Is Killing Introduced Predators "Absolutely Necessary"?

New Zealand recognizes nonhuman animals as sentient beings but it's okay to kill them by the millions using horrifically painful methods

Sentience, and the ethical demands that arise from this capacity, do not change when an organism is moved to a new locale. They are who they are, and feel what they feel, no matter where they live. (conservation biologist, Arian Wallach)

Let's be clear, in a nation of crazy creatures that evolved in the absence of mammals, killing introduced predators is absolutely necessary. It's just a question of degree. (Nikki Macdonald)

We can't just throw them under the bus and say 'We did like you back in the 1800s, but now it turns out you're not useful to us any more and you contradict things that we find useful. So we're just going to kill you all. But don't worry - we're going to do it nicely'. (conservation biologist, Jamie Steer)

Updates: New Zealand is being poisoned; Predator-Free Goal Is Wrong

The decision to try return New Zealand to a what used to be by brutally slaughtering millions of non-native invasive animals by 2050 is troubling from biological and ethical perspectives. People who want to mass kill non-native invasive animals, also called pests, think that such widespread slaughter will be the panacea and return New Zealand's landscapes to what they used to be. Those on the other side argue that we can't go back to what was; that ecosystems evolve and are dynamic entities and non-native animals have become part of a wide variety of ecosystems so their loss will effect the ecosystems as a whole; that mass killing won't work; and that killing other sentient beings is ethically wrong.

New Zealand also has recognized nonhuman animals as sentient beings, so you'd think that this would mean that the nonhumans would be protected from being harmed and killed "in the name of nature." The quotation with which I began from compassionate conservationist Arian Wallach makes the obvious but important point that the invasive animals suffer no matter where they live. So, how do those who support a predator-free New Zealand by 2050 reconcile these clear inconsistencies? Does it come down to ignoring the pain, suffering, and death for which they'll be directly responsible or does it really come down to the fact that they simply don't care because humans come first at any cost?

My purpose here is to inform readers of an essay by Nikki Macdonald called "Should we learn to live with introduced species rather than wipe them out completely?" that is available for free online. It raises many questions about the killing of non-native animals throughout New Zealand and considers both sides of the coin, although there really are many different sides to the issues at hand. I also suggest that people read the comments that are posted, for they also raise many different questions and cover all sides of the issues at hand. Here are a few snippets from Ms. Macdonald's essay to whet your appetite for more.

Poisoning with 1080, trapping, snaring, and shooting aren't acts of kindness or "killing softly" with empathy and compassion

Ms. Macdonald believes that it's necessary to kill introduced predators. In a section of her essay called "KILLING THINGS SOFTLY" she writes, "Let's be clear, in a nation of crazy creatures that evolved in the absence of mammals, killing introduced predators is absolutely necessary. It's just a question of degree."

Ms. Macdonald refers to sentient beings as "things," and seems to want to imply that if they're killed "softly," read "humanely," everything is just fine. Of course, animals are not "things," and Ms. Macdonald's sweeping and uncritical pronouncement that "killing introduced predators is absolutely necessary" reminds me of the inane comment by Nicola Toki, the Threatened Species Ambassador of New Zealand’s Department of Conservation (DoC), that "everybody hates possums." No, they don't." (For more discussion, please see "Does Everybody Really Hate Possums? The Bandwagon Effect.")

I'm an opponent of New Zealand's planned slaughter and I'm also very concerned about what "a question of degree" boils down to in the massive and reprehensible blood fest. Who's to decide when enough's enough? When will people decide that there's been enough killing and that it won't work? And, let's recognize that it's more than likely that 99% of the millions of animals who are killed will not be "killed softly." Maybe some will suffer less than others, but the amount of pain and suffering in incalculably high and ethically indefensible.

It’s impossible to accept that killing with kindness will, in fact, prevail, despite feel-good claims to the contrary. And of course there's always so-called "collateral damage" and non-target animals also are mercilessly killed. Poisoning with 1080, trapping, snaring, and shooting aren't acts of kindness or "killing softly" with empathy and compassion.

