What are values?

Values are ‘desirable trans-situational goals, varying in importance, which serve as guiding principles in the life of a person’ (Schwartz, Reference Schwartz1992). Unlike attitudes, values are not situation specific, but rather they are more broad feelings that provide a basis for decision-making, and as such make decision-making easier. For example, when it comes to undertaking a particular behaviour that can impact on the environment, the extent to which we value environmentalism will initially guide our decision, and if the behaviour seems consistent with our values, then other factors, such as norms, will finalise the decision (Stern, Reference Stern2000; van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, Reference van der Werff, Steg and Keizer2013).

Although our culture is characterised by particular values that society deems desirable, a person will ultimately define his or her own personal values as he or she matures. Some people may give priority to self-enhancement values, such as power or achievement, whereas others may prioritise values that are self-transcendent, such as benevolence or universalism (Schwartz, Reference Schwartz1992; Schwartz et al., Reference Schwartz, Cieciuch, Vecchione, Torres, Dirilen-gumus and Butenko2017). Similarly, people may value openness to change more than conservatism, or vice versa. Values are formed during our youth, and by adulthood they have become quite stable and resistant to change (Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano, Reference Stern, Dietz and Guagnano1995; Thøgersen & Ölander, Reference Thøgersen and Ölander2002).

Given that our values guide our actions (Schwartz, Reference Schwartz1992; Stern, Reference Stern2000), the values that society deems most important for its citizens to embrace must be encouraged when we are children. At present the formal education sector in Aotearoa-New Zealand takes a role in educating students about a society’s desired values. Hence it is a specific role of our teachers to ‘encourage, model, and explore’ these values (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 10). The New Zealand Curriculum mandates the learning content in Aotearoa-New Zealand schools where teaching and learning is delivered in English, and this national curriculum is very specific about which values teachers will encourage students to value. These values and their explanation are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The values and their given explanations in The New Zealand Curriculum.

What is conservation education?

Conservation education is both a philosophy and a social movement focused on protecting natural heritage (Bioethics-Panel, 2019). Content that aligns with conservation education, such as learning about local plants, animals, and waterways, engaging in tree-planting, and studying the local bush area, are frequently selected topics in Aotearoa-New Zealand schools (Bolstad, Joyce, & Hipkins, Reference Bolstad, Joyce and Hipkins2015)

Conservation education’s emergence can be traced to the late 19^th century (Wals & Benavot, Reference Wals and Benavot2017), when it was the first educational response to the ever-increasing degradation of Earth’s biosphere and loss of biological diversity (biodiversity). Conservation education is one of the many discourses within environmental education (Sauvé, Reference Sauvé2005) and has a specific niche (Thomas, Teel, Bruyere, & Laurence, Reference Thomas, Teel, Bruyere and Laurence2019); its goal is to inspire people to undertake actions that will protect biodiversity (Thomas et al., Reference Thomas, Teel, Bruyere and Laurence2019), which includes people connecting with nature and understanding the interrelationships between living organisms in ecosystems (Wals & Benavot, Reference Wals and Benavot2017). In acknowledging that humans both caused the problem and are able to provide solutions, it has a very strong advocacy component. Effective conservation education endeavours to develop learners’ pro-environmental values while they actively work to improve the environment (Thomas et al., Reference Thomas, Teel, Bruyere and Laurence2019).

Within Aotearoa-New Zealand, conservation education most commonly tackles domestic issues such as the impact of introduced animals and plants on our ecosystems, the impact of human activities on our aquatic systems, and the loss of plant diversity from certain landscapes. To make conservation more personally relevant, conservation education often enables learners to take actions in their communities (Eames, Cowie, & Bolstad, Reference Eames, Cowie and Bolstad2008), such as planting trees and building feeding stations for native birds. Conservation education is most effective when students are learning in local nature and taking action to improve biodiversity in their communities. In this way, learning becomes more personally relevant, which enhances students’ motivation and feelings of connection to their ‘place’, and leads to increased engagement and action-taking (Tilbury, Reference Tilbury1995; Reid, Dillon, Ardoin, & Ferreira, Reference Reid, Dillon, Ardoin and Ferreira2021).

