Pantheraman
Well-Known Member
"Moreover, compassionate conservationists stress the importance of recognising animals’ value, interests and agency. Particularly when making decisions that will impact them."
Alright then by that logic, let's consider the value, interests, and "agency" of the native animals that are suffering due to invasive species, like the brumbies in an Australian national park that are doing so much damage that in order to protect Broad-Toothed Rats, the park staff have to build enclosures around them...in a NATIONAL PARK.
"Critics against the movement argue against the role of compassion. Feelings, they say, can blind us to our responsibilities. But are these criticisms valid? Should we silence compassion to make decisions aimed at preserving ecosystems on a larger scale?"
I don't know about you, but my personal compassion for the native species that suffer from the damage done by invasive species makes me in favor of killing invasives.
"They say that approaches to non-native species like culling can often lack evidence of long-term effectiveness and can cause unintended consequences. For example, lethal control of dingoes can increase fox abundance and decrease small mammal numbers."
I'm sorry, dingoes aren't a good example to use in favor of "compassionate conservation" for invasive species, because they aren't invasive. Dingoes didn't originally evolve in Australia, but they've been there for thousands of years and because of that, the prey animals have learned how to best avoid them, and how to defend themselves. Take kangaroos, for example, kangaroos will head for the water in order to drown dingoes. Learned behavior from coexisting with them for thousands of years. In conclusion, dingoes are a native predator to Australia, and the only large terrestrial predator the continent has.
"But one hard question is precisely how to weigh our general responsibility to do no harm against the survival of species and ecosystems. Is it always wrong to harm animals, even when great ecological havoc may otherwise result?
Some compassionate conservationists argue for the return of predators on a large scale, as a way to manage ecosystems without human intervention. But predators can cause great suffering to other animals, whether introduced or not. Is suffering acceptable as long as we don’t cause it or we cause it indirectly? Should compassion require us to intervene in nature to reduce suffering?"
First, why are only some "compassionate conservationists" arguing for that? Would it not make more sense if all of them argued for it? They're supposed to be "compassionate" after all.
Second, they honestly think returning large predators to landscapes needs no human intervention? Take the reintroduction of tigers into Kazahkstan for example, I'm sorry, but human intervention is needed to bring those animals into the country because it's too far for the wild tigers in the now much more fragmented populations than in the past. Especially since for years, suitable prey hasn't been that available in suitable tiger habitats. Even in the old days at the height of the tiger's success, populations in Central Asia were separated from other populations likely due to geographical reasons.
Third, listen, I know you don't enjoy the idea of predators killing prey to survive, but like it or not, that's how they make a living. They cannot live off a diet of leaves and grass like cows can. And if they didn't do that, the herbivores would destroy the ecosystems they live in.
Introduced species are animals too: why the debate over compassionate conservation is worth having
Alright then by that logic, let's consider the value, interests, and "agency" of the native animals that are suffering due to invasive species, like the brumbies in an Australian national park that are doing so much damage that in order to protect Broad-Toothed Rats, the park staff have to build enclosures around them...in a NATIONAL PARK.
"Critics against the movement argue against the role of compassion. Feelings, they say, can blind us to our responsibilities. But are these criticisms valid? Should we silence compassion to make decisions aimed at preserving ecosystems on a larger scale?"
I don't know about you, but my personal compassion for the native species that suffer from the damage done by invasive species makes me in favor of killing invasives.
"They say that approaches to non-native species like culling can often lack evidence of long-term effectiveness and can cause unintended consequences. For example, lethal control of dingoes can increase fox abundance and decrease small mammal numbers."
I'm sorry, dingoes aren't a good example to use in favor of "compassionate conservation" for invasive species, because they aren't invasive. Dingoes didn't originally evolve in Australia, but they've been there for thousands of years and because of that, the prey animals have learned how to best avoid them, and how to defend themselves. Take kangaroos, for example, kangaroos will head for the water in order to drown dingoes. Learned behavior from coexisting with them for thousands of years. In conclusion, dingoes are a native predator to Australia, and the only large terrestrial predator the continent has.
"But one hard question is precisely how to weigh our general responsibility to do no harm against the survival of species and ecosystems. Is it always wrong to harm animals, even when great ecological havoc may otherwise result?
Some compassionate conservationists argue for the return of predators on a large scale, as a way to manage ecosystems without human intervention. But predators can cause great suffering to other animals, whether introduced or not. Is suffering acceptable as long as we don’t cause it or we cause it indirectly? Should compassion require us to intervene in nature to reduce suffering?"
First, why are only some "compassionate conservationists" arguing for that? Would it not make more sense if all of them argued for it? They're supposed to be "compassionate" after all.
Second, they honestly think returning large predators to landscapes needs no human intervention? Take the reintroduction of tigers into Kazahkstan for example, I'm sorry, but human intervention is needed to bring those animals into the country because it's too far for the wild tigers in the now much more fragmented populations than in the past. Especially since for years, suitable prey hasn't been that available in suitable tiger habitats. Even in the old days at the height of the tiger's success, populations in Central Asia were separated from other populations likely due to geographical reasons.
Third, listen, I know you don't enjoy the idea of predators killing prey to survive, but like it or not, that's how they make a living. They cannot live off a diet of leaves and grass like cows can. And if they didn't do that, the herbivores would destroy the ecosystems they live in.
Introduced species are animals too: why the debate over compassionate conservation is worth having
