Talk:Endangered species

(Arbitrary heading so this section goes below the Table of Contents)

Until recently, 50% of the world's mammal extinctions in the last 200 years occurred in Australia. Unfortunately the rest of the world is now catching up and the number has dropped to 25%. Since the settlement of Australia by Europeans in 1788, at least 50 species of mammals and birds and about 68 species fdfsfsfs of plants have become extinct in Australia, and there are probably many more that we know nothing about. At least ==

another 100 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs, and fish are now nationally listed as endangered, and over 500 plants. Invertebrates (creatures without internal skeletons) are not included in these statistics, as relatively little information is known about these animals. However, it is likely that there are hundreds [sic] under threat (a small few have been listed). Many of our listed species could become extinct within 10 to 20 years. The total number of species nationally listed in Australia as threatened is nearing 1500.

Additionally, 75% of our rainforests and 43% of our forests have been cleared – homes for many Australian species. There are also many important ecological communities under threat. For example less than 1% of the lowland native grasslands of south-eastern Australia remains intact.

Threatened Species Network http://www.wwf.org.au/tsn/TSN_about_plight.htm

[sic] comment added since number of endangered arthropods is more likely in hundreds of thousands or millions. Anlace 06:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Should be mentioned, that not all endangered species are listed

It should be mentioned that the listed species are only examples, so no one thinks that if something is not listed, it is therefore not endangered.hi --Kyknos 16:22, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good point. I'll put it in. Pollinator 17:52, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

why are crustaceans before fish and separate from "arthropods"?

If the categories of endangered animals are arranged in a quasi-systematic order, amphibians should be followed by fish, and then the invertebrates: crustaceans, arthropods, molluscs, etc.

Also surely crustaceans _are_ arthropods? Perhaps the original author mean _arachnids_, in which case the two spiders mentioned would fit under such a heading nicely. But arbritarily removing the shrimps to their own sections seems inappropriate.

Cheers,

Neale

Neale Monks

Biased or not? article

While humans do contribute to a certain number of animal extinctions, there are also many the naturally die on their own. There seems to be no mention in this article of contentious debate over which animals are truly endangered and whether human cause is truly to blame.

The article doesn't blame humans, as I read it. If there's something that seems problematic, why don't you try your hand at making it better? NickelShoe 12:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't be aggro. But maybe you were a bit touchy (top author). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Regeane Silverwolf (talk • contribs) 03:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC-7)

Just putting this out here; is it worth saving a species that is naturally dying out, not just due to human causes? Should the article mention that question, or something to the same affect? Animalexpertkid 5:42 PM Jan 13 2008

This comment is hardly worth responding to, but merely shows the lack of informed status of some. The present Holocene Mass Extinction is antropogenic in nature and is driving extinctions of species at roughly 1000 times the background level. If you are smart enough to identify that one species in a thousand going extinct, you probably can win a Nobel Prize. Anlace (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that the visibility and prevalence of extinction due to humans makes it nearly impossible to even detect natural extinctions? Nik-renshaw (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article is, from my reading, biased-- unabashedly so, I'd dare say. Such lines as, "[use of pesticides] demonstrates how humans have no consideration for the life of another species, and are more concerned about their own contentment and personal gain," and "there is certainly no reason for [animals] to be destroyed because of human dissatisfaction," are opinions. Granted, they are opinions to which many people subscribe. This does not, however, make them scientifically valid. TennysonXII (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the article is biased, and the 'impact on biodiversity' section in particular reads as both biased and wonky. Do we need to start sentences with 'basically'? Why don't we just identify species which have demonstrably gone extinct due to human influence? This is largely an issue of how humans deal with nature's issues: can we get a section on the spotted owl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teufelsdroch (talk • contribs) 05:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The Bactrian Camel is listed under the "vulnerable" category on this page, however on it's own page it is listed under the "critical" category.

