According to the "Invasion Biology" view, certain animals should be valued at the expense of others if they were at a particular location before European exploration, an arbitrary starting point. Indeed, at some point, virtually all animals were introduced (by wind, migration, humans, or other animals).
It’s that time of year again.
The time of year when the sun is shining, flowers are blooming, critters are
scampering about, and newspapers are publishing the misleading and misguided
claims of “native species” advocates. Cats “are natural born killers,”
proclaims the Miami Herald. “Outdoor cats are more dangerous than you
think,” says the Union-Bulletin. A “hunting season on cats?” asks the
Cincinnati Enquirer. Yes, answers Field & Stream.
In the U.S., self-proclaimed conservationists call for eliminating outdoor
cats “by any means necessary.” Australia is poisoning two million cats. And
in New Zealand, the goal is nothing less than killing every community cat,
with school children groomed to wage violence upon them and other animals.
“What species do you want to kill the MOST?” an Auckland school teacher
asked his students.
Trying to legitimize the mass killing under a mantle of “environmentalism”
that bears little resemblance to the founding ethos of the movement — one
that encouraged peaceful coexistence with animals — proponents claim that
cats and other animals which are labeled “non-native” are a threat to
“native” wildlife and must be eradicated.
This view comes from a troubling and discriminatory ideology called “Invasion Biology” that regards lineage alone — without regard for the capacity to suffer — as the sole determinant of an animal’s moral worth. According to this view, certain animals should be valued at the expense of others if they were at a particular location before European exploration, an arbitrary starting point. Indeed, at some point, virtually all animals were introduced (by wind, migration, humans, or other animals).
....
Please read the ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE.