Compassionate Conservation is a good idea, where it’s possible. There is an ongoing debate in the conservation community about the advisability and possibilities of compassion in conservation. This debate highlights and hinges around the differences between, in my opinion, the levels of the species and the individual. In my opinion, the rights of both are important, and, in actuality, the good intentions (assuming they are good) of humans often run amok. I’ve come to think that, if success seems to be possible, humans should try to reduce the damage done to native species by their introduction of aliens to exotic landscapes. This is usually not possible in large landscapes, for instance of all Gray Squirrels (in favour of Red Squirrels) in England. The landscape and obstacles are just too large in this case to ensure eradication.

Often, what’s good for an endangered species, or a native species, is bad for individuals in another species. In the case highlighted today, introduced rats were eradicated in favour of the native plant population which had been severely depleted by the rats. Here, so far, the results have been spectacular; the plants rebounded almost more than could be expected. The rats, however, suffered. I don’t know by how much, or how many (I assume a great many) were killed. It was done with an anticoagulant rodenticide, brodifacoum. See the popular account here, or the journal article here.

More is at stake than the native plant population thriving (although that’s important). Rats also reduce seabird numbers and recent research has shown that coral reefs thrive next to rat-free islands because the seabirds play a critical role in depositing nutrients in their guano that leach into the surrounding waters.

So, think about it, and decide for yourself. If you want more information, see the links below.

The popular account

The Journal account

The B. C. SPCA’s website

Psychology Today’s article

Compassion as a Practical and Evolved Ethic for Conservation Article