A few weeks ago, I had an interesting conversation with a friend and fellow hobbyist. The discussion surrounded the weaknesses and inadequacies of conservation organizations like the IUCN and their Red List of threatened species.
Specifically, the conversation focused on outdated species assessment information. The greater point was that other entities (e.g., organizations, facilities, conservation groups) rely heavily on that information (e.g., decision making, policy creation). The IUCN Red List website says the following:
The IUCN Red List is a critical indicator of the health of the world’s biodiversity. Far more than a list of species and their status, it is a powerful tool to inform and catalyse action for biodiversity conservation and policy change, critical to protecting the natural resources we need to survive. It provides information about range, population size, habitat and ecology, use and/or trade, threats, and conservation actions that will help inform necessary conservation decisions.
Many hobbyists, especially those who participate in CARES (like me), depend on accurate information from such groups to make decisions on what fish to keep. Hobbyists play a key role in the conservation of numerous fish species. Furthermore, one role of zoos, aquariums, and other such entities is also conservation. Most provide facilities and care for endangered species. Like CARES and its participants, these facilities depend on conservation organizations such as the IUCN to provide decision-making data. However, when the IUCN and similar organizations provide species assessment information that is decades old, it may no longer be accurate or even useful. In fact, some might argue that species information provided by such organizations is simply wrong to begin with. This was one of the main points that my friend was making. He lamented that some of the information he sees is just blatantly inaccurate. This has the potential to erode trust.
So how do you fix the problem? The easy answer is to not publish (or severely limit) information based on 20-year-old data. I am not sure how useful such data can be when assessing the health of the world’s biodiversity.
Conservation groups like the IUCN are immensely important and are a much-needed resource for those interested in species conservation. I am not suggesting that, because some of their data is stale, the organization is not useful. I am merely pointing out a legitimate challenge that conservation-minded hobbyists face when such organizations provide inaccurate information. Is it best effort by the IUCN and others? Maybe.