Ethics of Wildlife Control in Humanized Landscapes: A Response

Abstract

Animal protectionists John Hadidian, Camilla Fox, and William Lynn exhorted wildlife professionals to engage the ethical issues associated with wildlife damage management. After outlining several ethical principles, they raised three common "nuisance" wildlife scenarios to illustrate the ethical difficulties they believe need thoughtful consideration. Despite their honorable desire, their paper exemplifies why the substantive dialogue on the ethics of wildlife control has not been achieved. First, their presentation neglected to wrestle with the role of competing worldviews. Second, the authors avoided acknowledging how animal protectionists' rhetoric and behavior has undermined the trust necessary for wildlife managers to engage in dialogue. I conclude by offering several ways animal protectionists can build the fund of good will essential to initiating dialogue and finding common ground.

Multispecies livelihoods: a posthumanist approach to wildlife ecotourism that promotes animal ethics

“…Manfredo et al (2020) suggest that economic modernization in developed countries may explain the shift from long-held dominance frameworks that reinforced humankind's power over "Nature" (Descola & P alsson, 1996), to a mutualism orientation that "consider wildlife as part of their broader social community, deserving of rights and caring treatment" (p. 3). This entrenched "dominance" (utilitarian) worldview often suggests that humans have the moral and ethical right to determine the welfare, rights, and status of nonhuman animals (Peterson & Nelson, 2017;Vantassel, 2008). Wildlife-human conflict persists through asymmetrical power relations where special interest groups possess an inequitable stronghold over other species through policy (Fox & Bekoff, 2011;Thomsen et al, 2020b), management (Nie, 2001), security (Lynn, 2010), and fear (Lappalainen, 2019).…”

Regulated commercial harvest to manage overabundant white‐tailed deer: An idea to consider?

“…Hunting can be an effective technique for controlling game populations under certain circumstances and commercial harvest may provide additional incentive for entrepreneurs to apply sufficient harvest pressure to alleviate deer–human conflicts. By doing so, the attitude of the public may change from viewing overabundant populations of white‐tailed deer as vermin to again seeing them as a valuable natural resource (Vantassel 2008). In addition, more members of the nonhunting public may embrace and support hunting as the valuable tool that it is once they witness the effectiveness, humaneness, and economic benefit of regulated commercial harvest.…”

How Misinformation Fosters Urban Human-Coyote Conflicts

“…Whether you believe in Divine creation or Darwinian evolution, humans are at the top of the food chain. As such, we have a great stewardship responsibility, but we are not subservient to wild animals, especially in urban settings (see Vantassel 2008).…”