Abstract: New Zealand is regarded as an international leader in animal protection because of its progressive welfare laws, which explicitly recognize animal sentience and prohibit unnecessary animal suffering. Yet the well-being of invasive species-specifically, non-native mammals-remains unprotected and undesirable. New Zealand prides itself on being a global expert in effective and efficient extermination practices and technology. Without an international consensus that the lives of invasive animals are not entitled to protection under welfare laws and standards, a country cannot be both the world's leading animal protector and exterminator.
This Article shifts the focus away from New Zealand's progressive animal welfare policies and toward its widespread mammalian massacre. It seeks to awaken an international awareness of the morally questionable policy of holding nonconsenting animals accountable for a human decision to introduce their species into a new environment. Inhumane control methods and failed operations illuminate the welfare issues and ethical costs of eradication programs; to date, however, advocates have largely failed to challenge the global preference for lethal control methods in non-native animal management.
This Article also explores the interplay between wildlife conservation, animal cruelty, and state sovereignty to determine the extent to which New Zealand has dominion over, and therefore the right to kill, its millions of non-native mammals. This Article provides a feasible framework, based on non-lethal control methods, to balance the interests of animals against conservationist goals. Furthermore, this Article discusses four approaches to implementing this framework. These approaches include prioritizing the development of fertility control via immunocontraception, the use of citizen suits to challenge pest management policies, the international boycott of New Zealand animal products, and the adoption of a domestic restriction on New Zealand trade under Article XX(a) of GATT as a matter of public morals.