While many Aotearoa-New Zealand primary school students (aged 5–13 years) engage in conservation activities such as planting native trees and shrubs, some schools include the killing of introduced animals as part of conservation education. This element is contentious for some people (Ram, Reference Ram2018). There is a small minority (Russell, Reference Russell2014) within Aotearoa-New Zealand who believe that it is unnecessary to control the populations of predatory animals that have been introduced to Aotearoa-New Zealand, and others who argue that even if some control is necessary, children should not be taught about killing animals (Morris, Reference Morris2021). In the present article we examine whether conservation education that has a focus on the lethal control of non-native mammals can develop the values that teachers are expected to encourage in their learners.

The development of pro-environmental values is integral in environmental (Reid, Dillon, Ardoin, & Ferreira, Reference Reid, Dillon, Ardoin and Ferreira2021; Tilbury, Reference Tilbury1995; Wals & Benavot, Reference Wals and Benavot2017) and conservation education (Thomas et al., Reference Thomas, Teel, Bruyere and Laurence2019), as these values provide the basis for pro-environmental behaviour (Stern, Reference Stern2000). Childhood and adolescence are the most important times for the development of values such as equity and environmental sustainability (for example Stern et al., Reference Stern, Dietz and Guagnano1995; Schwartz et al., Reference Schwartz, Melech, Lehmann, Burgess, Harris and Owens2001; Thøgersen & Ölander, Reference Thøgersen and Ölander2002; Cieciuch, Davidov, & Wyszy, Reference Cieciuch, Davidov and Wyszy2016; Manfredo et al., Reference Manfredo, Bruskotter, Teel, Fulton, Schwartz, Arlinghaus and Sullivan2017; De Dominicis, Schultz, & Bonaiuto, Reference De Dominicis, Schultz and Bonaiuto2017) and teachers have an obligation to encourage children to examine their personal values positions and reflect on why and how they hold such values. For example, the issue of controlling introduced animals gives teachers an opportunity to help children carry out this values exploration, and to go further by examining the different values positions that other people hold about this issue. By engaging in this type of activity, not only can children clarify their own values position, but they can gain an appreciation of the values of others, helping them to arrive at a decision regarding their own actions (Tilbury, Reference Tilbury1995; Kelly, Reference Kelly2020). The central positioning of values in people’s lives and in conservation education warrants an examination of how the values espoused in The New Zealand Curriculum align with, and can be taught through, conservation education, justifying the inclusion of the lethal control of introduced animals.

To value ‘diversity, as found in our … heritages’

The first of The New Zealand Curriculum’s values that we discuss in relation to conservation education is ‘diversity, as found in our … heritages’ (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 10). We argue that learning about Aotearoa-New Zealand’s natural heritage is important for several reasons:

Aotearoa-New Zealand’s natural heritage is an outstanding feature and recognised worldwide. Ten percent of mainland Aotearoa-New Zealand’s total land mass comprises a natural World Heritage site, Te Wahipounamu, encompassing Fiordland, Mount Aspiring, Mount Cook, and Westland National Parks (UNESCO, 2021). Our natural heritage is a diverse and spectacular range of landscapes, each of which hosts a unique biological diversity.

