“Compassionate Conservation” is Neither Compassionate nor Conservation

It’s a cult founded on ecological illiteracy

Red-footed boobies returning to Palmyra National Wildlife Refuge after rat eradication, Photo courtesy of Island Conservation.

by Ted Williams

“Compassionate conservation” -- decades old, but named in 2013 -- is an increasingly popular mindset (advocates prefer “new approach to conservation biology”). It focuses on individual animals at the expense of species and native ecosystems. Practitioners imagine and proclaim that conservation goals can be achieved without lethal control of invasive (usually alien) species.

One of the high priests of compassionate conservation is Mark Davis who, while not proselytizing, teaches biology at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota. In his book Invasion Biology and elsewhere he promotes and celebrates alien, invasive species as beneficial.

"We've declared war on invasive species," laments Davis. "And usually when the U.S. declares war on something, the only thing that's guaranteed is spending a lot of money."

Davis is the lead coauthor among 19 in a missive entitled “Don't judge species on their origins” published in the journal Nature: “Increasingly,” they write, “the practical value of the native-versus-alien species dichotomy in conservation is declining, and even becoming counterproductive [my emphasis]. Yet many conservationists still consider the distinction a core guiding principle… Over the past few decades, 'non-native' species have been vilified for driving beloved 'native' species to extinction and generally polluting 'natural' environments.”

Tamarisk is an alien, invasive shrub that dries up streams, erodes soil, increases frequency and severity of wildfires, and crowds out native vegetation thereby depriving wildlife of food, cover and breeding habitat. But Davis et al portray it as beneficial because willow flycatchers, deprived by tamarisk of natural nesting habitat, nest instead in tamarisk.

Honeysuckle is an alien, invasive climbing shrub that crowds out and shades out native vegetation, compacts soil, robs soil of nutrients, destroys wildlife habitat, increases frequency and severity of wildfires, disrupts water flow and provides habitat for disease-bearing ticks.

But Davis et al portray honeysuckle as beneficial, proclaiming that: “In Pennsylvania, more non-native honeysuckles mean more native bird species. Also, the seed dispersal of native berry-producing plants is higher in places where non-native honeysuckles are most abundant.”

No alien species superimposed on a native ecosystem ever “benefitted” it. Native ecosystems are priceless resources unto themselves, and they’re flickering out because humans pollute them with aliens. Even in those rare cases in which the aliens do little damage, the ecosystems cease to be native and are therefore lost.

The ruminations of Davis et al in Nature appalled 141 eminent wildlife scientists who, in their rebuttal, rebuked the authors for “assail[ing] strawmen” and “downplay[ing] the severe impact of non-native species that may not manifest for decades after their introduction -- as occurred with the Brazilian pepper shrub (Schinus terebinthifolius) in Florida.”

“Also,” they continued, “some species may have only a subtle immediate impact but affect entire ecosystems, for example through their effect on soils. Pronouncing a newly introduced species as harmless can lead to bad decisions about its management. A species added to a plant community that has no evolutionary experience of that organism should be carefully watched. For some introductions, eradication is possible. For example, 27 invasive species have been eradicated from the Galapagos Islands, mitigating severe adverse effects on endemic species. Harmful invasive species have been successfully kept in check by biological, chemical and mechanical means.”

********

Conservationists who are truly compassionate, such as staffers of Island Conservation, eradicate alien, invasive rodents on islands with the anti-coagulant rodenticide brodifacoum, thereby saving and restoring millions of imperiled seabirds.

_________________

Before the 1975 introduction of brodifacoum, killing all rodents on almost any island, let alone one like South Georgia, was inconceivable.

_________________

Such salvation is anathema to promoters and practitioners of compassionate conservation who assert that alien invasives like mice and rats are endowed with “personhood” and are “sentient beings” that should not be killed for any reason.

