[Berta]

this is the LINK to a National Post article.

here is an excerpt.

OTTAWA — For endangered species, it pays to be a large mammal with sad eyes that cuddles its babies. Glamorous animals, big predators and, above all, the extremely cute and fuzzy stand a chance of getting people to protect them and their habitats.

Ugly animals — as judged by human eyes — are far more likely to be left aside when humans draw up conservation plans. Anyone care to save Ontario’s rattlesnakes?

Canadian ecology experts say such thinking means we’re in danger of re-shaping nature to beautify it according to human notions of what’s pretty, saving the mammals but letting the reptiles and amphibians disappear.

...

We also protect commercially important species. Salmon stocks are important to us. Bluefin tuna are the object of efforts to prevent overfishing. And farmers are desperate to save the honey bee from whatever mysterious threats are wiping out colonies.

But that’s where our efforts often stall.

“Aesthetic and commercial standards have become the primary determinants of which species in the natural world deserve conservation,” Small concludes.

“Accordingly, the world’s biodiversity is being beautified by selective conservation of attractive species, while the plight of the overwhelming majority of species is receiving limited attention.”

And he says the losers in the competition for protection are mostly reptiles and amphibians, even though these — especially frogs and toads — are probably the most endangered groups of animals in the world.

Environment Canada couldn’t provide any cost estimates for protecting individual species, but it can be big business.

The joint Canada-U.S. recovery plan for the whooping crane, for instance, costs the two countries a total of $6.1 million US a year now and will cost nearly $125 million US through 2035. The costs cover everything from captive breeding (more than $20 million) to $162,000 for satellite telemetry (searching for habitat).

Meanwhile, many less spectacular endangered plants and creatures have no budget at all for conservation. That means no satellites to search for homes for the Lake Erie water snake. Food for thought ...

[GeraldCortis]

People have inherent fears that lead to direct action against nature. Some have to squash every spider they see or kill every snake.. create a monoculture of lawngrass, keep a cute and cuddly puddy tat. The list goes on.

[chechokancho]

Those big fluffy creatures are nice but I really love plants, insects, lichen soil crusts...

I just hope that by protecting icon species, their habitat will be protected ensuring all the less glamorous species are also protected.

Over time I would hope that through education, natural habitats/ecosystems including all the species/environmental values will be recognised, valued and protected. Not just the icon species.

[GeraldCortis]

It seems that icon species have caused protected habitat in many instances. It is more that we need a better concept of which is the actual icon species that indicates health of the whole habitat?

[Effopsytupt]

The species that get the most protection are the rarest ones, this accords with the human perspective that rare=valuable. Of course it is completely fallacious to ascribe a value to wildlife, it all has it's own intrinsic value. The rare=valuable fallacy is very damaging, instead of giving resources where they are needed, we devote enormous resources to things that are mostly insignificant, eg little penguins, which are both rare and cute. The whole valueing of nature thing is pretty bad, humans seem to have this basic atavistic tendency. ID forums are an example, some people are always looking for rarities. My bracket fungus is very common, as I would expect, makes it no less valuable than the rarest, most beautiful mushroom.

[Quick$bux]

And he says the losers in the competition for protection are mostly reptiles and amphibians, even though these — especially frogs and toads — are probably the most endangered groups of animals in the world. I'd imagine the loserest of the losers are terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates. Many species have astonishingly small ranges. One or two mound springs, a single gorge in Central Australia, a hundred metres of limestone outcrop, a mountain peak...

[warrgazur]

Is it people generally that are not concerned with the less than pretty rare species, or is it the media that does not publicise the problem? People involved with rare species are seldom wallflowers when it comes to the welfare of their study animals, but unless the media finds it of sufficient interest, its story remains untold.

[Buincchotourbss]

Those and Stygofauna and the isopods that live in beach sand constantly driven over by $WD cars sometimes mine included to be honest