🚀 go-pugleaf

"athomik" <mail@askadrian.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tmspkcj4p40e93@xo.supernews.co.uk...

> The reason the panda was chosen as a logo, I believe, is because int the
> early days of the conservation movement, there was global concern for the
> panda's future, i.e. it was the highest profile example of an endangered
> species. I suppose that it's cuddly image is also not bad from a PR point
of
> view.
>
> With regard to large mammals etc receiving a lot of attention, I believe
> there is a simple ecological reason for it. Tigers for example, are the
top
> predator in their habitat and as such rely on a healthy and thriving
habitat
> lower down the food chain. Population densities and overall numbers for
> larger animal are also much lower than for small mammals,invertebrates
etc,
> and are thus much more sensitive to changes. Other species are chose
because
> they are useful as an indicator species, being the first to show any
> ill-effects if something goes wrong with their habitat.
> I have not come across any reports of the WWF choosing projects purely for
> their PR value.

We have to face the fact that is't easier to get money to look after
'cuddly' wildlife. People are willing to give funds to save these 'flagship'
species of mammals, and that money is best spent protecting the habitats for
those animals and the countless other species present.

This isn't in any way a cynical ploy from the conservation organisations,
it's simply a pragmatic way of getting funds to do good work.