Eaters of the dead are rarely considered charismatic animals.

"Eaters of the dead are rarely considered charismatic animals."  This is a line from a jstor article. I hope the link is good for awhile. It goes to a fascinating article talking about how important vultures are. The facts noted point to how everything is connected, and it is apparent that this Work commonplace does not come easily to those called scientists. 

But what startled me was the clueless, and unqualified statement: Eaters of the dead are rarely considered charismatic animals. It is clear from the context the author is talking about vultures and trying to generalize. Is it not obvious if you think about it. Why should people not be considered part of the animal world. Myself, I eat the dead, not a lot, but gotta have that chicken fix once in a while. I like my dead with mustard and relish. You'll have to take my word for how charismatic I am, but -- I am. 

The author Matthew Wills is not being called out. I am certain his thinking sounded few alarms or chuckles in the positivist and science popularizing crew. Just step back, a bit. How COULD ecology, his theme, not include us?