HOME | DD
soyrwoo β Conservation
Published: 2009-11-08 17:08:30 +0000 UTC; Views: 3066; Favourites: 139; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Is it so important to save the cute and furry that we can rightfully ignore the critically endangered axolotl, totoaba, and Pleurotus nebrodensis?Or how about the toromiro, franklinia, and 'alala, which are all extinct in the wild?
Maybe we should stop crying over individual, fairly stable species *coughgraywolvescough* and start working on entire ecosystems that are endangered?
The World Wildlife Fund is really a great organization for this; no matter what animal you adopt, all of the donations are put into one pool and divided into specific projects as necessary. This way, you can get your plushies of the non-threatened meerkat and still help conserve forests in China. Plus, I think they have the best selection of donation gifts XD
It's only 50 USD for a plushie; go to their site now! [link]
Edit: if you support this stamp, you'd probably support this group too:
Photo and stamp by ~soyrwoo
Stamp template by $zilla774 [link]
Related content
Comments: 42
Had to add a comment to this. I've discussed this with many conservationists and my lecturers. Majority of all species are in the red list, at least as being 'near threatened', or they are data deficient. So obviously it's always difficult to prioritize one species over another. I think it's much easier to promote conservation of flagship species, such as cute fluffy pandas, to appeal to the public with posters, cuddly bears etc. in order to gain the funds necessary to carry out their conservation. Poor plants barely get any funding 
Also often when a species is emphasized as highly endangered/rare and advertised, demand for them rises, price increases, so more poaching/collecting :/
π: 0 β©: 0
I don't know why so many people are into wolves :/ They kind of scare me actually.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm pretty into wolves myself, so I totally understand the appeal, but as someone who doesn't interact with large canids very often I can also understand how they can be a bit scary
The thing is that you can't let your personal opinions on animals govern how you handle conservation issues. Β While my love for wolves should not make me prioritize them over issues surrounding other species or over human welfare, my fear of spiders shouldn't make me less inclined to support their welfare or the conservation of threatened spider populations. Β This stamp goes both ways.
π: 0 β©: 1
I also hate spiders. But I like the really big hairy ones that people keep as pets.
I think that everyone should be allowed to have a favourite animal, but they had better stop thinking that their favourite is better than everything else out there. In elementary I was all about cats, but I never insulted dogs. I said I was scared of big ones, but not that I disliked them. Mostly everyone else was a dog person, and they would always tell me that dogs are better, cats suck, ect. And yes, I do think it it a bit sad that everyone is all about wolves and nobody even knows what a pallas cat, for example, is. The great thing about loving cats is that you love them all, panthers, sand cats, domestic cats, all of them. And even If we do chose to protect one animal over another, If that species is in trouble, we're still doing the right thing. Not all animals are created equal, but we can't judge to things that are so different. Like comparing apples to lightbulbs. Doesen't work. XD
π: 0 β©: 0
I know its an old stamp but I agree. Animal conservation look much more like a popularity contest than anything less. Everybody love the panda, the tiger and wolf, but doesnt care for lizards, spiders and other "ugly animals"
This make me remember a story I see when I was really little (around 8 years old) about snails that belong to a really specific enviroment (it was an island) People were raising other kind of snail for soup and things like that, but a few of these snails get free and start to destroy the enviroment. The little native snail start to feel the destroy of the enviroment because the "soup snail" were stronger (plus, the place was predator free for them) To solve the problem they bring a carnivorou kind of snail, so it eat the "soup snail"(I think it was their natural predator?), sadly, they went for the native snail as it were tastier and easies to hunt. The native snail were so endangered that they hit the critical number of just 7 been left. At the end I dont know what happend with this snail, but I just see this story ONCE. I think nobody care if the animal isnt cute enough. And probably this huge enviromental disaster was caused because nobody care at all about a snail.
I admit I dont like snails (but really feel sorry for them) and probably I dont remeber the right number about how many native snails were left, but I remember it was incredible low number and never hit the 3 digits. I was trying to find the story back, and found that there was this really coloful snail from Cuba, and yet, not much people care about it. Because is not cute or fluffy animail we like. Now im 21 and my best guess is that the little native snail went extintc. Im so sorry my english suck (spanish talking person) and the story was boring, but I agree with you, just because isnt cute doesnt mean people shouln`t put effort on saving it, at the end, and snail is as important to any wolf or panda.
