It is certainly a 'hot' tropic and it's always nice to see the words of one of your ex-supervised students (in this case Carl Jones) cited, but there are pros and cons when one considers using culling of one species to conserve another (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/28/should-we-cull-one-species-to-save-another-huge-mice-killing-birds-gough-island). It is certainly true that humans to some extent 'play God' by deciding which species to favour. We do have a strong tendency to go for species (especially birds, mammals and butterflies) that humans appreciate (and might well pay money to conserve). Often, the choices are reasonable but they can be misguided (e.g. directing cash to conserving animals in a country near the extremes of its range, when it is common elsewhere). All species are programmed to reproduce themselves (using whatever means are available) and this also applies to the 'problematic' (again our choice) candidates for culling. And, yes, culling (especially as conducted in remote locations, like Gough Island) will cause animal suffering. Having said all that, there is also no doubt that many of the problems for endangered species (especially island populations) have been caused by human activity and/or the introduction (deliberate or otherwise) of alien species. Culling may be all that is possible unless we want to see a pretty standard fauna in most locations. I suspect that most agencies know this, even if some of them pretend not to favour culling for PR reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment