1
|
Coghlan S, Cardilini A. The use and abuse of moral theories in conservation debate about killing animals. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2024; 38:e14280. [PMID: 38682656 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14280] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2023] [Accepted: 02/15/2024] [Indexed: 05/01/2024]
Abstract
Recent ethical debate about compassionate conservation has invoked moral theories to oppose or support traditional practices of killing animals to protect biodiversity and ecosystems. The debate has featured the mainstream moral theories of consequentialism and utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. We identify problematic applications and critique of these moral theories in conservation discussions. Problems include a lack of clarity when invoking moral theories, misunderstanding and mischaracterizing theories, and overlooking features and circumstances affecting a theory's application. A key omission in the debate is a detailed discussion of the moral significance of animals and nature. We then examine the role of moral theory as such in ethical discussion, contrasting moral theory with ethical outlooks that center, for example, forms of love and care. Our aim is to advance the ethical debate about harming animals in conservation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Coghlan
- School of Computing and Information Systems, Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Digital Ethics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Adam Cardilini
- School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Allen BL, Bobier C, Dawson S, Fleming PJS, Hampton J, Jachowski D, Kerley GIH, Linnell JDC, Marnewick K, Minnie L, Muthersbaugh M, O'Riain MJ, Parker D, Proulx G, Somers MJ, Titus K. Why humans kill animals and why we cannot avoid it. THE SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 2023; 896:165283. [PMID: 37406694 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165283] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2023] [Revised: 06/22/2023] [Accepted: 07/01/2023] [Indexed: 07/07/2023]
Abstract
Killing animals has been a ubiquitous human behaviour throughout history, yet it is becoming increasingly controversial and criticised in some parts of contemporary human society. Here we review 10 primary reasons why humans kill animals, discuss the necessity (or not) of these forms of killing, and describe the global ecological context for human killing of animals. Humans historically and currently kill animals either directly or indirectly for the following reasons: (1) wild harvest or food acquisition, (2) human health and safety, (3) agriculture and aquaculture, (4) urbanisation and industrialisation, (5) invasive, overabundant or nuisance wildlife control, (6) threatened species conservation, (7) recreation, sport or entertainment, (8) mercy or compassion, (9) cultural and religious practice, and (10) research, education and testing. While the necessity of some forms of animal killing is debatable and further depends on individual values, we emphasise that several of these forms of animal killing are a necessary component of our inescapable involvement in a single, functioning, finite, global food web. We conclude that humans (and all other animals) cannot live in a way that does not require animal killing either directly or indirectly, but humans can modify some of these killing behaviours in ways that improve the welfare of animals while they are alive, or to reduce animal suffering whenever they must be killed. We encourage a constructive dialogue that (1) accepts and permits human participation in one enormous global food web dependent on animal killing and (2) focuses on animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Doing so will improve the lives of both wild and domestic animals to a greater extent than efforts to avoid, prohibit or vilify human animal-killing behaviour.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin L Allen
- University of Southern Queensland, Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia; Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha 6034, South Africa.
| | - Christopher Bobier
- Department of Theology and Philosophy, Saint Mary's University of Minnesota, Winona, MN, USA
| | - Stuart Dawson
- Terrestrial Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia 6150, Australia; Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, South Perth, Western Australia 6151, Australia
| | - Peter J S Fleming
- University of Southern Queensland, Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia; Ecosystem Management, School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales 2351, Australia; Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Orange Agricultural Institute, Orange, New South Wales 2800, Australia
| | - Jordan Hampton
- Terrestrial Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia 6150, Australia; Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville 3052, Victoria, Australia
| | - David Jachowski
- Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA
| | - Graham I H Kerley
- Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha 6034, South Africa
| | - John D C Linnell
- Norwegian Institute of Nature Research, Vormstuguveien 40, 2624 Lillehammer, Norway; Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Anne Evenstads vei 80, NO-2480 Koppang, Norway
| | - Kelly Marnewick
- Department of Nature Conservation, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
| | - Liaan Minnie
- Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha 6034, South Africa; School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University of Mpumalanga, Mbombela 1200, South Africa
| | - Mike Muthersbaugh
- Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA
| | - M Justin O'Riain
- Institute for Communities and Wildlife in Africa, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Upper Campus, Rondebosch 7700, South Africa
| | - Dan Parker
- School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University of Mpumalanga, Mbombela 1200, South Africa
| | - Gilbert Proulx
- Alpha Wildlife Research & Management Ltd, Sherwood Park, Alberta T8H 1W3, Canada
| | - Michael J Somers
- Mammal Research Institute, Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
| | - Keifer Titus
- Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Byrne AQ. Reimagining the future of natural history museums with compassionate collection. PLoS Biol 2023; 21:e3002101. [PMID: 37141192 PMCID: PMC10159148 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Compassionate collection involves minimizing harm while collecting museum data in the field. By adopting this practice, natural history museums could better maintain existing collections, accommodate more nonlethal specimens and data, and foster an inclusive community.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Allison Q Byrne
- Department of Environmental Science, Policy & Management, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America
- Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, Unites States of America
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Donfrancesco V, Allen BL, Appleby R, Behrendorff L, Conroy G, Crowther MS, Dickman CR, Doherty T, Fancourt BA, Gordon CE, Jackson SM, Johnson CN, Kennedy MS, Koungoulos L, Letnic M, Leung LK, Mitchell KJ, Nesbitt B, Newsome T, Pacioni C, Phillip J, Purcell BV, Ritchie EG, Smith BP, Stephens D, Tatler J, van Eeden LM, Cairns KM. Understanding conflict among experts working on controversial species: A case study on the Australian dingo. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2023. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.12900] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/12/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | - Benjamin L. Allen
- University of Southern Queensland Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment Toowoomba Queensland Australia
- Centre for African Conservation Ecology Nelson Mandela University Port Elizabeth South Africa
| | - Rob Appleby
- Centre for Planetary Health and Food Security Griffith University Nathan Queensland Australia
| | - Linda Behrendorff
- School of Agriculture and Food Sciences University of Queensland Gatton Queensland Australia
| | - Gabriel Conroy
- Genecology Research Centre, School of Science, Technology and Engineering University of the Sunshine Coast Maroochydore DC Queensland Australia
| | - Mathew S. Crowther
- School of Life and Environmental Sciences University of Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - Christopher R. Dickman
- Desert Ecology Research Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - Tim Doherty
- Desert Ecology Research Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - Bronwyn A. Fancourt
- Ecosystem Management, School of Environmental and Rural Science University of New England Armidale New South Wales Australia
| | - Christopher E. Gordon
- Center for Biodiversity Dynamics in a Changing World Aarhus University Aarhus C Denmark
| | - Stephen M. Jackson
- Collection Care and Conservation Australian Museum Research Institute Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - Chris N. Johnson
- School of Natural Sciences and Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage University of Tasmania Hobart Tasmania Australia
| | - Malcolm S. Kennedy
- Threatened Species Operations Department of Environment and Science Brisbane Queensland Australia
| | - Loukas Koungoulos
- Department of Archaeology, School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - Mike Letnic
- Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney New South Wales Australia
- Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - Luke K.‐P. Leung
- School of Agriculture and Food Sciences University of Queensland Gatton Queensland Australia
| | - Kieren J. Mitchell
- Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, School of Biological Sciences University of Adelaide Adelaide South Australia Australia
| | - Bradley Nesbitt
- School of Environmental and Rural Science University of New England Armidale New South Wales Australia
| | - Thomas Newsome
- Global Ecology Lab, School of Life and Environmental Sciences University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - Carlo Pacioni
- Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Arthur Rylah Institute Heidelberg Victoria Australia
- Environmental and Conservation Sciences Murdoch University Murdoch Western Australia Australia
| | | | - Brad V. Purcell
- Kangaroo Management Program Office of Environment and Heritage Dubbo New South Wales Australia
| | - Euan G. Ritchie
- School of Life and Environmental Sciences and Centre for Integrative Ecology Deakin University Burwood Victoria Australia
| | - Bradley P. Smith
- College of Psychology, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences CQUniversity Australia Wayville South Australia Australia
| | | | - Jack Tatler
- Narla Environmental Pty Ltd Warriewood New South Wales Australia
| | - Lily M. van Eeden
- Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Arthur Rylah Institute Heidelberg Victoria Australia
| | - Kylie M. Cairns
- Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney New South Wales Australia
- Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney New South Wales Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Crates R, McDonald PG, Melton CB, Maron M, Ingwersen D, Mowat E, Breckenridge M, Murphy L, Heinsohn R. Towards effective management of an overabundant native bird: The noisy miner. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2022. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.12875] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Ross Crates
- Fenner School of Environment and Society Australian National University Canberra Australia
| | - Paul G. McDonald
- School of Environmental and Rural Science University of New England Armidale Australia
| | - Courtney B. Melton
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science University of Queensland Brisbane Australia
| | - Martine Maron
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science University of Queensland Brisbane Australia
| | | | - Emily Mowat
- BirdLife Australia Carlton Victoria Australia
| | - Max Breckenridge
- Fenner School of Environment and Society Australian National University Canberra Australia
- BirdLife Australia Carlton Victoria Australia
| | - Liam Murphy
- Fenner School of Environment and Society Australian National University Canberra Australia
| | - Robert Heinsohn
- Fenner School of Environment and Society Australian National University Canberra Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Re-Thinking Felid–Human Entanglements through the Lenses of Compassionate Conservation and Multispecies Studies. Animals (Basel) 2022; 12:ani12212996. [PMID: 36359119 PMCID: PMC9655180 DOI: 10.3390/ani12212996] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2022] [Revised: 09/20/2022] [Accepted: 10/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Felids have long and complex historical associations with humans, ranging from fear and persecution to worship and care. With many felid species in widespread decline, re-thinking the messy entanglements of feline predators and human societies is a necessary step for fostering coexistence as current conservation frameworks that rely on the separation of people from nature are failing felids. Here, we explore two distinct but related interdisciplinary fields that, when put into dialogue with one another, offer novel perspectives and insights on felid–human relationships and conservation initiatives more broadly. We identified numerous similarities and emergent properties within compassionate conservation and multispecies studies, despite these fields arising from the sciences and social sciences and humanities respectively. Combined, reorientation of conservation values and practices to be morally inclusive of individual animals and their subjective experiences has the potential to support cohabitation and tolerance for felids, promoting multispecies flourishing. Abstract With many felid species in widespread decline, re-thinking the messy felid–human entanglements is a necessary step for fostering coexistence as current conservation frameworks centered on human exceptionalism and widespread violence toward wild animals are conspicuously failing felids. This paper argues for fostering a critical awareness of how we understand our relationships with nonhuman animals, particularly in the context of conservation. We bring two distinct but related interdisciplinary fields into a dialogue to critically question the values and conceptual assumptions that frame the practices of felid conservation today. Compassionate conservation and multispecies studies share many synergies and conceptual overlaps despite emerging from different academic domains. We identified four key areas for further exploration: (1) A shift in emphasis from practices of killing to the underlying assumptions that make forms of killing permissible and ethically unproblematic. (2) Re-engagement with individuals, not just species, in conservation settings. (3) Unsettling human exceptionalism through an emphasis on the agency of animals and an ethic involving compassion. (4) Acknowledging the ways in which humans co-become with other animals and cultivating relationships of multispecies cohabitation and flourishing.