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree....I love wolves, and don't get the reason for all the hatred and resentment people often direct towards them, but I still know that the Grey Wolf is not endangered (although other wolf species like the Ethiopian Wolf are).
But there are many other species that are critically endangered and in real danger of extinction, and they get mostly ignored.
Please could I use this stamp on my page?
π: 0 β©: 1
Sure, you can use it! You don't even need to ask
π: 0 β©: 1
Most people do it for the looks. Oh look at me, I'm doing a walk to raise money! They invite papers and news reporters to say:
"I'm in Wheretheheckistan where Whoever Whatsits name is doing a walk to raise money for the local zoo. Isn't that great?"
They make me want to puke.
π: 0 β©: 0
Makes me think about the Pinta Island tortise and the Baiji
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree completly, there are so many species in the world which get absolutly no spotlight at all because they're not as cute and cuddly or as well recognised as some of the larger animals ... although I have to say that I do support all animals equily ^^ .
I'm curently supporting the lynx with the link you posted in your comments, and door mice with another charity (I'm not sure about the rest of the world but doormice are vanishing in England quite rapidly)
The great thing about the WWF is like you said, you don't have to feel bad about only "supporting" one animal because you're technicaly supporting all of them with your donations.
π: 0 β©: 0
Well, charismatic species (like lions, whales, eagles, etc.) can help us to protect less known species that are not as attractive. It's a trick known as "Flagship Species" (or Umbrella Species). It works specially well when biologists and conservationists are aiming to create or expand a reserve or protected area so, by attracting the public attention with said species they get to protect the whole enviroment and the others species within it.
However, what you poin out with this stamp is important. People should know the whole picture and understand that a lot of the non protected species might not be very attractive in our human standards, but are just as important as the favorites (or maybe even more, ecologically speaking).
Maybe you could improve this stamp by adding images of the ajolote (axolotl), the totoaba and that awesome mushroom you mention to make a point
π: 0 β©: 1
I realize that groups such as WWF use flagship species to protect entire ecosystems, but I wanted to increase public awareness of the lesser-known species within those environments. A lot more money goes into organizations working only for the conservation of giant pandas than into organizations working to help just the Tasmanian devil.
It's easier to gain support by placing a popular animal in a logo, but it's almost meaningless if people don't understand what they are supporting
I'd put a relatively unattractive creature in the stamp, but I don't have any good photos of such critters and I never feel right using images that I don't own. Do you think that's a good enough excuse to get a pet axolotl? XD
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah. Kinda frustrating to see all that money going only for the pandas or other cute but over studied species.
And many of those people who support X organizations only because of their logo usually don't have a clue of what truly means to do a conservationist work. Or can even misinterpret the idea of conservationism.
I think you would take care very well of the axolotl if you ever got one 
π: 0 β©: 1
Haha, there are so many people who wear WWF T-shirts but can't hold a conversation regarding conservation. One has to wonder why they have the shirt in the first place...
Oh, thank you! You have a great gallery! I really love the "Artist's Comments"
Maybe I will remake the stamp; Amur leopards look fairly fuzzy and are increasing in population, so they don't suit the message quite perfectly. I guess that's a pretty good thing for the leopards
π: 0 β©: 0
You know what an axolotl is?? *happy face* I thought I was the only one... My biology teacher asked us that question and in a class of over 200 students, I was the only one who knew what they were.
Anyways, I totally love this stamp, it reflects my views almost 100%. Although, in my opinion, The most important creatures on the planet are those which are the least popular: the insects, the frogs, the snakes, the "vermin." Without the bottom of the food chain, there is no top of the food chain.
Thanks for an awesome stamp!
π: 0 β©: 1
I love axolotls! They took center stage in my last school project: [link]
It's kind of sad that you were the only one out of 200 people who knew the species; they're such adorable little things! XD
Yeah, it's all the critters that aren't cute and cuddly that keep the rest of the world going. Good thing most of them are doing well, but the threatened and endangered "vermin" seem quite overshadowed by the creatures higher up on the chain
Thank you!
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, even sadder because it was a college Biology course
I was glad to find a stamp which promoted conservation for all species instead of just 'omg speshul wulves lol.' Not saying wolves aren't important, but there are species way more detrimental to conserving wildlife ecology than them whether we like it or not.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, jeesh... that is sad!
