Invaders in a Society obsessed with appearance

Should we prioritise the welfare of invasive species or the conservation of native species? Such ethically challenging questions arise when it comes to invasive species eradication programmes as it usually involves killing. This is especially relevant among the lay public who are ignorant of the magnitude and severity of the ecological impacts of invaders. Nevertheless, public consensus does play an important role in conservation efforts, when neglected, outcomes of management programmes can be unfavourable (Gozlan et al., 2013). For example, in California, USA, regulatory authorities who are in charge of the eradication of pike (Esox lucius) faced lawsuits from the public (Gozlan et al., 2013).

Increased media exposure to invasive species has raised awareness among the public which greatly supported many conservation concerns but this may not be the case for invaders that have appealing characteristics or interesting names (Gozlan et al., 2013). This suggests that attractive charismatic invasive species are more well-received by the public than unattractive invasive species. After all, it is human nature to associate attractiveness with positive qualities which can be observed in the very essence of social media. 

Campaigns against invaders which are regarded as beautiful or adorable are more likely to encounter opposition from the public. This can be seen with mute swans (Cygnus olor) in the US, which are the most hostile species of waterfowl around the world but faced oppositions as they are perceived as “engaging and captivating part of the Chesapeake Bay” (Halsey III, 2009).  

Image of a mute swan obtained from Pixabay

Swans are viewed as symbols of elegance and beauty among many (I mean just look at how beautiful it is…). It is undeniable that we have an inherent bias for them. When the truth doesn’t align with our ideas, this would evoke an emotive reaction leading to disagreements. Not just mute swans, this is common for many other charismatic invasive species.

It is worrying if we only support eradication programmes which consist of species we find not appealing. Many native species have already been lost because of invasive species. But, there is an increasing volume of scientific evidence that can inform and hopefully influence the public opinions on invasive species.

References

Gozlan et al., 2013 retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0053200 

Halsey III, 2009 retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051501258.html 

5 comments

  1. bangwenhan · October 17, 2020 at 4:35 pm ·

    Hi Lixuan

    Very interesting post on how the charisma of an invasive species contributes to public opinion. This brings me to mention one piece of news I saw online.

    Australia is intent on culling millions of cats (feral cats) on the justification that they are destructive and detrimental to the native wildlife. Personally, I like cats (I prefer dogs, but I still love both). Therefore, this is considered quite a shock to me, because killing one cat is saddening enough, let alone millions. I am pretty sure there would be public concerns amongst cat lovers over this action in Australia

    Furthermore, while it is true that these feral cats are invasive species, why couldn’t we capture them for domestication rather than culling them? Hence I am curious about your view on whether public opinion matters in government-backed eradication programs.

    • glixuan · October 23, 2020 at 2:50 pm ·

      Hi Wen Han, thanks for dropping by!
      It saddens me to think of that too since I love cats a lot, but I believe it must be done…
      Domesticating them would be a good alternative but what if there aren’t enough shelters or new homes for them? And we have domesticated cats yet they’re still hunting down birds, rodents and insects since it’s just their primal instinct. I have 2 outdoor cats and they’re always bringing back grasshoppers, lizards and sometimes birds (but rare)!
      I believe that public opinions are important even in government-backed eradication programmes especially in democratic countries. Popular public opinions control the action of the government. Policies and programmes that aren’t well-received by the public would be politically unpopular and the government implementing such plans/policies would lose votes.

      • Joanna Coleman · October 23, 2020 at 3:06 pm ·

        Hi Lixuan (and Wen Han),

        This post, btw, is another example evidencing a student’s ability to take tough feedback and turn their ship around. EVERYONE is capable of this and I’m so happy to see how your efforts are bearing fruit.

        This post also raises some very important points relevant to this week’s topic – environmental ethics.

        You and Wen Han seem to exhibit (IMO) views typical of urbanites – your views of Nature are individualised and highly anthropomorphised, shaped by your relationships with pets – this is a documented phenomenon and it makes you rather unlike most rural people, whose views of wildlife tend to be culturally shared and utilitarian.

        Here’s the thing.

        These cats ARE domesticated. I mean, they’re domestic cats. And the reasons why they are killing such huge numbers of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians in many locations is the above relationship.

        Essentially, people believe that their precious kitty needs to roam outside, so they let it do so. And even though they feed their pets, cats kill for sport, so they have unsustainable impacts on wildlife. Of course, those are owned cats.

        Then there are all the strays and feral cats – the product of abandonment. If people would stop abandoning their cats and letting them roam outside, the problem might abate. But they won’t do that, it seems.

        Now, when it comes to strays and feral cats, well-meaning people who are cat lovers like you, feel pity for them, or perhaps seek to assuage their sense of loneliness, or perhaps simply want to connect with animals. For whatever reason, they often feed them. This helps these cat populations attain enormous sizes and densities – levels that the environment simply cannot support and, like owned cats, even well-fed strays and feral cats continue to hunt for fun.

        And individuals that are not fed hunt for survival.

        The impact that domestic cats have had on wildlife is, to me, so severe, that there is no moral justification for the stance that we shouldn’t cull them. That said, many eradication programmes fail (just like sterilisation programmes) because of the ongoing problem of abandonment and immigration of individuals from elsewhere.

        I don’t know what the solution is and getting people to adopt these animals might help, but there are so many of them and (again) as long as abandonment continues, I believe we won’t solve this problem.

        I don’t hate cats, but literally every conservation biologist I know agrees with me that they should not be allowed to roam outside. So maybe the solution is strict legislation to that effect. What do you think ?

        jc

        • glixuan · October 25, 2020 at 5:13 am ·

          Hi prof,
          Thank you for your genuine feedback, it makes me so happy!
          I am guilty of doing all the points you’ve raised… I definitely did try to convert my cats into indoor but the incessant meowing and begging to be out… I gave in
          I think that a way to reduce the abandonment rate is to ban online sales of pets. After all, online purchases tend to be more impulsive compared to buying pets from stores.
          I agree with you, cats are cute but they are killing machines. Even though I added a bigger and noisier bell along with the tiny bell on their collars (you can check it out in my first post!), they’ve learnt to compensate for it. They move and stalk their prey in a way that wouldn’t shake the bells (I have seen them at work with the lizards at my home). I remember reading from somewhere that it’d work if you place the bells at the sides collars instead, I plan to do that for my cats when I have time!
          But I think that it would be difficult as public receptiveness does play an important role in decision makings. It is very normalised for cats to roam as they are difficult to confine to homes. Like you’ve mentioned, some cat owners would have strong opposing opinions, thinking that it is selfish to confine their cats.

          • Joanna Coleman · November 1, 2020 at 2:07 pm ·

            How interesting that your cats learned to hunt despite the bells – wily little buggers !

            I find your idea about online sales & the link to abandonment intriguing. I’d never thought about that before.