Killing squirrels: Exploring motivations and practices of lethal wildlife management

Abstract

4Wildlife management, pest control and conservation projects often involve killing 5 nonhuman animals. In the United Kingdom, introduced grey squirrels Sciurus 6 carolinensis are killed in large numbers to protect remnant populations of European 7 red squirrels Sciurus vulgaris. Grey squirrels are also killed outside of red squirrel 8 areas to protect broadleaved trees from squirrel damage, and as part of routine pest 9 control, opportunistically, and sometimes recreationally. In order to investigate the 10 ways in which this killing is conceived and practised in the UK, we conducted semi-11 structured interviews with practitioners and undertook participant observation of 12 squirrel management activities, including lethal control. Analysing these field data, 13we identified important variations in practitioners' approaches to killing squirrels, and 14 here we outline three 'modes of killing' -reparative/sacrificial, stewardship, and 15 categorical -which comprise different primary motivations, moral principles, ultimate 16 aims, and practical methods. We explore both productive alliances and possible 17 tensions between these modes, and propose that clear, explicit consideration of how 18 and why animals are both killed and 'made killable' should be a key component of 19 any wildlife management initiative that involves lethal control. There's more than one way to kill a squirrel. In the United Kingdom (UK), people 24 bring about the deaths of thousands of grey squirrels Sciurus carolinensis every 25 year: in houses, gardens, barns and woodlands; on public and private land; and with 26 guns, traps, weighted priests, and water. Killing is an occasional pot-shot from the 27 window, or a full-time occupation; it is distressingly difficult and/or a matter of routine. 28 29The killing of nonhuman animals (hereafter 'animals') is ubiquitous in human 30 societies (The Animal Studies Group, 2006), and "fundamental to the creation of the 31 social order between sets of creatures" (Marvin, 2006, p20). Nevertheless, despite 32 an abundance of theoretical and philosophical discussions of the ethics of killing, 33 comparatively little empirical social scientific research has examined how nonhuman 34 killing is practised and performed. Exceptions include work in the 'domestic killing' 35 spaces of slaughterhouses, research laboratories and animal shelters, where people 36 who routinely kill animals face a range of psychological and emotional challenges 37 (Dillard, 2008;King, 2016), and anthropological research investigating hunting 38 practices amongst 'Western' and indigenous peoples, which indicates that 'wild 39 killing' can be experienced as positive and/or rewarding (Cartmill, 1993; Ingold, 40 2000;Knight, 2012;Marvin, 2010;Watson and Huntington, 2008). More recently, 41 there has been increasing academic interest in how killing and death "circulate 42 alongside care and life" (Ginn et al., 2014, p113), addressing the 'violent-care' of 43 killing in conservation (Clark, 2015;van Dooren, 2015), rescue shelter...

Understanding diverse approaches to predator management among gamekeepers in England

“…By identifying and exploring narratives concerning ‘nature’ and ‘balance’, this study joins those from the disciplines of anthropology and human geography that have addressed how internal conceptualizations of the natural world influence wildlife management practices (Buller, 2008; Crowley et al., 2018; Eden & Bear, 2011; Knight, 2001; Lüchtrath & Schraml, 2015; Maye et al., 2014). Such philosophies can have significant sway over how management decisions are taken (Adams, 1997; Buller, 2008).…”

“…Indeed, like our respondents, broader publics may use assessments of species population sizes to interpret the ‘naturalness’ of landscapes (Dandy et al., 2012; Fischer & Young, 2007). These concepts are also important in how stakeholders in other systems rationalize wildlife management—correcting supposed ‘imbalance’ and ‘unnatural overabundance’ or removing malicious ‘problem’ animals can motivate those conducting lethal control of animals (Crowley et al., 2018) and increase stakeholder acceptance more broadly (Campbell & Mackay, 2009; Dandy et al., 2012; Maye et al., 2014; Swan, Redpath, Bearhop, & McDonald, 2017). Conversely, those that perceive populations to be ‘natural’ or at ‘equilibrium’ might oppose similar actions (Eden & Bear, 2011).…”

“…This method allowed us to investigate this social‐ecological system from the perspective of these participants, and enabled the identification of ‘insider viewpoints that could easily be missed using predesigned, structured surveys based on outsider perspectives’ (Rust et al., 2017, p. 1305). Similar methods applied elsewhere have yielded detailed insights into motivations and preferences for wildlife management (Crowley et al., 2018; Dandy et al., 2012; Maye, Enticott, Naylor, Ilbery, & Kirwan, 2014; Pohja‐Mykrä, 2016). We conducted 20 one‐to‐one interviews with individuals currently employed as gamekeepers in five counties across the south of England (Table 1) between September and November 2016.…”

“…Indeed, unpublished gamekeeper survey data suggest there are differences in both how predators are viewed and in the control regimes (which animals were targeted and with what intensity) that are enacted (GWCT, 2011). There is also evidence from a recent qualitative study on invasive species control in the UK, which included some gamekeepers among its respondents, that socio‐cultural factors facilitate the legal killing of wildlife as part of commonplace land stewardship (Crowley, Hinchliffe, & McDonald, 2018). This is consistent with social research with game managers in Spain where, as well as a perceived benefit for hunting opportunities, intentions to control predators are influenced by broader social factors (such as tradition) and ecological factors; such as perceptions of predator population size (Delibes‐Mateos, Díaz‐Fernández, Ferreras, Viñuela, & Arroyo, 2013).…”

Between disgust and indifference: Affective and emotional relations with carp (Cyprinus carpio) in Australia

“…As others have argued (van Dooren, ; Ginn et al., ), killing and death circulate alongside care in complex and/or awkward ways and for some to live and flourish may necessarily involve a constitutive violence. Animals have to be made “killable” (Crowley et al., ; Haraway, ) and death has to be constructed as valid (Meurk, ) in order for this complex ethical terrain to map onto effective and socially agreed management strategies. Additionally, making animals killable and enacting an acceptable death is not only or simply a matter of communicating the science to the public, or finding acceptable killing methods.…”