The Endangered Species Act has been in law for about four decades and people gave mixed opinions about this. The Act included the right to take away land to persevere for animals use and that an animal cannot be excitant anymore. Palm Spring, California about thirty-one thousand acres of Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians were taken away to save the big horn sheep. The Tribe sued the government claiming,”An economic impact of hundreds of millions of dollars”. The Tribe was paining to make a golfing range. Due to the lost of land, their economy was not doing so well. On the other side, the sheep population increased from two-hundred and eighty to seven-hundred. However, due to this act our national animal, The Bald Eagle, has been saved.
…show more content…
In 2001, two point six billion dollars were added to California’s economy from wildlife watching. Also, fifty percent of the California Condor is in the wild, whereas a few years ago they were almost excitant. Without this act, the dusky seaside didn't become excitant. On the popular debate website, debate.org, eighty-five percent of people said yes to this question, “Should we protect endangered species” and fifteen percent of people said no to that question. Username “Hunter-Gann” states “I want my children to be able to experience the same great wildlife that I had”. If animals become excitant, than younger children will never be able to see it. Plants offer medicine and some plants have not been discovered yet. Animals are a major source of food. Without this act, humans may become excitant. Some people argue that if an animal’s cannot survive on its own, they shouldn’t live because they can’t adapt. Also, nature takes its course should take it course and humans shouldn’t interfere. We should protect animals because we are changing way too fast for animals to adapt. Taking away land in order to help save animals by making it natural
In 2001, two point six billion dollars were added to California’s economy from wildlife watching. Also, fifty percent of the California Condor is in the wild, whereas a few years ago they were almost excitant. Without this act, the dusky seaside didn't become excitant. On the popular debate website, debate.org, eighty-five percent of people said yes to this question, “Should we protect endangered species” and fifteen percent of people said no to that question. Username “Hunter-Gann” states “I want my children to be able to experience the same great wildlife that I had”. If animals become excitant, than younger children will never be able to see it. Plants offer medicine and some plants have not been discovered yet. Animals are a major source of food. Without this act, humans may become excitant. Some people argue that if an animal’s cannot survive on its own, they shouldn’t live because they can’t adapt. Also, nature takes its course should take it course and humans shouldn’t interfere. We should protect animals because we are changing way too fast for animals to adapt. Taking away land in order to help save animals by making it natural