Model
Digital Document
Publisher
Florida Atlantic University
Description
Management of nonnative invasive species (NIS) frequently involves removing
animals or plants from an area in order to conserve native communities. Methods of
removing invasive animals include killing individuals, justified as a means of protecting
broader ecological values. This management approach, however, is often controversial and highlights differences between discourses of environmental and animal rights. The former values life at a holistic level while the latter emphasizes the value of individual lives. Language both reflects and shapes belief and action, and to assess these divergent views, I compare invasive species rhetoric of a prominent environmental organization with that of an influential animal welfare group. The goal is to identify the most prevalent themes in the different organizations’ characterizations, highlighting areas of convergence and divergence regarding such themes, and, ultimately, to find out if their rhetoric points to any viable suggestions for compromise.
animals or plants from an area in order to conserve native communities. Methods of
removing invasive animals include killing individuals, justified as a means of protecting
broader ecological values. This management approach, however, is often controversial and highlights differences between discourses of environmental and animal rights. The former values life at a holistic level while the latter emphasizes the value of individual lives. Language both reflects and shapes belief and action, and to assess these divergent views, I compare invasive species rhetoric of a prominent environmental organization with that of an influential animal welfare group. The goal is to identify the most prevalent themes in the different organizations’ characterizations, highlighting areas of convergence and divergence regarding such themes, and, ultimately, to find out if their rhetoric points to any viable suggestions for compromise.
Member of