As we move from child- to adulthood, one thing we learn is that the world is often not as it might seem, or, indeed, as it should be. In the area of conservation and resource management, this is particularly apparent when the perspectives or objectives of the public, government and/or big business are at odds, which they often are. It is therefore important to recognize the effects that such differences can have on legislation, and on the ways in which our interests or concerns are actually being addressed. Examples emerge from among this issue's articles of Porcupine! that illustrate how alert we need to be. Reintroductions might appear to be good in general but it is the types of reintroductions and the way(s) they are conducted that are critically important (p.1). As biologists, we might reasonably expect that fishes and marine invertebrates are considered part of the animal kingdom and therefore receive protection under the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance; surprisingly they are not and hence do not receive protection (p.13). We might predict that the high economic value of our natural resources is factored into long-term development plans (p.17) but in reality short-term business interests generally override such potential benefits. Clearly we need to be aware about what 'is', rather than what 'appears to be' in the latest sound-bite or public relations hyperbole. Thanks to many of our contributors for opening our eyes.

YS

P.2