Wildlife conservation is heavily biased in itself. But cuddly or beautiful, eminently “wild” species are often strategically used as flagships for whole ecosystems. “Saving the turtle” just sounds better than “sustainable coast management”. That we are dealing with heavily human-influenced environments is, however, hidden from view by current communication strategies.

I think it would be good to move to a communication strategy about conservation that makes a less sharp distinction between wild and domesticated landscapes/species. This would be closer to a historical ecology perspective and hence be more realistic. Being less misanthropic could make conservation (hopefully) also less prone to donor fatigue.

The recently deceased anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss argued that what is sacred and protected in traditional cultures is what is anomalous because it does not neatly fit binary categories. So arguing for the protection of ambiguously wild/domesticated landscapes or species would make good sense in savage minds. (And aren´t we all savages?)