---

Is "threatened species" the same as "vulnerable"? --zandperl 05:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

- The page references the IUCN Red List. Within the Red List there are several categories of threat status. These include Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered. See http://www.redlist.org for the latest list of threatened species. Flit 22:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Using the IUCN classifications, threatened and vulnerable can still mean the same thing. That is, All Endangered and Critically Endangered species also qualify as Vulnerable. "Threatened", however, is the more general term, so it's preferred when all three are being talked about, but otherwise the most specific term is better. We really need articles on each term specifically as it relates to IUCN usage.

The original posts are pretty old so I hope this still helps. —Pengo 05:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The Endangered Species Act

I noticed that Wikipedia does not have an article relating to the Endangered Species Act, which basically started this entire section in the first place. The act is also rarely mentioned or alluded to except in the controvercy section. I've already added the paragraph on the "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up" attitude, but I'm wondering if the act should be talked about here or if I need to take the time later to start a new article on the Endangered Species Act.

Zephae 04:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean we don't have an article? See Endangered Species Act. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Before, when I searched for the article specifically, I recieved no search results. That was my mistake.

Zephae 04:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What did you search for? There should probably be a redirect from what you searched for, in case other people have the same problem. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It may merely have been that I entered the name in incorrectly and failed to notice it. I just did a specific search and it brought me straight to the article. It must have been a typing error or some such mistake on my part. Zephae 18:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Critical population number

How many Animals Have to be left for the animal to be extinct?????

Well that depends on the species and the area it is living in, etc. It is impossible to tell here a certain number for all living species. Peter Maas 07:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the opposite of extinct is extant which means "still existing", if we look at this logically that means extinct is no longer existing. If we're to believe the article in Wikipedia about extinction then it's when there are no longer any living members of that species, if there are still existing animals but they cannot breed and recover etc. then the species has reached a population bottleneck. Crydwyn Oct 9th 2006.

If you mean 'how few animals must there be for the species to be doomed (one of the 'living dead'), then the answer is species-specific. Though 'one' is also a good answer. Population viability analysis is the science of estimating out how many. Flit 00:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

unlisted amphibeans

There are many amphibeans not listed that are highly endangered. Indeed most amphibeans (roughly 66%) are in serious trouble. Buckyball-z 06:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How ironic...

That the "Red List" as so many red links :P --SeizureDog 17:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

question about endangered species links (external)

I'm new with this site and was wondering if I did something wrong. I found another nice link about an endangered species site and posted it under external links. Is this task reserved for administrators? If I broke one of the wiki rules, let me know, and I'll abide by the rules. ~endangeredsp

good addition endageredsp, ive modified the blue link title for a little easier scanningAnlace 19:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Human intervention bad?

A component of the extinction issue not particularly discussed is the fact that ecosystems aren't static. They never have been and there shouldn't hold an expectation of a static world in the future. When the first animals developed out of single celled organisms, they irrevocably altered the then pristine blue-green algae ecosystem by consuming them...the world would never be the same.

Irreversible change has occurred at every great step of the evolution of life on earth; when the first animals walked on land, the entire environment was altered beyond recognition as land plants had to adapt mechanisms to prevent their consumption by herbivores. Imbalances in a ecosystem are ALWAYS temporary. If ecological history has proven anything, it is that life is a most adaptable force. Its survived asteroids, volcanoes, and it will survive mankind, in one form or an other. That is the key. Life in a hundred years may not be the same, however that’s not a bad thing in the least. Ecosystems shall evolve, and there is nothing awry in forcing such changes as human activity causes some species to die off.

Human alteration of our environment shouldn't be seen as ANY different from those creatures that fomented such change in the times that preceded us. Had there been environmentalist rats, mammals would have been destined to remain rats after the destruction of the dinosaurs, as opposed to conquering the world and developing into ever more complex creatures. Those environmentalist rats would have argued against evolution and development on the grounds that the world's ecosystems would be forever changed (and, gasp, species would die out during that change as new ones took dominance) if rats were to evolve into more complex mammals. Fortuneately, rats were stupid and obeyed the laws of nature. Nature is the most cruel, cold hearted force out there. It weeds out the weak in the face of the strong, and right now, the strong are humans and the weak are certain species. Rats, ants, and cockroaches are all benefiting from the human explosion, however other species aren’t.