Collapse
|
7
|
Bobier CA, Allen BL. Compassionate Conservation is indistinguishable from traditional forms of conservation in practice. Front Psychol 2022; 13:750313. [PMID: 36262450 PMCID: PMC9574382 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.750313] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2021] [Accepted: 08/29/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Animal welfare and ethics are important factors influencing wildlife conservation practice, and critics are increasingly challenging the underlying ethics and motivations supporting common conservation practices. “Compassionate Conservationists” argue that all conservationists should respect the rights of individual sentient animals and approach conservation problems from a position of compassion, and that doing so requires implementing practices that avoid direct harm to individual animals. In this way Compassionate Conservationists seek to contrast themselves with “Traditional Conservationists” who often express consequentialist decision-making processes that ostensibly aim to dispassionately minimize net animal harms, resulting in the common use of practices that directly harm or kill some animals. Conservationists and other observers might therefore conclude that the two sides of this debate are distinct and/or that their policy proscriptions produce different welfare outcomes for animals. To explore the validity of this conclusion we review the ethical philosophies underpinning two types of Compassionate Conservation—deontology and virtue ethics. Deontology focusses on animal rights or the moral duties or obligations of conservationists, whereas virtue ethics focusses on acting in ways that are virtuous or compassionate. We demonstrate that both types permit the intentional harm and killing of animals when faced with common conservation problems where animals will be harmed no matter what the conservationist does or does not do. We then describe the applied decision-making processes exhibited by Compassionate Conservationists (of both types) and Traditional Conservationists to show that they may each lead to the implementation of similar conservation practices (including lethal control) and produce similar outcomes for animals, despite the perceived differences in their ethical motivations. The widespread presence of wildlife conservation problems that cannot be resolved without causing at least some harm to some animals means that conservationists of all persuasions must routinely make trade-offs between the welfare of some animals over others. Compassionate Conservationists do this from an explicit position of animal rights and/or compassion, whereas Traditional Conservationists respect animal rights and exhibit this same compassion implicitly. These observations lead to the conclusion that Compassionate Conservation is indistinguishable from traditional forms of conservation in practice, and that the apparent disagreement among conservationists primarily concerns the effectiveness of various wildlife management practices at minimizing animal harm, and not the underlying ethics, motivations or morality of those practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher A. Bobier
- Department of Theology and Philosophy, Saint Mary's University of Minnesota, Winona, MN, United States
- *Correspondence: Christopher A. Bobier,
| | - Benjamin L. Allen
- Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia
- Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Zander KK, Burton M, Pandit R, Gunawardena A, Pannell D, Garnett ST. How public values for threatened species are affected by conservation strategies. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2022; 319:115659. [PMID: 35820310 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115659] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2022] [Revised: 06/28/2022] [Accepted: 06/29/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
While the imminent extinction of many species is predicted, prevention is expensive, and decision-makers often have to prioritise funding. In democracies, it can be argued that conservation using public funds should be influenced by the values placed on threatened species by the public, and that community views should also affect the conservation management approaches adopted. We conducted on online survey with 2400 respondents from the general Australian public to determine 1) the relative values placed on a diverse set of 12 threatened Australian animal species and 2) whether those values changed with the approach proposed to conserve them. The survey included a contingent valuation and a choice experiment. Three notable findings emerged: 1) respondents were willing to pay $60/year on average for a species (95% confidence interval: $23 to $105) to avoid extinction in the next 20 years based on the contingent valuation, and $29 to $100 based on the choice experiment, 2) respondents were willing to pay to reduce the impact of feral animals on almost all presented threatened species, 3) for few species and respondents, WTP was lower when genetic modification to reduce inbreeding in the remaining population was proposed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Michael Burton
- School of Agriculture and Environment, University of Western Australia, Australia
| | - Ram Pandit
- School of Agriculture and Environment, University of Western Australia, Australia
| | - Asha Gunawardena
- School of Agriculture and Environment, University of Western Australia, Australia
| | - David Pannell
- School of Agriculture and Environment, University of Western Australia, Australia
| | - Stephen T Garnett
- Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Pooley S. The challenge of compassion in predator conservation. Front Psychol 2022; 13:977703. [PMID: 36092072 PMCID: PMC9454015 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.977703] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2022] [Accepted: 07/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
This paper argues that compassion for wild animals and the humans living alongside them should be integral to wildlife conservation. Nowhere is this more apparent than in predator conservation, and case studies are used to explore the consequences of wild animal attacks for human victims. Some arguments for extending compassionate consideration to animals seen as individuals are considered, along with the challenges these pose for predator conservation. A way forward from this apparent impasse is suggested, drawing on the capacity approach to embrace human with animal actors. The paper concludes with implications for predator conservation and recommendations, including incident responses sensitive to the traumatic impacts of attacks, and more collaborative approaches to handling human-wildlife interactions taking account of the capacities of local humans and wildlife.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Pooley
- Department of Geography, Birkbeck, University of London, London, United Kingdom
- School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Scottsville, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Boltovskoy D, Guiaşu R, Burlakova L, Karatayev A, Schlaepfer MA, Correa N. Misleading estimates of economic impacts of biological invasions: Including the costs but not the benefits. AMBIO 2022; 51:1786-1799. [PMID: 35191001 PMCID: PMC9200917 DOI: 10.1007/s13280-022-01707-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2021] [Revised: 01/12/2022] [Accepted: 01/17/2022] [Indexed: 06/02/2023]
Abstract
The economic costs of non-indigenous species (NIS) are a key factor for the allocation of efforts and resources to eradicate or control baneful invasions. Their assessments are challenging, but most suffer from major flaws. Among the most important are the following: (1) the inclusion of actual damage costs together with various ancillary expenditures which may or may not be indicative of the real economic damage due to NIS; (2) the inclusion of the costs of unnecessary or counterproductive control initiatives; (3) the inclusion of controversial NIS-related costs whose economic impacts are questionable; (4) the assessment of the negative impacts only, ignoring the positive ones that most NIS have on the economy, either directly or through their ecosystem services. Such estimates necessarily arrive at negative and often highly inflated values, do not reflect the net damage and economic losses due to NIS, and can significantly misguide management and resource allocation decisions. We recommend an approach based on holistic costs and benefits that are assessed using likely scenarios and their counter-factual.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Demetrio Boltovskoy
- IEGEBA, Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Intendente Güiraldes 2160, Pabellón 2, Ciudad Universitaria, 1428 Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Radu Guiaşu
- Biology Program, Glendon College, York University, 2275 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON M4N 3M6 Canada
| | - Lyubov Burlakova
- Great Lakes Center, SUNY Buffalo State, 1300 Elmwood Ave., Buffalo, NY 14222 USA
| | - Alexander Karatayev
- Great Lakes Center, SUNY Buffalo State, 1300 Elmwood Ave., Buffalo, NY 14222 USA
| | - Martin A. Schlaepfer
- Institute of Environmental Sciences, University of Geneva, Boulevard Carl-Vogt 66, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Nancy Correa
- Servicio de Hidrografía Naval y Escuela de Ciencias del Mar, Sede Educativa Universitaria, Facultad de la Armada, UNDEF, Av. Montes de Oca 2124, 1271 Buenos Aires, Argentina
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Vimercati G, Probert AF, Volery L, Bernardo-Madrid R, Bertolino S, Céspedes V, Essl F, Evans T, Gallardo B, Gallien L, González-Moreno P, Grange MC, Hui C, Jeschke JM, Katsanevakis S, Kühn I, Kumschick S, Pergl J, Pyšek P, Rieseberg L, Robinson TB, Saul WC, Sorte CJB, Vilà M, Wilson JRU, Bacher S. The EICAT+ framework enables classification of positive impacts of alien taxa on native biodiversity. PLoS Biol 2022; 20:e3001729. [PMID: 35972940 PMCID: PMC9380921 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001729] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Species introduced through human-related activities beyond their native range, termed alien species, have various impacts worldwide. The IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) is a global standard to assess negative impacts of alien species on native biodiversity. Alien species can also positively affect biodiversity (for instance, through food and habitat provisioning or dispersal facilitation) but there is currently no standardized and evidence-based system to classify positive impacts. We fill this gap by proposing EICAT+, which uses 5 semiquantitative scenarios to categorize the magnitude of positive impacts, and describes underlying mechanisms. EICAT+ can be applied to all alien taxa at different spatial and organizational scales. The application of EICAT+ expands our understanding of the consequences of biological invasions and can inform conservation decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Anna F. Probert
- Department of Biology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
| | - Lara Volery
- Department of Biology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
| | - Ruben Bernardo-Madrid
- Department of Integrated Biology, Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD), CSIC, Sevilla, Spain
| | - Sandro Bertolino
- Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Turin, Torino, Italy
| | - Vanessa Céspedes
- Laboratory of Aquatic Ecology, Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD), CSIC, Sevilla, Spain
| | - Franz Essl
- Bioinvasions, Global Change, Macroecology-Group, Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Thomas Evans
- Ecologie Systématique et Evolution, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
- Institute of Biology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), Berlin, Germany
- Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Laure Gallien
- Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Univ. Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS, LECA, Grenoble, France
| | | | | | - Cang Hui
- Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
- Biodiversity Informatics Unit, African Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Jonathan M. Jeschke
- Institute of Biology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), Berlin, Germany
- Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Ingolf Kühn
- Department Community Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, Halle, Germany
- Department of Geobotany and Botanical Garden, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Sabrina Kumschick
- Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
- Kirstenbosch Research Centre, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Jan Pergl
- Department of Invasion Ecology, Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Průhonice, Czech Republic
| | - Petr Pyšek
- Department of Invasion Ecology, Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Průhonice, Czech Republic
- Department of Ecology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Loren Rieseberg
- Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Tamara B. Robinson
- Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
| | - Wolf-Christian Saul
- Institute of Biology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), Berlin, Germany
- Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin, Germany
| | - Cascade J. B. Sorte
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, California, United States of America
| | - Montserrat Vilà
- Department of Integrated Biology, Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD), CSIC, Sevilla, Spain
