I think these emblematic species have great value IF and ONLY IF the conservation/management efforts take a system-level rather than species-level view of conserving them. Let's take Asian elephants as an example of what I mean. As a species that has vast habitat requirements, and one that is prone to conflict with people when pushed out of their habitats, as well as their public appeal, they have the potential to draw attention to a host of conservation concerns (and funding) for their habitats - a wide array of ecosystems since they are so versatile.

But in practice, this is not the case. Programs centered on elephants in captivity may attract funding or public attention simply by displaying animals and allowing people to be in close proximity to them without actually directly contributing anything to their conservation in the wild. At the same time, wildlife authorities may engage in so-called 'elephant conservation' tactics such as problem animal translocation or capture (without killing) of 'rogue' animals, mile after mile of electric fences, with no thought for the genetic or ecosystem-level effects of these actions (especially on other species), or the root causes (such as poorly-though out land use) which drive conflict in the first place. Elephant conservation becomes too elephant-centric. The latter mindset, is one which views the well-being of individuals as a proxy for conservation of species, and the conservation of single species as a process divorced from conservation of habitat. The danger is then that these species become victims of their own charisma, since the aim becomes to somehow "conserve" them in a vacuum without tackling the greater challenges.

On balance, I think emblematic species CAN be extremely valuable as indicators and for setting conservation agendas, but only if they are considered as necessary components of a greater whole, rather than in isolation.

Dear de Silva. Thanks for your contribution and accurate observations. I totally agree with this point of view. It is also our responsibility, as scientists, to make this quite clear to polititians and decisors. I have experienced similar problems with African elephants and some marine species, namely cetaceans, chondricthyans and Serranidae.

All the best,

JP

Hi Joao,

I agree. Whilst it is effective for large conservation orgs to use iconic species such as tigers, elephants and polar bears to gain funding for conservation, I believe that they have created a 'monster' in that now the general public has species approach branded into their mindsets. Unfortunately, this could not be further from what is actually needed in conservation.

In my own studies, I have understood the progression from examining things at the species level, then progressing to the (landscape) ecosystem approach, then to SES (Social ecological model) and through to Systems thinking (F. Capra, et al.). There is a need for an understanding of the big picture and how all things are intrinsically linked, and implementing multidisciplinary teams of scientists (including social scientists) to resolve situations.

Dear Denise. Many thanks for your highly appreciated message. I totally agree with the relevant and importante points of your answer. My main "frustration" regarding this huge problem (your term 'monster' fits perfectly) is that it seems we (scientific community) are being quite ineffective in our pappers to bypass this aspect and fullfil that part of our job.

Best regards,

JP

Dear Joao - I am not so sure that it is a failure of scientific papers as such, i.e. if you take papers to mean communication among scientists. I think the breakdown occurs in communicating the scientific or on-the-ground perspective with non-scientists, NGOs etc. At least to some extent this may be driven by the reluctance of scientists to speak in plain language while conservation bodies simultaneously oversimplify and dumb down messages to the public. The challenge we have to conquer, which I am trying to do in my own small way, is to communicate more complex system-level thinking in our messages and interactions with the public in a manner that is easy to grasp. An over-reliance on the "save the cute animal" approach can backfire in terms of pure marketing - appealing to the emotions of people who are already self-proclaimed "animal lovers" (a term I despise, ironically). Instead we should try give people more credit for their ability to understand more complex and nuanced messages, as well as appeal to their own self interest (i.e. that ecosystem services are important for everyone). As Denise says, the multi-level thinking is a progression we may make as professionals, we now have to be mindful of it in all of our other interactions and thus communicate this perspective to those who do not necessarily have first-hand experience.

Dear shermin

That is precisely the point. I also despise that kind of 'Disney' type of approaches you refer. From my part, I allways try to publish a general public version of all my papers but it does seem that we have some kind of a "global problem" when dealing with newspapers, popular maganizes and even those NGO's.

This, I might had, could well be a question of "sloth behaviour" in our modern, technocratic, urban societies? together with the urgency for immediate profits and a kind of low levelling of knowledge? I do not have an answer for this but, as you and Denise pointed out, our communication perspective must take some kind of urgente turn.

Many thanks and best regards,

JP