Aotearoa-New Zealand’s biodiversity is distinctive and extraordinary, as parts of it show us what the world would have looked like had the dinosaurs and mammals become extinct 65 million years ago, leaving the birds to proliferate and dominate ecosystems (Flannery, Reference Flannery1994). Our biodiversity is unique as a result of Aotearoa-New Zealand’s long geographic isolation and island biogeography (Brockie, Reference Brockie and Phillips2013), which has created plants and animals that are unusual and found nowhere else on our planet (Wright, Reference Wright2011). With no terrestrial mammals, apart from three species of bat, a unique avifauna has evolved in Aotearoa-New Zealand with birds, reptiles, and invertebrates occupying all ecological niches (Valente, Etienne, & Garcia-R., Reference Valente, Etienne and Garcia-R.2019). Approximately 80% of Aotearoa-New Zealand’s flora is native (Department of Conservation, 2013), and of the 245 species of birds found in Aotearoa-New Zealand before the arrival of humans, 71% were endemic (i.e., found only in Aotearoa-New Zealand) (Brockie, Reference Brockie and Phillips2013). Our unique biodiversity has been recognised as highly significant and valuable by the OECD; their Global Performance Review stated that Aotearoa-New Zealand has a ’special responsibility for biodiversity conservation, since a high percentage of its 90,000 native species are endemic and unique’ (OECD, 2007, p. 5).

Furthermore, Aotearoa-New Zealand’s natural heritage is closely tied to its bi-cultural heritage; Māori consider themselves to be part of the natural environment with all flora and fauna, together as part of a ’series of ordered genealogical webs’ (Harmsworth & Awatere, Reference Harmsworth, Awatere and Dymond2012, p. 274). These webs are referred to as whakapapa, and through whakapapa Māori trace their ancestors back to Ranginui (father), Papatūānuku (mother) and their children, who include the wind, seas, plants, rivers, and animals. People were created by these children and, due to this interconnectedness, Māori believe they have a responsibility and obligation to sustain the wellbeing of Papatūānuku and their people (Harmsworth & Awatere, Reference Harmsworth, Awatere and Dymond2012). Thus, conservation of Aotearoa-New Zealand’s natural heritage is synonymous with the preservation of Māori heritage. Under Aotearoa-New Zealand’s founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, New Zealanders must work together in equal partnership when engaging in ecosystem restoration. Consequently, Māori philosophical beliefs need to remain central, and Māori must be able to fully engage in decision-making, thus ensuring both social and environmental justice (Bioethics-Panel, 2019).

Given the importance of Aotearoa-New Zealand’s natural and cultural diversity, teachers have an obligation to develop learners’ awareness of the many aspects of our natural heritage. When learning about the diversity of our heritages, conservation education can help teachers to raise learners’ awareness that our unique biodiversity is at risk and is unsustainable without human intervention (Bioethics-Panel, 2019; Wright, Reference Wright2011). Therefore, through teaching children to value our heritages, Aotearoa-New Zealand students can learn about the importance of the natural heritage they will inherit and be encouraged to maintain and protect it, developing pro-environmental values in an informed manner.

To value ‘ecological sustainability’

To value ecological sustainability is to ‘care for the environment’ (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 10). This value aligns perfectly with the goal of conservation education, which is to encourage people to undertake conservation actions that will protect biodiversity (Thomas et al., Reference Thomas, Teel, Bruyere and Laurence2019).

The need for human intervention to protect the unique biodiversity of Aotearoa-New Zealand’s heritages is an unfortunate reality. Our extinction rates are among the highest in the world, with the OCED noting in 2017 that ‘… roughly a third of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles are under threat [of extinction]’ (p. 24). The OECD report was supported by Dr Jan Wright, the then Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who reported that of the 168 native bird species remaining in Aotearoa-New Zealand, 80% are at risk of extinction, and 93 of these species are endemic (Wright, Reference Wright2017). For example, the orange-fronted parakeet, or kākāriki karaka (Cyanoramphus malherbi), has a remaining estimated wild population in 2021 of only 360 birds (Department of Conservation, personal communication, 2021) and is at serious risk of extinction due to predation by introduced animals (Department of Conservation, n.d.).

