Being an puppy-cooing, cashmere-wearing city girl, I am not the first choice for someone to follow on a goose hunting trip. Then again, this is no ordinary hunting trip. The world of conservation and hunting first appears to be at opposing ends, until the animal in mind happens to be invasive.
As mentioned, I’m a bit of a wuss when it comes to nature. I’m also aware that my hands-off approach to nature is encouraging the systematic killing of species from centralised policies, paid by taxes from a population of vegetarians that do not agree with the principles of animal-cruelty.
Yet looming in front of us are grasslands turning into marshlands. Is this a ‘nature’ that needs rescuing? or too much rewilding? What seems like a frivolous proposal is actually a rapid change for people’s living habitats, in a country that already is running out of space.
This is not about saving “nature” as a dynamic ecosystem, as to saving our relationship with a static ecology that we call home. This isn’t a fight about the right and wrongs towards nature as to the a preferences to curate a home.
The Canada Goose are targeted is because it was brought artificially. Locals tell me tales that it was brought by eccentric farmer, who only remembered to clip the wings of the first generation. I will not show any footage of the actual farm, now taken over by later generations, but most of the work nowadays is to undo that initial introduction. This phobia against transformation in our landscape reminded me of our earlier fears of technology which was later overcome when we started to make use of it. The study of this is called Human Invasive Interactions.
Human Invasive Interactions involves the study, planning, and design of the interaction between people and invasive plants and animals. Invasive animals are successful at growing in our changing urban habitat. Instead of spending limited resources on eradicating invasive species, what if we appreciate invasives as a technology of renewal resources?