Here are just a few of the comments I’ve received from compassionate conservationists after reporting on the spectacularly successful projects (many led by Island Conservation) which have restored native ecosystems to at least 1,000 islands around the world:

"There has to be a better way." "The non-native species didn't ask to be put there." "Other [nontarget] wildlife will die." "Killing one species in favor of another is wrong." "Poisoning animals is cruel." "Island Conservation is playing God."

There is no "better way"; in fact, there is no other way. That "non-native species didn't ask to be put there" is no reason to allow them to remain and thereby usher native species into oblivion.

“Other wildlife” may indeed “die.” Never has this nontarget by-kill had a significant or lasting effect on a native population. What’s more, as recovery strategies evolve, nontarget by-kill diminishes.

"One species" has never been killed "in favor of another"; individuals of alien species have been killed to save entire native ecosystems.

"Poisoning [alien] animals" is nowhere near as cruel as allowing native wildlife to starve, have their eggs, broods or litters consumed, or be slowly gnawed to death.

Finally, correcting our past mistakes (instead of sitting on our hands and watching native ecosystems get trashed as a result of those mistakes) is not "playing God."

A Team Rat technician fills a bait bucket on South Georgia Island. Photo by Tony Martin

For a quarter century the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service vainly attempted eradication of alien, invasive house mice on the Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge 30 miles seaward of San Francisco. The project would have saved the ashy storm-petrel from possible extinction and restored original productivity to the largest seabird colony in the contiguous states.

But in 2024 Farallon mouse eradication was abandoned because of opposition from compassionate conservationists who objected to possible minor by-kill of superabundant California gulls and fretted about “cruelty” to house mice. As it is, about 95 percent of the mice starve to death every winter, then proliferate every spring, swarming over the islands until the ground undulates.

Among the shrillest opponents of Farallon mouse eradication were the Ocean Foundation, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Wildcare and former Wildcare employee Maggie Sergio who started a global petition against the project. As of February 14, 2025 she had 40,191 signatures from people who don’t read or think beyond the word “poison.”

If compassionate conservationists had their way, the most spectacular seabird recovery project ever accomplished would not have happened. In May 2018 the UK's subantarctic South Georgia Island -- strewn with glaciers, ravines and jagged, ice-bound peaks, many over 6,500 feet high -- was declared rat-free. It had been infested with alien, invasive brown rats that disembarked from whaling ships. They’d been eating seabird eggs and chicks since the 1800s.

A brown rat on South Georgia Island before brodifacoum treatments. Photo by Paul Sullivan

Team Rat, consisting of Island Conservation, the South Georgia Heritage Trust and organizations and biologists from around the world, used helicopters to drop 300 metric tons of brodifacoum-laced grain bait (unpalatable to almost all birds) across the island's 1,450 square miles. The project, eight times the size of the second largest successful rodent eradication, took a decade and cost $13.5 million.

Before the 1975 introduction of brodifacoum, killing all rodents on almost any island, let alone one like South Georgia, was inconceivable.

The rats had eliminated 90 percent of South Georgia's birdlife. Even the wandering albatross, with a wingspan longer than any other bird on earth, was unable to defend its eggs and chicks.

Prior to rat infestation, the island sustained 33 bird species and had been the planet's richest seabird nesting habitat. Now it's close to regaining that status.

Before brodifacoum treatments, the South Georgia pipit (the only songbird in the Antarctic) had been virtually extirpated. Today there are so many South Georgia pipits that their vocalizing drowns out the roaring and grunting of elephant seals.

In 2011, Island Conservation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and The Nature Conservancy partnered to eradicate brown rats that had destroyed the entire native ecosystem including the forest of Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, 1,000 miles west of Hawaii.

_________________

Compassionate conservation proselytizer Animal Aid is fine with the fact that alien, invasive house mice on Gough are pushing Tristan albatrosses toward extinction by slowly gnawing them to death.

