Interspecies conflict, precarious reasoning, and the gull problem in the Gulf of Maine

Abstract

Contemporary conservation science requires mediating conflicts among nonhuman species, but the grounds for favoring one species over another can be unclear. We examined the premises through which wildlife managers picked sides in an interspecies conflict: seabird conservation in the Gulf of Maine (GOM). Managers in the GOM follow a simple narrative dubbed the gull problem. This narrative assumes Larus gulls are overpopulated and unnatural in the region. In turn, these assumptions make gulls an easy target for culling and lethal control when the birds come into conflict with other seabirds, particularly Sterna terns. Surveying historical, natural historical, and ecological evidence, we found no scientific support for the claim that Larus gulls are overpopulated in the GOM. Claims of overpopulation originated from a historical context in which rising gull populations became a nuisance to humans. Further, we found only limited evidence that anthropogenic subsidies make gulls unnatural in the region, especially when compared with anthropogenic subsidies provided for other seabirds. The risks and consequences of leveraging precarious assumptions include cascading plans to cull additional gull populations, obfuscation of more fundamental environmental threats to seabirds, and the looming paradox of gull conservation—even if one is still inclined to protect terns in the GOM. Our close look at the regional history of a conservation practice thus revealed the importance of not only conservation decisions, but also conservation decision‐making.