- Department of Plant Biology and Ecology, University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain
| | - John R. U. Wilson
- Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
- Kirstenbosch Research Centre, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Sven Bacher
- Department of Biology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Kennedy BPA, Boyle N, Fleming PJS, Harvey AM, Jones B, Ramp D, Dixon R, McGreevy PD. Ethical Treatment of Invasive and Native Fauna in Australia: Perspectives through the One Welfare Lens. Animals (Basel) 2022; 12:ani12111405. [PMID: 35681870 PMCID: PMC9179540 DOI: 10.3390/ani12111405] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2022] [Revised: 05/24/2022] [Accepted: 05/27/2022] [Indexed: 12/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary A public forum can reveal a wide range of perspectives on the ethical treatment of animals. This article describes how a panel of experts navigated through a discussion on the many and varied challenges of attempting to manage invasive and native fauna in Australia. The panel acknowledged the variety of these fauna, their effects on others and the consequences of control measures for three parties: animals, humans and the environment. The One Welfare concept has been developed to guide humans in the ethical treatment of non-human animals, each other and the environment. The forum accepted the need to consider this triple line, and exemplifies the merits of a One Welfare approach to discussions such as this. We used a series of questions about past, present and anticipated practices in wildlife control as the core of the panel discussion. We revealed five different but intersecting perspectives: conservation action, wildlife research, invasive animal ecology, mainstream animal protection and compassionate conservation. This article shows how understanding of lines of contention on various core topics can provide a framework for further discourse that may bear fruit in the form of One Welfare solutions. Abstract The One Welfare concept is proposed to guide humans in the ethical treatment of non-human animals, each other and the environment. One Welfare was conceptualized for veterinarians but could be a foundational concept through which to promote the ethical treatment of animals that are outside of direct human care and responsibility. However, wild-living animals raise additional ethical conundrums because of their multifarious values and roles, and relationships that humans have with them. At an open facilitated forum, the 2018 Robert Dixon Memorial Animal Welfare Symposium, a panel of five experts from different fields shared their perspectives on “loving and hating animals in the wild” and responded to unscripted questions from the audience. The Symposium’s objectives were to elucidate views on the ethical treatment of the native and invasive animals of Australia and to identify some of the resultant dilemmas facing conservationists, educators, veterinarians and society. Here, we document the presented views and case studies and synthesize common themes in a One Welfare framework. Additionally, we identified points of contention that can guide further discourse. With this guide in place, the identification and discussion of those disparate views was a first step toward practical resolutions on how to manage wild-living Australian fauna ethically. We concluded that there was great utility in the One Welfare approach for any discourse about wild animal welfare. It requires attention to each element of the triple bottom line and ensures that advocacy for one party does not vanquish the voices from other sectors. We argue that, by facilitating a focus on the ecology in the context of wild animal issues, One Welfare is more useful in this context than the veterinary context for which it was originally developed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brooke P. A. Kennedy
- School of Environment and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia;
- Correspondence:
| | - Nick Boyle
- Taronga Conservation Society Australia, Bradleys Head Road, Mosman, NSW 2088, Australia;
| | - Peter J. S. Fleming
- Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Orange Agricultural Institute, 1447 Forest Road, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia;
- Ecosystem Management, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
| | - Andrea M. Harvey
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, TD School, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia; (A.M.H.); (D.R.)
| | - Bidda Jones
- Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia;
| | - Daniel Ramp
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, TD School, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia; (A.M.H.); (D.R.)
| | - Roselyn Dixon
- School of Education, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia;
| | - Paul D. McGreevy
- School of Environment and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia;
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Pathwalker: A New Individual-Based Movement Model for Conservation Science and Connectivity Modelling. ISPRS INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEO-INFORMATION 2022. [DOI: 10.3390/ijgi11060329] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Understanding organism movement is at the heart of many ecological disciplines. The study of landscape connectivity—the extent to which a landscape facilitates organism movement—has grown to become a central focus of spatial ecology and conservation science. Several computational algorithms have been developed to model connectivity; however, the major models in use today are limited by their lack of flexibility and simplistic assumptions of movement behaviour. In this paper, we introduce a new spatially-explicit, individual- and process-based model called Pathwalker, which simulates organism movement and connectivity through heterogeneous landscapes as a function of landscape resistance, the energetic cost of movement, mortality risk, autocorrelation, and directional bias towards a destination, all at multiple spatial scales. We describe the model’s structure and parameters and present statistical evaluations to demonstrate the influence of these parameters on the resulting movement patterns. Written in Python 3, Pathwalker works for any version of Python 3 and is freely available to download online. Pathwalker models movement and connectivity with greater flexibility compared with the dominant connectivity algorithms currently available in conservation science, thereby, enabling more detailed predictions for conservation practice and management. Moreover, Pathwalker provides a highly capable simulation framework for exploring theoretical and methodological questions that cannot be addressed with empirical data alone.
Collapse
|
14
|
The Relative Role of Knowledge and Empathy in Predicting Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behavior. SUSTAINABILITY 2022. [DOI: 10.3390/su14084622] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
Planet Earth is undergoing unprecedented levels of environmental degradation and destruction at a global scale. Incentivizing people to adopt behaviors that are compatible with a sustainable future will help address the current ecological crisis. However, it is first necessary to understand the psychological drivers of pro-environmental behavior. Here, we examined whether greater levels of environmental knowledge and empathy predicted higher levels of pro-environmental behavior in an Australian population sample. We aimed to advance our understanding of the psychological variables that motivate people to act in pro-environmental ways, while also advancing the ongoing debate amongst conservation scientists regarding the relative importance of fostering empathy. Correlational analyses revealed that objective, verifiable knowledge was a strong predictor of pro-environmental attitudes and behavior. Empathy also correlated positively with pro-environmental attitudes and behavior, but with a dissociation with respect to its cognitive and affective components. Multivariate analyses revealed that knowledge was a stronger predictor of both pro-environmental attitudes and behavior after controlling for individual variation in cognitive and affective empathy. This finding casts doubt on the claim by compassionate conservationists that fostering empathy is the key to solving the current environmental conservation crisis. Future research should aim to extend the present findings by testing whether a more exhaustive test of participants’ environmental knowledge and other measures of empathy, including empathic competencies and the recently developed Emotional and Cognitive Scale of the Human–Nature Relationship (ECS-HNR), yield the same dominance of knowledge over empathy.
Collapse
|
15
|
Latombe G, Lenzner B, Schertler A, Dullinger S, Glaser M, Jarić I, Pauchard A, Wilson JRU, Essl F. What is valued in conservation? A framework to compare ethical perspectives. NEOBIOTA 2022. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.72.79070] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
Perspectives in conservation are based on a variety of value systems. Such differences in how people value nature and its components lead to different evaluations of the morality of conservation goals and approaches, and often underlie disagreements in the formulation and implementation of environmental management policies. Specifically, whether a conservation action (e.g. killing feral cats to reduce predation on bird species threatened with extinction) is viewed as appropriate or not can vary among people with different value systems. Here, we present a conceptual, mathematical framework intended as a tool to systematically explore and clarify core value statements in conservation approaches. Its purpose is to highlight how fundamental differences between these value systems can lead to different prioritizations of available management options and offer a common ground for discourse. The proposed equations decompose the question underlying many controversies around management decisions in conservation: what or who is valued, how, and to what extent? We compare how management decisions would likely be viewed under three idealised value systems: ecocentric conservation, which aims to preserve biodiversity; new conservation, which considers that biodiversity can only be preserved if it benefits humans; and sentientist conservation, which aims at minimising suffering for sentient beings. We illustrate the utility of the framework by applying it to case studies involving invasive alien species, rewilding, and trophy hunting. By making value systems and their consequences in practice explicit, the framework facilitates debates on contested conservation issues, and complements philosophical discursive approaches about moral reasoning. We believe dissecting the core value statements on which conservation decisions are based will provide an additional tool to understand and address conservation conflicts.
Collapse
|
16
|
Understanding Social Dimensions in Wildlife Conservation: Multiple Stakeholder Views. Animals (Basel) 2022; 12:ani12070811. [PMID: 35405801 PMCID: PMC8996913 DOI: 10.3390/ani12070811] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2022] [Revised: 03/10/2022] [Accepted: 03/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Garnering support from multiple stakeholders to increase the number or size of protected areas remains a key challenge for wildlife conservation efforts in Malaysia. Human–wildlife conflict often arises when local socio-economic development compromises wildlife survival due to negative landscape changes. It is essential to assess both human–wildlife conflict and human–human conflicts about wildlife, in order to promote mutually beneficial human–wildlife coexistence. This paper examines pertinent factors influencing wildlife conservation by integrating ecological and social approaches using a conservation planning framework. The findings demonstrate the importance of appraising social values to address issues such as size limits for protected areas and compensation for wildlife damage to property. It shows that monetary incentives are not the sole determinant in gaining the support of indigenous people in reporting wildlife crimes and their active participation in conservation programs. Therefore, developing effective communication with stakeholders, empowerment of rural communities, and proper appraisal of social values are all urgently needed to promote effective rural wildlife conservation programs. Abstract Numerous studies show the importance of social understanding in addressing multifaceted conservation issues. Building on a conservation planning framework, this study examines the social dimensions of wildlife conservation in Kinabatangan, Sabah, Malaysia. It employs a qualitative approach by conducting in-depth, semi-structured interviews with sixty informants drawn from local community members, government officials, tourism operators, non-government organizations, and the private sector. Our results show that the incidence of human–wildlife conflicts has reduced in the region, but that conflicts among stakeholders themselves about wildlife still remain a significant threat for attaining successful conservation outcomes. Further stakeholder perceptions of increased wildlife numbers often contrast with actual counts returned by periodical surveys conducted by conservation agencies, e.g., showing a 30% decline of orangutans and a 29% decline of gibbon abundance. This shows that evidence-based conservation messages have not been communicated well. The study has implications for enhancing social values among conservation players, promoting local community empowerment and revising conservation awareness programs.
