Some differences

I think I’ve noticed this before, but I get the impression that there’s more awareness of dogs as an invasive species in Brazil, Argentina and Chile than in America. Either that these three have more stray dogs than America does or even if these three have a lot of dog owners and dog lovers, there’s more awareness of the damage they inflict on the environment than America does. Maybe not always the case, but speaking from personal experience even if there are studies on dog predation in America not a lot of Americans see dogs as an invasive species the way they do with cats.

There might be an anti-cat sentiment in Brazil, Chile and Argentina since not a lot of them own cats, but even then despite having a high dog ownership rate a good number of them are aware of the damage dogs inflict on the environment enough to make considerable amount of studies on that. It’s possible that Chile, Brazil and Argentina still have a lot of stray dogs and free-roaming dogs in general, so they’re more aware of their faults than America does. So aware they even see them as an invasive species, despite having even more dog owners than America does.

Okay, I might be speaking from experience where it seems there are more Americans and Australians who mostly or solely cats as an invasive species but don’t say much about dogs whereas relatively more Brazilians, Chileans and Argentinians see dogs as an invasive species as well. I might be biased in here, but either that Brazil, Chile and Argentina have more stray dogs wrecking havoc or that despite having a higher dog ownership rate than Australia and America do more Australians and Americans disproportionately blame cats.

It could be a bit of both, but I have a nagging feeling that even if there’s ever an anti-cat sentiment in Brazil and the Southern Cone in general there are more Brazilian, Chilean and Argentinian studies regarding dogs as an invasive species than America and Australia do. Again, it’s due to my experience going to Lusophone and Hispanophone websites where by going there I get idea of what’s actually going on there that gets missed out in Anglophone websites. True, dog predation on wildlife has been understudied but I actually think dogs might present the best example of the social-ecological mismatch.

While they are a valued asset in conservation, they can also pose threats to it and this is why they are the best example of the social-ecological mismatch. We’re used to seeing them as valuable pets and companions that we can’t see them as anything other than those roles, even though they’re perfectly capable of killing wildlife on their own. One of my former dogs had a habit of killing frogs that my father had to install fences to minimise this. Another dog ate a skink.

I think it is important to take what goes on in nonwestern and global South countries, if because a lot of insight that those in North America and Europe miss out. Well to an extent, but it’s still important to take note of these.

Aquaman and conservation

Somebody said that Aquaman, if he ever existed in the real world, would actually be an aspirational figure in that he can not only rescue people whenever they drown but also undo environmental damages such as oil spills in the sea. Here’s what he has to say about him:

DC needs to own Aquaman. He is a tough bastard. He rules 80% of the freaking planet. If there’s an oil spill somewhere or trouble on an oil rig, who are you calling? When that oil drill burst off the coast of Louisiana, leaking millions of barrels of oil, wouldn’t you have liked to see a goddam Aquaman swim down there and plug it up in about five minutes?

Submarine disasters. Sinking ships. Sea embargoes. For crying out loud, Aquaman has the trademark on sea rescue. It’s not his fault if he’s been saddled with creators who can’t think of anything to do with him (he actually has had, on occasion, some decent writers working on him)

If Aquaman were a real, actual, living being, he would be regarded as one of the most amazing people on the planet. I bet you that he would be one of the most — if not the most — popular superheroes, if for no other reason than our ever-present worries about climate change. Aquaman would be a fetish figure all over the world.

In light of dogs preying on sea turtles and dogs being something of an invasive species themselves, how much more important it is to have a superhero actually stand up for endangered species and animals like them for instance. That’s not to say dogs are entirely bad for conservation, but like fire dogs are capable of both good and bad. With fire is when everything’s left unattended and unless if other factors like rain were taken into consideration, it will be very destructive.

To put it this way, fire has beneficial uses like keeping buildings warm, cook food and light one’s way in the dark. But it’s also bad if left to its own devices like burning somebody real badly, even killing them if given the chance and opportunity. The same can be said with dogs and their interactions with other animals, they can help conserve endangered species but only with human intervention, technology and training.

