May 29 2008
“Each and every animal is important” or is it?
I thought it might be good to return to a topic that I posted about quite some time ago. Its been almost a month, and we recently received another contribution to discussion around my post titled “food for thought” Fascinating, as its one of the shortest posts I’ve ever done, but its evoked the most responses. Of particular interest was Wham’s comment,
“To see the amazing recovery of a desperately weak and distressed captive lion cub into a healthy, naturally ‘wild’ young adult (within the boundaries of her sanctuary) was little short of a miracle… Each and every animal is important.”
Of course, on a personal level I feel this way. I wouldn’t be doing this work if I didn’t have some empathy for animals. There should be room though in conservation circles though, for some discussion of how to rationally deploy the limited resources we have for conserving species or ecosystems. To explain more clearly, let me outline a scenario: given the choice between spending a certain amount of funding to save the life of an individual animal, and investing that same amount of money on conserving an entire ecosystem, complete with an assemblage of wonderful creatures (including many of the target species), what would you do? Its a very, very hard question to answer and I would be curious to know what the readership of this blog thinks.
Yes, there is a big assumption here: that money directed towards “individual-centric” conservation programs would otherwise be spent on broader conservation methodology.
Here are a few of our cats to look at while you think about this….
Technorati : conservation, klip-in-die-bos, science, species conservation
18 responses so far
Though the obvious answer seems to be to save as many of the species as possible and if that means not being able to take care of an individual, that is a sacrifice that must be made…but that said, I don’t know that I could personally, after getting to “know” various families and individuals within the ecosystem, could make a decision NOT to help a cub, or a sick gorilla, or a wounded elephant. I can barely go to the local Pet Smart without leaving with every cat they have for adoption! So, bottom line, I would be terrible at your job, because I don’t think I would have the discipline or emotional capacity to make the hard decisions you must face frequently. So thank you, because I know that without your efforts, these conversations would not even be necessary because there would be no ecosystems to protect.
I believe that I understand the logic of conserving an entire ecosystem rather than one individual animal. In a distanced, “antiseptic” world this makes by far the most sense for the “greater” good. However, if the conservation activities are funded by private individuals, I just don’t see how the conservationists can function without some individualized success stories. Those donating to a cause donate more if they see a “poster child” for the cause than if they are just presented with the cold, hard facts. For instance, I found WildlifeDirect after hearing about the Rugendo family massacre. It is because of THAT particular story and the faces of those gorillas that I began donating to Gorilla Protection. From there, I’ve expanded and now donate to many of the blogs. Because I now understand, through this website, the wider implications of poaching, charcoal, etc. on the whole ecosystem, I now donate to the Mara Conservancy, which seems to use reason and logic in their pleas for help rather than the adorable face of a baby animal. However, it is still the face of that one INDIVIDUAL injured or needy ape or monkey that gets my attention and causes me to donate. Therefore, while I think the “Big Picture” movers and shakers need to keep their eyes toward an entire ecosystem, those of you in the trenches have to sometimes choose an individual creature to elicit the public response (i.e., donations) that you need.
Having worked in both the animal welfare and wildlife conservation paradigms, you can imagine I often had similar battles going through my mind and found myself having to confront the discipline of the profession vs. “a gut feeling”. Perhaps I will take the liberty to share my own ramblings I posted a while ago on another blog that confronts a similar situation but based on what we are willing to put on our plate:
http://www.africanews.com/site/list_messages/12079
My question to you, is do you think you we would have the same reaction if it were not such a fluffy animal like a lion (dont get me wrong I love fluffy)
Well said Sherri!
Christine and Sherri, you make a good point. There are many people who would not support conservation were it not for the “poster child” syndrome. Some know this as the “flagship species” concept: choose a pretty, large mammal. Preferably with a suitably expressive face / large teeth / claws / a big horn. Or just take the biggest one available. Then show the public pretty pictures of it… It works as a way of raising funds.
“Yes, there is a big assumption here: that money directed towards “individual-centric” conservation programs would otherwise be spent on broader conservation methodology.”
While I strongly agree with the above assumption, sometimes when I see the “poster child” suffering, my emotions get the best of me. Most of what I have to give is spent concentrating on the Mountain Lions in my own backyard and the ecosystem as a whole, but it’s the individual need that will get me to donate to other causes, such as the Lion Guardians. When looking at the big picture it’s easy to feel overwhelmed. The individual needs seem so much easier to fill. When I see a more attainable goal I’m more likely to donate.
I became a volunteer at the National Zoo because of a panda cub named Tai Shan. Sure, his parents are pretty cute (have you ever seen an ugly giant panda?), but this tiny cub represented something greater to me and I wanted to learn everything I could about conserving pandas and how to talk to people to get them interested in wildlife conservation. So yeah, I agree that one beautiful face can get a lot of people interested in conservation and hopefully it leads to a wider interest in conserving ecosystems and other species.
As for the question you posed, Seamus, I’m a vegan so I think EVERY non-human animal life is important. In fact, I think all animal life on this planet, human and non-human, is equally valuable. None has greater value than the other because we’re all important to a balanced planet. I’m sure it would be impossible for me to make a decision based on the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. Or the one.
s.
