Abstract
The hypothesis that conservation biology is proceeding along two separate trajectories () has provoked extensive discussion. Caughley's dichotomy, a “small‐population” paradigm versus a “declining‐population” paradigm, has recently been exemplified in discussion of management strategies for conservation of the Javan gibbon ( Hylobates moloch ). Recommendations from extensive fieldwork focused on reducing the major known threat to the species—habitat destruction—and proposed a strategy of forest management and protection. A population and habitat viability analysis focused on an entirely different issue—low genetic diversity—and proposed a program of single‐species genetic management. It is not surprising that geneticists see inbreeding as a major conservation problem, and it is not unusual that ecologists focus on how ecology relates to conservation. A problem results when managers assume that addressing only one or the other of these factors is the appropriate conservation action. Conservation biologists must learn to thoroughly analyze every conservation problem before trying to solve it. We must actively involve experts from all fields in forming and reviewing conservation strategies. If only captive breeding specialists or ecologists are invited to address a problem, then the techniques employed to solve it will be irrevocably biased. We do not all see the world in the same way, even within the relatively small field of conservation. To achieve effective conservation action, we must learn to balance and capitalize on our different perspectives.