Animals and the Risk for Extinction
Saving Endangered Animals
Protecting Endangered Species
In this country we are faced with multiple endangered animals. Economist say these animals are scarce and it is in correlation with private property laws in the countries (Gwartney, 2013). To understand this, one must understand what private property laws does (Gwartney, 2013). In this paper I will be explaining this situation using the endangered rhino’s in Africa. This is an issue that goes beyond endangered species, I am here to explain the truth about how animals really become endangered.
Looking at scarcity one must understand where it started. The discussion of wealth and poverty starts with the first serious student of economics, Plato quoting Socrates told use both wealth and poverty are bad for society. Wealth and poverty, which brings one luxury, idleness, and revolution, and the other illiberality and the evil of the bad workmanship in addition to revolutions (M.A.Clarck, 2002). This indicates that having both only can bring trouble to our society, in agreement with this statement our economy suffers for the wealthy only trying to stay wealth and the poor trying to get wealthy. Which can lead to destruction of our world.
Rhinos are like a cow or like a large bull weighing at 3000 pounds (Gwartney, 2013)These animals are considered very dangerous to humans and valuable to people as well (Gwartney, 2013). The black rhino can sell for $30,000 but hunting them is illegal (Gwartney, 2013). This only makes poachers want to hunt them more and caused them to be assisted by local people in the communities.
In Africa, private ownership of rhinos is prohibited, this is being the problems lay in my opinion (Gwartney, 2013). If you make it illegal to hunt and sell rhino parts, there must be some way to protecting them (Gwartney, 2013). The basic problem of wildlife conversation is difficult of deciding who owns what in the live population. This can the issue with rhino ownership in Africa, because the cost to maintain these animals are high. Finding the balance is key in protecting these animals from getting to dangerously low numbers. If proper rights were in different levels, we can have safe havens for the Rhino.
In California, during the 19th and 20th century, wildlife was at it lowest points. Going from the high 25 to 30 million, it went down to 2,000 by the 19th century (Lueck, 2000). With big game species like the deer and elk, etc. declined to their lowest levels ever (Lueck, 2000). The state had to figure out a new way to save these species, and with bag limits, trade restrictions and wildlife refuges. Today these nearly all these animals have recovered (Lueck, 2000). They created two basic types of species conversation policies.
- The first is ESA approach: uses land use restrictions to lock in existing habitat and penalize landowners for adverse alterations. This means owners cannot attempt to harm an animal that is protected by the ESA laws even if it’s on their property (Lueck, 2000).
- Before the ESA: pay to protect the program in which landowners are compensated for providing habitat. Having this helps protect those not governed by the ESA, which is good to have because not all endangered species are known (Lueck, 2000).
In comparing these systems, they both play vital roles in protecting endangered species. We know neither is perfected and if we are working to make progress in the protection of these animals we are doing great. Having the pay to protect system does little to change the basic system of the rights of the land. This means that if these animals end up on private property the owner has the right to harm and kill these animals. The rhino being valuable only encourages these people to kill them for a profit. To gain the full protection of the rhino in Africa, we need to prohibit killing on private property as well as a pay system for people that protect them. This will assist with scarcity of this species in that country.
In our world we seek wealth, we are motivated by greed and not caring for the planet we live in. We pollute our oceans, pollute our air and even kill animals for money to gain the things we look at as success (Block, 1998). According to the environmentalist Renate Kroisa (1998), they would rather rape out environment and make a lot of money for themselves than not rape the environment, clean up, and later on …. stay competitive. The mills are here to make a lot of profit, and they’re making a lot of profit at the cost of our environment. In agreement with this statement, rhinos and other endangered species are suffering at our need for greed. If we can place laws on this problem, we can help save this species from extinction.
In conclusion, humans show the need for money and things that do not last. We are wasteful and are willing to harm the environment that keeps up alive. Killing animals for profit needs to stop. The rhino being endangered is unnecessary and not helping with the circle of life. So far with the ESA laws in place we are making the attempt to fix this issue, but is it enough, we need to place this species on the endangered species for the protection of them. We also need a wildlife reserve for the cubs that lose parents to poaching. To take it a step further we need stronger penalties for criminals that don’t follow the laws.References
Block, W. (1998). Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights. Journal of Business .
Gwartney. (2013). Economics Private and Public Choice 15th Edition .
Lueck, D. (2000). Unitended Consequences . Applied reseach and Public Policy .
M.A.Clarck, C. (2002). Wealth and Poverty: on the Social Creation of Scarcity . Journal of Economics .