Something that I think is very worrying is that cute and attractive species seem to get much more attention then, shall we say, not so attractive species by researchers and conservationists. I think this is just human nature, for example it is much easier to feel for a panda than a little known bug or insect.
Does anyone else think it could be a problem? Do researchers tend to look at attractive species (for whatever reason, whether it being personal or easier to get funding).
A friend of mine who was involved in marine mammal surveys and conservation recently said a similar thing with regard to the money and publicity given to, for example, dolphin conservation in the UK (when actually the populations may in fact be unsustainable) in contrast to the attention paid to, say, bivalve molluscs in the same areas.
I don't know if the problem is neccersarily with conservation professionals and reasearchers but would say that it is definatley an issue with public perception.....
I absolutely agree with Bill. Living in a democracy does mean that the cute creatures get the money and not the ugly ones.
We spend much money effort and thought, for example, on saving dolphins and making Tuna fishing dolphin friendly. There is a huge outcry everytime we see pictures of dolphins being slaughtered for food or being drowned in nets set for tuna. I've yet to hear of anyone complain about the way the tuna is caught and left to slowly die of asphyxiation on the decks of ships or in holds. Of course everyone will shed tears as some dolphin populations drop. But does anyone buying a tin of tuna really care whether the Tuna they buy is caught at sea? Do they care whether it is from a rare tuna species? Do they even know the names of any tuna species? Probably not.
A lot of money, thought and expertise has been spent in the UK and here in Ireland re-introducing Sea Eagles, Kites and also Golden Eagles. These events atract hudge publicity and public support. Yet in 1971 the last Burbot was caught & identified in the UK. It is now almost certainly extinct. Going the same way are also Vendace and here the Powan. Unfortunately they are not cute, furry or cuddly so who cares (If you don't know - google it!!)
As you rightly ask this does cause probems because researchers are human and of course they are quite often (but not always) influenced in the same way many of us are.
a very good point bill, they say money is the root of evil and i suspect this plays a big part in the point you've made. trying to win over a public that doesnt know or want to know about the state of certain wildlife species is a hard task. its much like an opposite to the 'shock factor' used in adverts, if you show a cute baby panda (and they are lovely animals, dont get me wrong), that catches the eye of the public AND their children, and evidently puts 'cute and cuddly' in the spot light.
but i do think it's a problem Bill and unfortunatly, its another one that heads uphill in the society we now live in!
There's some good examples of what I'm talking about there. I'm not saying that the cuter animals shouldnt get the attention they are getting because they are just as important, but it seems they are getting all of the funding.
I agree with Bill and would make the following point as well (from a non-expert perspective)
Maybe we should be looking at habitat conservation rather than species conservation - that way all the species that rely on that habitat benefit. We could get a bit smarter by using some animals that the media and public will be attracted to as ambassadors for the main conservation work on the whole habitat - whether it be rainforests or the marine environment.
Another key is getting journalists and the public to understand the concept of the interdependency of species - how the cute ones wouldn't survive without the whole eco system behind them. It's something I am constantly having to explain to people who like peregrine falcons but hate pigeons!
However, I know this is easier said than done!