Submitted Electronically via eRulemaking Portal

A person can walk into any supermarket and see many species of plants have all but disappeared. Take, for example, certain species of tomatoes and bananas. They are no longer available for human consumption. In the age of scientific manipulation of plants and animals to support human populations, original species will eventually die out. Because of humans encroaching into areas that were formerly wild and uninhabitable, this problem regarding the habitat for the Acuna Cactus and Fickeisen Cactus and their habitat is now of critical importance. If we do nothing about this, it sets the stage to to ignore other endangered species and habitat. Do we have the right to destroy what was here on earth possibly before humans stood upright or even existed? No, we do not. This proposed rule should not even be in question; it should be automatic. Humans need a variety of food sources to sustain life on earth, and although these cacti may not be a food source to support mankind, more and more original species of plants and animals have become extinct and the variety and choices made by consumers has become much more narrow. We, as humans, do not have a right to determine which species survives and which die out and becomes extinct. If we, just say, were one of these rare species, would we want some other species determining whether we live or die? I hope the answer is a resounding 'no.'