It may sound abstract, but distinctions between “native”, “introduced” or “invasive” species can often be life or death. Species considered invasive in Australia – such as European rabbits and feral pigs – are often culled, while most native animals are generally left alone.

Debate over these terms doesn’t usually go mainstream. But this month was different. On October 13, independent Senator David Pocock brought a motion in federal parliament calling for a long-term plan to “protect Australia’s landscapes and wildlife from invasive species”.

In response, Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi took aim at the term “invasive”, saying:

There’s no need for labelling introduced species as invasive in a way that blames animals for the man-made problems raised by this motion. Language matters. Animals are not villains to be shot or obstacles to be poisoned to death.

There’s no need for labelling introduced species as invasive in a way that blames animals for the man-made problems raised by this motion. Language matters. Animals are not villains to be shot or obstacles to be poisoned to death.

As an ecologist and conservation scientist, the debate spoke to me about how important it is to explain why “invasive” species are given this title, the damage they can do and why many need to be eradicated or their numbers greatly reduced.

If we stop trying to control some invasive species, we risk condemning even more native animals to extinction and worsening Australia’s environmental decline.

Every Australian knows common myna birds are bad, rabbits are worse and feral cats kill native animals unchecked.

But how do we decide what makes an introduced species “good” or “bad” – and will we ever concede that some species are here to stay?

Our new series on invasive species explores these questions.

Why do these terms matter?

Conservationists and authorities commonly use four words –........

© The Conversation