Collapse
|
17
|
Individuals Matter: Dilemmas and Solutions in Conservation and Animal Welfare Practices in Zoos. Animals (Basel) 2022; 12:ani12030398. [PMID: 35158721 PMCID: PMC8833563 DOI: 10.3390/ani12030398] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2021] [Revised: 01/17/2022] [Accepted: 01/31/2022] [Indexed: 01/28/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Reaching conservation objectives while upholding individual animal welfare standards presents a significant challenge for zoos, especially if some individual animal interests conflict with their conservation mission. However, the compassionate conservation movement offers a potential solution for facing such challenges by advocating for the consideration of individual animal interests as central to conservation decision making. Our objective is therefore to determine to what extent zoological parks recognize the intrinsic value of zoo animals, beyond being members of species or ecosystems, and how this recognition manifests. Through discourse analysis, interviews, and relevant printed sources, we analyze the discourses, or concepts and categorizations, by which actors—experts in the conservation, animal rights, welfare, and zoo fields—give meaning to zoo practices. We demonstrate ways in which these discourses shape the captivity, breeding, and culling practices of individual zoo animals in the name of conservation. We found that people justifying these practices within zoos fail to recognize the intrinsic value of individual animals beyond being members of species. However, within the zoo, welfare practices and education objectives increasingly focus on fulfilling individual animal interests. Abstract Compassionate conservation advocates for minimizing individual suffering in conservation practice and adheres to the principle “individuals matter”—intrinsically, in and of themselves. Our objective is to determine the extent to which, and how, zoos recognize the intrinsic value of wild individuals beyond their status as members of species or ecosystems. We analyzed discourses surrounding the Smithsonian National Zoo in the U.S.A., the zoos of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in France, and the Seoul Grand Park Zoo in South Korea. Using existing literature on zoos, conservation, animal welfare, and rights, we distilled two discourses (justificatory and abolitionist). Through interviews with professionals in the zoo, conservation, welfare, and animal rights communities, we demonstrate how actors frame individual zoo animals as (1) sentient persons, (2) reproductive components, and (3) species ambassadors. Our analysis shows how actors’ views shape three zoo practices related to ex situ conservation: (1) captivity, (2) captive breeding, and (3) culling. This analysis revealed two significant findings. First, actors representing the justificatory discourse fail to frame animals as intrinsically valuable individuals. Second, within the constraints of the zoo, the intrinsic value of individual animals is recognized through welfare practices and education focused on fulfilling animal interests.
Collapse
|
18
|
Santiago-Ávila FJ, Treves A. Poaching of protected wolves fluctuated seasonally and with non-wolf hunting. Sci Rep 2022; 12:1738. [PMID: 35110599 PMCID: PMC8810790 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-05679-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2021] [Accepted: 01/17/2022] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Poaching is the main cause of mortality for many large carnivores, and mitigating it is imperative for the persistence of their populations. For Wisconsin gray wolves (Canis lupus), periods of increased risk in overall mortality and poaching seem to overlap temporally with legal hunting seasons for other large mammals (hunting wolves was prohibited). We analyzed monitoring data from adult, collared wolves in Wisconsin, USA (1979-2012, n = 495) using a competing-risk approach to test explicitly if seasons during which it was legal to train hunting hounds (hounding) or hunt other large mammals (hunting) affected wolves' hazard of cause-specific mortality and disappearance. We found increases in hazard for disappearances and documented ('reported') poaching during seasons with hunting, hounding or snow cover relative to a season without these factors. The 'reported poached' hazard increased > 650% during seasons with hunting and snow cover, which may be due to a seasonal surge in numbers of potential poachers or to some poachers augmenting their activities. Snow cover was a major environmental factor contributing to poaching, presumably through increased detection of wolves. Our study suggests poaching is by far the highest mortality hazard for wolves and reinforces the need for protections and policies targeting poaching of protected populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Adrian Treves
- Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Bobier C, Allen B. The virtue of compassion in compassionate conservation. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2022; 36:e13776. [PMID: 34057247 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13776] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2021] [Revised: 05/07/2021] [Accepted: 05/14/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
The role of ethics is becoming an increasingly important feature of biodiversity conservation dialogue and practice. Compassionate conservationists argue for a prohibition of, or at least a strong presumption against, the adoption of conservation policies that intentionally harm animals. They assert that to be compassionate is to care about animals and that it is antithetical to caring for animals to intentionally harm them. Compassionate conservationists thus criticize many existing conservation practices and policies. Two things together challenge the philosophical foundation of compassionate conservation. First, compassionate conservationists ground their theory in virtue ethics, yet virtue ethics permits exceptions to moral rules, so there cannot be an in-principle prohibition on adopting intentional harm-inducing policies and practices. But not all compassionate conservationists advocate for a prohibition on intentionally harming animals, only a strong presumption against it. This leads to the second point: compassion can motivate a person to adopt a harm-inducing conservation policy or practice when doing so is the best available option in a situation in which animals will be harmed no matter what policy or practice is adopted. Combining these insights with the empirical observation that conservationists regularly find themselves in tragic situations, we arrive at the conclusion that conservationists may regularly advocate for harm-inducing policies and practices from a position of compassion. Article Impact Statement: Compassionate conservationists should accept that the virtuously compassionate person may adopt harm-causing conservation policies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher Bobier
- Department of Theology and Philosophy, Saint Mary's University of Minnesota, Winona, Minnesota, USA
| | - Benjamin Allen
- Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
- Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Coghlan S, Cardilini APA. A critical review of the compassionate conservation debate. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2022; 36:e13760. [PMID: 34057240 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13760] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2020] [Accepted: 01/19/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Compassionate conservation holds that compassion should transform conservation. It has prompted heated debate and has been criticized strongly. We reviewed the debate to characterize compassionate conservation and to philosophically analyze critiques that are recurring and that warrant further critical attention. The necessary elements of compassionate conservation relate to the moral value of sentient animals and conservation and to science and conservation practice. Although compassionate conservation has several nontraditional necessary conditions, it also importantly allows a degree of pluralism in values and scientific judgment regarding animals and conservation practice. We identified 52 specific criticisms from 11 articles that directly critique compassionate conservation. We closely examined 33 of these because they recurred regularly or included substantial questions that required further response. Critics criticized compassionate conservation's ethical foundations, scientific credentials, clarity of application, understanding of compassion, its alleged threat to conservation and biodiversity. Some criticisms, we found, are question begging, confused, or overlook conceptual complexity. These criticisms raise questions for critics and proponents, regarding, for example, equal versus differential intrinsic moral value of different sentient animals (including humans), problems of natural and human-caused suffering of wild animals and predation, and the acceptability of specific conservation practices within compassionate conservation. By addressing recurring and faulty critiques of compassionate conservation and identifying issues for compassionate conservation to address, this review provides a clearer basis for crucial ongoing interdisciplinary dialogue about ethics, values, and conservation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Coghlan
- Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Digital Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Adam P A Cardilini
- School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Kaltenborn BP, Linnell JDC. The Coexistence Potential of Different Wildlife Conservation Frameworks in a Historical Perspective. FRONTIERS IN CONSERVATION SCIENCE 2022. [DOI: 10.3389/fcosc.2021.711480] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Wildlife management in contemporary society means balancing multiple demands in shared landscapes. Perhaps the greatest question facing today's policy makers and wildlife professionals is how to develop frameworks for coexistence between wildlife and the plethora of other land use interests. As a profession, the roots of wildlife management and conservation can be traced back to the 1600's, but most of the relevant frameworks that have shaped the management of wildlife over time have emerged after the mid-1800's and particularly since the 1960's. Here we examine the historical development of the main traits and concepts of a number of management and conservation frameworks that have all contributed to the multifaceted field of contemporary wildlife management and conservation in Europe and North America. We outline a chronology of concepts and ideologies with their underlying key ideas, values, and operational indicators, and make an assessment of the potential of each paradigm as a coexistence framework for dealing with wildlife. We tie this to a discussion of ethics and argue that the lack of unity in approaches is deeply embedded in the differences between rule-based (deontological) vs. results-based (consequentialist) or context dependent (particularist) ethics. We suggest that some of the conflicts between ideologies, value sets and frameworks can be resolved as an issue of scale and possibly zonation in shared landscapes. We also argue that approaches built on anthropocentrism, value pluralism and environmental pragmatism are most likely to succeed in complex socio-political landscapes. However, we caution against moral relativism and the belief that all types of cultural values are equally valid as a basis for contemporary wildlife management.
