NYTimes OpEd- Conservation or Curation?
I did a quickie for today’s NYTimes Op-Ed on how the new definition of what qualifies as an endangered species, passed this month, severely limits the scope of the law.
Previously, the language of the law — that a species qualifies if it is “at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” — was read to mean that species should be protected if their geographic range was significantly smaller than it had been in the past. Now, a species will only count as endangered if it is at risk of going extinct. This significantly restricts conservation and ignores any responsibility we may have to mitigate even a portion of the harms that we’ve committed against other species. Read the article here.
The illustration features a Colorado River Cutthroat Trout, its protection has been recently denied because they were not at risk of extinction, even though their geographic range was significantly smaller than it had been in the past.
Big thanks to AD Matt Dorfman, always a pleasure to work with. He suggested we go for a more playful layout instead of boxing the fish in, which made the image that much more dynamic. I also like how the trout now looks like its skidding down some stairs screaming while falling apart.