way the U.S. has had a negative impact on the topic is the allowances of invasive
species on American soil. The introduction of alien species to a new environment can have

8323325

major dissociative effects to an entire ecosystem and be a key driver in species extinctions.
Moreover, the introduction of a foreign species to a new habitat can cause a number of distinct
and pronounced adverse ecological impacts ( Michael C Hogan ). With invasive species moving
in on other ecosystems and habitats they become competition to the native species in the area.
How this causes extinction the invasive specie could possibly be stronger than the natives or may
become a major predator. Therefore in summary the U.S. has done more negative than positive
in the contribution of endangered animal species.
The last argument I would like to point out is that most ecosystems depend on animals to
keep them going, therefore the government should invest more money to try and keep our
animals alive in order for us to survive. All animals in any ecosystem have important parts to
keep the system going. All animal and plant life is part of a complex ecosystem that also
includes our lands and our waters. Remove one or more of those parts and you damage the
ecosystems, sometimes beyond restoration. This piece of evidence shows the importance of
animals in ecosystems and if they were not apart of it the whole system could break down. In
sum the government should increase the amount of money they are currently putting in in order
to keep the animals alive and safe.
Another way the environment depends on animals is keeping the destruction of
ecosystems from happening. Most ecosystems around the world are very fragile due to the lack
or disappearance of some animal species. If the animals that depend on the plants die, any
animals that depends on those animals will die and so on and so on ( Seth Phillips ). According
to Seth Phillips removing a small piece from an ecosystem like an animal for instance, can

8323325

slowly but surely deplete an ecosystem. In conclusion if the government would use more money
for issues like this animal species would not go extinct.
The last supporting ideal i would like to bring to your attention is the impact the
environment has on humans. Even though we may not live in a specific environment they all
affect us in some way. Matt Riley from Immune-Health says We are living in the environment
and as a result it affects our health. The elements of knowing what is environment as it relates to
our health are our food, air, and water. In reason if the environments that we live in are harmed
we to will be harmed. Therefore in order for the environments to be safe and healthy the
government should invest more money in keeping endangered animals alive, so we as humans
can survive.
Many other sources however, argue that the U.S. government should invest in more
important issues than endangered animals. Marshall, Michael from BBC stated sure, it will be
sad if there aren't any more cute pandas on the planet, but it's not like we depend on them.
Besides, surely it's more important to take care of humans who, let's face it, have their own
problems to worry about than to spend millions of dollars preserving animals. Marshall is
explaining how we have bigger issues in life than worrying about animals that don't even benefit
us. What this argument fails to consider is the after mass of losing a species and resources that
species provide us.\
Another view of disagreement on this topic is how saving endangered animals takes away
from museums. A new exhibition at the Natural History Museum to open later this month will
attempt to show how rather than being destructive, extinction can help to increase biodiversity by
allowing new species to evolve into the niches left by the animals that die out. This piece of

8323325

evidence shows how most major museums make a profit off of finding extinct species in the
world. In the example above some museums create big exhibits that allow people to learn more
about that species. What this argument overlooks is these exhibits only last a short time until the
profit stops. So the question is, is it really worth losing an entire species to make a quick buck for
something that will only last a few weeks.
Another counter argument addressing the topic is without extinction we humans would
not exist. New species evolved to fill the space left by extinct species and increase the
biodiversity of our planet. In fact, humans- along with a host of other mammals- wouldn't be at
all if dinosaurs hadn't gone extinct [ source: Center of Biological Diversity ]. This evidence
explains how without extinction the planet wouldn't be how it is now including humans. This
view seems convincing at first, but what is not realized is that this type of mass extinction is not
a one time thing it's very possible of happening again, meaning our race be depleted.
In conclusion the U.S. should be investing more in helping endangered animals because
by doing so it will help decrease the overall extinction rate around the world, animals have a big
impact on agriculture and farming, and most ecosystems depend on animals to keep them going.

8323325

Works Cited
Gray, Richard, and Josie Ensor. "Extinction Is Not Always a Bad Thing, Say Scientists." The
Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 27 Jan. 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.
Hogan, C. Michael. "Causes of Extinction." The Encyclopidia of Earth. Kevin J. Caley, 13 June
2014. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.
Jowit, Juliette. "Humans Driving Extinction Faster than Species Can Evolve." The Guardian.
N.p., 7 Mar. 2010. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.
Marshall, Michael. "What Is the Point of Saving Endangered Species?" BBC. N.p., 14 July 2015.
Web. 11 Nov. 2015.
Ridley, Matt. "When Species Extinction Is a Good Thing." When Extinction Is a Good Thing.
N.p., 9 Feb. 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.
Vassen, Frank. The Extinction Crisis. Frank Vassen, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.