Why is the recreation of extinct animals bad?
461824
Extinct species, if not extinct by human activity (shooting them, cutting their forests down, etc.), have extinct for a reason - they did not fit well to the enviournment.\nRecreation of such species may destabilize the delicate balance of nature.\nMoreover, any human interferance with nature, whether trying to do good or bad, can only harm it.\n\nThere are two (1.5) reasons. I think you can start with these, and probably the rest will come to mind after writing this. If not, I believe that other people will have further ideas.\n\nGood luck!
936422
.  It's the sort of achievement that is so interesting and scientifically valuable that, if it were possible through and techniques yet developed, it would have been done; and it hasn't.\n.  If there were a tissue specimen from an extinct species which were well enough preserved that there were intact cell nuclei and intact chromosomes, it should be possible to clone a near match to the extinct animal, using an egg ell from a closely related species.  This 'clone' would not have the same mitochondrial DNA as the extinct animal, s it is not known if it would have the same metabolic performance, but it should be close enough.\n.  Unfortunately, it takes quite a lot of care to preserve cell nuclei and chromosomes.  The only extinct animals for whom such care has been taken are a few who have gone extinct while observed by scientists.  These are species which were watched closely as their population dwindled to a few individuals and, when the last few passed, tissue samples were taken in the hope that they might be cloned.  The amount of such tissue material preserved is very limited, and the time does not seem right to risk that limited tissue in an effort at cloning in which there is not yet great confidence.
1016643
I know the zoo in Washington D.C. only keeps endangered animals. The idea is that if they go extinct in the wild they can be reintroduced into the wild from the few remaining animals in zoos.
784395
The American crocodile is endangered because few were left after the initial hunting spree before they were protected.\n\nTheir range became limited by human development in their original range and human interference with their habitat areas (e.g. removal of brackish mangrove swamp).  It is suspected that certain kinds of pollution interferes with their ability to reproduce.
740157
In the West, we're pretty cynical. We don't believe anything until it's shown to us: hence theories of dinosaurs were laughed at until bones were first turfed up in the 19th Century. Other examples: the komodo dragon, the seahorse, the blue whale, the dodo, the protozoa (tiny microscopic organism), the elephant, the narwhal, the white rhino, the moose, the platypus...the list is endless. And there are still loads of animals we think are myths that may be de-mythed in the future: the yeti, the bunyip, the Loch Ness Monster, the unicorn...
811992
no, example look at the tigers in a zoo. there not healthily & they dont feed them like they would out in the wild. so the answer is no we should leave natuer to itself & stop expanding into there area. another example: we could build or use the same buildings that was shut down for one reason or another before we go out and build another in nature area. tear the old building down & build one in its spot. but no that would cost the rich s.o.b to much money. so they go to areas that have alot of wild animals in it & uild there & then when a fox or other animals attact a person they wonder why this happened. DUH!! your in there area were the use to live & now they have to find a new place to live & all.
1004015
Not exactly, some animals can't live in the wild because they are weak, ect., and if we set zoo animals free they would not be used to the wild. But some animals are abused and mis treated in the zoo. I.E. Elephants in Tucson Zoo. Great Question!
100140
Dinosaurs died 100,000,000 years ago. \nThey're gone! Get over it.
998004
NOW IT IS ENDANGERED GAME.\n\nSOON.. CHANCES ARE THERE TO BE TREATED AS YOU SAID
1074048
Anyone (American or not) who believes that life just popped out of nowhere is just shutting their eyes to the obvious. Look at all the animals that exist today. Did they just suddenly appear and were dropped into thier perfect enviroment? Look at the animals of the past like the dinosaurs. Were they just born as giants or did they start out as little reptiles that eventually grew and grew to their eventual massive sizes. Where did all those cave paintings come from? Or all of those bones and skulls of different types of hominids. I am an American and although I have a religious upbringing, I also have an open mind to reality.  I also don't believe that the percentage is growing. In fact I think the number is actually shrinking. It is now taught in more of our schools and colleges, it is more and more shown in different types of media, there are now more museums that are exhibiting the fossil records and giving scientific explanations. Sure the bible belt of america is still mostly closed to this type of thinking but that is not where the heart of our science is coming from anyway.