_________________

The project has been a stunning success. The refuge reports a new forest, hundreds of recovered native species and “population explosions” of dragonflies and crickets as well as thousands of sooty tern fledglings during each breeding season, compared with a couple of hundred during rat years. Guam kingfishers had been extinct in the wild since 1988. But in September 2024 four females and five males were released on the refuge. If compassionate conservationists had their way, Palmyra would still be a brown rat sanctuary.

This from compassionate conservationist proselytizer Animal Aid, based in the UK: “We are shocked that this well-respected organization [the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds] would resort to such unthinkably cruel tactics. Mice have been on Gough Island for more than a century and this sudden urgency to eradicate them using such cruel methods seems disproportionate.”

Animal Aid is fine with the fact that alien, invasive house mice on Gough are pushing Tristan albatrosses toward extinction by slowly gnawing them to death.

A Tristan albatross chicks being eaten alive by alien, invasive house mice on Gough Island. Photo © MJones

********

Another high priest of compassionate conservation is Arian Wallach of the Centre for Compassionate Conservation, University of Technology Sydney, Australia. In a polemic for the journal Conservation Biology entitled “Recognizing animal personhood in compassionate conservation” Wallach and 23 coauthors submit that alien invasives should never be killed because, not only are they “sentient beings,” they’re “persons.”

“Compassionate conservation,” write Wallach et al, “in contrast [to cruel agencies and organizations that kill alien invasives] recognizes that the interests and agency of all sentient beings should be protected in conservation practice. In other words, sentient beings are persons.”

The piece horrified trained wildlife professionals. Responding with a rebuttal entitled “The Fatal Flaws of Compassionate Conservation” were Meera Anna Oommen of India’s Dakshin Foundation and 11 coauthors who wrote: “Compassion need not preclude humanely killing an animal if that reduces the animal’s suffering, enhances the survival of the species or its habitat, or safeguards human life or other more threatened species. But Wallach et al argue that to be compassionate, one should not kill animals for any reason.”

After brown rat eradication, thousands of sooty terns are again breeding on Palmyra National Wildlife Refuge. Photo © Susan White/USFWS

House cats and other alien invasives have caused the extinction of 142 vertebrate species worldwide. In Australia, feral and free-ranging house cats kill about 15 billion native animals per year.

At least as much house-cat-caused carnage happens in the U.S. The bird kill alone may be as high as 4 billion annually, according to a Smithsonian study.

The Aussies are succeeding with control of house cats because they deploy fast-acting poison in boxes accessible only to house cats. Americans, blighted with the compassionate-conservation mindset, refuse to do this, so they fail.

********

I am (at least until this piece makes the rounds) a member of a group called Wildlife for All. When I shared my piece “The Scourge of Feral Cats” on our listserve I was cursed from hell to breakfast for my title. Few members read beyond it.

One woman wrote: “Your use of the word ‘scourge’ for feral domestic cats implies the cats are to blame for being cats.” When I asked her how she could possibly have hatched such a notion she declined to answer.

Another woman wrote: “I think there's a way to communicate this important message without demonizing feral cats.”

One woman who did read beyond my title (though without comprehension) whipped up listserve hysteria by falsely claiming I had voiced “support” for poisoning cats. “The support of poisoning animals,” she wrote, “is repulsive and should not be tolerated nor condoned, especially by a group claiming to advocate for wildlife.”

Her post elicited this response from yet another woman: “Please remove me from this group as I do not want to be associated with anyone who calls cats a ‘scourge’ or approves of poisoning cats.”

Nothing in my piece “approved of” or “supported” poisoning cats. Nothing in my piece “demonized feral cats.” I expressed no opinion. The piece was not an editorial. It was a feature in which I reported documented facts.

One of those facts, proven by America, is that feral cats can’t be controlled without selective poisoning. This is a fact that the compassionate conservationists I heard from don’t want to know. I wish it were not a fact just as I wish that birds didn’t die from bird flu or from flying into buildings. But facts about wildlife need to be reported, even (maybe especially) if they’re “depressing” and “bad news.”