The war on wildlife directed to those nonhumans who are no longer wanted isn't a love affair gone bad. Indeed, people who have criticized the mass killing campaign have been publicly insulted and threatened with violence in retaliation for their views by people who have come to hate the critters who are supposedly causing all the problems. For more discussion on how killing "in the name of conservation" is incredibly inhumane please see "Rather Than Kill Animals "Softly," Don't Kill Them at All." Furthermore, these individuals are going to be killed, some might say murdered, but they are not going to euthanized. Euthanasia is mercy killing, for example, when an individual is interminably ill or in interminable pain. For some people, using the word "euthanized" sanitizes what really has and will happen, but it's just a feel-good scam that needs to be exposed whenever it's used.

Empathy Essential Reads

New Research on Raising Empathetic Children

2 Tools to Improve Any Relationship

Not everyone agrees with Ms. Macdonald's claim that "killing introduced predators is absolutely necessary." For example, she writes about the views of Wellington (New Zealand) ecologist, Jamie Steer, who is concerned that there is too much of an emphasis on ecosystems of the past, rather then ecosystems of the future. He also argues, "complete eradication isn't just unnecessary - it's unethical."

Another opponent of the mass killing of predators is Wayne Linklater who runs New Zealand's Victoria University's Centre for Biodiversity and Restoration Ecology. Dr. Linklater maintains, "we don't need to eradicate rats, mustelids and possums everywhere to stop our 900-odd endangered species going extinct. Predator Free 2050 ... diverts resources, ignores other drivers of extinction such as habitat loss and is an unachievable 'science fiction' that risks eroding conservation support when it inevitably fails." Dr. Linklater "advocates an extended national network of predator-free sanctuaries such as Wellington's Zealandia - connected either by habitat corridors or translocation of individual animals, and surrounded by 'halos' where pest control allows threatened species to safely spill over beyond the sanctuary fence."

In numerous areas, non-native animals have become part of evolving ecosystems, so removing them is not the panacea for returning to the good old days when they weren't there. Removing them could backfire. For those wanting to read more about how non-native animals have become part of dynamic ecosystems, please see Fred Pearce's book titled The New Wild: Why Invasive Species Will Be Nature's Salvation. Pearce argues argues that "mainstream environmentalists are right that we need a rewilding of the earth, but they are wrong if they imagine that we can achieve that by reengineering ecosystems. Humans have changed the planet too much, and nature never goes backward. But a growing group of scientists is taking a fresh look at how species interact in the wild. According to these new ecologists, we should applaud the dynamism of alien species and the novel ecosystems they create."

Of course, there are those who agree with Ms. Macdonald that killing is necessary. I've been told that as many as 98% of New Zealanders agree with the decision to turn the islands into bloody killing fields. By exposing the horrors of the man killings, we can hope that more and more people will speak out against the slaughter.

Auckland University conservation ecologist, James Russell, is among those who argue that some killing has to take place and that "doing nothing is not an option." He's not alone in taking this point of view. In Ms. Macdonald's essay we read "Andrea Byrom - director of the government research programme Biological Heritage National Science Challenge - says there's nothing new in the ethical conundrum of killing for conservation, but there's no good evidence threatened natives and introduced predators can co-exist." Dr. Byrom is quoted as saying, "The bottom line is in New Zealand if we are going to save particularly a lot of our threatened native fauna - lizards and bats and birds - we're going to have to keep killing stuff. That's just the reality of it." Her use of the word "stuff" echoes Ms. Macdonald's referring to sentient beings as "things." They're neither "stuff" not "things," but rather individuals who deeply suffer and care about what happens to themselves and their families and friends.

Recruiting youngsters to kill pests is common practice in New Zealand: Let's work hard so that violence will not beget violence

Our children are worth so much more. They are the future of our nation. If we want a compassionate and intelligent future society we need to do better. (Lynley Tulloch)

Kids are also brought into the arena of mass killing. Ms. Macdonald writes, "Visiting American science writer Emma Marris, author of The Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, worries that, back home in the United States, kids' first introduction to conservation is often ripping out introduced plants branded as weeds. Ms. Marris is quoted as saying, "Here it's not even plants - it's animals. I'm curious about how that's going to play out on a mass psychological level, if we're training children that the way you care for Mother Earth is to go kill things."

