Thoughtful and sensitive writing about a difficult topic. Rewilding isn’t always all upsides, and sometimes we have to reckon with hard ethics. I appreciate this nuanced piece.
As a cat-lover AND a bird-lover, I believe all cats should be kept inside, at all times. If there are feral populations that cannot be housed because of feral cat behaviors or a lack of willing adopters, then I am comfortable with humane methods of predator eradication. I completely understand what island communities and others are trying to do to remove invasive predators and I've seen the fantastic results on a predator-free island off of New Zealand's coast, Tiritiri Matangi.
But I'm at a total loss for the ongoing attempted eradication of Barred Owls out West. Barred Owls were not introduced by humans; they out-competed Spotted Owls BECAUSE humans altered the landscape where Spotted Owls lived. Barred Owls are just better at living in what's left of that environment. There are going to be many more creatures that out-compete other creatures in the near and distant future because of the continued presence of humans on the planet. But the killing of 450,000 Barred Owls for surviving in these times seems like a fool's errand. The reward for adaptation should not be eradication in all cases.
Thank you, Emily. You've made a strong case here on both topics. Someday I'll do a piece on cats (feral and domestic) and their impacts on wildlife. It's a fraught conversation, but I fully agree with your assessment here. And I bet the experience of Tiritiri Matangi was amazing.
The Barred/Spotted Owl crisis is an impossible situation, I think, and a perfect example of an Anthropocene tragedy. It also deserves a longer write-up. As I explain in my essay, I feel strongly that we should fix what we can fix of what we've broken, even if that work is multigenerational. There are lots of good reasons for doing so, not least the reframing of the culture that's caused the harm. That said, it looks like the tide is rising against the Spotted Owl, and there's no stopping the tide. What I've read suggests that the Barred Owls have moved west for good (because of our transformation of the landscape), and it's not like NZ where a long-term eradication project will create a permanent solution. Even the advocates for the slaughter admit that it isn't a solution, just a stopgap. The rationale for the slaughter is to prevent extinction, which I admit is the most noble and important of causes. I suppose too that maintaining the slaughter for now might buy time for a better solution, but I don't know enough about that. Finally, I want to note that the folks who have come up with the Barred Owl culling plan are good people who are dedicated to conservation and ecological solutions. They've weighed the impossible options and made their choice.
Part 2 (& part1): Incredibly and brilliantly written & researched as ever. The Sage advice was centering in these unthinkable unprecedented times. We are all immeasurably grateful to be sticking you.
Jason. I agree. Sticky traps are horribly cruel. A colleague and I at the university once found a mouse glued to one and tried to free it in the park blocks that run down the middle of the campus. It was excruciatingly difficult job and the results were a badly harmed mouse that probably did not long survive our "rescue"
As to predators and invasives: I take the same position here I did at Jonathan's Land Desk when he was speaking out against aridification from blowing dust. Just let nature take it's course whether it be for weal or woe. One man's meat is another's poison we need to stop trying to micromanage and create balances..it's a fool's errand.
Nature is always out of balance and necessarily so. We need to step back, realize that we and our short-term perceptions are part of the non-existent problems we keep trying to fix. We need to drastically reduce our numbers. All my usual rants. Tedious, but true.
I had a housemate in grad school who had a similar experience. As soon as he realized what he'd done, he worked feverishly to free the mouse, but it was too much stress for the little guy. The mouse, that is.
I'll acknowledge that all of our repair efforts might be for nought while also disagreeing on the value of the work regardless. The crux of the matter is the notion of "nature taking its course," right? Lots to debate there. And "micromanaging" in this case is working to counteract the clumsy "managing" we're doing at a planetary scale. As my father noted (in a fisheries context), we're managing everything already just by being the elephant in the room, so we might as well do it thoughtfully, scientifically, and responsibly.
And who is the "we" you speak of? That's a cultural notion, and there are plenty of culture which while not perfect live a hell of a lot more sensibly. They're not the dominant culture, though, but should be.
I agree that the notion of "balance" in nature is of limited use. But as I say in the piece, where we can reduce obvious stupid harms we should do so, and by doing so helping to reshape the dominant culture.
