“Compassionate Conservation” is Neither Compassionate nor Conservation

[Pantheraman]

"“Compassionate conservation” -- decades old, but named in 2013 -- is an increasingly popular mindset (advocates prefer “new approach to conservation biology”). It focuses on individual animals at the expense of species and native ecosystems. Practitioners imagine and proclaim that conservation goals can be achieved without lethal control of invasive (usually alien) species."

“Compassionate Conservation” is Neither Compassionate nor Conservation

I'm sharing this article here for a facebook friend of mine since I figured some here may find this to be a good read. The author himself is a well-known conservation writer who personally, I think is a voice of reason in North American wildlife conservation.

 

[The_Leopard_Seal]

Something that a lot of advocates for “Pleistocene Rewilding” and “Compassionate Conservation” ignore is that each species has evolved in a specific habitat and that currently living species are therefore not really equivalents of extinct species that evolved in different habitats. For example, Australia never had any native ungulate species. Thus, the ecosystems there evolved without hooved animals. Therefore horses and camels aren’t good replacements for extinct Australian megafauna (which probably died off due to climate change and not human activity anyways).

 

[Prochilodus246]

Thanks @Pantheraman for the link. A very good article and read. I think it is just blasphemy that a non-native and invasive potential species can be considered good. It's like here in the UK, Himalayan Balsam is an incredibly good nectar source for pollinators but that is only because our natural systems are so out of whack and depleted that they are having to turn to invasives that have managed to get a foothold in place of native species.

On our land we have quite the issue with Himalayan Balsam in the damper areas and I know that removing it year on year will help the species it has eliminated in its wake return. I am already seeing native species return. The natives are not only just providing nectar but also a foodplant for lepidoptera which the invasive in this case does not provide. It's very much like horticulturists and gardeners. Let's plant for pollinators. What about their larvae? You are only providing food for one very small part of their lifecycle so unless you have the plants or habitat to support the next generation how on earth do you expect to see pollinators even visiting these species you have planted for them. (Sorry going off topic )

The only reason people see the rodents, horses, cats etc as they shouldn't be killed is the fact that it is a "cute" domestic animal. The mussels and pigs for example are seen as food so them being invasive makes bunny huggers indifferent about "saving" them from the demonic conservationist.