By Chad Love

Here's an interesting philosophical question: Are you more inclined to care about animals that are cute than ones that are ugly? Probably, according to this story in the Montreal Gazette:
 
For endangered species, it pays to be a large mammal with sad eyes that cuddles its babies. Glamorous animals, big predators and, above all, the extremely cute and fuzzy stand a chance of getting people to protect them and their habitats. Ugly animals - as judged by human eyes - are far more likely to be left aside when humans draw up conservation plans. Anyone care to save Ontario's rattlesnakes? Canadian ecology experts say such thinking means we're in danger of re-shaping nature to beautify it according to human notions of what's pretty, saving the mammals but letting the reptiles and amphibians disappear.
 
It's an idea that's been around for a while. In fact, the term "charismatic megafauna" is almost a pejorative among some wildlife biologists. But I'd like to twist the question around a bit and transfer the concept to the hunting and fishing world. In your personal pecking order, what game species (fish, bird, or mammal) would you choose to protect at the expense of another? Which ones would you throw under the bus in order to save those favorite species?

Personally, I think if I had to choose between, say, the King of Gamebirds (bobwhite quail) or the naked mole rat (above) I'm pretty sure the naked mole rat would be SOL. Of course, that's a cop-out, as the naked mole rat isn’t a game animal. I just wanted an excuse to use that hideous photo. What's your game species bias?

Comments (12)

from HogBlog wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

My precedence is simple, although it may not quite fit the question. I say, protect the native species over the non-natives (e.g. feral hogs). Beyond that, I think it's kind of dangerous to even go down the road of choosing one native species over another. We're dealing with interrelated systems, not a shopping shelf.

Of course, human intervention has so scrambled the inter-relations that it's hard to say where more meddling or less would yield benefits.

+4 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from jamesti wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

that's a tough one. all native animals have a place in the wild where they are known to originate. the secret is management of the animals. i put less significance on non native animals but believe some can fit in just fine. i don't put anything an cuteness.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from MJC wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Don't knock naked mole rats! They may be ugly as sin but scientists are studying them as we speak to try and figure out why they don't get any diseases. Ever. Or cancer. They've thrown everything they can find at them and they just keep going. They don't even start aging until they're 80ish.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from rock rat wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I wouldn't put down any rats at all. I am after all not only a recently discovered species but genus as well. (Laonastes aenigmamus) Bamboo rats fetch a higher price at the market than does the lowly muntjak.

I happen to like the animals I study the most, muleys and elk. Most people like wildlife that resembles their pet. Just the way it is.

In a perfect world scientists would choose based on saving the most species for the least amount of money or saving the species that might have the most affect on our lives like honey bees.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from 2lb.test wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Here in the southeast, quail management befefits almost all other game species except waterfowl and even those two don't have to be mutually exclusive, so I'll continue to work on quail management and continue to watch the deer, turkey, and rabbits thrive as well.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Sten wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Of course the appearance of the animals has a large effect on how that animal is perceived by the general public. Why else do you think radical conservation groups target hunts of species like seal in Canada?

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from buckhunter wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Where I live, we have pretty much traded grouse for turkey. I believe it is simply because turkey are easier to shoot.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from stick500 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

MJC has it right that naked mole rats are incredibly tough animals and have never been seen to have cancer, but their max. life span is around 28 years making them the longest living rodents.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Koldkut wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Regarding the question in the topic, yes, an animals appearance greatly affects is status in conservation. Funny how you can prosecuted for killing a menace stray cat that gets in the trash, but the dozen mice and rats trapped inside houses are not even noticed. It's called playing god, choosing one over another.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from bassman06 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Hog, I think you're my new best friend. If fish count I'd choose catfish over snakeheads any day.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from country road wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Wild turkeys over hogs, armadillos and coyotes!

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Louzianajones wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Man, that is one ugly beast!

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

Post a Comment

 

All submitted comments are subject to the rules set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

from HogBlog wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

My precedence is simple, although it may not quite fit the question. I say, protect the native species over the non-natives (e.g. feral hogs). Beyond that, I think it's kind of dangerous to even go down the road of choosing one native species over another. We're dealing with interrelated systems, not a shopping shelf.

Of course, human intervention has so scrambled the inter-relations that it's hard to say where more meddling or less would yield benefits.

+4 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from jamesti wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

that's a tough one. all native animals have a place in the wild where they are known to originate. the secret is management of the animals. i put less significance on non native animals but believe some can fit in just fine. i don't put anything an cuteness.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from MJC wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Don't knock naked mole rats! They may be ugly as sin but scientists are studying them as we speak to try and figure out why they don't get any diseases. Ever. Or cancer. They've thrown everything they can find at them and they just keep going. They don't even start aging until they're 80ish.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from rock rat wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I wouldn't put down any rats at all. I am after all not only a recently discovered species but genus as well. (Laonastes aenigmamus) Bamboo rats fetch a higher price at the market than does the lowly muntjak.

I happen to like the animals I study the most, muleys and elk. Most people like wildlife that resembles their pet. Just the way it is.

In a perfect world scientists would choose based on saving the most species for the least amount of money or saving the species that might have the most affect on our lives like honey bees.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from 2lb.test wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Here in the southeast, quail management befefits almost all other game species except waterfowl and even those two don't have to be mutually exclusive, so I'll continue to work on quail management and continue to watch the deer, turkey, and rabbits thrive as well.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Sten wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Of course the appearance of the animals has a large effect on how that animal is perceived by the general public. Why else do you think radical conservation groups target hunts of species like seal in Canada?

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from stick500 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

MJC has it right that naked mole rats are incredibly tough animals and have never been seen to have cancer, but their max. life span is around 28 years making them the longest living rodents.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from bassman06 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Hog, I think you're my new best friend. If fish count I'd choose catfish over snakeheads any day.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from country road wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Wild turkeys over hogs, armadillos and coyotes!

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from buckhunter wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Where I live, we have pretty much traded grouse for turkey. I believe it is simply because turkey are easier to shoot.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Koldkut wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Regarding the question in the topic, yes, an animals appearance greatly affects is status in conservation. Funny how you can prosecuted for killing a menace stray cat that gets in the trash, but the dozen mice and rats trapped inside houses are not even noticed. It's called playing god, choosing one over another.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Louzianajones wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Man, that is one ugly beast!

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

Post a Comment

 

All submitted comments are subject to the rules set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.