10 bizarre animals on on the edge of extinction in our lifetime

[TheOldSchool]

It's sad to see these guys go. Some number only in the hundreds. Most of you, like me, didn't know many of them existed. And for our grandchildren, they might not.

18 Bizarre Animals On The edge Of Extinction nearly in our lifetimeTales Maze Tales Maze

Pics of a few of them from the article:

 

[Ernie S.]

They all look like failed reanimation experiments conducted by Dr Frederich Frankenstein.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Nature's a bitch. If something goes extinct it's because Nature decided it should.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Extinction's sucky for who it decides should go away, but wonderful for what comes to be after room is made. Without the 99% or so of all living things going extinct before humans, we wouldn't be here now.

 

[Syriusly]

Extinction's sucky for who it decides should go away, but wonderful for what comes to be after room is made. Without the 99% or so of all living things going extinct before humans, we wouldn't be here now.

Extinction is 'sucky' because once those genes are lost, they are lost.

In most cases, the extinction is a direct result of man's destruction of the animals habitat- in most cases we can prevent extinction that we are causing- if we tried.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Extinction's sucky for who it decides should go away, but wonderful for what comes to be after room is made. Without the 99% or so of all living things going extinct before humans, we wouldn't be here now.

Extinction is 'sucky' because once those genes are lost, they are lost.

In most cases, the extinction is a direct result of man's destruction of the animals habitat- in most cases we can prevent extinction that we are causing- if we tried.

no it's not

 

[Ernie S.]

Extinction's sucky for who it decides should go away, but wonderful for what comes to be after room is made. Without the 99% or so of all living things going extinct before humans, we wouldn't be here now.

Extinction is 'sucky' because once those genes are lost, they are lost.

In most cases, the extinction is a direct result of man's destruction of the animals habitat- in most cases we can prevent extinction that we are causing- if we tried.

Yup we are directly responsible for the extinction of dinosaurs. Look! millions of species went extinct before humans were around. History and logic tells us that you are dead wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

Extinction's sucky for who it decides should go away, but wonderful for what comes to be after room is made. Without the 99% or so of all living things going extinct before humans, we wouldn't be here now.

Extinction is 'sucky' because once those genes are lost, they are lost.

In most cases, the extinction is a direct result of man's destruction of the animals habitat- in most cases we can prevent extinction that we are causing- if we tried.

Yup we are directly responsible for the extinction of dinosaurs. Look! millions of species went extinct before humans were around. History and logic tells us that you are dead wrong.

LOL....I was speaking in regards to the species listed in this article.

You are absolutely right- throughout all of life, most extinctions had nothing to do with man.

However, in the last 200 years- most extinctions are a direct result of human actions. And for those animals that are threatened with extinction, we can prevent it if we want to.

 

[Ernie S.]

Extinction's sucky for who it decides should go away, but wonderful for what comes to be after room is made. Without the 99% or so of all living things going extinct before humans, we wouldn't be here now.

Extinction is 'sucky' because once those genes are lost, they are lost.

In most cases, the extinction is a direct result of man's destruction of the animals habitat- in most cases we can prevent extinction that we are causing- if we tried.

Yup we are directly responsible for the extinction of dinosaurs. Look! millions of species went extinct before humans were around. History and logic tells us that you are dead wrong.

LOL....I was speaking in regards to the species listed in this article.

You are absolutely right- throughout all of life, most extinctions had nothing to do with man.

However, in the last 200 years- most extinctions are a direct result of human actions. And for those animals that are threatened with extinction, we can prevent it if we want to.

I doubt that. Dodos and whatnot, yes, but most species that go extinct do so without ever having been identified. The vast majority of extinct species disappear because they just aren't suited for their environment or another species eats them or their primary food source.

re: and for those animals... I suppose that if tigers were eating up all the lemurs, we could kill all the tigers.
The point is that most species that go extinct should. Our intervention upsets the balance of nature.

 

[Syriusly]

Extinction's sucky for who it decides should go away, but wonderful for what comes to be after room is made. Without the 99% or so of all living things going extinct before humans, we wouldn't be here now.

Extinction is 'sucky' because once those genes are lost, they are lost.

In most cases, the extinction is a direct result of man's destruction of the animals habitat- in most cases we can prevent extinction that we are causing- if we tried.

Yup we are directly responsible for the extinction of dinosaurs. Look! millions of species went extinct before humans were around. History and logic tells us that you are dead wrong.

LOL....I was speaking in regards to the species listed in this article.

You are absolutely right- throughout all of life, most extinctions had nothing to do with man.

However, in the last 200 years- most extinctions are a direct result of human actions. And for those animals that are threatened with extinction, we can prevent it if we want to.

I doubt that. Dodos and whatnot, yes, but most species that go extinct do so without ever having been identified. The vast majority of extinct species disappear because they just aren't suited for their environment or another species eats them or their primary food source.

re: and for those animals... I suppose that if tigers were eating up all the lemurs, we could kill all the tigers.
The point is that most species that go extinct should. Our intervention upsets the balance of nature.

Actually you got one point right- our 'intervention' does upset the balance of nature. Over time, animals go extinct pretty much as you describe. But human intervention- from killing every dodo, to damming up Yangtze leading to the extinction of the Yangtze dolphin- is the primary cause of animal extinctions at this point.

Reversing our intervention to reverse the pressures that we are putting on species that led them to decline could prevent extinctions.

 

[Ernie S.]

A few species, yes, but most extinctions happen without our intervention or notice.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Extinction's sucky for who it decides should go away, but wonderful for what comes to be after room is made. Without the 99% or so of all living things going extinct before humans, we wouldn't be here now.

Extinction is 'sucky' because once those genes are lost, they are lost.

In most cases, the extinction is a direct result of man's destruction of the animals habitat- in most cases we can prevent extinction that we are causing- if we tried.

Yup we are directly responsible for the extinction of dinosaurs. Look! millions of species went extinct before humans were around. History and logic tells us that you are dead wrong.

LOL....I was speaking in regards to the species listed in this article.

You are absolutely right- throughout all of life, most extinctions had nothing to do with man.

However, in the last 200 years- most extinctions are a direct result of human actions. And for those animals that are threatened with extinction, we can prevent it if we want to.

no we aren't