Is it permissible to kill animals of an endangered species?

Question

Is it permissible to kill animals of an endangered species?

Answer 1

No

Answer 2

Killing endangered organisms threathens their existence and even if the organism is not protected by law or treaty, it might not make too much sense to further reduce the biodiversity of our planet.

Let's first go over Law and Treaty.  Most responsible governments make it illegal to kill endangered species.  There are others that do no really care.  Laws can also limit the killing of species that are considered "threathened", meaning that are not in imminent danger of dissappearing, but will be if there is no change in current patterns.  They create laws and regulations that establish "hunting seasons" and other similar concepts to give the organisms a chance to recover and reproduce.

One particular problem is when an animal that is endangered is the source of a valuable commodity, such as ivory from the elephant tusk, or purported medicinal purposes like rhinoceros horns or shark fins.  Many countries have signed a treaty called Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).  CITES prohibits or regulates commerce of endangered species and their parts.  Some people argue that the treaty does not protect the actual animal, since it prohibits the importation of ivory, for example, but the truth is that if all countries would ban ivory, people would not have a market for elephant tusks, therefore would not kill them.  Other examples of CITES regulated commodities are beluga caviar from the Caspian Sea and orchid plants collected from the wild.

Now for the biology part.  We live in a complex set of interactions between living things and their environment.  This is called the ecosystem.  Within the ecosystem, all things relate to each other, sometimes in obvious ways, such as one eats another, but sometimes in not so clear ways.  When a species diminishes, sometimes their niche is occupied by another, but the new organism might not be exactly like the old one, so maybe something will be lost.  Since we still don't know what discoveries await us from endangered animals and plants, it may be a good idea to try and keep them around.  A protein from an animal or a rare pigment from a plant might be the next miracle drug.  We will never find out if we exterminate them, of course.  That does not begin to skim the surface of the main issue here, what if we initiate a cycle of extinction that ends with our own?  I saw a comic once of a guy standing in the middle of a desert with a newspaper that reads something about endangered species dissappearing.  He's standing there asking "How many species do I really need?"  behind him there are a cow and a chicken labelled "Burger" and "McChicken" respectively.  I know it's a joke, but it reflects some people's attitude.

To end, an ethical issue:  Would it be okay to kill the last members of a species?  I can possibly think of special circumstances that would make it okay, such as if I don't kill it it's going to kill me, but in general terms, I don't think that doing it would be right.  There are even people who want to eat Komodo dragon, just because they know it's illegal, and eating it makes them feel powerful.  I don't know what you think, but I don't need to eat such a thing.

In summary, even if it were pernissible, it would not be right to kill animals of an endangered species, from a biological standpoint and from an ethical one.

Answer 3

It is only permissible in cases where the animal represents an immediate threat to humans or livestock.

Answer 4

Yes - under certain circumstances and under strict control. If a population of an endangered species has increased to the extent that the available resources can no longer support the population, then a controlled cull of a proportion of the population may be necessary to allow the survival of the entire population.

For example, the number of elephant in a nature reserve may have increased to such a degree that they are eating the available vegetation faster than it can grow back. In this situation, a cull to reduce the population size would prevent the entire population from starving to death.

Of course other options, such as translocation, would be "better" because no animals would be intentionally killed, but the economic and practical considerations often make translocation a non-viable option. And not all translocations work, so there is a risk that the new population will die anyway...

Culling of endangered species is, under certain circumstances, a valid conservation tool. While no conservationist enjoys the idea of killing an animal, endangered or otherwise, sometimes the survival of a population comes at the cost of the lives of a few individuals.

Answer 5

even the natives cant kill an endangered animal..its prohibited..by the government of natives and our government

Answer 6

No! because they are endangered,there are laws in place to prevent their killing. You can find out from your local government what the situation is in your country.

Answer 7

In the case of an endangered species in its native habitat, the killing of one individual might be necessitated due to the danger to the local human population that the animal may represent, such as the Tigers in the Sunderbans region of India.

In the case of captive reared populations of animals that are listed as endangered in the wild, but stable in captivity, then in my opinion it is permissable to kill some of the individual animals to keep from over populating the amount of space available.

Answer 8

Permissible ? whose permission are we looking for ? Endangered animals are protected species ,you will be acting against the prevalent law & will face naturally face resulting consequences .Will your conscience permit such an act is a different matter, will you be able to silence this voice .

Answer 9

If someone has enough money they are permited to do anything in this world.  Example: hunting of endangered species allowed by state university museum

http://www.sacbee.com/education/story/38...

Answer 10

depends who you are

to many people it is atrocious

but even more think it is progress

perhaps they need to learn the definition of progress