A Global War on Animals.

Representatives of 175 nations -- including the US -- have endorsed the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). They will meet in Nairobi in May to draft guidelines for blocking the spread of "invasive species." The CBD is set for ratification in 2001, The CBD's definition of "aggressive predators and pests" could include feral cats, starlings, street pigeons, the mountain goats of the Olympic National Park and the parrot colonies of San Francisco and New York City.

CBD's Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) has been planning a worldwide war on non-native animals and plants since May 1998, when it adopted Decision IV/1.C on alien species that threaten native ecosystems, habitats or species. Non-native wildlife could be targeted for eradication although the real threats to native species and economic interests may actually result from global warming, pollution, or other human-caused habitat impacts.

Shifting the blame to invasive species could make it easier for regulators to waive development restrictions that might otherwise be required under the Endangered Species Act, Programs to kill nonnative species could be employed to "mitigate" the negative impacts of development,

Focusing on the threat of "non-native invaders" could also reinforce tax-funded programs that encourage hunting, fishing, and trapping.

The Wild and Free Roaming Wild Horse and Burro Protection Act might be repealed as a violation of the CBD treaty -- much as the 1990 Dolphin Protection Act was amended to allow imports of tuna harvested with nets that also trap dolphins.

Invasive species eradication programs form a pretext for continuing the animal eradication activities of the USDA's Wildlife Services. Formerly known as Animal Damage Control, Wildlife Services mainly kills coyotes, prairie dogs, and other species accused of preying on or competing with livestock. Wildlife Services has promoted itself as a protector of endangered species -- by killing coyotes in Washington to increase the survival of formerly endangered Columbia white-tailed fawns.

Invasive Species Council executive director Gordon Brown, reportedly envisions an organization "something like a cross between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and a wildfire fighting force, that can parachute in to contain the spread of exotics."

But University of California at Davis Plant Ecologist Marcel Rejmanek doubts that a combative approach can succeed. "Unless new species are discovered very early," Rejmanek says, "we have to switch from an offensive strategy to a defensive strategy. We don't have any chance to eradicate any species that is widespread."

Animal control cat-killing provides a quick example. Catch-and-kill has never lastingly depressed cat populations -- except on small islands with extremely harsh climate and limited food supply.

On July 22, 1999, Australia's federally funded National Heritage Trust announced that it would underwrite trials of FTC-2, a new poison engineered by the Victorian Institute for Animal Science to kill only cats. Australia's estimated 15 million feral cats kill about four million native animals per yeah The project planners failed to mention, however, that the cats are also the leading predators of rabbits -- another human-introduced species that costs Australian farmers about $600 million annually.

The British Forestry Commission is reportedly developing contraceptives to keep introduced American gray squirrels from out-competing and hybridizing with Britain's native red squirrels.

"The aim," a commission spokesperson explained, "is to control the population of gray squirrels, not to exterminate them." Non-lethal reproductive control may be the most humane and most practical approach to controlling an invasive species.

The 1995 UN Global Biodiversity Assessment cited invasive species as one of five major threats to endangered species. The other factors included loss, fragmentation and change of habitat, and exploitation of populations.

"When addressing the issue of alien species," the SBSTTA stipulates, "it is important to differentiate between natural invasions and human introductions of species. Species do spread naturally." The SBSTTA agenda stops short of slating all introduced species for elimination. Why? Because targeting, say, agricultural introductions (cows, goats and sheep), would be to take on more powerful foes.

"Most of the invasions are human-induced," the SBTTA concedes. "In most of the world it is imported species that provide the large extent of food" for human populations.

The SBTTA admits that, "There are no records of global extinction of a continental species as a result of invasive species."

Eradication of invasive species "can be very expensive or even impossible," the SBTTA concludes. "While large mammals can be reduced in numbers and even exterminated on small islands or in restricted areas, smaller animals and invasive plants are almost impossible to eradicate in any situation .... Measures to prevent the introduction of species into new environments are therefore to be preferred."

A preventive approach might place new restrictions on the exotic pet trade and put an end to introductions of game animals such as sika deer and Chinese pheasants.

Jim Brewer, coordinator of an ad hoc committee to gain humane representation on the Invasive Species Council's advisory panel, predicts that "the focus presented to the public is going to be weeds. I doubt that we are going to hear anything about the eradication of animals." However, Brewer thinks the Invasive Species Council is unlikely to stop at weeds.

"I cannot understand why the multi-million-dollar animal groups with multi-person offices aren't jumping on this," says Brewer, "Just from my brief readings of the preliminary documents, non-native animals are in for big-time eradication."

This is an edited version of a longer report by Merritt Clifton that appeared in Animal People, September 1999. [PO Box 960, Clinton, WA 98236-0960, (360) 579-25045, [e-mail], www.animalpepl.org].