Collapse
|
22
|
Sommer NR, Ferraro KM. An interest‐based rights ethic for wildlife management and applications to behavioral training. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.616] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Nathalie R. Sommer
- Yale School of the Environment New Haven Connecticut USA
- Yale Law School: Law, Animal and Ethics Program New Haven Connecticut USA
| | - Kristy M. Ferraro
- Yale School of the Environment New Haven Connecticut USA
- Yale Law School: Law, Animal and Ethics Program New Haven Connecticut USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Rudd LF, Allred S, Bright Ross JG, Hare D, Nkomo MN, Shanker K, Allen T, Biggs D, Dickman A, Dunaway M, Ghosh R, González NT, Kepe T, Mbizah MM, Middleton SL, Oommen MA, Paudel K, Sillero-Zubiri C, Dávalos A. Overcoming racism in the twin spheres of conservation science and practice. Proc Biol Sci 2021; 288:20211871. [PMID: 34727721 PMCID: PMC8564623 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2021.1871] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
It is time to acknowledge and overcome conservation's deep-seated systemic racism, which has historically marginalized Black, Indigenous and people of colour (BIPOC) communities and continues to do so. We describe how the mutually reinforcing ‘twin spheres’ of conservation science and conservation practice perpetuate this systemic racism. We trace how institutional structures in conservation science (e.g. degree programmes, support and advancement opportunities, course syllabuses) can systematically produce conservation graduates with partial and problematic conceptions of conservation's history and contemporary purposes. Many of these graduates go on to work in conservation practice, reproducing conservation's colonial history by contributing to programmes based on outmoded conservation models that disproportionately harm rural BIPOC communities and further restrict access and inclusion for BIPOC conservationists. We provide practical, actionable proposals for breaking vicious cycles of racism in the system of conservation we have with virtuous cycles of inclusion, equality, equity and participation in the system of conservation we want.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lauren F Rudd
- Department of Zoology, Oxford University, UK.,Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Oxford University, UK
| | - Shorna Allred
- Center for Conservation Social Sciences, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, Cornell University, USA.,Department of Global Development, Cornell University, USA
| | - Julius G Bright Ross
- Department of Zoology, Oxford University, UK.,Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Oxford University, UK
| | - Darragh Hare
- Department of Zoology, Oxford University, UK.,Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Oxford University, UK.,Center for Conservation Social Sciences, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, Cornell University, USA
| | - Merlyn Nomusa Nkomo
- Fitzpatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town South Africa, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Kartik Shanker
- Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, India.,Dakshin Foundation, India
| | | | - Duan Biggs
- Environmental Futures Research Institute, Griffith University, Australia
| | - Amy Dickman
- Department of Zoology, Oxford University, UK.,Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Oxford University, UK.,Lion Landscapes, Tanzania
| | | | - Ritwick Ghosh
- Global Futures Laboratory, Arizona State University, USA
| | | | - Thembela Kepe
- Department of Geography, University of Toronto, Canada.,Geography Department, Rhodes University, South Africa
| | - Moreangels M Mbizah
- Wildlife Conservation Action, Zimbabwe.,Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Switzerland.,Sustainability Research Unit, Nelson Mandela University, George, South Africa
| | - Sara L Middleton
- Department of Zoology, Oxford University, UK.,Department of Plant Sciences, Oxford University, UK
| | | | - Kumar Paudel
- Greenhood Nepal, Nepal.,Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, UK
| | - Claudio Sillero-Zubiri
- Department of Zoology, Oxford University, UK.,Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Oxford University, UK.,Born Free Foundation, Ethiopia and UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Lean CH. Invasive species increase biodiversity and, therefore, services: An argument of equivocations. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.553] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher Hunter Lean
- Department of Philosophy University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales 2006 Australia
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Dalhousie University Halifax Nova Scotia Canada
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Melton CB, Reside AE, Simmonds JS, Mcdonald PG, Major RE, Crates R, Catterall CP, Clarke MF, Grey MJ, Davitt G, Ingwersen D, Robinson D, Maron M. Evaluating the evidence of culling a native species for conservation benefits. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.549] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Courtney B. Melton
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences The University of Queensland St Lucia Queensland Australia
| | - April E. Reside
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences The University of Queensland St Lucia Queensland Australia
| | - Jeremy S. Simmonds
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences The University of Queensland St Lucia Queensland Australia
| | - Paul G. Mcdonald
- School of Environmental and Rural Science University of New England Armidale New South Wales Australia
| | - Richard E. Major
- Australian Museum Research Institute Australian Museum Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - Ross Crates
- Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University Canberra Acton Australia
| | - Carla P. Catterall
- School of Environment and Science Griffith University Nathan Queensland Australia
| | - Michael F. Clarke
- Research Centre for Future Landscapes, Department of Ecology, Environment and Evolution La Trobe University Melbourne Victoria Australia
| | - Merilyn J. Grey
- Research Centre for Future Landscapes, Department of Ecology, Environment and Evolution La Trobe University Melbourne Victoria Australia
| | | | | | - Doug Robinson
- Trust for Nature Melbourne Victoria Australia
- School of Life Sciences La Trobe University Bundoora Victoria Australia
| | - Martine Maron
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences The University of Queensland St Lucia Queensland Australia
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Batavia C, Nelson MP, Bruskotter JT, Jones MS, Yanco E, Ramp D, Bekoff M, Wallach AD. Emotion as a source of moral understanding in conservation. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2021; 35:1380-1387. [PMID: 33410227 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13689] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2020] [Revised: 12/28/2020] [Accepted: 12/30/2020] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Recent debates around the meaning and implications of compassionate conservation suggest that some conservationists consider emotion a false and misleading basis for moral judgment and decision making. We trace these beliefs to a long-standing, gendered sociocultural convention and argue that the disparagement of emotion as a source of moral understanding is both empirically and morally problematic. According to the current scientific and philosophical understanding, reason and emotion are better understood as partners, rather than opposites. Nonetheless, the two have historically been seen as separate, with reason elevated in association with masculinity and emotion (especially nurturing emotion) dismissed or delegitimated in association with femininity. These associations can be situated in a broader, dualistic, and hierarchical logic used to maintain power for a dominant male (White, able-bodied, upper class, heterosexual) human class. We argue that emotion should be affirmed by conservationists for the novel and essential insights it contributes to conservation ethics. We consider the specific example of compassion and characterize it as an emotional experience of interdependence and shared vulnerability. This experience highlights conservationists' responsibilities to individual beings, enhancing established and widely accepted beliefs that conservationists have a duty to protect populations, species, and ecosystems (or biodiversity). We argue compassion, thus understood, should be embraced as a core virtue of conservation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chelsea Batavia
- Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331, U.S.A
| | - Michael Paul Nelson
- Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331, U.S.A
| | - Jeremy T Bruskotter
- School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, 210 Kottman Hall, Columbus, OH, 43210, U.S.A
| | - Megan S Jones
- Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, U.S.A
| | - Esty Yanco
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia
| | - Daniel Ramp
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia
| | - Marc Bekoff
- Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309, U.S.A
| | - Arian D Wallach
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Raphela TD, Pillay N. Explaining the Effect of Crop-Raiding on Food Security of Subsistence Farmers of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. FRONTIERS IN SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 2021. [DOI: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.687177] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Across the globe, crop-raiding has been known to have a significant impact on subsistence farmers livelihoods in developing countries. However, the relationship between crop-raiding and food security of small-scale farmers is not well-studied. We investigated the effects of crop-raiding on homestead food security of a subsistence farming community on the edge of the Hluhluwe Game Reserve in northern KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. We analyzed the relative calories lost to important food security crops (maize, common bean, spinach, and beetroot) damage by crop raiders. In addition, we conducted questionnaire surveys of resident farmers and conservationists of the Hluhluwe Game Reserve to explain the effect of crop-raiding on food security. We firstly assessed how crop loss influenced relative calorie loss as an indicator of food security by comparing relative calorie loss with two predictors of food security: homestead size and contribution of crops to the farmers' food basket. Larger homesteads were more prone to food insecurity as compared to smaller households as they experienced higher calorie loss, especially in terms of maize (Zea mays), the most important food security crop in South Africa. This was because maize contributed the highest (91–100%) to the homestead food basket of these farmers. Secondly, we assessed farmers and conservationists' perceptions and opinions on crop-raiding issues. Farmers reported maize as the crop most damaged by crop-raiding animals. Conservationists reported crop-raiding with other major problems in and around the Reserve; this showed that conservationists acknowledge the issue of crop-raiding as a problem for subsistence farming communities abutting protected areas. Both farmers and conservationists reported insects as the most damaging crop raider. Our study suggests that larger homesteads, particularly where maize contributes substantially to homestead food baskets, are more prone to food insecurity in the rural subsistence farming community that we studied. In concordance with many studies, insects were reported as the culprits by both farmers and conservationists. Small, ubiquitous animals, such as insects are reported to cause much crop damage where they occur. The findings of our study suggest that the food security of the studied farmers is threatened by crop-raiding.
Collapse
|
28
|
Ferraro KM, Ferraro AL, Sommer NR. Challenges facing cross‐disciplinary collaboration in conservation ethics. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.523] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Kristy M. Ferraro
- School of the Environment Yale University New Haven Connecticut USA
- Law, Animal and Ethics Program Yale Law School New Haven Connecticut USA
| | | | - Nathalie R. Sommer
- School of the Environment Yale University New Haven Connecticut USA
- Law, Animal and Ethics Program Yale Law School New Haven Connecticut USA
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Freire R, Massaro M, McDonald S, Trathan P, Nicol CJ. A Citizen Science Trial to Assess Perception of Wild Penguin Welfare. Front Vet Sci 2021; 8:698685. [PMID: 34386538 PMCID: PMC8353176 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.698685] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2021] [Accepted: 06/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Wild penguins are facing increased threats to their populations and their welfare as a consequence of human activities. Understanding the perception of animal welfare is essential to identify ethical concerns related to the negative impact of anthropogenic factors on wild species and to guide conservation efforts that reflect societal values. Since penguin conservation is of general interest, we examined the human dimension of welfare assessment across a range of interest groups concerned with penguins, seabird biology and wildlife conservation. We provided participants with a Penguin Welfare Assessment Tool (PWAT) based on the five domains model. The PWAT supports consideration of the impact of four physical aspects on welfare-relevant mental states. Bibliometric analysis of keywords from 347 scientific articles indicated that penguins around the world face five main types (themes) of anthropogenic factors and we then developed five hypothetical scenarios, each related to one theme. Seventy-five participants scored the overall impact of the events described in the scenarios on penguin welfare as negative using the PWAT. Participants rated short-duration, high-intensity events (i.e., being trapped in a ghost fishing net) as having a significantly more severe impact on penguin welfare than low-intensity, long-duration events (P < 0.0001). Scores provided by participants for each domain for each scenario were largely as expected and we found good correlation (all P < 0.0001) between the physical domains and “mental state” for all scenarios, indicating that the tool was facilitating the participants' assessment of welfare. No evidence was found that experience of working or studying penguins, or indeed any other demographic factor investigated, influenced the assessments of welfare. We found little agreement between participants in the scores provided (unalike scores mostly between 0.7 and 0.8), and agreement between participants with experience of working with penguins was no better than between participants without such experience. We discuss the possibility that low agreement within different interest groups may be improved by providing more scientific information to support the evaluation of penguin welfare. We conclude that scientific knowledge of penguin biological responses to anthropogenic factors is vital to support the evaluation of wild penguin welfare by the public and other stakeholders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rafael Freire
- Institute for Land, Water and Society, School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia
| | - Melanie Massaro
- Institute for Land, Water and Society, School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia
| | - Simon McDonald
- Spatial Data Analysis Unit, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia
| | | | - Christine J Nicol
- Royal Veterinary College, University of London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Oommen MA. Beasts in the Garden: Human-Wildlife Coexistence in India's Past and Present. FRONTIERS IN CONSERVATION SCIENCE 2021. [DOI: 10.3389/fcosc.2021.703432] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Human-wildlife encounters are characterized by a diverse array of engagements located on the continuum between the negative and the positive. In India, protracted conflict with wildlife is reflected in violence across a range of rural and urban ecologies, but is only one aspect of the multiple facets of ongoing human-non-human encounter. Within these shared spaces, there are often equally significant elements of acceptance, tolerance and reverence. Together, these are dependent on context, and can be explored via lived experiences and worldviews, and a moral economy of human-wildlife and human-human relationships. Historically, though hardly static, such relationships have been mediated by the ontological positioning of traditional societies and their embedded rules and practises. In recent years, these tenuous equilibria have been disrupted by top-down catalysts, including universalist conservation agendas percolating from the state and the global arena. This study aims to explore the changing nature of coexistence by using several historical and contemporary vignettes in relation to key species that routinely “transgress” from their primary natural habitats into the “garden” spaces of human cultivation and habitation. The study will argue that insights at the intersection of environmental history, political ecology and anthropology can improve our understanding of human-wildlife coexistence in India as well as across the world.
Collapse
|
31
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Schmidt C, Herskin M, Michel V, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Winckler C, Blome S, Boklund A, Bøtner A, Dhollander S, Rapagnà C, Van der Stede Y, Miranda Chueca MA. Research priorities to fill knowledge gaps in wild boar management measures that could improve the control of African swine fever in wild boar populations. EFSA J 2021; 19:e06716. [PMID: 34354769 PMCID: PMC8319816 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6716] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
The European Commission asked EFSA to provide study designs for the investigation of four research domains (RDs) according to major gaps in knowledge identified by EFSA in a report published in 2019: (RD 1) African swine fever (ASF) epidemiology in wild boar; (RD 2) ASF transmission by vectors; (RD 3) African swine fever virus (ASFV) survival in the environment, and (RD 4) the patterns of seasonality of ASF in wild boar and domestic pigs in the EU. In this Scientific Opinion, the second RD on ASF epidemiology in wild boar is addressed. Twenty-nine research objectives were proposed by the working group and broader ASF expert networks and 23 of these research objectives met a prespecified inclusion criterion. Fourteen of these 23 research objectives met the predefined threshold for selection and so were prioritised based on the following set of criteria: (1) the impact on ASF management; (2) the feasibility or practicality to carry out the study; (3) the potential implementation of study results in practice; (4) a possible short time-frame study (< 1 year); (5) the novelty of the study; and (6) if it was a priority for risk managers. Finally, after further elimination of three of the proposed research objectives due to overlapping scope of studies published during the development of this opinion, 11 research priorities were elaborated into short research proposals, considering the potential impact on ASF management and the period of one year for the research activities.
Collapse
|
32
|
Croft DB, Witte I. The Perils of Being Populous: Control and Conservation of Abundant Kangaroo Species. Animals (Basel) 2021; 11:ani11061753. [PMID: 34208227 PMCID: PMC8230889 DOI: 10.3390/ani11061753] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2021] [Revised: 06/08/2021] [Accepted: 06/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Australia's first people managed landscapes for kangaroo species as important elements of their diet, accoutrements and ceremony. This developed and persisted for about 65,000 years. The second wave of colonists from the United Kingdom, Ireland and many subsequent countries introduced familiar domesticated livestock and they have imposed their agricultural practices on the same landscapes since 1788. This heralded an ongoing era of management of kangaroos that are perceived as competitors to livestock and unwanted consumers of crops. Even so, a kangaroo image remains the iconic identifier of Australia. Kangaroo management is shrouded in dogma and propaganda and creates a tension along a loose rural-city divide. This divide is further dissected by the promotion of the consumption of kangaroo products as an ecological good marred by valid concerns about hygiene and animal welfare. In the last decade, the fervour to suppress and micro-manage populations of some kangaroo species has mounted. This includes suppression within protected areas that have generally been considered as safe havens. This review explores these tensions between the conservation of iconic and yet abundant wildlife, and conflict with people and the various interfaces at which they meet kangaroos.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Benjamin Croft
- School of Biological Earth & Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
- Correspondence:
| | - Ingrid Witte
- Rooseach@Rootourism, Adelaide River, NT 0846, Australia;
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Poonamallee L, Joy S. Rousing Collective Compassion at Societal Level: Lessons from Newspaper Reports on Asian Tsunami in India. IIM KOZHIKODE SOCIETY & MANAGEMENT REVIEW 2021. [DOI: 10.1177/22779752211010554] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Compassion involves feeling others’ pain, being moved by it, and acting in a manner that eases the suffering. Originally conceptualized as an individual-level phenomenon, organization scholars extend the concept to the organizational level as ‘collective compassion’ and call for expanding it to societal levels. We note that the dynamics of rousing collective compassion, however, may be different in organizational as opposed to societal contexts: the observers and the sufferers are in personal or close contact in the former context, whereas mass media is often the bridge connecting both in the latter. In this paper, we seek to deepen the understanding of the dynamics of rousing collective compassion at the societal level, by delineating the elements in media reports that can feed into compassion rousing processes. Based on a thematic analysis of newspaper reports from India on the first seven days after the Asian Tsunami, we identify four groups of elements—‘attention drawing elements’, ‘cognitive framing elements’, ‘affective arousal elements’ and ‘behaviour modelling elements’—which can respectively influence each of the four individual compassion subprocesses, namely noticing, appraising, feeling and acting. We offer a conceptual model to comprehensively represent collective compassion rousing at societal level, integrating our findings with prior research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Simy Joy
- Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode, Kozhikode, Kerala, India
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Animal Harms and Food Production: Informing Ethical Choices. Animals (Basel) 2021; 11:ani11051225. [PMID: 33922738 PMCID: PMC8146968 DOI: 10.3390/ani11051225] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2021] [Revised: 04/17/2021] [Accepted: 04/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Consideration of animal welfare in food choices has become an influential contemporary theme. Traditional animal welfare views about food have been largely restricted to direct and intentional harms to livestock in intensive animal agriculture settings. However, many harms to animals arising from diverse food production practices in the world are exerted indirectly and unintentionally and often affect wildlife. Here we apply a qualitative analysis of food production by considering the breadth of harms caused by different food production systems to wild as well as domestic animals. Production systems are identified that produce relatively few and relatively many harms. The ethical implications of these findings are discussed for consumers concerned with the broad animal welfare impacts of their food choices. Abstract Ethical food choices have become an important societal theme in post-industrial countries. Many consumers are particularly interested in the animal welfare implications of the various foods they may choose to consume. However, concepts in animal welfare are rapidly evolving towards consideration of all animals (including wildlife) in contemporary approaches such as “One Welfare”. This approach requires recognition that negative impacts (harms) may be intentional and obvious (e.g., slaughter of livestock) but also include the under-appreciated indirect or unintentional harms that often impact wildlife (e.g., land clearing). This is especially true in the Anthropocene, where impacts on non-human life are almost ubiquitous across all human activities. We applied the “harms” model of animal welfare assessment to several common food production systems and provide a framework for assessing the breadth (not intensity) of harms imposed. We considered all harms caused to wild as well as domestic animals, both direct effects and indirect effects. We described 21 forms of harm and considered how they applied to 16 forms of food production. Our analysis suggests that all food production systems harm animals to some degree and that the majority of these harms affect wildlife, not livestock. We conclude that the food production systems likely to impose the greatest overall breadth of harms to animals are intensive animal agriculture industries (e.g., dairy) that rely on a secondary food production system (e.g., cropping), while harvesting of locally available wild plants, mushrooms or seaweed is likely to impose the least harms. We present this conceptual analysis as a resource for those who want to begin considering the complex animal welfare trade-offs involved in their food choices.
Collapse
|
35
|
Nelson MP, Batavia C, Brandis KJ, Carroll SP, Celermajer D, Linklater W, Lundgren E, Ramp D, Steer J, Yanco E, Wallach AD. Challenges at the intersection of conservation and ethics: Reply to Meyer et al. 2021. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2021; 35:373-377. [PMID: 33351969 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13666] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2020] [Revised: 10/17/2020] [Accepted: 10/22/2020] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Paul Nelson
- Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331, U.S.A
| | - Chelsea Batavia
- Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331, U.S.A
| | - Kate J Brandis
- Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Environmental and Earth Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia
| | - Scott P Carroll
- Department of Entomology & Nematology, University of California Davis, 1 Shield Avenue, Davis, CA, 95616, U.S.A
| | - Danielle Celermajer
- Department of Sociology and Social Policy, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia
| | - Wayne Linklater
- Department of Environmental Studies, California State University - Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Amador Hall, 555D, Sacramento, CA, 95819, U.S.A
- Centre for Biodiversity & Restoration Ecology, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, 6021, New Zealand
- Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, 6019, South Africa
| | - Erick Lundgren
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia
| | - Daniel Ramp
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia
| | - Jamie Steer
- Biodiversity Department, Greater Wellington Regional Council, Wellington, 6142, New Zealand
| | - Esty Yanco
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia
| | - Arian D Wallach
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
D’Cruze N, Green J, Elwin A, Schmidt-Burbach J. Trading Tactics: Time to Rethink the Global Trade in Wildlife. Animals (Basel) 2020; 10:E2456. [PMID: 33371486 PMCID: PMC7767496 DOI: 10.3390/ani10122456] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2020] [Revised: 12/15/2020] [Accepted: 12/17/2020] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
The Covid-19 outbreak has brought about fresh and intensified scrutiny of the wildlife trade, which substantively involves commerce in exotic pets. In response, major policy decisions involving trade bans have ensued, with calls for similar such action to be applied across the trade chain. Yet, these measures have been criticised, largely based on concerns that they risk exacerbating poverty, undermining human rights, damaging conservation incentives, and otherwise harming sustainable development and conservation efforts. Instead, many critics propose improved regulation of the status quo, with the intention of nurturing a legal, sustainable, safe, humane, and equitable wildlife trade. Herein, we provide a countering view that outlines how the risks presented by the wildlife trade are becoming increasingly recognised as being both manifold and severe; and raise concerns that the goal of a well-regulated wildlife trade is becoming increasingly exposed as a mirage. We conclude that while pursuing the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals (with their focus on poverty alleviation, food security, public health, and conservation) is enduringly vital, a flourishing wildlife trade is not. Given that the exploitation of wildlife, including for the pet trade, has been identified as one of the dominant drivers of biodiversity loss, emergence of zoonotic infectious disease, animal suffering, and financial instability, perpetuating the concept of utilising a regulated wildlife trade as the default approach to protect people and planet is in urgent need of re-evaluation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neil D’Cruze
- World Animal Protection, 222 Gray’s Inn Rd., London WC1X 8HB, UK; (J.G.); (A.E.); (J.S.-B.)
