Admitting uncertainty even in the face of what looks like an obvious answer and then investigating it anyway is what makes scientists “smart”.

If these people are so smart, why do they all state: "We aren't sure why the (insert animal species) population is dwindling."? — DeepThinker

Because life is complicated and scientists are humble. In some cases it is straightforward, but quite often it isn't, because one thing affects other things and they affect other things and populations rise and fall quite naturally and stable, static equilibrium is pretty much an illusion. Any species might become an invasive destroyer of the environment, humans are not that special in this regard. Talk to any elm tree if you don't believe me.

Very true. It can always be narrowed down to other contributing factors. Such things as predators migrating, food sources becoming unavailable, mutating species of bacteria/parasites, species getting thrown in foreign ecosystems, adapting to new food sources that are less rapidly renewable (full grown elms), the weather, etc.. It just seems to me that it all boils down to things humans have done.
Forests have higher biodiversity than most other biomes. No other creatures can wipe out entire forests completely without giving back any of the nutrients to the earth, except us. Then we cover it all up with a parking lot to ensure none of it will ever grow back.

It just seems to me that it all boils down to things humans have done. — DeepThinker

Well yeah, at the moment, that's why they call it the anthropocene. But that boiling down is not very useful; one wants to know what things and what one could do differently, and then is gets complicated again. But even when there is a simple answer - "fossil fuels" nothing much happens. I don't think it's because scientists are not clear.

The more you know, the more you also know how complicated things are.

Using the Scientific Method and the scientific guidelines makes one very cautious in saying that one specific reason caused a complex phenomenon.

Very true, thank you.
Hmm, maybe nothing changes on a large enough scale because human nature is too dependant on instant gratification/change. Theres a large percent of people in America that cant even go 1 day without polluting their own bodies with cigarettes, let alone not litter, use fossil fuels, or let CFCs into the atmosphere to save a few minutes at work. (Not judging smokers, just an example)

I guess its just that people want easier answers? Not just to be told that theyre living pollution-machines and to stop, because that wont help. We need something smaller to focus on, that will be easier to change!
Thanks again for opening my mind a bit! You have restored my faith in people who study these things!