The biggest and most immediate threat to Aotearoa-New Zealand’s ecological sustainability is posed by three species of introduced animals: possums (Trichosurus vulpecula), rats (Rattus sp.), and mustelids (Mustela sp.), especially stoats (Mustela erminea) (Wright, Reference Wright2011). The term ‘non-native mammals’ when used in the present article refers to these human-introduced predator species only. These non-native mammals are widespread throughout Aotearoa-New Zealand and present the greatest risk for the survival of birds in particular (Wright, Reference Wright2011). There is a vast body of research which provides evidence for the negative impact of these non-native mammals on New Zealand’s native flora and fauna (Binny et al., Reference Binny, Innes, Fitzgerald, Pech, James, Price and Byrom2021; Russell, Innes, Brown, & Byrom, Reference Russell, Innes, Brown and Byrom2015). For example, these three non-native mammals, along with cats (Felis catus), are estimated to kill around 25 million native birds a year (Department of Conservation, 2018), as well as feed on native reptiles and invertebrates (Wright, Reference Wright2017). Indeed, an icon of our natural heritage, the kiwi (Apteryx sp.), is in decline primarily as a result of predation by these non-native mammals (Germano et al., Reference Germano, Barlow, Castro, Colbourne, Cox, Gillies and Yong2018).

Conservation education resources in Aotearoa-New Zealand often focus on the negative impact of the brushtail possum, and have been criticised in recent publications for both advocating the lethal control of possums (Morris, Reference Morris2020, Reference Morris2021) and speciesism or discrimination between species by valuing one species over others (Ram, Reference Ram2018). However, the destructive impact on our biodiversity of the brushtail possum, a mammal introduced to Aotearoa-New Zealand in 1857, should not be underestimated. Due to a lack of natural predators, the possum population in Aotearoa-New Zealand is substantial and was estimated to be around 30 million in 2009 (Warburton, Cowan, & Shepard, Reference Warburton, Cowan and Shepard2009). There is ample evidence of the substantial negative impact these mammals have on New Zealand’s native flora. This non-native mammal is a specialised browser and degrades Aotearoa-New Zealand’s unique biodiversity by feeding on foliage and seeds (Nugent, Sweetapple, Coleman, & Suisted, Reference Nugent, Sweetapple, Coleman, Suisted and Montague2000), at times changing the very composition and structure of native forests (Nugent, Whitford, Sweetapple, Duncan, & Holland, Reference Nugent, Whitford, Sweetapple, Duncan and Holland2010). This change comes about because possums prefer to eat fruit, flowers, and leaf buds, disrupting the formation of seedlings and the succession of Aotearoa-New Zealand’s forests. They also compete with many native fauna for food and habitat, destroying the nests of birds such as kererū (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae) (Powlesland, Dilks, Flux, Grant, & Tisdall, Reference Powlesland, Dilks, Flux, Grant and Tisdall1997) and kōkako (Callaeas wilsoni) (Innes et al., Reference Innes, Hay, Flux, Bradfield, Speed and Jansen1999). Possums have been recorded killing and eating tītī (Ardenna grisea), pīwakawaka (Rhipidura fuliginosa), and tāiko (Pterodroma magenta), both the adult birds and chicks (Sadlier, Reference Sadlier2000).

The New Zealand Curriculum states that teachers must encourage the valuing of ecological sustainability, which involves caring for the environment. Such care is taught through conservation education, where children can learn how to restore and protect Aotearoa-New Zealand’s biodiversity, in part by controlling these non-native mammals. Without human intervention, many, if not all, of the species that are currently at risk of extinction will go extinct. Given the complexity of the food webs in our ecosystems, the extinction of one native species in a food web can cause a knock-on effect resulting in the extinction of other species, resulting in further loss of biodiversity. Many species have already gone extinct in Aotearoa-New Zealand, primarily as a result of predation by these human-introduced non-native mammals (Wright, Reference Wright2017). By learning about the value of ecological sustainability, and acting on this value, students can explore the value we place on Aotearoa-New Zealand’s natural heritage and be encouraged to care for and protect it.

