I think there's an argument that if an animal is having a negative effect on the ecosystem (having a negative effort on other animals) removing it can be a net good.
Not by any means do we understand enough about ecosystems to justify the hubris to declare any animal as a net negative effect to the environment.
In western Europe, hunters argue they need to cull deer, for example, to keep the forest in balance. That is only true because a) they make an effort to feed the animals during the winter, helping more to survive than otherwise would, and b) because natural predators have been eradicated in the previous centuries.
Don’t ever trust someone that attempts to justify culling a species for the greater good.
I'd argue that it's also a problem of biodiversity (at least in the U.S., don't know about New Zealand). If we hadn't eradicated almost all wolves, coyotes, foxes, birds of prey, weasels, and I don't know what else, nature would have solved the problem already.
Now that is hubris, what the hell do we know about long term net positives? Selfish warm feelings, while watching the reality of introduced extinction take place in a matter of mere decades. Pardon me.
Non-native introductions usually have the issue of such a sudden population explosion that the prey cannot adjust in a timely fashion and get killed very quickly, very suddenly.
I grew up in Virginia so here's one specific example: https://dwr.virginia.gov/wildlife/deer/deer-management-progr...
With deer, the problem is often not an excessive population but rather their tendency to stay in one place, destroying young shoots and plantings and hindering the growth of the plants we care about.
In contrast, with predators they cannot stay in one place for long enough, allowing most plants to outgrow their vulnerable size and survive.
Also removing native species and sending the balance out of whack is different to removing a non native species that has sent the balance out of whack.
This isn’t quite accurate, though. Between removing the fence and getting fence construction inclinations, a lot of time has passed, and in the meantime, nature did lots of stuff we hardly understand.
Assuming otherwise is just repeating the same mistake again. Feral donkeys might be part of a new ecosystem now.
And we can be fairly sure about some things.
Rats in new Zealand, rabbits in Australia, cane toads in Australia, etc, etc.
Further it takes time to remove these populations, so you can observe what happens when they're removed from a local area.
Are you suggesting Genocide? /s
Similarly I don't think there is anything to offend with presumption, or at least anything that cares.
Deforestation and farming practices (incl. pesticides/herbicides, pollution) are the main drivers of biodiversity loss.
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob...
Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/
Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-bi...
The way we eat could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050
Two recent studies underscore the danger the meat production system poses for biodiversity.
Sure! Do you have a proposal to make agriculture more eco-friendly without impacting quantity, quality and cost of the food produced?
> The key is reducing meat consumption
No! If you really want to achieve something, rather than just talking ecology, the key is not to try and force change on the general population.
Sure.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471
Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable
A global shift towards healthy and more plant-based diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies are required to feed 10 billion people sustainably by 2050, a new study finds.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449
How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm
Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w
Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...
Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth
> If you really want to achieve something, rather than just talking ecology, the key is not to try and force change on the general population
The change is absolutely needed.
https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability...
One study estimates it would take just over 5 Earths to support the human population if everyone’s consumption patterns were similar to the average American.
We don't have those extra Earths, and won't anytime soon.
> the key is not to try and force change on the general population
Sure, solve the biggest problem we've ever faced, but don't change a thing.