Bovine Tuberculosis Policy in England: Would a Virtuous Government Cull Mr Badger?

Bovine tuberculosis (bovine TB) is the most important animal health and welfare policy issue in Britain. Badgers are a wildlife reservoir of disease, although the eight-year Independent Scientific Group (ISG) Randomised Badger Culling Trial concluded with a recommendation against culling. The report advised government that bovine TB could be controlled, and ultimately eradicated, by cattle-based measures alone. Despite the ISG recommendation against culling, the farming and veterinary industries continued to lobby government for a badger cull. The 2005–2010 Labour government followed the ISG advice and decided against a cull. The 2010–2015 Coalition and the 2015-present Conservative governments have followed a badger culling policy. This paper investigates whether a virtuous government would cull badgers. It provides an overview of virtue theory in the context of government animal health and welfare policy. Bovine TB and badger control policy options are then analysed in the context of the virtues of justice, wisdom, integrity, loyalty, curiosity, trust, empathy, compassion and aesthetics. Justice is the first virtue of government, and badger culling is seriously problematic from a virtue perspective given that five badgers are culled per cow that avoids slaughter as a result. Analysis based on other virtues strongly suggests that government should not cull badgers. The paper concludes that a virtuous government would not cull badgers as part of policy to control bovine TB in cattle.     

Bovine Tuberculosis and Badger Culling in England: A Utilitarian Analysis of Policy Options

Bovine tuberculosis (bovine TB) is an important animal health policy issue in Britain, which impacts farmers, the public, domestic farmed cattle and the wild badger population. The Westminster government’s badger culling policy in England, which began in 2013, has caused considerable controversy. This is in part because the Independent Scientific Group advised against culling, based on the Randomised Badger Culling Trial. Those opposed to badger culling support more stringent cattle-based measures and the vaccination of badgers. This paper argues for ethical analysis of public policy options which impact sentient species. It provides a summary Animal Welfare Impact Assessment of (1) a do-nothing approach, (2) badger culling, and (3) badger vaccination. A utilitarian analysis is then applied to these policy options considering human wellbeing and animal welfare. The analysis compares a badger culling policy that achieves a 19% reduction in bovine TB incidence, a badger vaccination model achieving a 12.5% reduction, and a do-nothing approach. Policy options are assessed over 9 years and a longer timeframe, and uncertainty is considered. The analysis finds that non-culling approaches, particularly badger vaccination, result in greater total utility, compared to badger culling. Badger culling causes 30% reduction in the badger population in England as well as substantial harms due to the culling process. Culling is opposed by public opinion and is associated with considerable risks and uncertainty. In contrast, non-culling approaches, such as cattle-based measures and badger vaccination, are supported by public opinion and are not associated with such risks.     

Bovine TB,Badger Culling and Applied Ethics: Utilitarianism,Animal Welfare and Rights

Applying competing ethical theories to the issue of bovine TB and badger culling can throw light on the validity of the policy options. Utilitarianism is, superficially at least, an attractive option. However, the aggregative principle is problematic and this is well illustrated in the case of bovine TB and badger culling. Such is the variety and strength of interests to be considered that it is not at all clear which course of action will maximise utility. In addition, it may be that the full range of consequences can never be known with any degree of accuracy. An alternative option is to revert to an animal welfare ethic. This has the effect of cutting down the moral complexities involved in a discussion of bovine TB and badger culling, since, providing it is done humanely, killing badgers is not an ethical issue, and even the infliction of suffering on them is permissible providing it serves a significant human benefit. The animal welfare ethic, however, is normatively inadequate because it exaggerates the ethical importance of personhood. Because of this, it allows us to justify killing badgers, and might even justify the infliction of considerable suffering if by so doing there is a good chance that economic benefits will accrue. As a result, a deontological position, where animals are accorded the protection of rights, seems a much more promising alternative to utilitarianism. The adoption of any variety of animal rights would render badger culling morally illegitimate.     