Smaller human population, sure. We seem to be heading that direction but far too slowly. But even a population of half of our current numbers, which was the case when I was born, should be operating under different cultural mores. Doing what ecological repair work we can now is an investment in both the human world and the real world.
Since many of these animals are feral, why not domesticate them? Also, you can neuter wild or feral animals, and aren't possums endangered in Australia? You can release the possums there. As a note, fur-bearing animals have been exploited in farms for thousands of years but never domesticated, even though we could theoretically do it. So, why not capture the most timid stoats and weasels and breed them at the youngest possible ages to create harmless animals who wouldn't hurt a child and due to lack of aggression would be less likely to hurt native wildlife? Another way to get the predators would be to do what the Egyptians did: train cats to hunt (the cats would catch gamebirds and waterfowl for them), and we can do the same for dogs, pigs, and ferrets. All we have to do is to supervise them to make sure they eat the pests and not the native animals; rats can also be sent to the laboratories, along with feral cats and pigs. Removing the parts of the brain that control aggression and stress will result in predators and pigs killing less native animals (and prevent humans from being bitten by them).
Using drones to capture or kill predators (like pigs) is a good idea, but I have a question. Camels in Australia serve the purpose of the Diprotodon, so would you support emus being introduced to replace the moas?
Lots of intriguing questions, Rikhard. Too many to answer properly, I'm afraid, and really I don't have good answers for most of what you ask. In general, I think all of your suggestions here would be exponentially harder than the already-daunting task the New Zealanders have ahead of them. And as for emus, I think that NZ is done experimenting with the importation of exotic animals. Thanks for the comment and questions.
New Zealand just needs to flood the market with cheap credit, raise taxes, get rid of bureaucracy, create more levels of government (for more tax revenue), invest in jobs, and increase immigration, to have money to spend on what I have suggested. Also, emus wouldn't eat native animals.
Thoughtful and sensitive writing about a difficult topic. Rewilding isn’t always all upsides, and sometimes we have to reckon with hard ethics. I appreciate this nuanced piece.
Thank you, Stef.
As a cat-lover AND a bird-lover, I believe all cats should be kept inside, at all times. If there are feral populations that cannot be housed because of feral cat behaviors or a lack of willing adopters, then I am comfortable with humane methods of predator eradication. I completely understand what island communities and others are trying to do to remove invasive predators and I've seen the fantastic results on a predator-free island off of New Zealand's coast, Tiritiri Matangi.
But I'm at a total loss for the ongoing attempted eradication of Barred Owls out West. Barred Owls were not introduced by humans; they out-competed Spotted Owls BECAUSE humans altered the landscape where Spotted Owls lived. Barred Owls are just better at living in what's left of that environment. There are going to be many more creatures that out-compete other creatures in the near and distant future because of the continued presence of humans on the planet. But the killing of 450,000 Barred Owls for surviving in these times seems like a fool's errand. The reward for adaptation should not be eradication in all cases.
Thank you, Emily. You've made a strong case here on both topics. Someday I'll do a piece on cats (feral and domestic) and their impacts on wildlife. It's a fraught conversation, but I fully agree with your assessment here. And I bet the experience of Tiritiri Matangi was amazing.
The Barred/Spotted Owl crisis is an impossible situation, I think, and a perfect example of an Anthropocene tragedy. It also deserves a longer write-up. As I explain in my essay, I feel strongly that we should fix what we can fix of what we've broken, even if that work is multigenerational. There are lots of good reasons for doing so, not least the reframing of the culture that's caused the harm. That said, it looks like the tide is rising against the Spotted Owl, and there's no stopping the tide. What I've read suggests that the Barred Owls have moved west for good (because of our transformation of the landscape), and it's not like NZ where a long-term eradication project will create a permanent solution. Even the advocates for the slaughter admit that it isn't a solution, just a stopgap. The rationale for the slaughter is to prevent extinction, which I admit is the most noble and important of causes. I suppose too that maintaining the slaughter for now might buy time for a better solution, but I don't know enough about that. Finally, I want to note that the folks who have come up with the Barred Owl culling plan are good people who are dedicated to conservation and ecological solutions. They've weighed the impossible options and made their choice.