Is that so wrong as to stifle the forces of nature to save something that shouldn’t be saved? In other words, why stop the inevitable change? Why is change bad?

It saddens me to see articles like this that make the assumption that life should remain static. Humans aren't any different than the first land creatures...we're conquering our environment as thoroughly as those first non-sea dwelling amphibians eventually did. Life shall adapt to the effects of humans on our world, as readily as it did to that of any of the other breakthroughs of life on this planet have. It's inevitable that some won't make the cut as life progresses.

Anyway, I fail to see such a counterpoint to conservation and protection of ‘endangered species’ in the article. Are there any objections to me presenting the counter argument? --71.104.157.179 05:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC) cr0ssfire

If you do, please keep in mind that the information needs to be verifiable...make sure to cite sources. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. All that needs to be cited is historic biodiversity changes throughout history and I'll be sure to include that in any counter-point to the article. Essentially a rebuttle to the assumed POV that shrinking biodiversity is bad. --Cr0ssfire 16:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, be careful. You can't just cite changes and then conclude that shrinking biodiversity is okay--that's original research. Make sure if you come to a conclusion, you have a source for the conclusion, not just a source for the evidence. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It bothers me when people try to argue this. Yes, throughout Earth’s history, species went extinct all the time. But in nearly every case here, these are NOT natually caused extinctions, but from humans instead. So what is wrong with humans trying to fix it? Never fear, the planet is FAR from static with the human population still increasing and resources still dwindling. If you want to keep it NPOV, then you could try to argue that's it's somehow good to live in a world with less variety and fewer wild species, but good luck with that. Also, keep in mind that the extinction of one species often impacts the survival of others, so you have to factor that into the equation. BuboTitan (Talk) 17:45, 02 October 2007 (UTC)

list

Why are all the species listed here? It's should be merged into the List of endangered species. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead picture

I see that the sea otter picture is the first picture in this article. It's of poor quality, and I don't think it does a good job of visually representing the article. I wonder if a picture of a better-known endangered species (I like this Siberian tiger one) would better represent the article. Does anyone agree with me? --Tewy 06:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have found these other pictures as well, tell me what you think:

You can also search Wikimedia Commons for different endangered species (such as here). --Tewy 07:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just going to be bold and change it myself. I suppose if anyone has any objections they can just change it back. --Tewy 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't object, in fact I kind of like it, but I wonder if you ought to rotate them from time to time. My personal favorite is the blue pic of the humpbacked whale though it needs cropping.Trilobitealive 01:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

One problem you seem to have put up a picture of a CRITICALLY endangered species, this page is for endangered species maybe I will change it to blue whale, its endangered... and famous mspence835

Introduction to More Stable Areas?

...While I realize that this isn't possible in certain cases, wouldn't it be a viable solution to simply relocate some populations of endangered animals from politically unstable (and uncooperative) native regions to places with a bigger, friendlier 'backyard', so to speak? For example, couldn't we theoretically introduce elephant, tiger and/or lion populations into the flats up here in Canada (say around Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba)? I'm not an expert (ergo my reason for asking), but I'd like to think that there's plenty of unpopulated space to go around up here, and it's not like anybody'd be really adverse to having the big lugs around (...Hell, half the time we have a FIT when animal control guys do the sensible thing and sedate/relocate bears that have come wandering into the city).

