Because of this rabbits actually support invasive predators as well (foxes, cats, etc...)
The only real "native" predator it has is the dingo, but those too were introduced by humans (only they were introduced thousands of years ago so they've been naturalized to the environment).
>> ...were introduced by humans (only they were introduced thousands of years ago...
That is a systemic problem in conservation: where in the timeline do we say that the "natural" state existed? In Australia and similar countries we place that mark not at the point that humans arrived, but at the point white people showed up. I live in the pacific northwest where we do the same. This practice almost equates indigenous humans with animals, both being "natural" in that the do not negatively impact "their" environment. The reality is that native populations radically altered ecosystems, that any non-human state only ever existed in deep history.
On long-inhabited island nations (Japan, UK Australia etc) the predator issue is a big deal only because of human efforts. Each wiped out their large predators long ago. Japan should have tigers and bears. The UK should have wolf packs. Australia too should have its big predators, but they were wiped out long before Europeans arrive. So we call that "natural". Something as simple as setting a date is in reality a twisted conflation of race, religion and political histories.
> This practice almost equates indigenous humans with animals
I feel like you're introducing a racist element where there needn't be one.
The key factor to a species adapting to its environment is time, and the timeframe that European colonisers have been in Australia, America and similar nations is a tiny blip on an evolution scale timeline.
Yeah, the racist element is certainly seeing something that is not there. Drawing the line at invasive species or "naturalized" species is almost entirely biological...
The reason the dingo is fundamentally different than the rabbit (or the invasive predators that prey on them) is it's had several thousand (4,000-12,000) years to reach a form of ecological equilibrium. Not to imply that nature is naturally balanced, but only that it is not threatening the survival of other "native" species. That's not true of the rabbit, which is why it's an invasive species and the dingo is not.
Environmentalism wasn't as popular when the dingo was introduced... So there isn't much we can do about its initial impact to the ecosystem... So, yes, date does matters very much... It's not about race or religion or political history... It's actually very much about biology...
So if we let the rabbits run wild until another equilibrium, as the one that occurred after the dingo introduction, then that new equilibrium is the one we are then to protect? I'd argue that there has never been any sort of natural equilibrium so long as humans, any humans, have been active in an environment. We must pick which human arrival draws the line between natural an not. I'd go with the original arrival.
Yes, a new equilibrium would arise. And many species would likely go extinct. We can't protect the species that the dingo drove into extinction because they went extinct thousands of years ago... We can protect the ones that the rabbit is driving into extinction.... That's where we draw the line....
Because of this rabbits actually support invasive predators as well (foxes, cats, etc...)
The only real "native" predator it has is the dingo, but those too were introduced by humans (only they were introduced thousands of years ago so they've been naturalized to the environment).