Don't Rely on the Unreliable

I've seen far too many excuses about trying to "protect" a species from "monster" hunters who discount acquiring physical proof, instead focusing on unreliable evidence. Then, of course, they try (in some cases successfully) to use the unverifiable evidence to push legislation intended to protect the animal, whatever it is.

Instead of protecting it, of course, all they do is make it more difficult to actually acquire proof of existence. Good legislation backs good conservation practice, and is supported by good science. Poor legislation hampers successful conservation, as there is no way to determine what factors may or may not affect a population nobody knows anything about. So you've kept hunters from shooting a Bigfoot (as if that's ever been a real problem); how exactly does your law protect a population of Bigfoot from environmental encroachment or habitat fragmentation?

Not everyone has the ability to search for sufficient physical evidence; there's nothing wrong with that. But that's not reason to denigrate those who do. In any case, there's an interesting study recently published on case studies of recognized (though rare) species, and the results of relying on shoddy evidence. (Eurekalert)

Using Anecdotal Occurrence Data for Rare or Elusive Species: The Illusion of Reality and a Call for Evidentiary Standards (Abstract)
Kevin S. McKelvey, Keith B. Aubry, and Michael K. Schwartz
BioScience 58(6), June 2008, pp. 549-555