In theory this is possible, and it has been suggested in the conservation community. However I think we need to be careful with this. The animals that will be moved can cause problems in the new area. It would not be the first time animals or plants became endangered or even extinct after the introduction of an "alien" species. I personally think it is best to relocate African animals to a stable African area and only temporarily if the animal did never occor there naturally. For example, the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) recently approved a plan for the translocation of five northern white rhino from DRC’s Garamba National Park to a wildlife sanctuary in Kenya [1]. Peter Maas 07:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Too much of article text is lists

This article needs more substance and theory and less emphasis on lists. What do others think? Anlace 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, and a similar comment was made last July, above. Nobody seems to disagree. Let's get rid of the lists. It would be nice if we could give a short list of well-loved examples, but in a wiki environment, lists grow forever. Kla'quot 06:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've culled everything and put it here: Endangered species/List of representative species. Kla'quot 07:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Valid point and er... your page is gone :( mspence835 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.26.99 (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Recovered

"To date only 16 species have been delisted and recovered" This number is going to change fairly often. I checked the source sited and there is either 18 or 19 now recovered.

Captive breeding

I added a section on captive breeding. I don't understand why some scientists, conservationinsts, and lawmakers are against such programs. Often, captive breeding of many endangered species is actually illegal. Why would they rather let species go extinct, instead of having capitive breeding programs to save them? Grundle2600 17:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, "captive breeding programs" are generally not considered to include the pet trade, as you imply in the article. I don't know of any captive breeding programs themselves ever being outlawed, but they may be limited to zoos or conservation facilities (the article on captive breeding does not even give the pet trade a mention). So the counter argument to allowing animal trade (which is what I'm assuming you mean by "captive breeding") is simply. By allowing endangered animals to be bought and sold, there becomes a market to sell animal which have been captured and removed from their natural environment. This can lead to the wild populations suffering. In the extreme case of mountain gorillas, large families could be killed to capture a single baby gorilla for a zoo. Similarly, Spix's Macaw has gone extinct in the wild in recent years in part due to illegal poaching of wild birds which end up with private collectors — who are not all interested in cooperating with other keepers to breed the birds. You might want to read about CITES, which is the best example of a agreement to limit trade in endangered species internationally. I don't know about the Blue Anole and Green Anole (which you mentioned in the article), so I can't comment on them particularly, but it's hardly fair to say the green anole is surviving due to pet stores (while the blue struggles without them) when the two are very different species in different environments (and the Blue's range is restricted to an island!!). I can say that it's a more complex issue than just the allowing "captive breeding" by pet owners who trade in the animals. —Pengo 02:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

My source for comparing the blue anole to the green anole is at this link, which I cited in the article. Yes, the blue anole is restricted to one very small island. That's why it's especially important to have captive breeding programs for it. The article says that it's illegal to take them into captivity. That's a really bad policy. Captive breeding by the pet trade, if legal, would be the best way to save the blue anole from extiction.

What's wrong with letting the pet trade breed the blue anole in captivity? That would make their populaiton get bigger. Also, I don't understand why the pet trade doesn't count as captive breeding. The pet trade breeds far more animals than the conservationists do. It seems to me that some conservationists are more interested in complaining about endangered species, than in actually solving the problem. Why else would they be against captive breeding?

Also, I don't like the fact that you erased the stuff that I added to the article. I cited my source, and my point was valid. The whole point of wikipedia is that all points of view are supposed to be represented. You shouldn't erase something if it cites a valid source. Grundle2600 13:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrestrial pitcher

This is from the article on the Golden toad, which is now extinct:

"On April 15, 1987, Crump recorded in her field diary that she counted 133 toads mating in one "kitchen sink-sized pool" that she was observing. Five days later, she witnessed the pools in the area drying, which she attributed to the effects of El Niño-Southern Oscillation, "leaving behind desiccated eggs already covered in mold." The toads attempted to mate again that May. Of the 43,500 eggs that Crump found, only twenty-nine tadpoles survived the drying of the forest's ground."

If she had taken those 133 toads into captivity and bred them, they would not be extinct. But she didn't do that. Why not? Why did she allow them to go extinct?

What's wrong with captive breeding programs?

And even if it is carried out by the pet trade, what's wrong with that? Captive breeding by the pet trade means that the population gets bigger, and that prevents it from going extinct.

