Should we cull one species to save another?

Large mice are devastating rare birds on a tiny island, now moves are afoot to exterminate the rodents. But should conservation ever be about killing?

Should we cull one species to save another?

 

@ThylacineAlive thank you for sharing this article.

 

I cannot believe these animal rights activists that want to protect an introduced, non-native, invasive species. I will never understand their logic. OF COURSE the non-native mice should be killed. How is this even an issue?

The more difficult question, which I believe is an ethical debate, is when native species are culled (killed) to help other native species recover. That is not the case here, but it is the case in my area (Tucson, Arizona) where mountain lions were killed to help reintroduced bighorn sheep recover in the Catalina Mountains and coyotes were killed to help the declining pronghorn in Sonoita. I don't like it, but I am not necessarily opposed to it because I understand it may be necessary.

 

Yes. In Australia we would quickly lose more of our native species if we did not kill introduces pests like foxes, cats, pigs, etc.
Killing threats to species is a very importent part of conservation.

 

The fact this is a debate is ridiculous!

 

I find the take on this article bizarre and makes little scientific sense.

I have taken a few Ecology classes, a large part of ecology is studying Native Species and how they interact with Invasive species. Everything in the article goes against everything I have been ever taught in ecology.

Now, I know that this is mostly regarding the ethics of killing these mice. I for one, have no remorse for the invasive mouse/rat. Those of us who live in cities understand how one mouse can become hundreds in a matter of weeks...

 

'The conservation priority should be making sure wild spaces are protected, but allowing nature to do its thing. The species that we prefer to succeed may not, but we should let that happen rather than deciding to micromanage, control and inflict suffering on the species we don’t like.'

This is the most nonsensical load of rubbish every written in relation to the Gough Island rats. Should people who have such great ignorance on the matter even be permitted a platform to speak on such an issue?

She doesn't seem to have registered that these mice are introduced species, and that they are 'inflicting suffering' on the native and highly endangered Tristan albatrosses living on the island.

 

In my opinion , in the overwhelming majority of cases , yes , as unfortunately it is the only thing that really makes a difference.

 

Yes, we should. Even if it makes me uneasy, invasive mice weren't supposed to be there in the first place. Even if I cant look at a mouse knowing I'm going to kill it (if it were my job)
know that it's for a good reason and such.

 

This is all great discussion, and I agree with all of the points brought up here, especially @Arizona Docent I couldn't have articulated it any better myself.

One thing that is going to be especially controversial for those outside of the natural sciences world is my belief that we should cull feral horses and burros in North America.

One thing that in some crowds tends to unfortunately be more controversial than it should be is the culling of feral cats in Australia. Considering the sagnificantly negative effects they have on native wildlife there, that solution is the only viable one and it is not negotiable.

 

Fortunately it's not at all controversial in Australia. Opponents are a very small minority.

 

Very thankfully a small minority, I might add.

Seems to me that most Australians and New Zealanders have their priorities right when it comes to valuing native biodiversity.

Now if only this kind of stance could become more commonplace outside of Australasia.

 

Feral Horses and Burros should absolutely be culled in North America. They are devastating the local ecosystems (especially sagebrush) and the law prohibiting killing them is ridiculous.

 

Some natives have to be culled as well if the impact is too great. Examples include koalas in coastal Victoria and bell miners (eucalyptus dieback).

 

absolutely not at all. It’s actually the opposite, most people in Australia are against culling of feral horses, cats and other species but they are fine with killing native snakes for no reason.

Even the federal government falls prey to this, the Australian defence force during the bush fires were working to save only koalas on kangaroo island where they are invasive.

 

What?! This is very sad. They had the perfect opportunity to drastically reduce Koala numbers, and they didn't take it.

 

For the government, no matter which side of the spectrum PR is more important than conservation unfortunately

 

To be blunt, the fact that this mindset isn't commonplace in the rest of the world is a textbook definition of idiocy and insanity, especially in regions where high levels of endemism are present.

 

I am sorry to hear this. That is absurd. Hopefully no endemic subspecies like the Kangaroo Island echidna or Kangaroo Island kangaroo went extinct. My question is, why and when were koalas introduced there in the first place?

 

There’s also the KI glossy cockatoo and there is the endemic KI Dunnart (full species)

Koalas were introduced to the island for tourism purposes.