Me:
Some call it cuteness, some call it charisma, some even call it animal magnetism: Hi, I’m Jack Werner, and today I’ll be talking about why we try so much harder to conserve likeable species and what this means for endangered animals everywhere.
With me is my good friend, Not me.
Not me:
Hello there
Me:
Let’s get to it. From China’s giant pandas to the elephants of the African savanna to America’s iconic bald eagles, there are some animals that just captivate us.
In fact, a study estimated that 54% of all wildlife funding in the United States is devoted to just 1.8% of America’s endangered species.
Not me:
Why exactly do we value some endangered species so much more than others?
Me:
Most endangered species aren’t economically valuable, so we usually value them for emotional reasons. Different people are captivated by different animals, but there are some general patterns to what people like. Typically, physical and behavioral similarity to humans is an important factor.
Gorillas hold their babies like we do. Chimps use elaborate tools. Elephants mourn their dead. All these actions resonate with us.
Not me:
What else?
Me:
Another huge factor, so to speak, is size. Large animals awe us and instinctively demand our respect. Culture plays a large role too. If an animal is deemed sacred in a certain religion, such as cows in Hindu India, you can bet they’ll be conserved.
Not me:
So basically, the pretty, strong, and cool animals get all the attention. Sounds like high school. But ugly, small, or less dramatic animals don’t have any less of a right to exist, do they?
Me:
No, they absolutely have the same right to exist. And this brings us to an interesting point. Conservation groups that seem to care about only charismatic animals actually help broad swaths of animals, and they do so in a fascinating way.
First, they’ve guessed that people are much more likely to give money to conserve the Panda than, say, the south China Sika deer, which lives in the same area.
By that alone, they’re able to conserve more species.
But the really cool thing is that these charismatic animals are sometimes keystone species, and saving them can often help preserve all animals in their ecosystem. The logic is that if animals at the top are thriving, everything below them in the foodchain must be doing ok.
Not me:
Do you have any examples of that?
Me:
Sure. The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone helped keep elk populations in check, which resulted in a large increase in plant biomass.
Many targeted charismatic species have huge ranges, like the Siberian tiger. Saving this tiger means making sure it has room to roam, and this helps all the animals in the forest.
Another example is the spotted owl. These owls need old growth forests to survive, so protecting the owls means saving the trees they nest in from logging.
Not me:
Ok, you’ve convinced me that people are more willing to save charismatic species. But if people only care about specific species, wouldn’t they be fine with just putting them in zoos and not helping overall ecosystems?
Me:
Great question. Although there hasn’t been much work done on this, I’ll give a tentative no. In 2003, economists conducted a study on people’s willingness to pay to conserve pandas. They found that the average American is willing to pay $3.90 to care for caged pandas and $8.43 for penned pandas. But their respondents were willing to pay a whopping $14.86 for a panda reserve. Extrapolating, this means that people value charismatic animals living in their natural environments, which will indirectly lead to the preservation of everything else in those ecosystems. Ideally, entire environments would be conserved for their own sake, but these charismatic animals can be tremendously effective proxies.
Not me:
Interesting!
Me:
Absolutely. That’s all the time we have for today; thank you for listening. Until n(continued)