Public values for badgers,bovine TB reduction and management strategies

This paper applies an attribute-based stated choice experiment approach to estimate the value that society places on changes to the size of the badger population in England and Wales. The study was undertaken in the context of a rising incidence of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in cattle and the government's review of current bTB control policy. This review includes consideration of culling badgers to reduce bTB in cattle, since badgers are thought to be an important wildlife reservoir for the disease. The design of the CE involved four attributes (size of badger population, cattle slaughtered due to bTB, badger management strategy and household tax) at four levels with eight choice sets of two alternatives presented to respondents. Telephone interviews were undertaken with over 400 respondents, which elicited their attitudes and preferences concerning badgers, bTB in cattle and badger management strategies. The study estimated a willingness to pay of £0.10 per household per year per 100,000 badgers and £1.52 per household per year per 10,000 cattle slaughtered due to bTB which aggregated to £22 per badger and £3298 per bTB slaughtered animal for all households in England and Wales. Management strategy toward badgers had a very high valuation, highlighting the emotive issue of badger culling for respondents and the importance of government policy towards badgers.     

Bovine Tuberculosis and Badger Control in Britain: Science,Policy and Politics

Bovine tuberculosis (bovine TB) is the most economically important animal health policy issue in Britain. The problem of what to do about badgers has plagued successive governments since a dead badger was discovered with bovine TB in 1971. Successive Labour governments (1997–2010) oversaw the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) from 1998 to 2006. Despite the RBCT recommendation against culling, the 2010–2015 Coalition government implemented pilot badger culls. This paper provides an account of the evolution of bovine TB and badger control policy, focusing on the 1997–2010 Labour, the 2010–2015 Coalition and the 2015-present Conservative governments. Interviews with bovine TB policy stakeholders supplement discussion of the development of bovine TB policy. The paper discusses the science and politics of bovine TB policy, in which there are different badger control policies in Westminster, Welsh and Scottish governments. Badger control is a highly polarised issue, and the Coalition and Conservative governments have been heavily criticised for a culling policy opposed by the independent scientific community. Recent governments have defended badger culling on the basis of veterinary advice and experience in countries such as New Zealand. The paper concludes with two key recommendations to inform controversial animal health and welfare policy issues such as bovine TB. First, mandatory Animal Welfare Impact Assessment provides objective data on the impacts of policy options on cows and badgers. Second, robust ethical analysis, conducted by independent experts using established moral frameworks, should be applied to animal health and welfare issues for the benefit of decision makers.     

Should the Lion Eat Straw Like the Ox? Animal Ethics and the Predation Problem

Stephen Clark’s article The Rights of Wild Things from 1979 was the starting point for the consideration in the animal ethics literature of the so-called ‘predation problem’. Clark examines the response of David George Ritchie to Henry Stephens Salt, the first writer who has argued explicitly in favor of animal rights. Ritchie attempts to demonstrate—via reductio ad absurdum—that animals cannot have rights, because granting them rights would oblige us to protect prey animals against predators that wrongly violate their rights. This article navigates the reader through the debate sparked off by Clarke’s article, with as final destination what I consider to be the best way to deal with the predation problem. I will successively discuss arguments against the predation reductio from Singer’s utilitarian approach, Regan’s deontological approach, Nussbaum’s capability approach, and Donadson and Kymlicka’s political theory of animal rights.     

Factors influencing farmers' concerns regarding bovine tuberculosis in wildlife and livestock around Riding Mountain National Park

Despite intensive efforts over the last century to eradicate bovine tuberculosis (TB) in North America, several hotspots of infected wildlife and livestock remain, raising concerns that the disease will never be eradicated. The stress and frustration for a farmer caused by having a herd test positive for TB or living in an infected region can be substantial. The goal of this study was to investigate the concerns of farmers around Riding Mountain National Park (RMNP) regarding the presence of TB in wildlife and livestock and conduct an exploratory analysis of causal factors. Data were collected from 786 farmers within 50 km of RMNP using a mail-back questionnaire. Overall, farmers indicated a high level of concern toward diseases in both wildlife and cattle relative to other concerns. The spatial variables that had the greatest influence on TB concern were both the distance of farms to the RMNP boundary and distance of farms to previous cases of TB. The most important aspatial factor associated with high TB concern was the frequency with which farmers observed elk on their land. These results underscore the important differences between 'objective' measures of risk, such as epidemiological estimates of disease prevalence, and subjective measures of disease concern, such as risk perception and acceptability of management actions. Written responses suggest that concerns regarding disease may affect how farmers view wildlife on their land and their relationship with neighbouring protected areas. Management activities that reduce the frequency of elk interactions with farms, but also recognize the complex relationship that farmers have with wildlife and protected areas, will be most effective in mitigating farmer concern regarding this important problem.     

