<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Charismatic animals get all the love.]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Stentor http://www.grist.org/article/the-case-for-charisma/ Thu, 12 May 2005 03:04:44 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-case-for-charisma/1 depends on your goals

How much you focus on charismatic species depends on the rationale for conservation. If you're conserving because of the intrinsic value of nature or in order to maintain ecosystem services, the "motivation, "keystone species," and "ease of monitoring" arguments are your central terrain. But if you're conserving nature because of its aesthetic value to humans (a not uncommon motivation, even if it doesn't get much philosophical respect), then the very likeability of charismatic species is reason enough to focus on preserving them. Similarly, if you're conserving nature because of its economic tourism value, charismatic species will by definition be bigger visitor draws.

]]> depends on your goals

How much you focus on charismatic species depends on the rationale for conservation. If you're conserving because of the intrinsic value of nature or in order to maintain ecosystem services, the "motivation, "keystone species," and "ease of monitoring" arguments are your central terrain. But if you're conserving nature because of its aesthetic value to humans (a not uncommon motivation, even if it doesn't get much philosophical respect), then the very likeability of charismatic species is reason enough to focus on preserving them. Similarly, if you're conserving nature because of its economic tourism value, charismatic species will by definition be bigger visitor draws.

]]> Comment #2 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/the-case-for-charisma/ Fri, 13 May 2005 02:40:00 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-case-for-charisma/2 I would start with frogs.

The red legged frog used to be so common here in the Northwest that logging camps supplemented their meals with them. I have seen three in my twenty five years of hiking here.

From there, I would look at newts and salamanders. They also tend to be good environmental indicators. You will not find frogs or newts in Bitterlake, Greenlake, Sivlerlake or any other urban lake. With urban sprawl, all lakes are becoming urban ones, so a look at Seattle's lakes is a look into the future of most lakes in the area. A handful of introduced frog species can be found along the slew, and in the arboretum along Lake Washington, but that is it. When these species disappear from around a body of water, what you have left is a runoff containment pond.

Lizards. There are none in Seattle because there is nothing for them to eat, and the ubiquitous house cats eat them. Again, where urban sprawl goes so go our pet cats and insecticides.

Deer and elk are happy eating our ornamental yard plants and gardens. Wolves are happy eating them, and bears eat grass, berries, carrion, and garbage.  They could all exist quite happily in our urban subdivisions if we would allow it.

Monitoring the charismatic species is no way to monitor the health of an ecosystem.

http://saveourbiodiversity.com

]]> I would start with frogs.

The red legged frog used to be so common here in the Northwest that logging camps supplemented their meals with them. I have seen three in my twenty five years of hiking here.

From there, I would look at newts and salamanders. They also tend to be good environmental indicators. You will not find frogs or newts in Bitterlake, Greenlake, Sivlerlake or any other urban lake. With urban sprawl, all lakes are becoming urban ones, so a look at Seattle's lakes is a look into the future of most lakes in the area. A handful of introduced frog species can be found along the slew, and in the arboretum along Lake Washington, but that is it. When these species disappear from around a body of water, what you have left is a runoff containment pond.

Lizards. There are none in Seattle because there is nothing for them to eat, and the ubiquitous house cats eat them. Again, where urban sprawl goes so go our pet cats and insecticides.

Deer and elk are happy eating our ornamental yard plants and gardens. Wolves are happy eating them, and bears eat grass, berries, carrion, and garbage.  They could all exist quite happily in our urban subdivisions if we would allow it.

Monitoring the charismatic species is no way to monitor the health of an ecosystem.

http://saveourbiodiversity.com

]]> Comment #3 by Japhet http://www.grist.org/article/the-case-for-charisma/ Fri, 13 May 2005 16:53:40 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-case-for-charisma/3 Keeping this on the DL

Anyone else worried about GOP politicians using these re-discoveries as a way to repeal pieces of the Endangered Species Acts? Im a little nervous that all of these re-discoveries could hurt us in the end...

Jay Els Educate, Motivate and Bring About Change. http://www.ran.org

]]> Keeping this on the DL

Anyone else worried about GOP politicians using these re-discoveries as a way to repeal pieces of the Endangered Species Acts? Im a little nervous that all of these re-discoveries could hurt us in the end...

Jay Els Educate, Motivate and Bring About Change. http://www.ran.org

]]>