Should we let the blue anole go extinct, or, should we allow some of them to be taken into captivity for a breeding program? These are the two choices. Which choice is better? Grundle2600 15:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Other other issue with captive breeding is that a feral population, even of blue anoles, could become an invasive pest outside of their natural range. Also in order to start the breeding program you would have to take individuals from the wild to begin with, and for a successful population you generally need to take a fair number of individuals. When the species is already so rare, you want to maximize success and be careful of inbreeding, and track where all individuals are. Perhaps if there were larger numbers it would make more sense to utilise the pet trade. But it has to be balanced by the fact that once you can buy them, people would poach them from the wild. The article you've cited actually stresses the importance of keeping the lizards on the island, if possible.

The choices you've presented are a false dichotomy. Perhaps the island is their best chance for survival, and if they were brought into captivity, it would certainly be a conservation program, not the pet trade, that would be their best bet. And the article doesn't say that the lizards should be sold as pets, as you'd implied.

I removed it for the reasons stated above (i.e. the comparison between blue and green anoles is such a tenuous one) even if cited. Certainly captive breeding and individuals can help endangered species, but I think it would be possible to come up with a lot better example. Maybe the Wollemi pine or Land lobster might be better examples to focus on. Or Amphibian Ark (amphibianark.org). —Pengo 17:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I still think the pet trade should be classified as captive breeding, but I won't put it back into the article. I asked the owner of the local pet store if his green anoles were wild caught or bred in capitivity, and he said they were bred in captivity. It really doesn't take that many as a starting point. If they could take just 30 blue anoles from the wild, that should be enough to start a captive breeding program to save them. And they could even return the 30 (or even more) back to the wild after a few years of captive breeding. Grundle2600 18:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

IUCN Red List Endangered species

There is a slight discrepancy on the "Animals of least concern" The Hawaiian Hawk "near threatened", not "least concern". A bit anal but it should be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breenie (talk • contribs) 11:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted. I've removed the Hawaiian Hawk from the list entirely. —Pengo 12:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Smallpox

I suggest that someone who can edit add smallpox as an example of Extinct in the Wild. It's certainly more familiar to the general public than the bird listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.220.248 (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Co-endangered and Co-extinction?

Shouldn't there be a sub article in the main, on coendangered species? Or something concerning it?

--97.76.33.13 (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Santiago

Umm, sure. I guess it could be included. We do have an article on coextinction, which seems to be a more common term than coendangered. The extinction article seems to be the main place for causes and types of extinction. —Pengo 14:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

IUCN Red List Endangered species status

In the bulleted list of varying stasuses for species, each phrase capitalizes the first letter of the first word, because of its position in a list, I presume, but "Least Concern" has both words capitalized. I just wanted to double check that these statuses are not normally capitalized, and that "concern" should indeed be lower-case? Nik-renshaw (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

From the heading "IUCN Red List Endangered species"

Apparently there are seven abbreviation to the endangered species list: EX, EW, CR, EN, VU, NT, and LC. Under "IUCN Red List Endangered species," it supposedly lists all of the ICUN categories, when, in fact, it only lists six. There is no mention of what NT stands for. Could someone please add that? (NT=Near Threatened) Thanks. --RACiEP (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

edit_x2: I edited it. But if it's not right, you can change it. --RACiEP (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Science and Conservation

Research has shown that the mouse is not taxonomically different from the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse and the US Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed removing the Preble’s mouse from the endangered species list based on this information (Minteer & Collins, 2005, p. 333). This example brings into consideration the role of science in determining the maintenance of a species. It brings into questions whether scientific evidence should be the only resource used to support conservation of biodiversity. --from about midway through the article.