Haha, I know how you feel about wolves. They're cool, but the ones most folks cry for aren't anywhere near extinction. There are insects closer to dying out than the wolves in Idaho! XD
π: 0 β©: 1
To be fair, nature is only supposed to support a certain number of predators and some people don't seem to understand that. Something like 1 predator vs. 10 prey items. So 1,000 wolves for 10,000 wild deer is actually a stable ecosystem, but those who can't really grasp ecology would say the wolves are in dwindling numbers 
A brain really isn't something to waste
π: 0 β©: 1
So true! I've seen people compare the world population of gray wolves to the world population of humans to show that wolves are in trouble (in response to something I said about it being a-okay to shoot a wolf in order to save your own life XD).
Not to mention that the Yellowstone wolf population never reached its expected height after the reintroduction; the wolves started killing each other before their population could be restricted by their food supply 0_o
π: 0 β©: 1
I personally feel there are too many humans on the planet, but if you think about it, we are able to live in a much wider array of habitats thanks to our ability to create shelter and somewhat control the temperature of our surroundings (in our homes anyway). Not many animals have that ability, but if they did, I'm sure there would be many, many more.
Ironically, trying to restore a species to its carrying capacity can destroy it faster than letting it recover on it's own. Interesting that the wolves would resort to cannibalism though, that's certainly something I bet the conservationalists didn't expect.
π: 0 β©: 1
I think so too; the human population just keeps growing. At this rate, we'll eventually have some sort of massive, natural die-off and that certainly won't be fun
The wolves aren't killing each other quite to that extent... that would be worrying! It's just a few neighborly disputes and infanticides, nothing too serious. The conservationists definitly didn't expect the wolves to control their own population, though
π: 0 β©: 1
Unfortunately it's difficult, and probably impossible, to predict what the Earth's human carrying capacity is. And honestly, that's why I am not very supportive of many helpful causes. It's not that I don't care about humans, but there are just too many of us as is and the last thing we need is for not a single human to ever die. We need to accept our own mortality.
I didn't mean the wolves were completely killing eachother out, just that there are instances of animals pretty much eating themselves to death because there were too many. Whitetailed deer, for example, had a huge population explosion when it became illegal to hunt them. Which was nice, until they ate everything and eventually started dying of starvation.
π: 0 β©: 1
I keep hearing about how some scientists believe they are close to finding a way to prevent people from ever dying, but it seems like it would be awfully dull to live forever. Even one of the Pythons (John Cleese?) said that you laugh less as you grow older because you've already heard all of the jokes. Living for eternity could even be torture, but I digress... quite a bit XD
Heheh, that makes a lot more sense
But talk about an awful way to die! Good thing deer hunting has since become legal.
Didn't the same thing happen to the humans on Easter Island?
π: 0 β©: 1
I think letting humans live forever is the worst idea any scientist has ever had. Not even the most brilliant minds should be kept alive forever - in theory it could be nice, but in practice it would probably be anything but.
Honestly, I haven't done much reading up on the people on Easter Island. Aren't those the ones that created those massive statues that no one has yet to figure out what they were for?
π: 0 β©: 1
We could always freeze people and bring them back to life when we need them, like Walt Disney's brain XD
That's pretty much all I know about Easter Island: they made statues and just sort of disappeared. I've heard it's an interesting place to visit, though.
Maybe I should go read about it...
π: 0 β©: 1
I believe that's been done for a couple of people - some baseball star or something. Because supposedly baseball is the most important thing evar. That, and his son could actually afford to put him on ice. I think it's strange to want to bring someone back from death. I don't know if humans could be responsible with something like that.
I'm not too interested in Anthropology, so I haven't done much reading up on Easter Island or its old inhabitants. Just some light here and there things, but definitely not enough for significant information. Not that there is any significant information in the first place.
π: 0 β©: 1
Heheh, it's all about money in the end. If it does work, then the term "zombie" would become politically incorrect and we couldn't have any more zombie movies
There's no doubt someone will try it. I wouldn't be surprised if North Korean scientists are attempting it this very moment.
I'm not all too interested in anthropology either and, as you said, there really isn't that much information on the island anyway. Those giant heads are pretty spiffy, though
π: 0 β©: 1
There could still be zombie movies, they would just have to be all-accepting of the zombie lifestyle - giving them equal rights, letting them eat our dead, marry whomever they want, etc. 
There's a decent amount of info on a wiki article, but it seems scientists can't even agree on a name for the island, much less it's history. Seems every theory is "too controversial" for one reason or another. 