To value ‘participation for the common good’

The next value we examine is that of ‘participation for the common good’ (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 10). The exploration and encouragement of this value entails discussions that establish what is the common good. We argue that given the fragility of our unique biodiversity that includes species of plants and animals that are found nowhere else in the world, participating for the common good includes learning why we should care for our natural heritage, and acting on this concern.

We assert that adopting a laissez-faire approach to our natural heritage is not consistent with the value of participation for the common good. Despite the fact that more than half of Aotearoa-New Zealand’s landmass is now subject to some type of introduced predator management (Z. Carter, University of Auckland, personal communication, March 2022), more protection from introduced predators is required, as many species remain critically endangered (for example, kākāpō (Strigops habroptilus) and kōtuku (Ardea alba modesta)), or vulnerable and in decline (for example, korukoru (Peraxilla colensoi) and pekapeka (Mystacina tuberculate)). New Zealanders are increasingly rising to the challenge of protecting the unique biodiversity found in Aotearoa-New Zealand and are working towards protecting native and endemic species and restoring ecosystems. Their support is illustrated in a 2017 survey which found that 84% of New Zealanders view non-native mammals as a significant conservation problem that needs to be actively managed (Department of Conservation, 2017). This sense of responsibility has culminated in the establishment of Predator Free 2050, which aims to ‘enhance the recovery and resilience of native biodiversity and ecosystems’ (Bioethics-Panel, 2019, p. 3). Predator Free 2050 is a social movement and government-sponsored initiative (Bioethics-Panel, 2019) that takes a multifaceted approach to elimination of non-native mammals in Aotearoa-New Zealand. The success of Predator Free 2050 is in part dependent on the New Zealand-Aotearoa public becoming actively involved in the control of non-native mammals (Bioethics-Panel, 2019) and is fully dependent on our society continuing to value ecological sustainability and the diversity of our natural heritage. This participation for the common good is developed through conservation education, which can include the control of non-native mammals.

For those participating in preserving Aotearoa-New Zealand’s natural heritage, there are a variety of methods used to control non-native mammals. These methods primarily include trapping and the use of toxins, often on a landscape scale (Russell et al., Reference Russell, Innes, Brown and Byrom2015). For example, the use of toxins on a landscape scale (6,130 hectares) over a three-and-a-half-month period in the Perth River Valley in South Westland, Aotearoa-New Zealand resulted in the reduction of possum and rat numbers to near zero levels (Nichols, Nathan, & Mulgan, Reference Nichols, Nathan and Mulgan2020). Despite the demonstrated success of these methods, opponents of the lethal control of non-native mammals have suggested that instead of killing non-native mammals, other approaches should be used (Morris, Reference Morris2021).

The use of predator proof fencing, which is used to create mainland sanctuaries for our unique species, has been suggested as an alternative to killing non-native mammals (Morris, Reference Morris2021), but this argument neglects to consider that to be effective, these sanctuaries are dependent on the elimination of the non-native mammals in that area (Binny et al., Reference Binny, Innes, Fitzgerald, Pech, James, Price and Byrom2021). While effective, this type of control is expensive to erect and maintain and cannot be used to protect large areas. Very large protected areas are required to allow threatened species to proliferate by establishing adequate home ranges for feeding and breeding. For example, each breeding pair of great spotted kiwi (Apteryx haastii) requires its own minimum home range of 20–35 hectares (Keye, Roschak, & Ross, Reference Keye, Roschak and Ross2011).

Native animal translocation, such as that carried out by Operation Nest Egg, has also been suggested as an alternative to killing introduced non-native mammals (Morris, Reference Morris2021). However, vulnerable animals can only be translocated to the limited areas that are intensively predator controlled (The Kiwi Trust, 2021). Large scale translocation of species out of an area is in itself damaging, as the removal of a species from an ecosystem disrupts the delicate balance of feeding relationships in that system. In any event, ecosanctuaries are not a solution for at-risk birds that can fly (Fitzgerald, Innes, & Greene, Reference Fitzgerald, Innes and Greene2021), and translocation of all the at-risk species from a vulnerable area to a sanctuary is not physically possible.