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Boronyak L, Jacobs B, Wallach A. Transitioning towards human-large carnivore coexistence in extensive grazing systems. AMBIO 2020; 49:1982-1991. [PMID: 32385811 PMCID: PMC7568737 DOI: 10.1007/s13280-020-01340-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2020] [Revised: 04/16/2020] [Accepted: 04/18/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
In light of escalating threats to biodiversity, conflicts between humans and large carnivores in production landscapes must be resolved. We explore how interactions between humans, large carnivores, and livestock can be modified to promote coexistence. We identify four rationales for building coexistence capacities in extensive rangeland livestock production systems: (1) livestock production is a dominant terrestrial land use; (2) large carnivores provide critical contributions to ecological functions; (3) the persecution of large carnivores has high ethical, welfare, reputational and social costs; and (4) a growing body of evidence shows that lethal control can be counterproductive to reducing predation risk. Two key leverage points to foster human-carnivore coexistence are the adoption of preventive non-lethal innovations, and the creation of an enabling environment. Leverage points must be appropriate at the local landscape scale and contribute towards global efforts to conserve large carnivores.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise Boronyak
- Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, PO BOX 123, Ultimo, NSW 2007 Australia
| | - Brent Jacobs
- Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, PO BOX 123, Ultimo, NSW 2007 Australia
| | - Arian Wallach
- School of Life Sciences and the Centre for Compassionate Conservation, University of Technology Sydney, PO BOX 123, Ultimo, NSW 2007 Australia
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Hampton JO, Jones B, McGreevy PD. Social License and Animal Welfare: Developments from the Past Decade in Australia. Animals (Basel) 2020; 10:E2237. [PMID: 33260531 PMCID: PMC7760378 DOI: 10.3390/ani10122237] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2020] [Revised: 11/21/2020] [Accepted: 11/26/2020] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
"Social license to operate" (SLO) refers to the implicit process by which a community gives an industry approval to conduct its current business activities. It has become an important focus for many natural resource management fields (especially mining), but there is less awareness of its role in animal use industries. This article describes how animal welfare has recently become arguably the most crucial consideration underpinning the SLO for Australian animal use industries. It describes several industries in Australia that have faced animal welfare scrutiny in the past decade (2010-2020) to illustrate how persistent issues can erode SLO, lead to regulatory bans, and decimate previously profitable industries. Industries described include the live export of livestock, greyhound and horse racing, kangaroo harvesting, and dairy and sheep farming. In these cases, there has been intense public discourse but little scholarly progress. This article examines factors that may have contributed to these developments and suggests approaches that may assist these industries in maintaining their SLO. Animal welfare has become a mainstream societal concern in Australia, and effective management of the community's expectations will be essential for the maintenance of SLO for many animal use industries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jordan O. Hampton
- Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
| | - Bidda Jones
- RSPCA Australia, P.O. Box 265, Deakin West, ACT 2600, Australia;
- Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia;
| | - Paul D. McGreevy
- Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia;
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Affiliation(s)
- Nitin Sekar
- Wildlife and Habitats Division, WWF-India, New Delhi, India.
| | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Hampton JO, Baker SE, Beausoleil NJ, Cattet M, Forsyth DM, McMahon CR, Proulx G, Warburton B. Animal welfare science aids conservation. Science 2020; 370:180-181. [PMID: 33033212 DOI: 10.1126/science.abe2171] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Jordan O Hampton
- School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia.
| | - Sandra E Baker
- Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, Recanati-Kaplan Centre, University of Oxford, OX13 5JL, UK
| | - Ngaio J Beausoleil
- Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, School of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
| | - Marc Cattet
- RGL Recovery Wildlife Health and Veterinary Services, Saskatoon, SK S7H 4A6, Canada
| | - David M Forsyth
- Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, Department of Primary Industries, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia.,School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
| | - Clive R McMahon
- IMOS Animal Satellite Tagging, Sydney Institute of Marine Science, Mosman, NSW 2088, Australia
| | - Gilbert Proulx
- Alpha Wildlife Research & Management Ltd., Sherwood Park, AB T8H 1W3, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Lynch KE, Blumstein DT. Hidden ethical costs of conservation. Science 2020; 370:179-180. [PMID: 33033210 DOI: 10.1126/science.abe2505] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Kate E Lynch
- Department of Philosophy, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
| | - Daniel T Blumstein
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Batavia C, Nelson MP, Wallach AD. The moral residue of conservation. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2020; 34:1114-1121. [PMID: 31953967 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13463] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2019] [Revised: 01/04/2020] [Accepted: 01/11/2020] [Indexed: 05/23/2023]
Abstract
Should conservationists use lethal management to control introduced wildlife populations? Should they kill individual animals to protect endangered species? Are trade-offs that prioritize some values at the expense of others morally appropriate? These sorts of ethical questions are common in conservation. In debating such questions, conservationists often seem to presume 1 of 2 possible answers: the act in question is right or it is wrong. But morality in conservation is considerably more complex than this simple binary suggests. A robust conservation ethic requires a vocabulary that gives voice to the uncertainty and unease that arise when what seems to be the best available course of action also seems to involve a measure of wrongdoing. The philosophical literature on moral residue and moral dilemmas supplies this vocabulary. Moral dilemmas arise when one must neglect certain moral requirements to fulfill others. Under such circumstances, even the best possible decision leaves a moral residue, which is experienced emotionally as some form of grief. Examples of conservation scenarios that leave a moral residue include management of introduced rabbits in Australia, trophy hunting in Africa, and forest management trade-offs in the Pacific Northwest. Moral residue is integral to the moral experience of conservationists today, and grief is an appropriate response to many decisions conservationists must make. Article impact statement: Defensible conservation decisions may neglect moral requirements, leaving a moral residue; conservationists should respond with grief.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chelsea Batavia
- Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331, U.S.A
| | - Michael Paul Nelson
- Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331, U.S.A
| | - Arian D Wallach
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Wallach AD, Batavia C, Bekoff M, Alexander S, Baker L, Ben‐Ami D, Boronyak L, Cardilin APA, Carmel Y, Celermajer D, Coghlan S, Dahdal Y, Gomez JJ, Kaplan G, Keynan O, Khalilieh A, Kopnina H, Lynn WS, Narayanan Y, Riley S, Santiago‐Ávila FJ, Yanco E, Zemanova MA, Ramp D. Recognizing animal personhood in compassionate conservation. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2020; 34:1097-1106. [PMID: 32144823 PMCID: PMC7540678 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13494] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2019] [Revised: 01/24/2020] [Accepted: 02/28/2020] [Indexed: 05/07/2023]
Abstract
Compassionate conservation is based on the ethical position that actions taken to protect biodiversity should be guided by compassion for all sentient beings. Critics argue that there are 3 core reasons harming animals is acceptable in conservation programs: the primary purpose of conservation is biodiversity protection; conservation is already compassionate to animals; and conservation should prioritize compassion to humans. We used argument analysis to clarify the values and logics underlying the debate around compassionate conservation. We found that objections to compassionate conservation are expressions of human exceptionalism, the view that humans are of a categorically separate and higher moral status than all other species. In contrast, compassionate conservationists believe that conservation should expand its moral community by recognizing all sentient beings as persons. Personhood, in an ethical sense, implies the individual is owed respect and should not be treated merely as a means to other ends. On scientific and ethical grounds, there are good reasons to extend personhood to sentient animals, particularly in conservation. The moral exclusion or subordination of members of other species legitimates the ongoing manipulation and exploitation of the living worlds, the very reason conservation was needed in the first place. Embracing compassion can help dismantle human exceptionalism, recognize nonhuman personhood, and navigate a more expansive moral space.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arian D. Wallach
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
| | - Chelsea Batavia
- Department of Forest Ecosystems and SocietyOregon State UniversityCorvallisOR97331U.S.A.
| | - Marc Bekoff
- Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderCO80309U.S.A.
| | | | - Liv Baker
- Animal Behavior and Conservation ProgramHunter College CUNYNew YorkNYU.S.A.
| | - Dror Ben‐Ami
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
- Compassionate Conservation Middle East, Steinhardt Museum of Natural HistoryTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
| | - Louise Boronyak
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
- Institute for Sustainable FuturesUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
| | - Adam P. A. Cardilin
- Faculty of Science Engineering and Built EnvironmentDeakin UniversityWaurn PondsVIC3216Australia
| | - Yohay Carmel
- Division of Environmental, Water and Agricultural EngineeringTechnion Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifa32000Israel
| | - Danielle Celermajer
- Department of Sociology and Social Policy, Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesThe University of SydneySydneyNSW2006Australia
| | - Simon Coghlan
- School of Computing and Information Systems, Melbourne School of EngineeringThe University of MelbourneParkvilleVIC3010Australia
| | | | - Jonatan J. Gomez
- Departamento de Ciencias BásicasUniversidad Nacional de LujánRutas 5 y 7Luján6700Argentina
| | - Gisela Kaplan
- School of Science & TechnologyUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleNSW2351Australia
| | - Oded Keynan
- Compassionate Conservation Middle East, Steinhardt Museum of Natural HistoryTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
- Dead Sea & Arava Science CentreCentral Arava BranchHatzevaIsrael
| | | | - Helen Kopnina
- The Hague University of Applied Sciences, International BusinessJohanna Westerdijkplein 75EN Den Haag2521the Netherlands
| | - William S. Lynn
- George Perkins Marsh InstituteClark UniversityWorcesterMA01710U.S.A.
