The Instigator
Joshua213P
Pro (for)
The Contender
robin.murphy1999
Con (against)

Critically Endangered Animals should be sent to sanctuaries

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
robin.murphy1999 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 254 times Debate No: 106218
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Joshua213P

Pro

I will be arguing that critically endangered animals (close to extinction) should be sent to animal sanctuaries.

Structure
Round 1 - Acceptance

Round 2 + 3 - Constructive
Round 4 - Rebuttal (no new arguments)
Round 5 - Conclusion and Closing Statements

Definitions
Sanctuary - a nature reserve controlled by humans that is similar to the animal's natural habitat

Critically Endagered - a species facing high risk of extinction in the wild

Good Luck!
robin.murphy1999

Con

I do not agree.
I accept that your thinking is predicated on the humanitarian notion that people should collectively take responsibility for the calamity"s befalling minorities but that should not now apply to other species.
Debate Round No. 1
Joshua213P

Pro

Their Benefit and Importance
According to Scientific American, tons of wildlife reserves are actively trying to increase dwindling populations of endangered animal species. Several across North America participate in the ‘Association of Zoos and Aquarium’s Species Survival Plan program, which, by the name, you can preempt is a movement for the preservation of wildlife species. The SSP and related programs have been reported to bring back many critically endangered species back into the wild, as the objective is to reintroduce them back into their natural habitats. These species include black-footed ferrets, red wolves, and California Condors.

But why is this needed? Why do humans need to take accountability for the decrease in population of animal species? This is because, as you can see in my third source, almost all of the major reasons for animal extinction are because of humans. Without sanctuaries, animals simply cannot fight for survival on their own. While poaching and habitat destruction laws have been put in place, I believe that nature reserves currently conserve the most endangered species right now. This is because humans will be humans. Illegal poaching is extremely prominent today, and trees are constantly being cut down for pencils, paper, and woodwork.

However, let’s go into more depth about illegal poaching. According to my fourth source (WWF), illegal poaching and wildlife crime has spiked over the years, and those found guilty are given light sentences. In fact, this new trend threatens to overturn years of wildlife conservation. Rhino poaching has gone from 13 (2007) to 1,004 (2013), which is a 7,700% difference. The exploitation of elephants and tigers is also well known.

We need wildlife sanctuaries and zoos because this is what endangered species in the wild are facing up against. The legal system simply isn’t enough to prevent certain animals from going extinct, and sanctuaries around the world have taken the initiative to try and fix humanity’s impact on wildlife. This is why, as I’ve explained earlier, it’s so important for such sanctuaries to exist. Not only would several animal species most likely suffer without them (would the black-footed ferrets ever have returned to wildlife with a healthy population?), but it’s important for humans to be responsible for other humans’ actions.

(1) https://www.scientificamerican.com...
(2) http://www.visitorguard.com...
(3) https://speakupforthevoiceless.org...
(4) https://www.worldwildlife.org...
robin.murphy1999

Con

I see, as I said before and as you stated Just now your thinking is predicated on the humanitarian notion that people should take responsibility for another species extinction " "almost all of the major reasons for animal extinction are because of humans". I am willing to accept that is true and that in regards to members of our own species we do have a responsibility to accommodate minorities and offer assistance in times of need, institutions do it all the time like with automatic scholarships to native Americans at universities or higher wages for females in a predominately male occupation.

There are various causes for a species extinction - natural forces, Human interaction, Hunting, Loss of habitat, Pollution, Introduced Species. Earth has also already witnessed some of the largest extinctions even before the dawn of humanity " the Cretaceous, Triassic, Permian, Ordovician-Silurian and the Late Devonian mass extinction. Regardless of which cause brought a species to becoming endangered the reality still remains, that there is a cause for their endangerment, whether it be us humans, the earth its self or other creatures

Why try and save a species that cannot naturally exist anymore, is your wish to have these creatures live their entire lives in captivity, in zoos, in reserves. That may work for a few species that do not require much maintenance or freedom, but why expend the effort? Is it because of your own guilt that we could not coexist? That their near extinction was entirely our fault and so forcing them to live is redemption?

