Verified by 
Ecosystems evolve: There's no going back "to the good old days" or "to the way things were"
In an interview I was doing this morning with Boston Globe writer Linda Rodriguez about invasive gray squirrels in the UK, we talked about a number of topics including the words we use to refer to nonhuman animals (animals). We also talked out-group discrimination in humans and how this might be related to how humans view non-native animals, also called invasive and pests.
Many people around the world are interested in how other animals are treated, including non-native individuals. Recently, New Zealand announced a major war on non-native predators with a government supported initiative to rid the islands of these beings by 2050, and Australia has plans in the works to use self-destructing dingoes implanted with time-released 1080 pills to kill non-native goats (please see "Australia to Kill Goats Using Self-Destructing Dingoes" and links therein). From ecological and conservation points of view, in general, this sort of animal genocide doesn't work, and many researchers agree. When animals are introduced into ecosystems the landscapes change and the nonhuman residents and flora adapt to the presence of other individuals, non-native or not. When animals are removed, there's no going back "to the good old days" or "to the way things were," say, before the non-natives were there, because the ecosystem has evolved and is forever changed.
Ecosystems are dynamic, rather than static, and there really is no reason to think that in the past things were just fine for the animals. Re-engineering ecosystems is a complex undertaking and this isn't the place to go into the details. For more on this topic and labeling animals in general I highly recommend Fred Pearce's The New Wild: Why Invasive Species Will Be Nature's Salvation and Kelsi Nagy and Phillip Johnson's Trash Animals: How We Live with Nature's Filthy, Feral, Invasive, and Unwanted Species (please also see "Stray Animals and Trash Animals: Don't Kill the Messengers").
What's in a name? Out-group discrimination
While I was talking with Ms. Rodriguez and we were tossing around a lot of different and very wide-ranging and interesting ideas and non-native animals, she mentioned the importance of the words we use to refer to other animals and out-group discrimination. I immediately thought of the incredibly interesting research of Dr. Gordon Hodson and his colleagues at Brock University in St. Catherine's, Ontario, Canada, on the roots of dehumanizing human immigrants (for a general review please see "Dehumanization and Animal-Human Similarity"). In an essay by Kimberly Costello and Dr. Hodson called "Exploring the roots of dehumanization: The role of animal—human similarity in promoting immigrant humanization" we read:
Recognizing that heightened immigrant dehumanization and prejudice follow from an exaggerated human–animal divide, it now becomes imperative to determine when and how beliefs about human superiority or animal inferiority develop. Children are socialized to endorse perceptions of human superiority over other animals through parental influence, religious teachings, cultural traditions, and/or experiences with industries condoning the exploitation of non-human animals. These socialization practices presumably lead children to endorse the cultural “legitimacy” of dominating, victimizing, or ignoring the plight of non-human animals.
The authors note the importance of determining "when and how beliefs about human superiority or animal inferiority develop," and this is especially important because some youngsters in New Zealand kill animals as school sanctioned projects. The authors also write about the importance of "rehumanizing" out-groups as a way to reduce hostility and violence.
Conservation psychology, anthrozoology, and compassionate conservation can help us along in rethinking how animals are labeled and treated
The words we use to refer to other humans and to other animals influence how we perceive and treat them (please see, for example, "Is an Unnamed Cow Less Sentient Than a Named Cow?"). Referring to nonhuman animals as invasive, stresses that they weren't part of original ecosystems or social systems, and this allows for them to be undervalued and treated as members of out-groups and allows for the use of horrific methods to kill them. Some people come to hate them and are fine with the use of violent methods to get rid of them. The unwanted and "disposable" individuals are not euthanized, because these are not mercy killings (please see "Animal 'Euthanasia' Is Often Slaughter: Consider Kangaroos"). They are inhumanely mistreated and killed. Likewise, referring to non-native humans as immigrants also stresses they are members of out-groups, and one only has to read current newspapers and listen to news reports and political vitriol to see this sort of fearing, discriminating, and hate-mongering in action.
There's a lot in a name, and I look forward to more research in this area of inquiry. It's a gold mine for conservation psychologists, anthrozoologists, and researchers interested in compassionate conservation (please also see the website for The Centre for Compassionate Conservation in Sydney, Australia). Part of personal rewilding is to reconnect with other nature and other animals and to come to a deep appreciation for the fascinating animals with whom we share our magnificent planet and the diverse and wondrous ecosystems in which they live, their very homes.
Along these lines, I often ask people to think about their dog, and ask, "Would you do this to your dog?" or "Would you allow your dog to be brutally killed because they were a so called invasive animal?" Dogs can be used to bridge the empathy gap, and after I explain why I ask this question they come to see that the animals who are being killed are no less sentient than the companion animals with whom they share their home.
The vast majority of humans need to reconnect with nature and other animals (please see, for example, "Is an Unnamed Cow Less Sentient Than a Named Cow?"). Focusing on youngsters is an excellent place to begin (see, for example, information about Jane Goodall's global Roots & Shoots program). However, we all can use regular healthy doses of personal rewilding to overcome alienation from other animals in our busy and increasingly human-dominated world. So, let's get on with it ...
Marc Bekoff's latest books are Jasper's Story: Saving Moon Bears (with Jill Robinson), Ignoring Nature No More: The Case for Compassionate Conservation, Why Dogs Hump and Bees Get Depressed: The Fascinating Science of Animal Intelligence, Emotions, Friendship, and Conservation, Rewilding Our Hearts: Building Pathways of Compassion and Coexistence, and The Jane Effect: Celebrating Jane Goodall (edited with Dale Peterson). The Animals' Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age (with Jessica Pierce) will be published in early 2017. (Homepage: marcbekoff.com; @MarcBekoff)