| | - Yamini Narayanan
- School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts and EducationDeakin UniversityMelbourneVIC3125Australia
| | - Sophie Riley
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
- Faculty of LawUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
| | - Francisco J. Santiago‐Ávila
- Carnivore Coexistence Lab, Nelson Institute for Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin‐MadisonMadisonWI53706U.S.A.
| | - Esty Yanco
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
| | - Miriam A. Zemanova
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
| | - Daniel Ramp
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyNSW2007Australia
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Hampton JO, Fisher PM, Warburton B. Reconsidering humaneness. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2020; 34:1107-1113. [PMID: 32104929 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13489] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2019] [Revised: 02/19/2020] [Accepted: 02/21/2020] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Animal welfare is increasingly important in the understanding of how human activity affects wildlife, but the conservation community is still grappling with meaningful terminology when communicating this aspect of their work. One example is the use of the terms "humane" and "inhumane." These terms are used in scientific contexts, but they also have legal and social definitions. Without reference to a defined technical standard, describing an action or outcome as humane (or inhumane) constrains science communication because the terms have variable definitions; establish a binary (something is either humane or inhumane); and imply underlying values reflecting a moral prescription. Invoking the term "humane," and especially the strong antithesis "inhumane," can infer a normative judgment of how animals ought to be treated (humane) or ought not to be treated (inhumane). The consequences of applying this terminology are not just academic. Publicizing certain practices as humane can create blurred lines around contentious animal welfare questions and, perhaps intentionally, defer scrutiny of actual welfare outcomes. Labeling other practices as inhumane can be used cynically to erode their public support. We suggest that, if this normative language is used in science, it should always be accompanied by a clear, contextual definition of what is meant by humane.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Penny M Fisher
- Landcare Research, PO Box 69040, Lincoln, 7640, New Zealand
| | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
|
46
|
Lynch KE, Blumstein DT. Effective Conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 2020; 35:857-860. [PMID: 32807502 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2020.07.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2020] [Revised: 07/14/2020] [Accepted: 07/21/2020] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
Effective altruism is a growing humanitarian movement with a track record of success in evaluating the effectiveness of charitable spending across a wide range of projects. We suggest ways in which the foundations of this movement can be applied to the complex world of conservation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate E Lynch
- Department of Philosophy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| | - Daniel T Blumstein
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Lynn WS, Santiago-Ávila FJ, Hadidian J, Wallach AD, Lindenmayer J. Misunderstandings of science and ethics in the moral panic over cats: reply to Crespin et al. 2020. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2020; 34:1038-1040. [PMID: 32372466 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13527] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2020] [Accepted: 04/03/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- William S Lynn
- George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University, 950 Main Street, Worcester, MA, 01710, U.S.A
| | - Francisco J Santiago-Ávila
- Carnivore Coexistence Lab, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 70 Science Hall, 550 North Park Street, Madison, WI, 53706, U.S.A
| | - John Hadidian
- Center for Leadership in Global Sustainability, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 900 N. Glebe Road, Arlington, VA, 22208, U.S.A
| | - Arian D Wallach
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Crespin SJ, Moreira-Arce D, Simonetti JA. Killing with compassion for the sake of conservation: response to Lynn et al. 2019. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2020; 34:1035-1037. [PMID: 32372489 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13525] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2019] [Revised: 11/09/2019] [Accepted: 11/15/2019] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Silvio J Crespin
- Laboratorio de Conservación Biológica, Departamento de Ciencias Ecológicas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 653, Las Palmeras 3425, Ñuñoa, Santiago, 7800003, Chile
- Laboratorio de Estudios del Antropoceno, Departamento de Manejo de Bosques y Medio Ambiente, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad de Concepción, Casilla 160-C, Correo 3, Concepción, Victoria, 631, Chile
- Instituto de Investigaciones Tropicales de El Salvador, Colonia y Pasaje Layco #1247, San Salvador, El Salvador
| | - Dario Moreira-Arce
- Laboratorio de Estudios del Antropoceno, Departamento de Manejo de Bosques y Medio Ambiente, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad de Concepción, Casilla 160-C, Correo 3, Concepción, Victoria, 631, Chile
| | - Javier A Simonetti
- Laboratorio de Conservación Biológica, Departamento de Ciencias Ecológicas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 653, Las Palmeras 3425, Ñuñoa, Santiago, 7800003, Chile
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Brittain S, Ibbett H, de Lange E, Dorward L, Hoyte S, Marino A, Milner-Gulland EJ, Newth J, Rakotonarivo S, Veríssimo D, Lewis J. Ethical considerations when conservation research involves people. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2020; 34:925-933. [PMID: 31953971 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13464] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2019] [Revised: 12/18/2019] [Accepted: 12/24/2019] [Indexed: 05/28/2023]
Abstract
Social science is becoming increasingly important in conservation, with more studies involving methodologies that collect data from and about people. Conservation science is a normative and applied discipline designed to support and inform management and practice. Poor research practice risks harming participants and, researchers, and can leave negative legacies. Often, those at the forefront of field-based research are early-career researchers, many of whom enter their first research experience ill-prepared for the ethical conundrums they may face. We draw on our own experiences as early-career researchers to illuminate how ethical challenges arise during conservation research that involves human participants. Specifically, we considered ethical review procedures, conflicts of values, and power relations, and devised broad recommendations on how to navigate ethical challenges when they arise during research. In particular, we recommend researchers apply reflexivity (i.e., thinking that allows researchers to recognize the effect researchers have on the research) to help navigate ethical challenges and encourage greater engagement with ethical review processes and the development of ethical guidelines for conservation research that involves human participants. Such guidelines must be accompanied by the integration of rigorous ethical training into conservation education. We believe our experiences are not uncommon and can be avoided and hope to spark discussion to contribute to a more socially just conservation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Brittain
- Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, 11a Mansfield Rd, Oxford, OX1 3SZ, U.K
- Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Outer Cir, London, NW1 4RY, U.K
| | - Harriet Ibbett
- Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, 11a Mansfield Rd, Oxford, OX1 3SZ, U.K
- School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, LL57 2DG, U.K
| | - Emiel de Lange
- School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL, U.K
| | - Leejiah Dorward
- Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, 11a Mansfield Rd, Oxford, OX1 3SZ, U.K
- School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, LL57 2DG, U.K
| | - Simon Hoyte
- Department of Anthropology, University College London, Gower St, Bloomsbury, London, WC1E 6BT, U.K
| | - Agnese Marino
- Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Outer Cir, London, NW1 4RY, U.K
- Department of Anthropology, University College London, Gower St, Bloomsbury, London, WC1E 6BT, U.K
| | - E J Milner-Gulland
- Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, 11a Mansfield Rd, Oxford, OX1 3SZ, U.K
| | - Julia Newth
- Environment and Sustainability Institute, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Cornwall, TR10 9FE, U.K
- Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust Slimbridge, Gloucester, GL2 7BT, U.K
| | - Sarobidy Rakotonarivo
- Department of Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, U.K
| | - Diogo Veríssimo
- Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, 11a Mansfield Rd, Oxford, OX1 3SZ, U.K
- San Diego Zoo Global, 2920 Zoo Dr., San Diego, CA, 92101, U.S.A
| | - Jerome Lewis
- Department of Anthropology, University College London, Gower St, Bloomsbury, London, WC1E 6BT, U.K
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Wallach AD, Lundgren E, Batavia C, Nelson MP, Yanco E, Linklater WL, Carroll SP, Celermajer D, Brandis KJ, Steer J, Ramp D. When all life counts in conservation. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2020; 34:997-1007. [PMID: 31782203 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13447] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2019] [Revised: 11/17/2019] [Accepted: 11/22/2019] [Indexed: 05/23/2023]
Abstract
Conservation science involves the collection and analysis of data. These scientific practices emerge from values that shape who and what is counted. Currently, conservation data are filtered through a value system that considers native life the only appropriate subject of conservation concern. We examined how trends in species richness, distribution, and threats change when all wildlife count by adding so-called non-native and feral populations to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List and local species richness assessments. We focused on vertebrate populations with founding members taken into and out of Australia by humans (i.e., migrants). We identified 87 immigrant and 47 emigrant vertebrate species. Formal conservation accounts underestimated global ranges by an average of 30% for immigrants and 7% for emigrants; immigrations surpassed extinctions in Australia by 52 species; migrants were disproportionately threatened (33% of immigrants and 29% of emigrants were threatened or decreasing in their native ranges); and incorporating migrant populations into risk assessments reduced global threat statuses for 15 of 18 species. Australian policies defined most immigrants as pests (76%), and conservation was the most commonly stated motivation for targeting these species in killing programs (37% of immigrants). Inclusive biodiversity data open space for dialogue on the ethical and empirical assumptions underlying conservation science.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arian D Wallach
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, 2007, NSW, Ultimo, Australia
| | - Erick Lundgren
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, 2007, NSW, Ultimo, Australia
| | - Chelsea Batavia
- Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, 97331, OR, Corvallis, U.S.A
| | - Michael Paul Nelson
- Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, 97331, OR, Corvallis, U.S.A
| | - Esty Yanco
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, 2007, NSW, Ultimo, Australia
| | - Wayne L Linklater
- Department of Environmental Studies, Amador Hall, 555D, California State University - Sacramento, 95819, CA, Sacramento, 6000 J Street, U.S.A
- Centre for Biodiversity & Restoration Ecology, Victoria University of Wellington, 6021, Wellington, New Zealand
- Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela University, 6019, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
| | - Scott P Carroll
- Department of Entomology & Nematology, University of California Davis, 95616, CA, Davis, U.S.A
| | - Danielle Celermajer
- Department of Sociology and Social Policy, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of Sydney, 2006, NSW, Camperdown, Australia
| | - Kate J Brandis
- Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Environmental and Earth Science, University of New South Wales, 2052, NSW, Sydney, Australia
| | - Jamie Steer
- Biodiversity Department, Greater Wellington Regional Council, 6142, Wellington, New Zealand
| | - Daniel Ramp
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, 2007, NSW, Ultimo, Australia
| |
Collapse
|