The human causes for endangered species are due to hunting, loss of habitat, pollution, and human interaction. The only way to revive a species is to either eliminate the threat to its survival or relocate it to another place where that threat is eliminated. Hence the idea for zoos and reserves, but how long does it last. Take the black rhino to a reserve to avoid poaching and the poachers illegally enter anyways. Take the last few thylacine to a zoo and they die from captivity. Therefore relocation won"t ever be successful as long as the threat still exists. And these threats are impossible to eradicate. According to the World Bank and CIA the global birthrate is approximately 19 per 1000 humans and climbing, is it possible to convince humans that the Siberian tiger doesn"t have an incredibly beautiful pelt? Is it possible to convince oil companies to stop drilling along whale migration routes? Is it possible to convince another species to stop hunting the platypus to extinction?

Perhaps a better way of looking at it is simple " EVOLUTION, those that can survive will survive and those that can"t die out. Aren"t humans a part of this natural law as well? Thousands of species have been fighting against each other since the dawn of life on earth. Hundreds of thousands have gone extinct due to completion and natural forces. Is human interaction any different? when it comes to the survival of other species we must not interfere, their state (population) is due to their own actions and inability to adapt to new environments, even if that environment was created by us, even if their predators are human, being hunted to extinction is something even ancient species have had to endure. We have no right to interfere in the course of natural selection lest we begin selective mutation ourselves.

What do mean by this? Well, what happens to whales raised in captivity? A zealous environmentalist such as your self should know the answer to this question very well. They deteriorate, they live shorter less fulfilling lives, creatures that used to roam hundreds of kilometers confined to a tank no bigger than a swimming pool. Lions that ruled the savannah like a king now rolling over for its next meal? They become domesticated, think about it, your cute little chiwawa is actually a descendant of the noble Wolf, which now lives its life constantly shaking due to its mutated form, now more prone to heart disease and killed by a single bite of chocolate? Is this your intention? To feel better about yourself you would force the wild into docility? clip their claws and call them poochie?

just calm down my dear, it wasn't your fault their extinct.
They were just destined to die, and you were destined to live.
If you really wanna be mad at someone.
Blame the god that set the rules for this game we call life.

http://www.ducksters.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Joshua213P

Pro

The Contender argued that we should not try and save a species if it can no longer exist in its natural habitat. This is simply illogical. What if this animal provides some sort of service to humans or the world? An analogy would be bees and agriculture; in several scenarios, species that sanctuaries try to save, in our perception, need to be saved. It doesn’t even end there. What would happen to their food chain? The effects of this animal’s loss in their ecosystem could lead to the further extinction of several other animal, plant and insect species. As there are several more reasons, I advise you to look at my first source.

While you use evolution to support your argument, this, despite your perception is subjective.

I also question the validity of “The only way to revive a species is to either eliminate the threat to its survival or relocate it to another place where that threat is eliminated.” Firstly, the main way these sanctuaries aim to reintroduce select animals back into their habitat is by breeding; the objective is to set a sustainable population for critically endangered species. Eliminating the animal’s habitual threat is commonly a legal matter (poaching laws, etc.), so this can’t be used against nature reserves. While I agree this is an issue, I don’t believe it deflates the purpose of an animal sanctuary (also, the thylacine is extinct, so reserves couldn’t try to save it anyways).

I disagree; with Google searches I’ve concluded that it’s simply not as easy (and in fact extremely unlikely) for poachers to ‘illegally enter’ wildlife reserves for the purpose of hunting animals. I couldn’t find any online, and, according to Wikipedia, nature reserves are “protected areas”. With the resources available I find your argument illogical and not well-backed.

Finally, your whale point doesn’t have anything to do with this debate. I’ve seen SeaWorld documentaries, sure, but that doesn’t fit with my definition (see opening statement) of a sanctuary. A pool in a stadium with a plethora of cheering humans is not similar to it’s natural habitat at all. The wildlife reservations I’m arguing for can clearly be observed, again, in r1. These sanctuaries are big, meet all of the species requirements, and almost have no real ramification on the animal’s growth or lifestyle (your captivity point).

Sources:
(1) http://simplyeducate.me...
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.