Once again, I get to sound like a broken record. This is yet another example of how we and the antis are talking past each other. We point to science, and they point to emotion. In this case, guess which will win most of the time?
If you have any doubt that even the best intentioned can be moved by purely emotional arguments, I suggest you look at this:
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/e5fed...hyaenas_in_the_southern_Namib_Parks_final.pdf
If the link doesn't work, it's to the most recent (May 1) Conservation Frontlines bulletin, and refers to the killing of native hyena to protect non-native feral horses in Namibia. Every scientist involved was against the decision, but even a country as well-intentioned as Namibia gave way to the emotional views of horse lovers.
We will never convince those who view the killing of individuals animals as crimes against nature, even if it is in service of conservation by any scientific yardstick. I have very little doubt that Pier Morgan - not terribly popular with the British public at the best of times - would have been seen as winning this debate outright by a strong majority of the same public.
Wish I had a solution.