I saw an interesting documentary in chem a few weeks ago, and I just recalled when I was thinking 'what would be an interesting debate topic?' well, something that people shouldn't be all too fired up about - dont' want discussions getting heated!
So, at least in America, earlier in the 20th Century there was a large 'let's get rid of the predators' movement or something - and somehow one way or another, most wolves or bears or etcetera were eliminated from the places they naturally were, usually to suit human convenience.
So the benefit to humans was immediate - easier to handle crops and livestock without having to worry about a wolf raid, for example. But eliminating predators has harmed the natural environment. In Yellowstone, it was discovered that the river there was widening. and why? Well, it was theorized that with no wolves to hunt them, the deer(or whatever) had no reason to move from one place. So the grass there and other plants died, since the deer(or whatever) grazed freely.
This loosened the soil, which fell into the river, which widened...
From what I recall, they reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone, and it seemed to have done well in reducing that.
So, do you think major predators should be reintroduced to places they've been eliminated from?