Letter

Dangers of Sensationalizing Conservation Biology

The global biodiversity crisis thatspawned the discipline of conserva-tion biology is closer to the forefrontof the average person’s thoughts thanit has ever been. The shift in popularthinking about conservation issues isin no small way due to the impressiveand relevant work of conservationscientists worldwide, many of whomhave published their work and opin-ions in this journal. It is good sciencethat provides the focus for the conser-vation spotlight, which continues togain in intensity with problems suchas anthropogenically driven climatechange. That said, acknowledgmentmust be given to the power of ad-vocacy wielded by people who havebeen successful in promoting aware-ness of conservation matters in themass media (Paquette 2007)

The power of media, such as tele-vision, to influence public thoughton conservation issues is, however,both a blessing and a curse. Its greatbenefit is that it promotes aware-ness of the natural world among theurbanized citizenry who are discon-nected from the plight of biodiver-sity. Modern “nature celebrities” suchas Sir David Attenborough, JacquesCousteau, Al Gore, and Steve Irwinhave fostered and promoted an ap-preciation and fascination of naturalsystems by people who would neverotherwise have the opportunity toobserve them. The curse, however,is subtler and insidious. The overarch-ing requirement of popular entertain-ment is that it be eye-catching, sensa-tional, and even eccentric if it is toattract sufficient attention to survive.

The recent death of celebrity nat-uralist Steve Irwin has resulted in aperceived martyrdom at a scale never

before witnessed in conservation cir-cles. His popularity was undeniable,but his reckless style of advocacy wasa two-edged sword. His often uncon-ventional antics, while entertaining,did not necessarily lead the viewerto adopt a greater respect and un-derstanding for the species on show.One only needs to cite the point-less and abhorrent killing and mutila-tion of stingrays along Queensland’scoast (BBC 2006) in the weeks fol-lowing his death (acts which were,quite rightly, summarily condemnedby Irwin’s organization) to questionat least some of his fans’ true empa-thy with conservation issues.

Irwin’s misunderstanding of fun-damental ecological processes suchas forest fragmentation, how invasiveand domestic species can damagebiodiversity values, and the sustain-able use of wildlife (Simpson 2001)were particularly dangerous becauseof his ability to sway the public’s(and their elected politicians’) opin-ions (Campbell 2005). With suchvast influence comes great respon-sibility. One particularly ironic ex-ample is that the Crocodile Huntervehemently opposed any notion ofsustainable harvest of crocodiles(Crocodylus porosus) in Australia,convincing many Australians (includ-ing politicians) likewise. Yet harvestas a management tool was in this casealmost certainly responsible for sav-ing saltwater crocodiles from near ex-tinction. The highly controlled mar-ket for farmed skins essentially re-moved all incentive for illegal har-vest (Webb & Manolis 1993). Further-more, harvest models grounded inmore than 20 years of painstakinglycollected monitoring data show that

a safari-hunting proposal posed nothreat to population viability (Brad-shaw et al. 2006).

Irwin’s opinions about sustainableuse of wildlife in general (e.g., theuse of wild kangaroos for pet meatand human consumption) are wellknown, even though all available ev-idence suggests that in an increas-ingly drought-prone continent suchas Australia, a reduced reliance ontraditional hard-hoofed pastoralismwould have remarkable benefits forthe country’s economy, threatenedbiotas, and fragile soils (Grigg 1989;Flannery 1998; Archer 2002; Thom-sen & Davies 2005). In this light itis somewhat disconcerting that eventhe academic sector was preparedto bestow upon him the title of ad-junct professor, an academic laurelnormally recognizing years of schol-arly endeavor (AAP 2006), despite hisrudimentary understanding of and of-ten incorrect statements about eco-logical processes.

The dangers of Irwin-style advo-cacy strike deeper than just the rel-ative costs and benefits of sensation-alist media and political sway. Hislegacy was built predominantly oncapturing, handling, and thereforestressing normally reclusive and clan-destine species for the benefit ofpublic entertainment. The increas-ing scrutiny of field biologists by an-imal ethics committees (McMahonet al. 2007) stands in stark contrastto the brazen and sometimes ethi-cally questionable methods Irwin em-ployed to invigorate typically quies-cent species—eventually to his undo-ing. Although never formally chargedwith ethical wrongdoing, even in cir-cumstances requiring investigation

570

Conservation Biology Volume 21, No. 3, 570–571C©2007 Society for Conservation BiologyDOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00698.x

Letter 571

(Department of the Environment andWater Resources 2004), it is highlyimplausible that any academic or gov-ernmental animal ethics committeewould have sanctioned such behav-ior by their own researchers.

