There is an article in the news today of a mink cull to save the water vole in the UK. One headline reads: “Mink eradication aims to save nature’s ‘good guys'”. The ‘good guys’. Mink are clearly the bad guys then?
The water voles are seen as the “good guys” because they are a native species in the UK, valued for their role in maintaining healthy ecosystems, such as riverbanks, and are emblematic of the country’s biodiversity. In contrast, American mink are considered the “bad guys” because they are an invasive species, introduced by humans, which predate on water voles and other wildlife, contributing to the dramatic decline of native species like the water vole. This human-influenced imbalance frames the narrative.
The speciesism often comes from a perceiving native species as more valuable than non-native species. The belief that non-native species are “worse” than native species stems from the idea that ecosystems have evolved with a balance between native plants, animals, and their environment. When non-native species are introduced (often by humans), they can disrupt this balance, sometimes outcompeting or preying on native species, leading to ecological damage. While nature itself doesn’t label species as good or bad, humans often view non-native species negatively when they cause harm. This view can reflect a sense of responsibility or guilt for having caused such disruptions in the first place.
That said, the concept of “non-native” is human-defined and can be value-laden. Nature doesn’t operate with these distinctions; it’s more a matter of human perception and management.
Also, I think that humans extend their nationalism to native wild animals. We protect our own both human and animal. Unfortunately we often introduce non-native species through our carelessness and when they procreate and create problems we have to cull them. Kill them en masse which is a form of animal cruelty as it causes pain.
This is human mismanagement of nature. The greatest example is the feral cat in Australia. In fact Australia is where you will see by the greatest killing of non-native species such a cats because of earlier mismanagement.
Feral cats in Australia are a prime example of human interference with devastating ecological consequences. Cats were introduced by European settlers, and over time, they became a highly invasive species. Feral cats are now responsible for the decline and extinction of numerous native animals, including small mammals, birds, and reptiles. Australia’s unique wildlife, which evolved without significant mammalian predators, is particularly vulnerable. Efforts to control feral cats have been challenging, but they remain a critical factor in the loss of biodiversity across the continent. ‘Challenging’ and cruel sadly. All means are used to kill feral cats. The causation of pain is disregarded.
In the UK, the story of water voles and American mink, water voles are seen as the “good guys” because they are a native species in the UK, valued for their role in maintaining healthy ecosystems, such as riverbanks, and are emblematic of the country’s biodiversity. In contrast, American mink are considered the “bad guys” because they are an invasive species, introduced by humans, which predate on water voles and other wildlife, contributing to the dramatic decline of native species like the water vole. This human-influenced imbalance frames the narrative.
And so a cull of American mink is underway to protect native species like the water vole, which has experienced a 97% population decline due to predation by mink. American mink, introduced for fur farming in the 20th century, have become invasive and severely impact water vole populations and other wildlife. Conservation projects, such as those led by the Waterlife Recovery Trust, have successfully eradicated mink from certain regions, boosting the chances of water vole recovery and helping restore balance in river ecosystems. The aim is to extend this program nationwide.
Humans have a long history of introducing non-native species into ecosystems, often with unintended and damaging consequences. These introductions have frequently led to the decline or extinction of native species. For example:
- Rabbits in Australia: Introduced for hunting, rabbits became invasive, causing widespread destruction of native vegetation and threatening local wildlife.
- Cane Toads in Australia: Introduced to control agricultural pests, cane toads became highly invasive and toxic to native predators.
- Grey Squirrels in the UK: Outcompete native red squirrels and spread disease.
These examples highlight how human interference in nature can backfire.
Humans have a long history of managing ecosystems in ways that reflect speciesism—favoring one species over another based on our own cultural, aesthetic, or economic preferences. Here are some examples where this phenomenon has influenced which species are protected and which are culled:
- Predator Control for Game Species
In many regions, large carnivores like wolves, foxes, and coyotes are culled to protect deer, elk, and other game animals that humans hunt or enjoy watching. This can lead to an imbalance in the ecosystem, as predators play crucial roles in maintaining the health of prey populations and vegetation. Yellowstone National Park’s wolf reintroduction is a classic case: wolves were once eradicated to boost deer and elk populations but were later reintroduced to restore ecosystem balance when the absence of wolves caused overgrazing. - Killing Rats and Cats to Protect Native Birds
On islands and in specific conservation areas, rats and feral cats are often culled to protect endangered native birds. While there is clear reasoning—rats and cats are invasive species that pose significant risks to native birds—this management decision still reflects a preference for bird species that are valued culturally or aesthetically over these invasive species. The impact of these culling practices can be complex, affecting local ecosystems and creating ethical concerns around killing one species to protect another. - Culling Grey Squirrels to Save Red Squirrels in the UK
In the United Kingdom, conservation programs cull invasive grey squirrels to protect the native red squirrels, which are outcompeted by their grey counterparts. The greys are seen as an invasive threat, while the reds are native and considered part of the country’s heritage. This is an example of humans choosing to intervene based on speciesism, as grey squirrels are targeted despite both species essentially behaving similarly within the ecosystem. - Shark Culling for Human Safety
In regions with high numbers of shark encounters, such as parts of Australia and South Africa, shark culling programs are often implemented to reduce risks to humans. These programs can indiscriminately kill both dangerous and harmless shark species, significantly impacting marine ecosystems. This culling reflects a human-centered prioritization of safety over the ecological role sharks play as apex predators. - Kangaroo Culling for Livestock Grazing in Australia
In Australia, kangaroos are frequently culled to reduce grazing pressure on lands used for cattle or sheep farming. This favors the agricultural industry by making more resources available for livestock, prioritizing domesticated animals over native wildlife, even though kangaroos are an iconic and ecologically significant species in Australia.
These examples highlight that speciesism, whether intentional or not, shapes conservation and wildlife management practices worldwide. The decision to protect certain species and control others is often based less on ecological necessity than on human values, aesthetics, and priorities.
From an animal advocacy perspective, the lack of consideration for the suffering caused to non-native species during culling can be seen as a moral concern. Culling campaigns often focus on the preservation of ecosystems or native species, and this utilitarian approach can sometimes overlook the ethical implications of causing pain and distress to the animals being culled. This ethical tension highlights a potential moral inconsistency: it prioritizes ecological outcomes over the welfare of individual animals, raising questions about human responsibility and compassion toward all sentient beings, native or not.
Human activity has frequently disrupted natural ecosystems—whether through global travel, trade, habitat destruction, or the introduction of non-native species. These changes often create imbalances, favouring some species and harming others. To correct these disturbances, humans have resorted to culling or eradication efforts, a method that ironically amplifies our impact by deciding which species to protect or eliminate. This cycle of intervention, while intended to restore “natural” balance, reveals a paradox in our relationship with nature: attempting to fix what we ourselves have unsettled.
