Each time another study about human-driven species extinction hits the news in Aotearoa New Zealand, a familiar pattern unfolds in online comment sections.

As researchers in this field, we have seen how quickly new findings about biodiversity loss are overshadowed by a debate over who is responsible.

We have repeatedly encountered blunt statements such as “why should Māori have a say?” linked to arguments that Māori caused species declines.

Given the long dominance of European colonial perspectives in natural history and archaeology, it is perhaps unsurprising that such claims provoke strong responses.

Some Māori counter with statements such as “we didn’t cause moa extinction, we were the first conservationists”.

We have seen arguments that treasured species such as kuri (Polynesian dogs) would not have been allowed to go feral, and that the extinction of the Waitaha penguin was due to competition for nesting sites with hoiho yellow-eyed penguin, despite evidence to the contrary.

Such responses reflect frustration with research – and at times media coverage – framed in ways that appear to assign blame without sufficient context.

One news article on the translocation of takahē onto Ngāi Tahu land, for example, linked the species’ “decline” to land confiscations, despite evidence of a more complex history.

This isn’t a phenomenon unique to New Zealand. The causes of ecosystem modificationn on Rapanui (Easter Island) and megafauna extinction in Australia have been hotly debated. In Australia, responsibility has been variously attributed to human activity,........

© The Conversation