Does this point of view make you really angry??
 

"Why not it is the american way.. It is about time we annihalate any endangered species that gets in our way.. After all man's needs are most important.. I would hate to see a time when endangered species were in abundance while man's time on earth was about to expire.. Even though we came last to his earth.. As humans we are entitled to all the earth recources and heaven help any law that leaves any species above our inalienable right to plunder our own land......"

i found it in the yahoo questions section in the conservation area, somebody asked why we don't kill all the endangered species so we don't have to deal with them anymore.

Don't you think its about time we wiped out ALL endangered species? - Yahoo! Answers

i know it pisses me off because many people are only concerned with themselves and do not care about others.

Well it is a troll. Someone wrote it for the express purpose of making someone else angry. It has no wit or humor it it, it does not inform or amuse. Just a troll.
Ignore it. If you want to immerse yourself in trolls as an immunity procedure, like vaccination, you can read fark.com

In response to: "Don't you think its about time we wiped out ALL endangered species?"

I liked the response: "yes , it's been nice you knowing you " :)

Just want to make two points on polar bears

1. America threatened species.
2. Canada sport hunting legal.


Disclaimer
I am a shill to big oil as they pay my company so my paycheck does not bounce.

here is an article on that very subject, basically economics vs conservation:

Canadians argue for polar bear hunt

Moving an increasing population (polar bears) to the Endangered Species is politics not conservation. I'm all for minimizing our impact on the planet but this isn't right.

Why do you think the population is increasing? It is the conservationist groups predicting a 30% decline in the population as a whole by 2050. There are two out of 19 known populations that are growing, but there is a net drop in population largely attributed to loss of sea ice, not politics?!?

Polar bears are just a poster species. Whether they live or die only affects our perception of ourself. What about the rest of the biomass of the earth? The non-mammalian...non cuddly?

Over 100 amphibian species are already thought to have gone extinct. Those that have survived are threatened with an extinction rate 211 times over the background rate. Oceanic dead zones increase in size every year, square miles of flotsam have been found in the Pacific, coastal waters are overfished, and an area the size of Rhode Island is degraded in the Amazon rainforest every year.

Whether we like to admit it or not, we live by the words of the first post. While the green, hippie Prius driver may hate the god-fearing "troll," the actions of his western ways say the same words. We are in the middle of the Holocene mass extinction. An extinction we've caused collectively.

If it does come down to survival, the polar bear will be dead. It's the flaw of humanity and the flaw of thinking you were put "on" this earth rather than "in" it. Don't worry, though, polar bears go to polar bear heaven, right?

- LostCause

While I understand MAN has an influence on all animals, what of all the animal extinctions before we ever stopped swinging from trees and used our opposable thumbs? Yes, it is sad that we can't save every living species. But we shouldn't go out of our way to get rid of them. And for heaven's sake, we shouldn't politicize ANY of it...

Some critter populations fluctuate with the natural cycles of the Earth's cooling and warming. WE WILL TOO! Remember the glaciers haven't always been there. Our ancestors walked and farmed the ground now covered by many.

I can sort of see his point, although he put it in such a manner that made it into a troll post.

If you think about it another way, we are the ONLY species that care about conservation and putting other animals on the endangered species list. No other species on the planet really gives a crap what happens to the others, they just see them as "Food" or "Not Food". The only difference is that we have the ability of self consciousness and that causes us to us to be concerned about our impact on other things because that same self consciousness has the ability to create things other species can not.

I can see both sides of this, but I don't think either is right by itself.