Part two of my three-part series on how to become
un-endangered will address how some species gain population revivals, while
others do not make the cut. You may recall from part one of this series that humans
not only put animals in danger of becoming extinct in the first place (read part one here), but we also decide which
species “deserve” to be saved. With over 5,000 species listed as endangered
(and likely more on which we do not have sufficient data), there will always be
some that get overlooked. Conservationists need some way to efficiently prioritize
and compare species approaching extinction. This sort of “conservation triage”
is difficult to consider, but it is nonetheless important in directing funds
and resources to conservation efforts.
Keep in mind that these types of decisions depend on a
multitude of complex factors, some of which are location-specific (What is
valuable in the economy? What does the local culture emphasize? What types of
research does the government fund?). The World Wildife Fund, for example,
prioritizes conservation of endangered species that are important for their
ecosystem (e.g. keystone species) or for people (e.g. the animal has cultural
significance) over species that may not have such an important role. In this
blog I will cover just a few of the factors that go into this decision. So,
what are some reasons for saving a particular species over another?
According to a poll by ARKive, the tiger is the world's favorite animal.
Part 2: Which Species Are "Worth" Saving?
The Ones We Like
Would you
donate money to save a giant panda or a frog? An elephant or a spider? An
orangutan or a crab? Most people would vote to aid a “cuter” animal. This type
of taxonomic bias sometimes influences
scientists’ decisions about which species to save. In part, it may be easier to
fund research on a more popular species, such as a charismatic panda cub over a
frog. No wonder the World Wildlife Fund chose a panda as its logo!
On the other
hand, allocating funds to conserve an animal that is further up the food chain
or an important keystone species with wide-reaching effects on the environment means
protecting a larger habitat (which usually contains several smaller creatures;
learn about umbrella species here). Focusing media attention on charismatic megafauna also makes it
easier to get important conservation messages out to the public, which may be something
as simple as “don’t litter” (learn about the media’s influence on conservation here). Bigger, popular creatures may be
easier to relate to.
But do not
fret! At least one organization specializes in drawing attention to the
ugliest, endangered animals, such as the pig-nosed frog and the blobfish (Ugly
Animal Preservation Society: http://uglyanimalsoc.com/).
The blobfish may be one of the world's ugliest animals.
Here, you can
take a survey about which species you would help save: http://www.geospatial-services.com/survey/conservation_survey.html
The Ones We Killed
Ironically, it
is rare that we hear of conservation plans designed to save a species out of
genuine concern that future generations may not have an opportunity to see the
animals live in the wild. Although some people realize that we are destroying
the environment, few turn that sense of guilt into taking meaningful steps to be
more eco-friendly.
Interestingly,
our guilt may trigger action
previously only related to science-fiction. Today we are mourning the loss of
some incredible species, such as the dodo bird. As if almost to show our
intense regret about these extinctions, scientists are trying to bring back
some species (de-extinction). For example, researchers may now have enough preserved
blood and bone material to clone the woolly mammoth and the passenger pigeon. But
while we may feel badly about our habitat-destroying behavior, this sentiment
may not be enough to avoid the daily extinction of species.
What motivated humans to investigate cloning the woolly mammoth?
Photo by: Aaron Tam/Getty
The Most Economical
The harsh
reality is that it is nearly impossible to convince donors to invest in the
protection of a species simply for its continued existence or inherent worth.
Conservation requires minds and strategies that are business savvy. You must
convince a donor to support you while ensuring that they will receive something
in return. Perhaps most influential is the argument that protecting a species
should be an economical endeavor.
As some argue,
not only must it be worth investing money in a conservation method because it
will save X number of animals, but because it must also have economic benefits
for the public. In other words, if the loss of the species will result in economic
repercussions for the majority, the public will be more likely to support its
rescue. As in most things, money always wins.
For example, raising
salmon in the United States to the same high-profile status as wolves and
grizzly bears (despite its relatively non-serious conservation status) was not
accidental. An increasing western taste for salmon and a decline in salmon
numbers may be a driving factor for the intense buzz around their conservation.
Might one argue that the effect of losing salmon would be greater than the benefits
of saving endangered turtles that are not so regularly enjoyed by the American
palate?
Some endangered species get more recognition than others. Do these sound familiar?
Photo by: kidsplanet.org
Some
conservationists uphold that money could be better spent on less critically-endangered
species that have a higher chance of actually surviving. Interestingly, there is
a mathematical model that helps to determine the cost-effectiveness of saving a
species and the likelihood that it can avoid extinction. Others add that conservationists
should realize that some species cannot be saved no matter how much money is
put toward them.
Here, you can
practice prioritizing species that should be saved: http://www.sesync.org/sites/default/files/resources/case_studies/1-prioritizing-endangered-species-conservation-pt2.pdf
At Least We Tried
While none of these reasons are mutually exclusive, it is
interesting to consider them as more and more species go extinct each day. You
may be left wondering: at the end of the day, is it better to say, “At least we
tried!” or to say, “We didn’t waste a single dollar!” on a conservation
campaign for any endangered species? Perhaps some are more “worth it” than
others.
This anti-poaching campaign reads: Protect the pandas of Africa- elephants. When the buying stops the killing can too.
Image by: WildAid
In the final part of this
blog series, we will look at Asian elephants as a case study for how
conservation efforts have failed and succeeded in conserving a charismatic, yet
endangered species. We will also make predictions about their outcome as a
declining species, and how Think Elephants is working to prevent this foreboding
future.
Click
here to see the most endangered species in the world: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/the-100-most-endangered-species-in-the-world-infographic
References
No comments:
Post a Comment