An excessive dumbing down of co-nservation science for the masses is,in our opinion, naıve because it risksfurther distancing lay people fromthe real and often harsh natural worldecologists work to understand. Ad-vocacy in conservation biology des-perately needs charismatic champi-ons, but it does not need more overtsensationalism—we have no short-age of television programs and doc-umentaries highlighting the dangers,curiosities, and bizarre aspects of an-imal and plant life. What we need areintelligent, informed, and respectfulchampions (we cite some above) thatresponsibly promote understandingand respect of the natural world, arealm from which the majority of our6.5-billion-strong population has be-come largely dispossessed.

Corey J. A. Bradshaw,∗‡ Barry W. Brook,†

and Clive R. McMahon∗

∗School for Environmental Research, Instituteof Advanced Studies, Charles Darwin Univer-sity, Darwin, Northern Territory 0909, Aus-tralia

†Research Institute for Climate Change andSustainability, School of Earth and Environmen-tal Sciences, University of Adelaide, South Aus-tralia 5005, Australia

‡email corey.bradshaw@cdu.edu.au

Literature Cited

AAP (Australian Associated Press). 2006. Irwinwas set to be academic. AAP, Sydney, Aus-tralia, 20 September. Available from http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20445606-1702,00.html (accessed February 2007).

Archer, M. 2002. Confronting crises in conser-vation: a talk on the wild side. Pages 12–52in D. Lunney and C. Dickman, editors. Zo-ological revolution: using native fauna toassist in its own survival. Royal ZoologicalSociety of New South Wales and AustralianMuseum, Mossman, Australia.

BBC (British Broadcasting Company). 2006. Ir-win fans in ‘revenge attacks’. BBC NewsOnline, 12 September. BBC, London. Avail-able from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5338118.stm (accessed February2007).

Bradshaw, C. J. A., Y. Fukuda, M. I. Letnic, andB. W. Brook. 2006. Incorporating knownsources of uncertainty to determine pre-cautionary harvests of saltwater crocodiles.Ecological Applications 16:1436–1448.

Campbell, I. 2005. Crocodile safari huntingproposal rejected—crocodile culls tocontinue. Media release, Minister forthe Environment and Water Resources,Canberra, Australia. Available from www.

environment.gov.au/minister/env/2005/mr06oct05.html(accessed February 2007).

Department of the Environment and WaterResources. 2004. Investigation finalised.Media release. Australian Government,Canberra, Australia. Available from http://www.environment.gov.au/media/dept-mr/dp15jul04.html (accessed February2007).

Flannery, T. F. 1998. The future eaters: an eco-logical history of the Australian lands andpeople. Reed, New Holland, Australia.

Grigg, G. 1989. Kangaroo harvesting and theconservation of arid and semi-arid range-lands. Conservation Biology 3:194–197.

McMahon, C. R., C. J. A. Bradshaw, and G. C.Hays. 2007. Applying the heat to researchtechniques for species conservation. Con-servation Biology 21:271–273.

Paquette, S. R. 2007. Importance of the“Crocodile Hunter” phenomenon. Conser-vation Biology 21:6.

Simpson, S. 2001. Interview with CrocodileHunter Steve Irwin. Scientific American,New York. Available from http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0000462F-9484-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21 (accessedFebruary 2007).

Thomsen, D. A., and J. Davies. 2005. Socialand cultural dimensions of commercialkangaroo harvest in South Australia. Aus-tralian Journal of Experimental Agriculture45:1239–1243.

Webb, G. J. W., and S. C. Manolis. 1993. Con-serving Australia’s crocodiles through com-mercial incentives. Pages 250–256 in D.Lunney and D. Ayers, editors. Herpetologyin Australia–a diverse discipline. Transac-tions of the Royal Zoological Society ofNew South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Conservation BiologyVolume 21, No. 3, June 2007