A Wildlife for All moderator upbraided me as follows: “Ted, you have continued to escalate these tensions, and it is not productive or acceptable.”

I “escalated” nothing. I posted only responses, none of which were uncivil or inaccurate.

_________________

Zebra mussels are also a scourge, but compassionate conservationists have never scolded me or any other writer for identifying them as such. That’s because zebra mussels are cold, furless, tailless, legless and eyeless.

_________________

How many more North American birds do feral cats need to kill before qualifying as a “scourge” for Wildlife-for-All compassionate conservationists? There must be a point where the definition kicks in. Would it be 8 billion, 16 billion, 32 billion, 64 billion? More?

Zebra mussels are also a scourge, but compassionate conservationists have never scolded me or any other writer for identifying them as such. That’s because zebra mussels are cold, furless, tailless, legless and eyeless.

In an attempt to be patient and polite, I engaged in a week-long email exchange with the woman who imagined I had “blamed cats for being cats” and who CCed her voluminous complaints about the title of my feral-cat piece to members, including moderators.

Finally, I attempted to end our unproductive correspondence with this: “You’ve stated that you find the facts I report ‘depressing’ and define them as ‘bad news.’ If, as you say, you ‘pick and choose’ what you read, why don’t you pick and choose good news about fish and wildlife? Granted, there’s not much of it these days, but I’m sure you could find some in less time than you spend reading and vetting my copy, then writing long grievances about it which are mostly incomprehensible to me and, I’ll venture, the people you CC them to. Think of the time you waste when you could just delete the link and scroll down.”

But she got the last word, correcting my statement that she had read and vetted my feral cat piece. She hadn’t actually read it, she explained. She’d just somehow divined what was in it. Such is compassionate conservation in action.

_________________

“If compassionate conservation is adopted, culling invasive species would cease, leading to the rapid extinction of more vulnerable native species.” -- Stephen Khan, editor of the Australian journal The Conversation.

_________________

As I write (February 14, 2025) members of Wildlife for All are perusing (and I expect rhapsodizing about) a “study” posted on our listserve four days ago entitled “Compassionate conservation in practice: A values-driven, interdisciplinary, pluralistic, and deliberative community.”

The text is rife with similar technobabble, but central points are discernable in this passage: “The sentience of individual animals is a strong motivation for aligning values and actions in conservation. Overall, this is to protect the interests of individual animals as well as to counteract the over-emphasis [my emphasis] in collectives (e.g., populations, species, ecosystems).”

********

Most Aussies are having none of it. In a piece published by the Australian journal The Conversation and entitled “‘Compassionate conservation’: just because we love invasive animals, doesn’t mean we should protect them,” editor Stephen Khan writes: “The federal government recently announced it will commit to a new ten-year threatened species strategy, focused on eradicating feral pests such as [alien, invasive] foxes and [alien, invasive house] cats. This approach goes against the principles underpinning compassionate conservation… Well, invasive animals -- those either intentionally or accidentally moved to a new location -- are one of the biggest threats to global biodiversity.

“If compassionate conservation is adopted, culling invasive species would cease, leading to the rapid extinction of more vulnerable native species… There is public backlash over the culling of brumbies [feral horses], yet there is no such response to the removal of feral pigs, despite both species having similarly negative impacts on protected habitats.”

In the U.S. feral horses are sacrosanct, protected as if they were native wildlife. Culling them Aussie-style is unthinkable and illegal. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) reports that there may be as many as 85,249 feral horses and feral burros on public lands, at least three times what it claims is the “sustainable level.” On all lands there are about 400,000.

Unmanaged feral horse populations increase by 20 percent annually. And what the feds call “wild horse management” is nothing of the sort. That’s thanks to the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, sold to Congress by “Wild Horse Annie.” It mandates the BLM to manage feral horses so as “to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance.” That task is impossible. Despite compassionate conservation fantasies, alien invasives cannot thrive or even exist in “natural ecological balance.”