Other suggested alternatives to killing non-native mammals include the use of technological interventions that are still being researched, such as gene drives to induce sterility (Morris, Reference Morris2021). While gene drives perhaps offer the ultimate solution for Aotearoa-New Zealand’s non-native mammal issue, these technologies will require a change in government policy to be implemented (Wright, Reference Wright2017) and are unlikely to be developed for many years, if at all (Rodger, Reference Rodger2019). To suspend lethal control of non-native mammals in the meantime, in the hope of a future technological solution, would place sensitive species and ecosystems at too much risk.

Thus, as part of conservation education, children need to develop an awareness of both the fragility of Aotearoa-New Zealand’s biodiversity and the range of options available for controlling non-native mammals. In this way they can be encouraged to participate for the common good of maintaining and protecting our precious natural heritage.

To value ‘equity’

Equity ‘through fairness …’ is another value that teachers must model and encourage in their learners, according to The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 10). When equity is discussed in terms of animal rights, these arguments typically focus on the right to life of the animal and the sentience of the individual animal (Bioethics-Panel, 2019). When considering the situation in Aotearoa-New Zealand, we argue that equity for all animals is simply not possible. A choice has to be made between our biodiversity and non-native mammals, with one valued over the other. Both cannot co-exist and conservation education affords opportunities for discussion and consideration of this fraught issue.

Opponents of the lethal control of non-native mammals argue that killing these animals is inequitable (Morris, Reference Morris2021). However, protecting the right to life of New Zealand’s non-native mammals will result in the unnatural loss of life, and ultimate extinction in the wild, of much of our native fauna and flora through predation and consumption (Wright, Reference Wright2017). Instead, the vast majority of New Zealanders are in favour of restoring equity for our threatened native animals and plants, by removing non-native mammals, and thus maintaining ecological sustainability and natural and cultural diversity (Department of Conservation, 2017; Russell, Reference Russell2014).

Balancing the harms to non-native mammals against the harms to Aotearoa-New Zealand’s unique flora and fauna needs to involve acknowledging a variety of viewpoints and realising there is no one simple solution (Parke & Russell, Reference Parke and Russell2018). Simply considering whether or not to kill non-native mammals does not confer the degree of critical thinking and reflection this issue warrants. Instead, Aotearoa-New Zealand’s teachers and children need to explore this relevant issue in a deeper manner (Bioethics-Panel, 2019), and to be encouraged to value equity that is compatible with valuing ecological sustainability and our heritages.

To value ‘integrity, which involves… acting ethically’

A further value of relevance to conservation education in The New Zealand Curriculum is that of ‘integrity, which involves … acting ethically’ (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 10). Learning how to act ethically involves critically examining how and why people decide what is good/right or bad/wrong when considering issues in their lives (Hodson, Reference Hodson2011). This type of learning helps people decide what is ethically just in a society. Learning about ethics forms part of conservation education as it enables children to extend their decisions about what is good/right or bad/wrong beyond themselves (an individualistic positioning) to a ‘life-centred ethics’ position (Hodson, Reference Hodson2011, p. 210) where environmental justice can be considered. This life-centred ethical positioning involves acting ethically and respecting all living things.