Ms. Marris' concerns are well-founded. In a number of essays I pointed out that research shows that imprinting kids for violence can have long-lasting effects, because violence toward nonhumans has been linked to violence toward humans (please see "Long-Term Effects of Violence Toward Animals by Youngsters").¹ For example, some New Zealand youngsters are encouraged to engage in a game called the "possum stomp," where ‘the player helps the Stompy the Kiwi [sic] to run around and stomp on the zombie possums before they steal his eggs. The zombie possums represent all invasive pests and the kiwi represents New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity’ (Landcare, page 37)." For more discussion please see Nicholas Holm's essay called "Consider the Possum: Foes, Anti-Animals, and Colonists in Paradise."

New Zealand schools need formal courses in humane education rather than in killing. This would be win-win for all (please also see Lynley Tulloch's essay called "Teaching our kids to kill in name of conservation").

Compassionate conservation: Developing a culture of peaceful coexistence between human and nonhuman animals

Where to from here? As the dominant species on Earth, we simply cannot continue to have it any way we want it. We must change how we interact with other animals and recognize that developing a culture of peaceful coexistence means that we need to move away from the paradigm in which our interests trump those of other animals because it's the easiest path to follow. It's also a path filled with untold pain, suffering, and death, and it's time for the killing to stop. For more on this topic please see Warren Cornwall's excellent essay titled "There Will be Blood," "Rather Than Kill Animals "Softly," Don't Kill Them at All," and links therein.

Killing with kindness, as some people refer to what Predator Free New Zealand is all about, is a misleading and troublesome oxymoron and a lie. Compassionate conservation can help us develop a community of peaceful coexistence (please see "Compassionate Conservation Matures and Comes of Age"). Compassionate conservation is a rapidly growing transdisciplinary field that aims to safeguard the flourishing of species and individual animals. Compassionate conservation is concerned with species and biodiversity, often called "collectives," but individuals come first.² It centers on four guiding principles, namely, First Do No harm, Individuals Matter, Valuing All Wildlife and Peaceful Coexistence. Simply put, conservation is a moral pursuit and demands clear ethical guidelines.

Compassionate conservation recognizes that traditional conservation science is ethically challenged and conservation has had a very bloody past and continues to do so. Of course, this does not mean that conservation biologists are cold-blooded killers who don't care about the well-being of animals, but rather that the problems that are faced throughout the world, most brought on by human intervention in the lives of other animals, are challenging to the point of being daunting. Often, it seems as if the only and easiest solution is to kill the "problem animals" and move on to the next situation, in a never-ending series of conflicts. However, killing simply does not work in the long run. And, of course, as numerous people have pointed out, it is ethically indefensible. We also need to change the language we use when writing about other animals. Sentient and other nonhumans are not disposable "things" or "stuff" to be eliminated when we choose to do so.

Compassionate conservation also is not focused on finding and using the "most humane" ways of killing other animals, so killing animals "softly" is not an option, because it's inarguable that killing individuals in the name of conservation remains incredibly inhumane on a global scale. It's really exciting and inspirational to see compassionate conservation mature and come of age. When the killing stops, it'll be a real game-changer and a win-win for all individuals involved, nonhumans and humans alike.

Shutting down the bloody killing fields once and for all

There doesn’t have to be blood “in the name of conservation” and we must do all we can to stop the blood flow. In an increasingly human-dominated world in which human-other animal conflicts are and will be inevitable, wouldn’t this be a wonderful precedent for the future? The time to begin is right now, and New Zealanders can proudly carry the torches of coexistence and kindness into the future for the world to see and to emulate. And, working with youngsters is a great place to begin.

Ms. Macdonald's essay raises numerous biological and ethical issues and it would be excellent reading for a variety of courses in biology and those that center on animal-human relationships. We need to stop dominating other species in harmful and killing ways, and strive for peaceful coexistence and justice for all.

Notes:

¹For more details about various aspects of New Zealand’s war with wildlife, please see “Imprinting Kids for Violence Toward Animals,” “Scapegoating Possums: Science, Psychology, and Words of War,“ “Long-Term Effects of Violence Toward Animals by Youngsters,” “Youngsters Encouraged to Kill Possum Joeys in New Zealand,” “Violence Toward Animals: “Can You Please Help My Daughter?“ and many links therein.

²A focus on the value of individuals forms the basis for the development of the science of animal well-being and the replacement of the science of animal welfare with this new approach to animal-human interactions.