Thanks, Emily, for a great comment.
Part 2 (& part1): Incredibly and brilliantly written & researched as ever. The Sage advice was centering in these unthinkable unprecedented times. We are all immeasurably grateful to be sticking you.
Thank you, Kathleen.
Jason. I agree. Sticky traps are horribly cruel. A colleague and I at the university once found a mouse glued to one and tried to free it in the park blocks that run down the middle of the campus. It was excruciatingly difficult job and the results were a badly harmed mouse that probably did not long survive our "rescue"
As to predators and invasives: I take the same position here I did at Jonathan's Land Desk when he was speaking out against aridification from blowing dust. Just let nature take it's course whether it be for weal or woe. One man's meat is another's poison we need to stop trying to micromanage and create balances..it's a fool's errand.
Nature is always out of balance and necessarily so. We need to step back, realize that we and our short-term perceptions are part of the non-existent problems we keep trying to fix. We need to drastically reduce our numbers. All my usual rants. Tedious, but true.
I had a housemate in grad school who had a similar experience. As soon as he realized what he'd done, he worked feverishly to free the mouse, but it was too much stress for the little guy. The mouse, that is.
I'll acknowledge that all of our repair efforts might be for nought while also disagreeing on the value of the work regardless. The crux of the matter is the notion of "nature taking its course," right? Lots to debate there. And "micromanaging" in this case is working to counteract the clumsy "managing" we're doing at a planetary scale. As my father noted (in a fisheries context), we're managing everything already just by being the elephant in the room, so we might as well do it thoughtfully, scientifically, and responsibly.
And who is the "we" you speak of? That's a cultural notion, and there are plenty of culture which while not perfect live a hell of a lot more sensibly. They're not the dominant culture, though, but should be.
I agree that the notion of "balance" in nature is of limited use. But as I say in the piece, where we can reduce obvious stupid harms we should do so, and by doing so helping to reshape the dominant culture.
Smaller human population, sure. We seem to be heading that direction but far too slowly. But even a population of half of our current numbers, which was the case when I was born, should be operating under different cultural mores. Doing what ecological repair work we can now is an investment in both the human world and the real world.
Good reply and you expose some of the shallowness of parts of my analysis. Well played 🙂
There's nothing shallow in your thinking, Michael. You're always in the deep end of the pool. Thank you for that.
A thought-provoking read as always.
Thank you, Linda.
Since many of these animals are feral, why not domesticate them? Also, you can neuter wild or feral animals, and aren't possums endangered in Australia? You can release the possums there. As a note, fur-bearing animals have been exploited in farms for thousands of years but never domesticated, even though we could theoretically do it. So, why not capture the most timid stoats and weasels and breed them at the youngest possible ages to create harmless animals who wouldn't hurt a child and due to lack of aggression would be less likely to hurt native wildlife? Another way to get the predators would be to do what the Egyptians did: train cats to hunt (the cats would catch gamebirds and waterfowl for them), and we can do the same for dogs, pigs, and ferrets. All we have to do is to supervise them to make sure they eat the pests and not the native animals; rats can also be sent to the laboratories, along with feral cats and pigs. Removing the parts of the brain that control aggression and stress will result in predators and pigs killing less native animals (and prevent humans from being bitten by them).
Using drones to capture or kill predators (like pigs) is a good idea, but I have a question. Camels in Australia serve the purpose of the Diprotodon, so would you support emus being introduced to replace the moas?
Lots of intriguing questions, Rikhard. Too many to answer properly, I'm afraid, and really I don't have good answers for most of what you ask. In general, I think all of your suggestions here would be exponentially harder than the already-daunting task the New Zealanders have ahead of them. And as for emus, I think that NZ is done experimenting with the importation of exotic animals. Thanks for the comment and questions.
New Zealand just needs to flood the market with cheap credit, raise taxes, get rid of bureaucracy, create more levels of government (for more tax revenue), invest in jobs, and increase immigration, to have money to spend on what I have suggested. Also, emus wouldn't eat native animals.