A recent (23 September 2024) ABC 7:30 Report story, Back from Extinction, gave an interesting account of the Wild Deserts program that is aiming to reverse the trend toward native animal extinction in Australia. Fair enough. We don’t have a great record.
Bilbies, bandicoots, bettongs and quolls, once thought extinct in New South Wales for over a hundred years, are reclaiming parts of an outback NSW desert. (source: ABC 7:30 Report)
This seems to be a positive thing for the species and the ecosystem in which they once thrived.
About 6 minutes into the 7 minute clip, the discussion turns to controlling the causes of extinction, including feral animals, in particular cats. The method of control discussed in the program is a device that attracts a cat into a confined area such that a dose of 1080 poison is applied to its fur, which it then licks, ingests, so is poisoned and dies.
Sometimes, 1080 finds its way near locations in which pets live.
People described the death of their “loved one” from 1080 baiting as one of the most horrific experiences of their lives. Symptoms of 1080 poisoning included … vomiting, defecating, urinating, frenzied running … “screaming”, convulsions, confusion, fear, coma and finally, death. The Conversation
So, the suffering of a non-native animal doesn’t matter? Just collateral damage?
Of course the native species has to fight for survival in the ecosystem into which they’re introduced, but at least they have a fighting chance to live as opposed to being murdered for being the wrong species, in the wrong place (Australia), at the wrong time.
But, are they being reintroduced to “rebalance” or “re-engineer” the ecosystem or from which they were removed by us, or for their own “right” to live? Or both?
There is an idea, often unspoken, that native species have more value than non-native. Cats, dogs, livestock etc are not native to Australia. Neither are humans. Livestock are not native, but they are favoured by farmers over dingoes which have been here for thousands of years.
Being cute and cuddly shouldn’t be an important factor either but you would be forgiven for thinking so sometimes.
To be honest, I’m left with the feeling that both native and non-native feral species are often seen as a means to an end. That’s obviously true in the case of livestock.
As it turns out, I do not think that cats (for example) should be allowed to roam unsupervised in backyards or elsewhere, where that would result in harm to native animals whose species is in threat of extinction. Limiting freedom in this case seems to be a necessity, but that doesn’t mean it’s fair, and it doesn’t mean the pet should suffer.
It would seem that animals can go from being considered as a pet to a pest, depending upon location and negative impact in their environment, e.g. cat-as-pet vs cat-in-backyard-eating-birds or cat-as-feral. I’ve written elsewhere about another mammal that’s mostly considered a pest but that like most of us, is just trying to get on with its life.
Of course, all animals can be viewed as pests from the right point of view, all carry disease, all can do damage to ecosystems. Not to downplay the importance of the work being done by researchers in the Wild Deserts program, but it’s just interesting, and at times disturbing, to see the various ways in which we think we “know best”.