<
https://theconversation.com/introduced-species-are-animals-too-why-the-debate-over-compassionate-conservation-is-worth-having-163987>
"Wild horses roaming the Snowy Mountains have long been the subject of fierce
debate. Some say they’re feral pests destroying Kosciuszko National Park’s
fragile native ecosystem. Others argue they’re national icons and an important
part of Australia’s colonial heritage.
This issue was the subject of last night’s ABC Four Corners episode. But the
current debate misses one crucial perspective: that of the wild horses, whose
fate is being decided.
This is a perfect example of why the new movement of compassionate conservation
raises the question of the animals’ interests in debates about conservation.
Compassionate conservationists ask whether it’s ethical to harm and kill
animals to preserve others. They believe ecosystems, species, and individual
animals all have significant intrinsic value.
Traditional conservationists have reacted strongly to the criticism, and
generally argue the movement is dangerous because it ignores certain bad
consequences animals can cause. Some of the most outspoken critics even say it
isn’t real conservation or science.
Our research in Conservation Biology probes this debate. We identified 52
criticisms from 11 papers directly arguing against compassionate conservation.
We found most frequent criticisms are problematic, while some others have more
substance.
Is the debate worth having? We believe it is. Conservation is an application of
ethics to the world. When we set out to conserve, we must confront ethical
questions. Should we intervene in nature at all? If so, should we prioritise
some species? Can we kill and be kind?"
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
