Given the right information to help them decide, people will opt for conditions that benefit our creaturely neighbours, even where they have no particular interest in larks or cuckoo wasps - because those conditions benefit us.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
If the skies fall, one may hope to catch larks.
I don't understand why people would want to get rid of pigeons. They don't bother no one.
What we should be doing is saving habitats, not single species, no matter what their cuteness factor.
So, my tactic with conservation of apex predators is to get people excited and take them to where they live.
Let us turn elsewhere, to the wasps and bees, who unquestionably come first in the laying up of a heritage for their offspring.
The problem with experiments has always been that human beings make the decisions on whether or not the animals have benefitted from the treatment.
In conditions of uncertainty, humans, like other animals, herd together for protection.
Yesterday's news feeds our fear that our neighbours are more likely than not to be bad eggs: benefit fraudsters, bogus asylum seekers, paedophiles or jihadist terrorists.
One of the basic steps in saving a threatened species is to learn more about it: its diet, its mating and reproductive processes, its range patterns, its social behavior.
People habitat has to take priority over bird habitat.