Alsophis antiguae

Number of Pages: 3Integrative BiologyGeological Science

Deconstructing compassionate conservation

Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so-called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public

Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact.

Recognizing the imperative to evaluate species recovery and conservation impact, in 2012 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) called for development of a "Green List of Species" (now the IUCN Green Status of Species). A draft Green Status framework for assessing species' progress toward recovery, published in 2018, proposed 2 separate but interlinked components: a standardized method (i.e., measurement against benchmarks of species' viability, functionality, and preimpact distribution) to determine current species recovery status (herein species recovery score) and application of that method to estimate past and potential future impacts of conservation based on 4 metrics (conservation legacy, conservation dependence, conservation gain, and recovery potential). We tested the framework with 181 species representing diverse taxa, life histories, biomes, and IUCN Red List categories (extinction risk). Based on the observed distribution of species' recovery scores, we propose the following species recovery categories: fully recovered, slightly depleted, moderately depleted, largely depleted, critically depleted, extinct in the wild, and indeterminate. Fifty-nine percent of tested species were considered largely or critically depleted. Although there was a negative relationship between extinction risk and species recovery score, variation was considerable. Some species in lower risk categories were assessed as farther from recovery than those at higher risk. This emphasizes that species recovery is conceptually different from extinction risk and reinforces the utility of the IUCN Green Status of Species to more fully understand species conservation status. Although extinction risk did not predict conservation legacy, conservation dependence, or conservation gain, it was positively correlated with recovery potential. Only 1.7% of tested species were categorized as zero across all 4 of these conservation impact metrics, indicating that conservation has, or will, play a role in improving or maintaining species status for the vast majority of these species. Based on our results, we devised an updated assessment framework that introduces the option of using a dynamic baseline to assess future impacts of conservation over the short term to avoid misleading results which were generated in a small number of cases, and redefines short term as 10 years to better align with conservation planning. These changes are reflected in the IUCN Green Status of Species Standard

Deconstructing compassionate conservation

Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so-called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public

Envisioning the future with ‘compassionate conservation’:An ominous projection for native wildlife and biodiversity

The ‘Compassionate Conservation’ movement is gaining momentum through its promotion of ‘ethical’ conservation practices based on self-proclaimed principles of ‘first-do-no-harm’ and ‘individuals matter’. We argue that the tenets of ‘Compassionate Conservation’ are ideological - that is, they are not scientifically proven to improve conservation outcomes, yet are critical of the current methods that do. In this paper we envision a future with ‘Compassionate Conservation’ and predict how this might affect global biodiversity conservation. Taken literally, ‘Compassionate Conservation’ will deny current conservation practices such as captive breeding, introduced species control, biocontrol, conservation fencing, translocation, contraception, disease control and genetic introgression. Five mainstream conservation practices are used to illustrate the far-reaching and dire consequences for global biodiversity if governed by ‘Compassionate Conservation’. We acknowledge the important role of animal welfare science in conservation practices but argue that ‘Compassionate Conservation’ aligns more closely with animal liberation principles protecting individuals over populations. Ultimately we fear that a world of ‘Compassionate Conservation’ could stymie the global conservation efforts required to meet international biodiversity targets derived from evidenced based practice, such as the Aichi targets developed by the Convention on Biological Diversity and adopted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and the United Nations.Fil: Callen, Alex. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Hayward, Matt W.. Universidad de Newcastle; Australia. Nelson Mandela University; Sudáfrica. Universidad de Pretoria; SudáfricaFil: Klop Toker, Kaya. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Allen, Benjamin L.. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Ballard, Guy. University of New England Australia; Australia. University of New South Wales; AustraliaFil: Beranek, Chad T.. Universidad de Newcastle; Australia. Universidad de Pretoria; SudáfricaFil: Broekhuis, Femke. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Bugir, Cassandra K.. Universidad de Newcastle; Australia. Universidad de Pretoria; SudáfricaFil: Clarke, Rohan H.. Monash University; AustraliaFil: Clulow, John. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Clulow, Simon. Universidad de Newcastle; Australia. Macquarie University; AustraliaFil: Daltry, Jennifer C.. Fauna & Flora International; Reino UnidoFil: Davies Mostert, Harriet T.. Universidad de Pretoria; Sudáfrica. Endangered Wildlife Trust; SudáfricaFil: Di Blanco, Yamil Edgardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Nordeste. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Puerto Iguazú | Universidad Nacional de Misiones. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Puerto Iguazú; ArgentinaFil: Dixon, Victoria. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Fleming, Peter J. S.. University of Queensland; Australia. University of New England; Australia. University of New South Wales; AustraliaFil: Howell, Lachlan G.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Kerley, Graham I. H.. Nelson Mandela University; SudáfricaFil: Legge, Sarah M.. Australian National University, Fenner School Of Environment And Society; Australia. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Lenga, Dean J.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Major, Tom. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Montgomery, Robert A.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Moseby, Katherine. University of New South Wales; AustraliaFil: Meyer, Ninon. Fondation Yaguara Panama; PanamáFil: Parker, Dan M.. University of Mpumalanga; Sudáfrica. Rhodes University.; SudáfricaFil: Périquet, Stéphanie. Ongava Research Centre; SudáfricaFil: Read, John. University of Adelaide; AustraliaFil: Scanlon, Robert J.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Shuttleworth, Craig. Bangor University; Reino Unido. Red Squirrel Trust Wales; Reino UnidoFil: Tamessar, Cottrell T.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Taylor, William Andrew. Endangered Wildlife Trust; SudáfricaFil: Tuft, Katherine. Arid Recovery; AustraliaFil: Upton, Rose M. O.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Valenzuela, Marcia. Universidad de Newcastle; Australia. Instituto Politécnico Nacional. Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados. Departamento de Fisica.; MéxicoFil: Witt, Ryan R.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Wüster, Wolfgang. Bangor University; Reino Unid