By encouraging a life-centred ethics position as part of conservation education, we argue that children will learn to consider the ethics of their conservation behaviours, and act humanely when participating in environmental protection involving the control of non-native mammals. Acting in a humane manner is a legal requirement, as any lethal control of non-native mammals that is undertaken must adhere to the regulations stipulated in The Animal Welfare Act (1999). This legislation states that any practice, including trapping or hunting, considered to be causing unreasonable pain or distress to any animal is unacceptable (Fisher, Warburton, Morgan, Cowan, & Duckworth, Reference Fisher, Warburton, Morgan, Cowan and Duckworth2008). Furthermore, New Zealanders cannot be considered immune to the welfare of these non-native mammals because when surveyed, 88% of New Zealanders wanted lethal pest control methods to have a minimum standard of humaneness (Fraser, Reference Fraser2001). We acknowledge that the minimum standard for lethal control may not meet the expectations of some animal rights proponents who believe that any killing of non-native mammals is inhumane (Morris, Reference Morris2021). However, this viewpoint fails to acknowledge that the unnatural predation of our native species by those non-native mammals causes suffering for those animals that are predated, and as such, privileging non-native mammals over native animals is ethically inconsistent.

Acting ethically with respect for others also involves taking responsibility for and nurturing our relationship with our environment; a responsibility that many New Zealanders have accepted. This relationship can be viewed from a Māori perspective and from a Pākehā (Western) perspective. From a Pākehā perspective, our relationship with the environment involves moral agents and moral patients (Bioethics-Panel, 2019). People are the moral agents who make the decisions that affect the environment and animals. As regards conservation, there are two perspectives on who the moral patient is: this can be the individual animal or the whole ecosystem. Individual animals can be considered sentient moral patients, and as such killing non-native mammals presents a moral dilemma. However, by allowing these animals to become dominant in our ecosystems, we neglect to care for a greater moral patient, which is the ecosystem as a whole. The majority of New Zealanders favour the greater ecosystem over the individual animal as the moral patient (Russell, Reference Russell2014), despite caring for the welfare of both. Therefore, in order to maintain and nurture the wellbeing of our ecosystems, ethical decisions are made in favour of the ecosystem rather than individual animals that are threatening its overall health. In this way, the killing of non-native mammals is regrettable but necessary, provided it is carried out as humanely as possible.

Aotearoa-New Zealand’s founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, requires equal partnerships between Pākehā and Māori when nurturing a relationship with our environment. For Māori, the principles of kaitiakitanga and manaakitanga encapsulate this responsibility. Kaitiakitanga is concerned with guardianship, viewing our natural heritage as a socio-environmental resource that needs to be carefully managed because of its relationships with people, including their ancestors, and with all elements in an ecosystem, biotic and abiotic. Manaakitanga is caring for and serving all within an ecosystem because of their interdependence. Thus, the relationship is one where everything is interconnected (Bioethics-Panel, 2019). Because of this interconnectedness, the lethal control of non-native animals is congruent with Māori culture, since without it, native ecosystems would collapse, endangering relationships with each other, our ancestors, and all of an ecosystem’s elements.

To value ‘innovation, inquiry, and curiosity’

Valuing ‘innovation, inquiry, and curiosity by thinking critically, creatively and reflectively’ (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 10) is an important value to instil in our learners if we hope to attain Predator Free 2050. Conservation education is an excellent medium for exploring this value. Aotearoa-New Zealand is a leader in the field of conservation innovation (Russell & Broome, Reference Russell and Broome2016); our conservation experts are frequently recruited by other countries to manage their pest mammal eradication programmes (for example, www.wmil.co.nz), and we lead the world in the design of animal monitoring systems (for example, www.cacophony.org.nz) and humane traps (for example, www.goodnature.co.nz). Aotearoa-New Zealand has also pioneered successful species translocation programmes, such as Operation Nest Egg, as an adjunct to introduced predator management (for example, www.savethekiwi.nz). Conservation education provides a stimulating context for children to consider further technological advances that are required to solve our biodiversity challenges and engage in the design thinking process.

Designing innovative traps is part of this brief and is sometimes the focus of conservation education teaching resources (Morris, Reference Morris2021). While designing traps can encourage the value of innovation, inquiry, and curiosity, we believe that children should not be encouraged to test traps that they have designed and built themselves, as these traps are likely to be ineffective and can result in injury or slow death for the animal involved. There is, however, much value in facilitating students to design and test their own trap lures as a way of encouraging innovation and design thinking in an environmental context, without the risk of causing animal suffering.

