What if New Zealand's War on Wildlife Included Primates?

New Zealand's current and on-going war on wildlife has the ambitious and rather shameful goal of ridding the country of all non-native invasive nonhuman animals (animals) by 2050. Many of the methods cause horrific pain, suffering, and death, and millions of sentient and other individual animals are actively targeted not only by adults, but also by youngsters who are "educated" to kill these animal beings. New Zealand also legally considers animals to be sentient beings, so most if not all of those people who favor this violent war on other animals likely know there will be inexcusable amounts of pain and suffering.

I've written many essays about this horrific affront on other animals, and while opinions are divided on this brutal slaughter, it seems like most New Zealanders support it. (See "Why Is It Wrong to Not Want to Kill Animals?" and links therein for a summary of what's happening in New Zealand.) Nonetheless, the emails I've received are uniformly against this campaign and many who have written didn't know about it. While there are serious ethical questions that need to be addressed, solid science doesn't also support this program. (See "Predator Free 2050: A flawed conservation policy displaces higher priorities and better, evidence‐based alternatives" and references therein.)

I'm writing this brief essay because just this morning, out of the blue while talking with some people about animal protection in general and what's happening in New Zealand more specifically, someone asked a question about which I've never thought, namely, "What if New Zealand's war on wildlife included invasive nonhuman primates?" I asked around and did some checking on the web, and I couldn't find any discussion of this most thoughtful question. Nor could I find much information on examples of invasive nonhuman primates.

Let's consider the question of the animals who are primarily being targeted in New Zealand, along with the question of what if they were nonhuman primates. The animals targeted in New Zealand's bloody campaign are mostly noncharismatic so-called pests, such as possums, rats, and stoats. The question concerning the inclusion of nonnative nonhuman primates raises a number of questions that center on the concept of speciesism, generally defined as "discrimination against or exploitation of certain animal species by human beings, based on an assumption of mankind’s superiority." Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights on the basis of species membership, and constructs false boundaries among species. Speciesism also results in animals being classified hierarchically as “lower” and “higher,” with humans on the top rung of the ladder.

The speciesist view ignores individual variations in behavior within and between species and hierarchical speciesism results in endless harm and is bad biology. Speciesists also often use such words as higher and lower to refer to different groups of animals. But, such words fail to consider the lives and the worlds of the animals themselves. Value judgments also accompany words like lower and higher and can result in mistreating individuals who are thought to be lower—not as smart, emotional, good, or valuable—than others based on species membership.

Many people consider New Zealand's pests to be "lower than" or "less valuable than" nonhuman primates. So too do welfare regulations and laws. (See "The Animal Welfare Act Claims Rats and Mice Are Not Animals.") This is a false representation of who these animals truly are, and ignores that they surely don't suffer less than individuals of presumably "higher" species.

Furthermore, there's no way that the targeted individuals are going to be killed "humanely" with compassion and empathy. Claiming that it's OK to kill millions upon millions of sentient beings as long as it's done humanely ignores the incredible amount of pain and suffering the vast majority of individuals will endure before dying. There is no way that even a fraction of the animals who are killed using 1080 and other brutal methods will die humanely with compassion and empathy. And, of course, do the animals themselves really care about the humans' kind thoughts and good intentions? (See "The 'It's OK to Kill Animals Humanely' Apology Doesn't Work.") All in all, the "It's OK for Humans to Kill Other Animals if it's Done Humanely" apology or excuse doesn't really work. It fails millions upon millions of nonhuman animals who die after suffering deep and enduring pain at the hands of humans.

Some people wonder if "killing is OK if it's done humanely" is consistent with the basic guiding principles of compassionate conservation. It is not, and this view undermines what compassionate conservation is all about. (See also "Compassionate Conservation: More than 'Welfarism Gone Wild'" and "Summoning compassion to address the challenges of conservation.") Compassionate conservation is based on guiding principles, including "First do no harm," and the life of each and every individual matters because each has inherent/intrinsic value. So, claiming it's OK for humans to harm and kill other animals if it's done humanely ignores their inherent value.

To sum up, it's instructive to ask, "What if New Zealand's war on wildlife included invasive nonhuman primates?" One can also ask the same question if dogs were among the targeted species. Discussing this thought experiment opens the door for exposing how humans view different nonhuman species, if and how speciesism enters into their arguments, and how they come to decisions about who lives, who dies, and why. It also calls attention to the pain, suffering, and death of individual animals. Many conservation biologists play what I call the "numbers game" in that if there are a lot of representatives of a given species, then it's OK for humans to kill some or allow them to be killed by other species. Individual lives don't really figure into the equation. But, they should, because it's individuals whose pain, suffering, and death truly matter.

Forgiveness Essential Reads

Forgiveness: A Critical Part of Relationships

I’m Sorry, Why Is Apologizing So Difficult?

So, would those people who support the wanton and mass killing of non-primates be consistent and argue that nonhuman primates also should be killed along with the other animals? Some might argue that invasive nonhuman primates might not be as "predatory" or otherwise destructive as the other animals who are being targeted, but even if this were true, their presence can alter native populations of animals and different habitats that also need to be preserved along with individuals of native species. (See, for example, "Invasive primates threaten Atlantic Forest natives" and "History and Status of Introduced Non-Human Primate Populations in Florida.")

During my discussion this morning, all of the people said they wouldn't want to see invasive primates be killed, some were appalled that other animals were targeted, and some needed to think more on the questions at hand. Fair enough, in that none were researchers or well-versed on the issues at hand. However, we all agreed that our discussion was very useful. I hope other people will debate the issues I raise here, because knowledge about the ways in which people view and treat other animals is critical to their making decisions about what sorts of treatment or interference in their lives, if any, are permissible and why this is so.

It also would be good to hear from youngsters, because they eventually will inherit the world we leave them and the values by which we came to decide the fate of other animals. It's a shame that kids in New Zealand are being taught and encouraged to kill "pests" as part of school-sanctioned events, because the long-term effects of this sort of "inhumane education" are extremely troubling. However, slowly but surely, some are speaking out against being told to kill them. (See "Long-Term Effects of Violence Toward Animals by Youngsters," "New Zealand Kids Get Into Killing Animals and Love Doing It," "Why Is It Wrong to Not Want to Kill Animals?" and links therein.)

In an increasingly human-dominated world, other animals depend on us for our goodwill and compassion, because we can do whatever we choose to do to them with very few limits on how they are treated if we decide they're disposable for the good of individuals of their own or other species. It's clearly a gross understatement to say that killing other animals needs to be taken very seriously and that mass killing campaigns demand close scrutiny on many different fronts. I hope more and more people will engage in these discussions and debates and that those who favor them will change their ways.