2 ms·
It's a war between economically and economically motivated people. The majority of critically endangered species are amphibians. Around 30% of all amphibians a
by jdietrich 8y ago
It's a war between economically and economically motivated people.
The majority of critically endangered species are amphibians. Around 30% of all amphibians are classified as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable by the IUCN. Why have you never heard this fact before? Because practically no-one actually gives a shit about conservation.
The major conservation charities are a boondoggle. Their work often has little or no basis in science, their priorities are completely disconnected with protecting biodiversity, they often work to "save" species that are under no real threat and their efforts to protect charismatic megafauna are often detrimental to broader conservation issues.
As highlighted by this article, the impact of their activities on native peoples ranges from "highly disruptive" to "grievous and persistent abuses of human rights". In many places, the activities of conservation charities resembles the British Raj; vast numbers of people are uprooted from their homes and displaced to make room for wildlife reserves, despite those people often playing a vital role in protecting the ecosystem they inhabit.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1502366541/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1502366541/
- duado 8y agoThe public does love its megafauna. I desperately want my son to be able to take his son to see cheetahs on a safari. As for frogs... I can’t make myself care even 1% as much.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoMuch like the poachers then, the value of the animal is based solely on its utility to you personally.
- duado 8y agoYep — so I’ll support policies to shoot them on sight and perhaps they’ll do the reverse.
- Nasrudith 8y agoAmphibians I think are also more passively killed as well from development or water pollution instead of with guns for profit. Now dead is dead and they are less charismatic but the lack of open maliciousness is also a factor. It took heavy campaigning to get DDT banned after it was leading to thinning eggshell deaths of bald eagles - if the cause was men with guns the lucky outcome would be the practice banned very quickly as opposed to lynching. I doubt people would be pleased if it the main cause of amphibian decline was gunmen instead of development and water pollution. One is an emergent side effect while the other is direct malicious action.