Literature Review - Kierra Leonard

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 6

Kierra Leonard

Professor Stalbird

Eng.1201.505

March 16, 2020

Literature Review

My research topic asks the question of what the most plausible methods for endangered

species conservation are. I chose this topic because I believe that every living species is vital for

maintaining the longevity of their habitat. There are animal species all over the world on the

endangered species list. Some species are endangered due to poaching, others due to habitat

destruction, and many more causes. Several organizations have been working for years to find

the best methods of conserving these species. In recent years, several scientists have been

dedicating their research to finding a solution. In my paper I plan to discuss the organizations

working to save endangered species as well as presented methods. I would also like to discuss

the factors that are inhibiting conservation efforts.

Species endangerment has been an issue for years, but recent history involves the passage

of the Endangered Species Act, which allows organizations to work in preventing the extinction

of many plant and animal species. Statistics have shown that the program is an overall success,

but recently the Trump administration has created some weaknesses within the system (“The

Endangered Species Act: A Wild Success”). Under the current presidential administration,

certain species will not be protected, and businesses are even permitted to drill in crucial

habitats. Many are working to fight the changes made by the Trump administration, and
meanwhile scientists have been working to find several new methods of wildlife conservation

and preventing extinction.

Multiple sources contain issues with current wildlife conservation systems. Hannam and

Foley claim that forty percent cuts to Australia’s wildlife conservation system have left them

unable to properly handle these circumstances, especially with the recent wildfires rampaging the

landscape (“Environmental funding cuts to hinder fire recovery plans”). In another source,

O’Grady claims that only twelve percent of wildlife on the endangered species list are receiving

the proper funds for recovery, while others are receiving a fraction of what’s necessary for

recovery (“We’re overpaying to save some endangered species—and barely funding others”).

Each source continues to discuss these topics throughout the remainder of the article.

Other sources seem to disagree with others. This mostly occurs when one source agrees

with a method of wildlife conservation and another source does not. Connor claims that while

animal cloning is not the most effective right now, scientific advancements will make cloning a

key part of preserving the genetic information of endangered species (“Animal Cloning Can

Save Endangered Species”). Connor continues to support his case with examples of past cloning

scenarios and what was done correctly and incorrectly. In an opposing article, Shanks claims that

endangered species cloning is not a good method of conservation because it does not help their

habitat if it was destroyed, adds no genetic diversity, and requires the difficult process of finding

a suitable surrogate and egg (“Pet Cloning and Endangered Species Cloning Are Terrible

Ideas”). Shanks disproves the opposing sides points with statistics and scientific evidence.

There has always been controversy surrounding the existence of zoos and the role they

play in wildlife conservation. Some believe that zoos are inhumane because a wild animal should

only exist in its natural habitat, while others believe that zoos are educational and work to
prevent future conservation issues. According to Chauvenet, zoos benefit conservation by both

education the public about the species at risk and aiding species recovery in the wild (“Zoos

aren’t Victorian-era throwbacks: they’re important in saving species”).

Each source provided appears to be credible and uses scientific research to support their

case. “Zoos aren’t Victorian-era throwbacks: they’re important in saving species" by Alienor

Chauvenet disproves the notion that zoos are only harming wildlife by containing them within

enclosures. Chauvenet supports this case by providing information regarding past conservation

efforts and successes within zoos. "Animal Cloning Can Save Endangered Species” by Steve

Connor suggests that animal cloning is a possible method of recovering endangered species. He

supports his case by acknowledging what has gone wrong with animal cloning in the past and

offers solutions. "Pet Cloning and Endangered Species Cloning Are Terrible Ideas" by Pete

Shanks disproves Connor’s thought that cloning is a plausible method of conservation. Shanks

looks at the cloning method as a whole and past cloning scenarios to explain how cloning is

more likely to go wrong than correctly. "Environmental funding cuts to hinder fire recovery

plans" discusses how funding cuts in Australia have made it difficult to recovery the species who

are at risk of extinction after recent forest fires. This source uses statistics and numbers to prove

its case. “The Endangered Species Act: A Wild Success” by Noah Greenwald gives the history

of the Endangered Species Act pertaining to wildlife conservation. "We’re overpaying to save

some endangered species—and barely funding others” by Cathleen O’Grady discusses how the

government has disproportionately rationed money to save endangered species and proves her

case with the use of statistics and previous scenarios.

When asking what the most plausible methods for endangered species conservation are, I

believe there are many answers. From what I have researched, some answers include the
continuous use of zoos for education and species recovery, funding wildlife conservation

organizations properly, and reinstating the Endangered Species Act so it can be used to its full

potential once again. There are obviously more solutions that what is stated here. I would like to

research more about the impacts of climate change and habitat destruction and what can be done

to stop this phenomena and business practice. At the end of my paper, I would like to have

somewhat of an idea as to which of these methods have done the most for the environment.
Works Cited

Chauvenet, Alienor. "Zoos aren’t Victorian-era throwbacks: they’re important in saving species."

Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2020. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, https://link-gale-

com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/MYYUFL067035346/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=b965f2ed. Accessed 16 Mar. 2020. Originally published

as "Zoos aren’t Victorian-era throwbacks: they’re important in saving species," The

Conversation, 14 June 2017.

Connor, Steve. "Animal Cloning Can Save Endangered Species." Cloning, edited by Jacqueline

Langwith, Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, https://link-gale-com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/EJ3010383246/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=087912c5. Accessed 16 Mar. 2020. Originally published

as "The Big Question: Could Cloning Be the Answer to Saving Endangered Species from

Extinction?" Independent, 3 Feb. 2009.

"Environmental funding cuts to hinder fire recovery plans." Sydney Morning Herald [Sydney,

Australia], 22 Jan. 2020, p. 9. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link-gale-

com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/A611822329/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=0b9a314d. Accessed 29 Feb. 2020.

Greenwald, Noah. “The Endangered Species Act: A Wild Success.” Center for Biological

Diversity, www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/esa_wild_success/. Accessed 16 Mar.

2020
O’Grady, Cathleen. "We’re overpaying to save some endangered species—and barely funding

others." Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2020. Gale In Context:

Opposing Viewpoints, https://link-gale-

com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/EOKATQ013126103/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=de32e34c. Accessed 16 Mar. 2020.

Shanks, Pete. "Pet Cloning and Endangered Species Cloning Are Terrible Ideas." Cloning, edited

by Jacqueline Langwith, Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In

Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link-gale-

com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/EJ3010383247/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=7066fa09. Accessed 16 Mar. 2020. Originally published

as "Cloning for Kicks," GeneWatch, vol. 22, no. 5, 4 Oct. 2009.

You might also like