2 Comments so far

1. ailurozoo Had this To Say

   ---

   Loss of biodiversity is never a good thing. There is evidence that suggests the the loss of a top predator from an area decreases even further in biodiversity than the loss of the one species, due to redistributing resources. With pumas removed from Yosemite it looks like large prey animals are free to eat the best food without worrying about hiding from potential predators (the puma that’s no longer there), so they eat even more of it, and less of that resource is available for smaller animals. It appears that since the smaller animals have less of what they need, there are now fewer kinds of them. When an area has fewer kinds of organisms (less than normal biodiversity) this makes it easier to collapse the ecosystem, quickly by disease taking out the important species (some places have what is called a keystone species), or more slowly by removing them one at a time. This may not be what would happen in the Amur River Valley region, but it seems there is a possibility.

   Amur leopards are genetically distinct from other leopards, which makes them a unique animal, and some would argue that that’s enough to make it worth it.

   One thing I think, though it isn’t really a biological argument, is we messed up the world, we should work to fix it. This includes conserving beautiful animals like the Amur leopard, and it also includes conserving all the ugly, creepy or otherwise unpleasant (and ultimately necessary) plants and animals. Whether we can is a different story.

2. michiganmegan83 Had this To Say

   ---

   All living things should be conserved simply because they all serve a place in the ecosystem in their environment. They do things to serve as food, as shelter, as predators, as wasters etc to help other living things survive. the loss of a species can have many effects on other species, ecological systems and ways of life. someday it will effect humans more than say the passenger pigeon, the dodo or other extinct animals have thus far…