Somehow there has never been a “Wild Hog Annie,” though we routinely cull feral hogs.

So America spends something like $200 million annually rounding up roughly 20,000 feral horses and placing them on perpetual welfare. Such is compassionate conservation in action.

Horses and burros are the only ungulates extant in the North American wild with solid hooves and meshing upper and lower teeth. Most native vegetation can’t deal with that.

In some “wild horse management areas” BLM goals call for only 15 or 20 feral horses when its own science tells it that 100 is the threshold for genetic viability. These marginal herds aren’t being zeroed out because of our compassionate-conservation mindset.

This from Dave Pulliam, former Nevada Department of Wildlife habitat chief: “Horses will stand over a spring and run off other animals. In desert country, seeps and springs are the most important habitats for a whole myriad of species --sagebrush-obligate birds, mule deer, bighorns, pronghorns, everything. And feral horses absolutely beat springs into mud holes. But our wildlife constituents don’t get as vociferous as the horse lovers.”

_________________

Somehow there has never been a “Wild Hog Annie,” though we routinely cull feral hogs.

_________________

There are no “wild horses” in North America, only escaped and abandoned livestock and their descendants. But invariably, every published celebration of “wild horses” makes three erroneous assertions: 1. that all claims of ecological damage done by “wild horses” issue from the cattle industry which lusts for more grassland (most feral horses infest range that can’t support cattle); 2. that “wild horses” are beneficial to native ecosystems because they aerate the earth; and 3. that “wild horses” are “native wildlife” deserving protection under the Endangered Species Act.

The main source of this last fantasy is compassionate conservation guru Jay Kirkpatrick who bases the assertion on the fact that a much smaller and very different equid inhabited North America before going extinct with the rest of the ice-age megafauna. Assigning native status to feral domestic horses because an extinct equid was native to North America 12,000 years ago makes as much sense as assigning native status to Indian elephants because North America once sustained mastodons.

Compassionate conservation is all the rage on social media. One of the more offensive and recycled memes is entitled “Wild horses and burrows [sic] are digging wells, giving water to parched wildlife.”

Does the American public really believe that feral horses and feral burros are good for what ails the earth because the odd native critter sometimes drinks rainwater from their gougings in otherwise intact wildlife habitat? Yes, as evidenced by the enthusiastic effusions from Facebook commentators.

********

Eastern bluebirds, once imperiled, are surging back because DDT was banned and because people have been putting up bluebird nesting boxes. Inch-and-a-half-diameter entrance holes exclude alien, invasive European starlings and, with a few exceptions, cowbirds (native to the West but alien and invasive in the East). The holes do not exclude alien, invasive English sparrows.

_________________

I don’t believe that English sparrows are “persons” or that they should not be killed for any reason or that by humanely euthanizing them I am being

“counterproductive” and placing “over-emphasis” on the eastern bluebird species.

_________________

In my field I have a dozen bluebird nest boxes, and I tend 70 more on a nearby community farm, town conservation land and an island in southern New Hampshire. English sparrows break the bluebird eggs and peck bluebird hatchlings to death.

I don’t believe that English sparrows are “persons” or that they should not be killed for any reason or that by humanely euthanizing them I am being “counterproductive” and placing “over-emphasis” on the eastern bluebird species.

I do agree that English sparrows “didn’t ask to be here.” But they are here, and if I did not euthanize adults and hatchlings, the bluebird loss would be many times greater than it is. Moreover, English sparrows would imprint to the bluebird boxes, multiplying like a virus.

Herewith, I invite practitioners and advocates of compassionate conservation to accompany me on my rounds -- inspecting bluebird eggs broken by English sparrows and inspecting remains of bluebird nestlings mangled by English sparrows.

And after our tour, I invite them to tell me how and why I lack compassion for “sentient animals.”

- 30 -

Ted Williams writes rare books as well as articles for low-paying publications.