Invasive species or biodiversity?

I have some final thoughts on New Zealand, and I hope people smarter and more educated than I am on this topic can shed some light on the Darwinian conundrum of New Zealand’s relationship with wildlife. 

Let me say first that we love New Zealand. Who wouldn’t? The beauty of the landscape defies description. The people are warm and welcoming. Nature and the outdoors inform the culture. The people take pride in how green the country is, both literally, in the lush vegetation, and politically, in their no-nukes, clean energy, reduce-reuse-recycle way of life. 

That said, we noticed almost immediately when we first arrived in Opua last year and again on this trip to the South Island the complete absence of terrestrial wildlife. There are birds and there are fish but last year when we first went ashore to hike the tracks in the Bay of Islands the only evidence of animal life we saw were the many traps to catch stoats, an animal we had never heard of and which, we soon learned, is considered an “invasive species” to be eradicated. Our education in what Kiwis consider pests continued when we saw a vendor selling hilarious taxidermy of another animal we couldn’t identify and which turned out to be an unfamiliar species of possum. They are killed without mercy and their fur spun with wool and sold in tourist shops as sweaters, hats and gloves. 

We come from a place rich in wildlife, the hardwood-forested Western Pennsylvania, where on my morning walks in the local city park I was guaranteed to see squirrels, chipmunks and deer, and occasionally a fox or raccoon. The sounds of small animals scurrying in the undergrowth make the woods feel alive. All across America you’re likely to find yourself up close and personal with animals, from jackrabbits in the West Texas desert to coyotes in the Sonora to elk in the mountain west, alligators in Florida, black bears in the upper Midwest, iguanas in the Virgin Islands. We love them all. 

For us, encounters with animals are part of the joy of travel. It was always a delight to suddenly come across monkeys and sloths in Costa Rica and Panama, tortoises and iguanas in the Galapagos, pigs in the Marquesas, goats and sheep all over the Caribbean. Unexpected close encounters with wild animals are some of my most cherished memories. By contrast, the only animals we saw in New Zealand were behind a fence. We never heard the telltale rustling of leaves or saw a pile of scat that hints at a hidden creature nearby. The landscape is sterile. Beautiful, but empty and silent.

We mentioned this several times to Kiwis we met and always got the same answer. There are lots of animals, they told us defensively, and went on to talk about the abundant bird and sea life. But what about land animals? Again, the answer was always the same. They are “invasive” and threaten the indigenous species of birds or plants and need to be eradicated. 

“I think they must be taught this in school,” Jack said, because it sounded like doctrine. We read that New Zealand originally had no native mammals beyond a few species of bat. Then European settlers brought rats, cats, possums, deer, goats, pigs, weasels and others, all of which are now considered pests because they disrupt the delicately balanced ecosystem that existed hundreds of years ago.

I struggle with this notion. What moment in time, I wonder, do we designate as Year One, the baseline of an ecosystem beyond which any introduced species is considered invasive? Who decides that change stops now? Or 100 years ago? Or 500? (Listen to an insightful podcast on this issue here.)

This notion is not limited to plants and animals either, as I can think of some religious sects who’ve chosen to remain at a particular period of time as to mode of dress and the rejection of technological advancements. Isn’t time a river? Isn’t change changeless? If evolution is constant, why do we designate a species invasive instead of an example of survival of the fittest? Why do the English want to eradicate the gray squirrel to protect the red squirrel, when the gray squirrel is the more successful species? When is a non-native species valued and allowed to find its place in an ecosystem vs. categorized invasive and marked for death? Can we control nature? Should we try? (John McPhee tackles this question in “The Control of Nature.” He comes at it from the perspective of a geologist, but the quandary is the same.)

I poked around on the internet for answers and found a forum of biologists among whom the consensus seemed to be that science doesn’t decide the value of a species relative to another, but politics and economics do. And with that, the lightbulb went off. In New Zealand, the only non-native species that seem to be valued and protected are the sheep and cows farmed for food. In recent years they’ve added deer and it was a shock to our North American sensibilities to see herds of deer in pastures in the daylight. Where we come from deer are largely nocturnal and live in the woods. “We call them venizon,” a Kiwi friend told us, because they’re only raised to be eaten. That made me sad.