To ‘respect … others’

We have argued that conservation education that includes the lethal control of non-native mammals can develop the values espoused in The New Zealand Curriculum. While that is the case, the question of its effects on children remains. A philosophical argument has been made that exposure of children to killing non-native mammals can lead to these children becoming abusers of both animals and humans later in life (Morris, Reference Morris2021), which is contrary to The New Zealand Curriculum’s value that children should be encouraged to respect others. This argument is based on the work of Baldry (Reference Baldry2003), Gullone (Reference Gullone2014), and Randour, Smith-Blackmore, Blaney, DeSousa, & Guyony (Reference Randour, Smith-Blackmore, Blaney, DeSousa and Guyony2019), which investigated the impact on children of witnessing wanton cruelty towards animals, such as household pets. These authors argue that there is a correlation between children being cruel to animals and witnessing or being subject to violent behaviour. These violent behaviours include domestic violence, corporal punishment, and bullying, in addition to wanton cruelty towards animals. When considering these findings, it is important to acknowledge that none of this research has established a causal factor for animal cruelty by children, but rather has identified associations that may or may not be causative.

However, as we have argued, in Aotearoa-New Zealand the choice is stark; it is the native animals and plants, or the non-native mammals — we cannot have both. We believe that teachers need to model the value of respect for others, including non-native mammals, and that when these mammals need to be killed, it must be done as humanely as possible. Traps that children use should have passed Aotearoa-New Zealand’s National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) standards, and thus align with The Animal Welfare Act, 1999. These traps include the commonly used DOC200 for stoats and rats, which is designed to deliver instant death. We recommend that children not use live capture traps, as the capabilities required to dispatch the animal are beyond many children, and as such could result in undue distress for both the target animal and the child. Importantly, when teachers model the value of respecting others by undertaking conservation behaviours ethically and humanely, children will be predisposed to copy these behaviours (Bandura, Reference Bandura, Geen and Donnerstein1983), rather than adopt abusive behaviours towards others.

A recent analysis of the many New Zealand-Aotearoa conservation education resources, particularly those aimed at school children, showed that these resources highlighted the importance of instilling respect for the non-native mammals in question, along with the importance of a humane death (Morris, Reference Morris2021). This is not merely lip service, as alleged by some (Morris, Reference Morris2021); teaching children to value their environment, which includes ensuring the survival of our unique ecosystems, does not preclude teachers and students from valuing animal welfare.

We acknowledge that historically there have been cases identified in the media in which children have been encouraged by adults to be disrespectful to dead non-native mammals, for example throwing possum carcasses for competition (South, Reference South2010), but we argue that this supports the need for teacher education that includes strategies to teach about non-native mammal control, so that children can learn about the need to protect our native species in ways that are as humane as possible, and that emphasise respect for all animals.

Finally, recognition must be given to the necessity of dealing with death and loss in conservation education. Death and loss are uncomfortable and difficult concepts in a primary classroom because we tend to insulate ourselves from our own mortality and that of others (Affifi & Christie, Reference Affifi and Christie2018). Too often when engaging in conservation education teachers focus on knowledge and the technical aspects, which neglects to engage children’s emotions. Rather, when emotions are engaged, it is often to nurture feelings of hope or wonder. However, shrouding death and loss in mystery does not help children, because the more death is veiled, the less prepared children are to deal with it and the more they retreat from confronting it. Consequently, children do not learn about the fragility and impermanence of life for all living things, making it difficult to deal with environmental degradation, species extinctions, and the lethal control of invasive animals (Affifi & Christie, Reference Affifi and Christie2018). We argue that conservation education that involves the lethal control of non-native mammals should open up discussions about mortality, enabling children to consider the transience of life and our interconnectedness with our environment.