If left on their own, they’ll surely kill them through predation and pathogenesis. Fire has been humanity’s oldest and earliest source of light and heat, but it’s also very destructive and unlike water where some wet things can be salvaged and dried fire can and will destroy what’s left of it. Especially if it’s not caught in time or beforehand. Since Aquaman lives underwater and water puts out fire, it’s a befitting analogy.

It doesn’t help that from my experience, whenever somebody thinks of an invasive mammalian predator attacking animals it’s going to be a cat (at least in the WEIRD* world) so stories about Aquaman saving sea animals from being eaten by dogs, though it does have a basis in reality when it comes to news reports and studies like these, is a path never taken.

Even if it’s taken seriously or considered in other places, it seems whatever damages dogs do to the environment through predation is hardly ever thought of much by other people. Even when there’s growing evidence that they do, it’s not taken into consideration. Let alone publicised and dramatised in a way that’s accessible to outsiders, which could’ve been done with Aquaman when one thinks about it.

Aquaman could easily be DC’s biggest environmentalist champion, after Poison Ivy, but one who would hit where it hurts especially if you’re a dog owner when it comes to dog predation and that might be partly why we won’t be seeing stories about Aquaman rescuing seals from dogs anytime soon.

Even if Aquaman might be a better fit, because unlike Poison Ivy, he’s a hero longer stories about him saving endangered wildlife from dogs is something that may never come to fruition because most people either don’t take dog predation on wildlife seriously or sadly ignore it. That’s why it’s a path never taken by Aquaman writers.

*Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic; it’s a case where a disproportionate amount of studies in some cases come from the Western world. Not that academic studies are nonexistent in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries and anywhere outside of the West, but it can be problematic if anything taking place in the Western world is more easily found than its African counterpart for instance.

Conservation, Fire and Water Style

When it comes to dogs and conservation, the best analogy would be the comparison to fire. Fire can be used to promote a healthy ecosystem, allowing organisms to coexist with one another. But in other cases, it can be destructive especially when it not only destroys habitats but also is a byproduct of global warming. One could start a big fire, especially if they’re not that careful. Dogs are like this, while they can be trained to detect invasive species if left to their own devices they become a highly destructive invasive species. They even endanger 188 species and render 11 extinct, which makes the analogy to fire very appropriate. Much like dogs, fire can be used in constructive ways. For a long time, it served as both the sole light source and the sole heat source.

But if you’re not careful, you will get hurt. You will get burnt, in fact you can get burnt real badly and fireworks can blind you. Dogs are like that, they can help but they can also hurt. While water does have destructive properties, whether if it’s freezing something to death, making it harder to tease out pages of certain kinds of paper or kill you while drowning other times it isn’t. Sometimes something that’s wet can still be salvaged, whereas fire almost always destroys if one’s not careful. Water is actually easier to manage than fire is, so if there’s any animal that can be compared to water it would be sheep. But in the sense that while there’s yet to be a study on training sheep, sheep’s damage to the environment is less than that of dogs. Based on what I know about dogs, they not only prey on endangered species but also compete with them and spread deadly pathogens to them.

In Tanzania, by spreading canine distemper dogs nearly killed off lions there. Dogs even mate with wolves, which can make it harder to conserve wolves as they are. If dogs are like fire, sheep are like water because the latter can be used for conservation more effectively. The fact that water’s more manageable than fire should say something about my analogues here.

The other speciesism

When it comes to speciesism, it technically means discrimination against other species but usually used to mean why one animal’s used as a pet and the other’s used for food and clothing. While this is understandable, it ignores animals that are actually despised and seen as vermin. Especially those that are really endangered, but I suspect this is mostly covered by conservationists even if they’re not without their own problems like say favouring the more charismatic species over the other.

Some frog species are so endangered that they risk being extinct at any given moment, I could also say the same thing about some reptile species as well. Some mammal species also risk extinction, though those that are less charismatic are especially prone to this. The aye-aye is one example of an ugly not so charismatic mammal, it’s even the subject of ugly superstitions that has led it to being ruthlessly poached and persecuted. Likewise the dog, even if some despise it, is generally beloved despite being an invasive species (same with the cat).

While all animals deserve to be treated kindly, those that tend to be actually despised and persecuted deserve to be protected more often than is usually done.