What is a animal called when it is no longer endangered?
- Thread starter zooman
- Start date
Nikola Chavkosk
Well-Known Member
If not endangered, if the population status go on positive scale, next status is vulnerable (wich is still treathened status), next after this is near treathened and best possible status is of least concern (IUCN - International Union of Conservation of Nature).
However, if an animal species is not endangered, the status can be even worse (going on negative scale), like criticaly endangered, extint in the wild (only present in captivity like in zoos), or extinc (from any place in the whole world).
And maybe the pest simple answer for generally not-endangered animal species, is not-treathened species
However, if an animal species is not endangered, the status can be even worse (going on negative scale), like criticaly endangered, extint in the wild (only present in captivity like in zoos), or extinc (from any place in the whole world).
And maybe the pest simple answer for generally not-endangered animal species, is not-treathened species
I am still wondering about this, no actual answer has been given for a word for 'un-endangered' meaning an animal that used to be endangered but now isn't. 'No longer endangered' would do, but it's not very eloquent.
So I suppose there isn't a word for this? If there isn't someone should invent one.
So I suppose there isn't a word for this? If there isn't someone should invent one.
Ex-endangered ?
?
overread
Well-Known Member
So I suppose there isn't a word for this? If there isn't someone should invent one.
I think first we'd have to invest habitats and sites where species could exist in a totally non-human-threatened state before getting a word that thus far might only be applicable to rats
*ducks and hides*
I think first we'd have to invest habitats and sites where species could exist in a totally non-human-threatened state before getting a word that thus far might only be applicable to rats
*ducks and hides*
Though I get your point and animals that this word would be applicable to would be in the minority, I do think a term for it would be useful.
See here: Conservation successes overshadowed by more species declines ? IUCN Red List update | IUCN
Ex-endangered
How about 'Out of Danger' ?
No such term, at least not in the official terminology.
No because it is a linear scale, not a historical description :
Least Concern > Near Threatened > Vulnerable > Endangered > Critically Endangered > Extinct in the Wild > Extinct
The middle three are the "threatened categories" of immediate conservation concern. The categories reflect the probability of the species becoming extinct.
overread
Well-Known Member
Recovered and repopulated are loaded terms though:
Recovered implies that the creature underwent a decline and has since recovered; however how can that recovery be measured? In total population numbers - area of habitat - what if its restoration is as a result of climatic change and thus its not even within the same zone; but still has suitable population stability?
Repopulated is similar though even more loaded in that it suggests that we are fixing recovery on a rough population number; which might or might not be accurate (eg what year do we pick - what boundaries determine that the population is stable).
For "least concern" we still have to answer many of those questions; but the term itself isn't tied to any one of them. It simply states that the population is in a healthy enough state as to not warrant concern for the species in the given climate (which, of course, carries one missunderstanding in that least concern doesn't mean that no resources are expended to preserve; only that they are currently not undergoing serious population problems nor catastrophic decline)
Recovered implies that the creature underwent a decline and has since recovered; however how can that recovery be measured? In total population numbers - area of habitat - what if its restoration is as a result of climatic change and thus its not even within the same zone; but still has suitable population stability?
Repopulated is similar though even more loaded in that it suggests that we are fixing recovery on a rough population number; which might or might not be accurate (eg what year do we pick - what boundaries determine that the population is stable).
For "least concern" we still have to answer many of those questions; but the term itself isn't tied to any one of them. It simply states that the population is in a healthy enough state as to not warrant concern for the species in the given climate (which, of course, carries one missunderstanding in that least concern doesn't mean that no resources are expended to preserve; only that they are currently not undergoing serious population problems nor catastrophic decline)
It's also important to remember that telling people an animal is 'out of danger' or 'saved' might imply they no longer need to go to any lengths to protect the species. A species that is no longer considered endangered sometimes has to forgo some of it's protections and restrictions. This is consequently why laws are often passed to protect local populations.
Good point. It is important to realise that the names of all the categories were chosen so as not to imply that a species is somehow "extinction-proof". "Least Concern", as has been stated, implies that while there is no current threat, new threats could (and these days often do) arise in the future.
There is another category I have not mentioned, "Conservation Dependant". This is for species not threatened with extinction solely because of ongoing conservation actions needed to ensure their survival.