Wildlife Ethics and Practice: Why We Need to Change the Way We Talk About ‘Invasive Species’

35Citations
Citations of this article
83Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This article calls for an end to the use of the term ‘invasive species’, both in the scientific and public discourse on wildlife conservation. There are two broad reasons for this: the first problem with the invasive species narrative is that this demonisation of ‘invasives’ is morally wrong, particularly because it usually results in the unjust killing of the animals in question. Following on from this, the second problem is that the narrative is also incoherent, both from scientific and philosophical perspectives. At the heart of both of these issues is the problem that the invasive species narrative oversimplifies what are in fact very complex biological processes. As a result, the policies carried out with the stated aim of ‘controlling’ these animals are often unethical. In light of the current global species decline, this article asserts that the way we think and talk about these animals should be changed and the term ‘invasive species’ should be discontinued, in the hope that this leads to changes in practice.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Inglis, M. I. (2020). Wildlife Ethics and Practice: Why We Need to Change the Way We Talk About ‘Invasive Species.’ Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 33(2), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-020-09825-0

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free