🚀 go-pugleaf

Colin A. B. Davidson <cabd2@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9klq9g$jsk$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> "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.
>
That's it exactly.  The term "umbrella species" has been coined to describe
the cuddly high-profile critters.  It kinda bothers the scientist in me but
it is a good way to secure funds.