Ah yes, “sad fluffy in jeopardy + money = happy safe fluffy”, a satisfying and concise narrative to go with the pictures. Good marketing perhaps and why not?
It’s a very easy question to answer. I’d back the ecosystem every time if it were offered as a tangible option but I do believe that it’s a cause best addressed on governmental level rather than by charity/NGO/private enterprise (but then I live in a place where the proper activities of an actual functioning elected government aren’t replaced by the efforts of charities or NGOs).
Why bother feeding a clown-fish when you’ve broken the aquarium and you’ve long been abusing its ocean as your larder and toilet?
When I think of all the money I’ve wasted on those stupid Pandas over the years when I should have been funding the bamboo forest!
We all take different things from our giving.
Sheryl, I was writing as you were posting so I didn’t see your Panda comment. It was not my intention to offend you. Unfortunate coincidence (or happy accident depending on your sense of humour).
Sheryl touches on an interesting point: the idea that its pretty easy to be overwhelmed by the myriad conservation “issues” (yes Canary I am using that word… wamerikani wou graag mooi verstaan). And perhaps I could add to that, the idea that much like the numerous human tragedies around the world, the popular media guides public opinion, and instructs us where to put our donations. I think this is part of the reason why we land up with skewed conservation priorities. And why NGOs thrive where governmental authorities should be carrying out their mandate (NGOs are far, far better at communicating with the public than any government I know of).
Heck, I’m probably not doing myself any favours here. I guess I shouldn’t ignore the fact that I am in fact trying to raise funds for a cute, fluffy and desperate mono-species conservation program and an entire group of people whose livelihoods depend on it.
Wim, I wasn’t offended. I got your point. But keep wasting your money on those pandas because they’re in a world of trouble right now!
Seamus, I don’t think you’re hurting your cause with this discussion. I hope more people drop in here and read it, actually. As for the NGOs reaching far more people than any government, you are dead to rights. My government (the Bush Administration) faces a lot of legal challenges from powerful conservation NGOs on recent US Fish & Wildlife rulings, etc. If not for the NGOs, we’d probably not be aware of what’s happening to our wildlife and wild places in this country.
s.
Seamus — I think this a very worthy discussion because it helps people think more broadly about these types of issues. The fact of the matter is that most causes need to use the “carrot/stick” approach to appeal to a variety of individuals and organizations. I often tell people to look within their causes to see what else might be there that is of interest to those individuals/goverments, ect… that have the power to affect change.
Maybe the question should be: where do we get the most bang for our buck? I’d be interested in hearing everyone’s opinion?
If one looks at donations towards conservation using the “investment” model (”bang for buck”) then I would say that africa is the continent where you will get the most returns. Its notoriously cheap to “do” conservation in africa. Further to this, I would say that the best conservation work to invest in is that which is science-based, relevant to a much broader topic or geographical area, able to have some influence over, or provide consultancy to, governmental wildlife authorities. And lastly, cost- effective conservation is generally holistic, in that it attempts to address all the various facets of a conservation problem to arrive at the desired outcome. Rather than only focussing on one easily quantifiable variable. (I am going to ruthlessly self-advertise here…. Living with Lions meets all the above criteria and more!)
a short postscript to that last comment: hunters would argue that one gets the most ‘buck for one’s bang” in africa too. Its cheap to hunt here, and we stil have wildlife.
Wim - I think that non-profits provide very important checks / balances to government. This delves into the realm of the political, but suffice it to say that Kenya needs much, much stronger governmental capacity to manage its wildlife.
Seamus, I totally agree with you about living with Lions/Lion Guardians. My reason being… I believe helping a community to take care of it’s own has the most chance of long term success.
Keep posting pics of those”cute fuzzys” and I’ll keep helping out when I can. =)
Wow, you guys all make such great points and I agree with them all. Especially, William’s comment: “why bother feeding a clown-fish when you’ve broken the aquarium and you’ve long been abusing its ocean as your larder and toilet?” The fact is, so many more “cute fuzzys” will be saved and be able to live “wild” if entire ecosystems are conserved. That said, I too found Wildlife Direct because of what happened to the Rugendo family, although in that case, I do believe great efforts are being made to conserve that ecosystem, especially by NGO’s. (I don’t know if the government is doing much to help). Anyway, my point is, if I were face to face with that one individual animal that needed saving, I don’t think I could say “No.” I mean in the case of the Bonobos. Little Lomela stole my heart instantly and I had to help her. So, little Bonobos like Lomela will be saved, but will those that are saved live free and wild, like they were meant to. Perhaps not, but they will live to help educate and bring awareness to the plight of their species and in return, hopefully their ecosystems can be saved. It’s frustrating, because, it’s one thing to raise money for and save that one “cute fuzzy”, people see them and want to help. It’s another thing to try and raise money for and save an ecosystem because there or no “cute fuzzy” faces, just trees, bushes, bugs, soil, etc. The connection is lost to some people. I don’t think the full impact registers with most people. Lisa