I find this to be a very strange statement. That science is self-questioning and self-correcting is why it is so successful as a reliable source of knowledge. The fact that scientists have changed their opinions on a particular question doesn't mean conservationists should suddenly doubt the scientific method. But more to the point, is there a reliable source that actually thinks someone other than a scientist is qualified to delineate taxa? --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Just that? I think that whole section reads like someone's high school paper was put into the wiki. "This example of the coqui frog demonstrates how humans have no consideration for the life of another species, and are more concerned about their own contentment and personal gain." Shadowstar (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Minteer & Collins, 2005, p. 333 reference refers to the following paper: Ben A. Minteer, James P. Collins (2005) 'Why we need an “ecological ethics”'. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment: Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 332-337. I haven't gotten a copy to check yet though. Really this whole section should be rewritten. --I forgot to sign this initially, but I am Beastinwith (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Broken link

The link to New Scientist is broken, and I cannot edit the page to fix it. The correct link is http://www.newscientist.com/topic/endangered-species —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ns webmaster (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

VIDEO: SAVE THEM TO SAVE US - External Link Suggestion

Please view this film from an online youth magazine as I would like to submit it as an external link. Thanks Willsmore (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep to the facts Ma'am.

This entry is rambling and biased. "all humans should be conservationist" is opinion. Much of the entry is opinion and voiced as opinion. "Conservation organizations should be formed" is opinion, weak and meaningless. Inform your readers with confirmed facts and they can form their own opinions. If you want to effect rational and beneficial change - give people the big picture and they are more likely to choose correctly. The last Tasmanian wolf was killed by a farmer trying to protect his sheep. He didn't know it was one of the last ones - or he almost certainly have acted differently. The same has occurred many times. Opinion rarely helps - because it sounds like opinion - and everyone has a different one. We can agree on facts. Keep it to that and you make a stronger argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangecow (talk • contribs) 16:11, 21 March 2009

Strangecow, you couldn't be more right. Comments about this article not being written from a NPOV have been around on this discussion page for some time now but nothing is changing in the article. It needs a huge clean up, but I'm setting the ball rolling by removing the sentence 'everyone should ba a conservationist in some way.' Hopeuflly, others will follow suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.218.95 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Extremely biased "Impact on Biodiversity" and "Helping preserve endangered species" sections: high school opinion paper?

Both these sections are full of personal opinions, generalizations and un-sourced claims. I'd go as far as to say that at least half of these two sections is made up of opinion statements. I've already removed some of the most obviously biased statements, like the "[...] demonstrates how humans have no consideration for the life of another species, and are more concerned about their own contentment and personal gain" previously mentioned. But many biased/un-sourced/opinion statements remain which can't simply be deleted without damaging the article's logical coherence.

Also notice that the citations are also in MLA format rather than footnotes. This leads me to suspect that this was copied & pasted from a high school essay.

[I know I'm mostly just adding the the complaints pile here, but at least I've fixed a bit of it and narrowed my complaints to two specific sections, I guess...]

Examples of offending statements:

"Simply because the swans were not normally living there does not mean it is not part of their natural habitat, and there is certainly no reason for them to be destroyed because of human dissatisfaction."

"The fact is that the preservation of all species is necessary for human survival. " [This is a pretty big claim to leave un-sourced...]

"This example demonstrates how humans must take into consideration the wellbeing of the animal even before they perform research to help conserve the species."

"It is important for humans to help maintain all species in the world and not deter their development."

1st sentence of article?

What is the purpose of the sentence that appears preceding the article text? It looks like an error to me, but I'll leave it for someone else to decide. Ed8r (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

hiya i am mollie and your site has been very use full with my homework thank you i will continue to use your site for any other qweries i have thank you

yours faithfully mollie-mae ,11 years old —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.162 (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep Them ALL Safe!

You know what I hate? That so many of everyone's favorite animals are endangered. Take me for example. Tiger: endangered. Giant Panda: endangered. Ocelot: endangered. Cougar: endangered. Asian Elephant: endangered. You see where I'm going here. I think someone should found a website so that everyone can see which animals are endangered and why. For instance, Bengal Tigers are endangered because of hunting and home reduction. Also, the Giant Panda has the same problem. We, all animal enthusiasts, should help. Take my message to heart, you'll know there.24.10.151.21 (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)