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh... oh, dear... XD
I imagine Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland would be banned in most places (and a sad day that would be!). At least there would be an increased representation of zombies on TV; newscasts would become pretty entertaining!
Thanks for the link! Heh, sounds like the whole island is a mystery. The moai certainly aren't talking
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, it's pretty cool.
π: 0 β©: 0
One thing...while I do agree that we shouldn't ignore the other types of creatures (I say creatures, because when people think of animals they think of the cute and cuddly ones) I don't believe that grey wolves are completely stable yet, at least not with states issuing hunting licenses and almost persuading people to go out and hunt wolves on a massive scale (I remember one state, think Ohio, giving out hunting licenses to hunt down about somewhere between 1000-5000 wolves, but the number may be wrong). So, it may be necessary to try and keep a close eye on them with such states endorsing these types of practices.
And, getting off that topic. I just think they wouldn't be able to get the message across to the public. Most people, if you made them decide between a cute and furry mammal and an endangered insect that may look like it'll give your child nightmares, generally they'll choose the cute and furry animal. It's a sad problem, really...
π: 0 β©: 1
The gray wolf, as a species, is doing really well; it's just certain subspecies that need a bit of help
Actually, the states are proposing to hunt wolves because their populations are doing great. Ohio won't be giving out any licenses (there aren't all too many wolves in Ohio 
Ooh, creepy insect nightmares wouldn't be good XD
Then again, you have to wonder how on earth the Arthur series became so popular; aardvarks look and smell weird, yet the one is so loved... then there's the Geico gecko...
Making the horror movie critter cute and lovable is possible; it just isn't done enough
π: 0 β©: 1
it took me forever to learn that arthur was an aarvark XD.... he looks more like some weird mouse to me XD
π: 0 β©: 1
It took me a long time to figure out what he was too... it never really clicked that he was a specific species or something XD
π: 0 β©: 0
Well, sometimes those "fairly stable species *coughgraywolvescough*" play important roles in the stability of ecosystems, and while their populations may be fairly stable world wide, they have been extirpated from many regions that would benefit from their presence, and frequently unwanted by many in places they are.
But I agree with you that the cute and furry endangered species generally get far too much attention, probably because they are more likely to appeal to the general population.
And much as I hate to say it, the 'alala is quite likely very doomed due to poor decisions in the early preservation attempts. Not that they really had any basis to work from at that point.
π: 0 β©: 1
Sorry for the late response! I've been rather behind on my responses lately
They certainly do; the programs protecting such species should not be ignored, but I do feel that in some cases, a lot of the attention received by one species could easily be geared more toward another without any harm to the first. The same goes for subspecies; the public seems to focus more on the Alaskan/Candadian wolves than the critically endangered Mexican gray wolves. The Midwestern/Eastern North American wolves are nearly non-existant to the majority of the public, despite their endangered status, and I have yet to hear much about any of the subspecies on the Eastern Hemisphere.
Ah, well, we can't save them can we? To tell the truth, I only included the 'alala because I'm rather fond of saying its name. Of course, the Asiatic lion has been brought back from a mere 20, so the 'alala may still have a chance
π: 0 β©: 1
Not a problem, life happens to everyone.
Another thing to consider is that (as I have been frequently reminded in my Community Ecology course this semester) species do not exist in a vacuum, so protecting one species (properly, habitat and all) can benefit other species that share its habitat.
Well, there are a few species/subspecies I'm aware of that are considered "success stories," having been bred back from the brink, as it were. Unfortunately, the chance that these populations will ever actually be healthy isn't likely due to the small genetic diversity.
π: 0 β©: 0
I also don't get why they wait so long before promoting to save the creatures. "OMG THERE'S ONLY 3 LEFT IN EXISTENCE SHOULD WE DO SOMETHING?" Nah, let's wait for another to die before we go on TV begging for money...
π: 0 β©: 1
It's usually not the fault of the organization
Species populations are always being miscounted, especially if they are particularly rare or elusive, and sometimes, they even appear out of nowhere after being declared extinct.
Also, conservation groups usually use the critically endangered species to raise awareness because most people can comprehend "under 40 Amur Leopards" more easily than "500 Sumatran Tigers." Very few have counted to 500, so it sounds somewhat high, despite being very low population-wise; "under 40" sounds a lot more dire. It's just another little advertising technique
π: 0 β©: 0