592864
It would certainly matter if it were a different animal- I could do that without it significantly hurting my career, but I would lose a lot of time doing the things I love- the bald eagle would be a tough call, since it's so emotionally evocative.  To save gorillas, certainly- Algae, without a second thought-spotted owl, no way.  For me it would depend on the importance of the animal to the overall ecosystem, to the survival of humans as a species, and my own emotional response to the animal.  I doubt losing the bald eagle would have a terribly significant effect on the ecosystem compared to, for example, the rabbit.  Losing gorillas would likely have almost no effect on the ecosystem in general, but they are so much like us, and have such a close link and intelligence, that I would hate to lose them.  The trauma done to the ecosystem with a loss of algae would be unimaginable-Human probably wouldn't survive it.  Spotted owl?  There are very few of them, the niche is already taken by others which would move in to replace them, they have no discernible effect on human life, and I have no emotional attachment to them.  This may all seem cold, but it's how humans are-It's why we use pictures of cute baby seals, instead of salamanders, to elicit donations.
652404
There are many reasons that zoos are a valuable resource, not just for human entertainment (which is a really huge benefit actually, people who have seen and interacted with a creature like an anteater in a zoo are much more likely to be concerned about their fate in the wild), but also for zoological research and conservation purposes such as captive breeding and maintaining genetic diversity in populations.\n\nSome zoo animals do end up pacing as a compulsive behaviour, and it can be a simple of depression or nervous disorder.  This is commonly seen in bears, and some cats.\n\nIn other species, the pacing may not represent boredom or mental distress, and may just be a feature of an animal's normal behaviour.  In the wild, a giant anteater may roam many dozens of miles a day in search of food.  Pacing back and forth may just be an approximation of its normal habits, as if it was wandering the pampas looking for termite mounds.  Only in the zoo, food is guaranteed, so the anteater is not in danger of immediate starvation if it doesn't find a nest.  The pacing may just be a behaviour it continues because it feels natural to the animal, like a cat chasing a string, or a dog turning around before it lies down.\n\nThe ideal solution would be to provide a habitat as close to the animal's home habitat as possible, with the same plant and animal species it would normally encounter, and thousands of miles of open space for it to roam.  We call these habitats national parks, and sadly the demands of human agriculture and urban development have meant that we cannot provide adequate habitat like this for all species, so the zoos do the best they can to recreate a liveable environ for the animal.
72659
Myths? probably.\nLife? Yes.\njust because fossils aren't found doesn't mean life didn't exist.\nfossils are far and few between compared to the number of living specimens at the time.
968398
not good ,\ntimes have changed ,when i was young hunting was a manly thing.\nwhen i was young,i was a trapper for skins my self once for a year on a Rocky mountain ridge,and hunted a lot for food.\n I have also hunted in Africa ,but always because i was hungry\nbut in that time i learned, that animals alive are much more beautifull,and i learned to apreciate nature\nwe should be teaching the youth about conservation nature instead \n\nthey can still go out into the wilds, lots of fresh air ,but they can learn something instead ,about biology .the flora and fauna ,instead of learning how to stalk and kill.\nso a camara is far better to shoot with than a gun,and nobody can get hurt,check how many people get wounded or killed by hunting accidents ,i once saw a guy shoot his own horse tied to a tree ,because he was convinced it was a deer.\n\nthe professional hunters that I have known have all turned to Nature conservation,because  it is disapearing so fast.there just is´nt that much to hunt anymore ,and there are a heck of a lot more people around who would like to shoot something.
1087763
to keep species of plants and animals from going extinct and to educatethe public
921355
dna from fossils will typically be destroyed
288148
I'm pretty big on species protection, but that being said, I don't really have a problem with the regional lifting of protected status. The ultimate goal of listing a species as threatened or endangered is to protect and manage the population so that it can recover to a point where it is viable enough to be de-listed. No?  Grizzlies are also a species that have political significance, because they are big, potentially dangerous, require large territories, and will wander into residential areas and/or begin to kill livestock if their population gets too large. Around Yellowstone this is beginning to happen, and people are starting to get angry. In order to keep the public from becoming anti-grizzly to a point where it affects the recovery effort elsewhere, grizzlies are going to have to be carefully controlled in areas where the population is healthy. However unfortunate for individual bears, population control is a necessary evil.  As for the comment about poaching: Poaching is illegal whether the bears are protected or not, and people who are going to poach bears will do it regardless of whether the bears are protected.