All of this gets to the heart of my discomfort with New Zealand and it’s relationship to animals. The only animals they value are raised to be killed and eaten. As a Buddhist, I’m troubled by the selective lack of affinity for fellow creatures of the earth, by the offhanded way Kiwis explain that whole species must die because they prefer other species to live. We never heard anyone express a fondness for animals beyond their pets — birds and sea life, yes, but small mammals? No. I don’t mean to paint Kiwis as cruel and heartless. On the contrary, they are kind and wonderful people. But their culture does not value or nurture a relationship with animals and as much as we loved New Zealand, we never quite got over the silence of the land. 


Filed under Uncategorized

6 Responses to Invasive species or biodiversity?

  1. Joey Riday

    Very interesting read Marce.

  2. Yes to this post, Marce. You address an interesting question. I found the Australian penchant for bringing in animals like rabbits (four times, mind you, until they got a variety that survive) simply so people could shoot them, a little hard to fathom. Camels, cane toads… What can you say? You do see some extraordinary birds in New Zealand, however.

  3. An interesting perspective, and you do have a point. As a NZ’er here are my thoughts.

    Being an isolated island nation NZ had a unique biodiversity.

    There were no native mammals in NZ and so because of that the native birds evolved without any predators, to not bother flying – like the kiwi for example. And when rats, stoats and possums were introduced by European settlers these pests started to eat all the birds and multiply very quickly as there were no natural predators to eat them.

    Same with the rabbits that were introduced – again with no predators which then have gone on to destroy the grassy pastures. Causing huge problems with erosion etc.

    So those introduced animals are considered pests. Without anything to prey on them, and having been introduced just a couple of hundred years ago, they quickly destroyed a huge amount of native birds and threaten the native bush that has spent millions of years evolving to not have to cope with these introduced species.

    We hope to be able to come up with a genetic way of ridding the country of the pests. I’ll send you a link with some more info.

    Unlike squirrels and foxes – rats, stoats and possums are not at all appealing and left unchecked will completely destroy the native birds and forest that can be found nowhere else in the world.

    Farm animals are strictly controlled, but again things like intensive farming is polluting our waterways. So we need to find the balance between nature and industry.

    I think other countries were perhaps not so isolated and so mammals have travelled and adapted over longer periods. Being such a new country in the grand scheme of the world I guess we are just a bit different here, and keen to protect the delicate balance of biodiversity in our unique bird life.

    Unfortunately that can only happen at the expense of the introducted mammals that threaten to destroy them.


    • Here is a website that might explain more about why we want to eradicate those pests.

      “Why Predator Free 2050 is important
      Rats, stoats and possums kill millions of native birds every year and have pushed species to the brink of extinction. Managing just these three predators for agriculture and conservation costs over $70 million each year. In 2016/17 the government invested $20 million on top of this to protect species from an increase in predators caused by heavy seeding (or ‘masting’) of beech forests.”

    • Vicki, I get all that, I really do. And the podcast I linked to about controlling invasive species in the Galapagos is absolutely on point. The two things I observed — and I’m not judging, it’s just that it stuck out at us immediately — is the seemingly arbitrary moment in time chosen to preserve (perhaps not so arbitrary in the case of NZ, although we read that many species had already been hunted to extinction or affected with introduced species before Europeans arrived, so the decision there is to preserve the Eden the Europeans first experienced, which is in itself debatably political and arbitrary. But I certainly don’t want to see the kiwi go extinct either;) and the matter-of-fact way nearly every New Zealander we broached the subject with spoke about it. Maybe it’s just my Buddhist sensibility clouding things but to decide that an animal must die because it is valued less than another animal bothers me and always will. I do understand the unique ecosystem and applaud the efforts to preserve it. I just struggle with the methods. I’m certainly not suggesting letting stoats and possums take over the islands, just that I couldn’t personally kill them. I wish there were a way to control the population through some sort of birth control measure. 🙂 As to the farming of animals for food, well, I’m just against that for spiritual and environmental reasons, but that’s personal and I don’t envision that changing any time soon. I do hope we learn to reduce that practice for the health of the earth and its stewards.

  4. Susan Wolf

    Amazing perspective! Well done.

We love to hear from you!