Envisioning the future with 'compassionate conservation': An ominous projection for native wildlife and biodiversity

The 'Compassionate Conservation' movement is gaining momentum through its promotion of 'ethical' conservation practices based on self-proclaimed principles of 'first-do-no-harm' and 'individuals matter'. We argue that the tenets of 'Compassionate Conservation' are ideological - that is, they are not scientifically proven to improve conservation outcomes, yet are critical of the current methods that do. In this paper we envision a future with 'Compassionate Conservation' and predict how this might affect global biodiversity conservation. Taken literally, 'Compassionate Conservation' will deny current conservation practices such as captive breeding, introduced species control, biocontrol, conservation fencing, translocation, contraception, disease control and genetic introgression. Five mainstream conservation practices are used to illustrate the far-reaching and dire consequences for global biodiversity if governed by 'Compassionate Conservation'. We acknowledge the important role of animal welfare science in conservation practices but argue that 'Compassionate Conservation' aligns more closely with animal liberation principles protecting individuals over populations. Ultimately we fear that a world of 'Compassionate Conservation' could stymie the global conservation efforts required to meet international biodiversity targets derived from evidenced based practice, such as the Aichi targets developed by the Convention on Biological Diversity and adopted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and the United Nations

The conservation status of the world’s reptiles

Effective and targeted conservation action requires detailed information about species, their distribution, systematics and ecology as well as the distribution of threat processes which affect them. Knowledge of reptilian diversity remains surprisingly disparate, and innovative means of gaining rapid insight into the status of reptiles are needed in order to highlight urgent conservation cases and inform environmental policy with appropriate biodiversity information in a timely manner. We present the first ever global analysis of extinction risk in reptiles, based on a random representative sample of 1500 species (16% of all currently known species). To our knowledge, our results provide the first analysis of the global conservation status and distribution patterns of reptiles and the threats affecting them, highlighting conservation priorities and knowledge gaps which need to be addressed urgently to ensure the continued survival of the world’s reptiles. Nearly one in five reptilian species are threatened with extinction, with another one in five species classed as Data Deficient. The proportion of threatened reptile species is highest in freshwater environments, tropical regions and on oceanic islands, while data deficiency was highest in tropical areas, such as Central Africa and Southeast Asia, and among fossorial reptiles. Our results emphasise the need for research attention to be focussed on tropical areas which are experiencing the most dramatic rates of habitat loss, on fossorial reptiles for which there is a chronic lack of data, and on certain taxa such as snakes for which extinction risk may currently be underestimated due to lack of population information. Conservation actions specifically need to mitigate the effects of human-induced habitat loss and harvesting, which are the predominant threats to reptiles