An Analysis of Diversity in Nonhuman Animal Rights Media

Lack of diversity in the ranks as well as a failure to resonate with disadvantaged groups and other anti-oppression movements has been cited as one important barrier to the American Nonhuman Animal rights movement’s success (Kymlicka and Donaldson in Animal rights, multiculturalism and the Left. The Mellon Sawyer Seminar at the Graduate Center, CUNY. City University of New York, New York, 2013). It is possible that social movements are actively inhibiting diversity in the ranks and audience by producing literature that reflects a narrow activist identity. This article creates a platform from which these larger issues can be explored by investigating the actual demographic representations present in a small sample of popular media sources produced by the movement for other animals. A content analysis of 131 magazine covers produced by two highly visible movement actors, PETA and VegNews, was conducted to demonstrate that activist representations in at least some dominant American Nonhuman Animal rights media are mostly white, female, and thin.     

Animal Ethics and the Culling of Badgers: A Reply to McCulloch and Reiss

One of the major values of animal ethical theory can be found in the light it sheds on practical ethical problems involving animals. McCulloch and Reiss’ paper does precisely this regarding the culling of badgers in England to limit the spread of tuberculosis. Perspicaciously realizing that societal ethics represents a combination of utilitarian and rights-based theorizing, the authors apply both of these perspectives to the issue, noting that both theoretical approaches generate a rejection of culling in the presence of other viable alternatives. In addition, the authors suggest and defend the use of an Animal Welfare Impact Assessment (AWIA) tool to assess the impact of various management approaches on the animals, and demonstrate its congruence with both the ethical theories considered, and with societal moral attitudes. In this way, they show that their conclusion is directly compatible with the societal ethic, in my view a major prerequisite for effecting social change.     

Effects of cattle grazing and haying on wildlife conservation at National Wildlife Refuges in the United States

The National Wildlife Refuge System is perhaps the most important system of federal lands for protecting wildlife in the United States. Only at refuges has wildlife conservation been legislated to have higher priority than either recreational or commercial activities. Presently, private ranchers and farmers graze cattle on 981,954 ha and harvest hay on 12,021 ha at 123 National Wildlife Refuges. US Fish and Wildlife Service policy is to permit these uses primarily when needed to benefit refuge wildlife. To evaluate the success of this policy, I surveyed grassland management practices at the 123 refuges. The survey results indicate that in fiscal year 1980 there were 374,849 animal unit months (AUMs) of cattle grazing, or 41% more than was reported by the Fish and Wildlife Service. According to managers' opinions, 86 species of wildlife are positively affected and 82 are negatively affected by refuge cattle grazing or haying. However, quantitative field studies of the effect of cattle grazing and haying on wildlife coupled with the survey data on how refuge programs are implemented suggest that these activities are impeding the goal of wildlife conservation. Particular management problems uncovered by the survey include overgrazing of riparian habitats, wildlife mortality due to collisions with cattle fences, and mowing of migratory bird habitat during the breeding season. Managers reported that they spend $919,740 administering cattle grazing and haying; thus refuge grazing and haying programs are also expensive. At any single refuge these uses occupy up to 50% of refuge funds and 55% of staff time. In light of these results, prescribed burning may be a better wildlife management option than is either cattle grazing or haying.     

Animal Welfare Impact Assessments: A Good Way of Giving the Affected Animals a Voice When Trying to Tackle Wild Animal Controversies?

Control of wild animals may give rise to controversy, as is seen in the case of badger control to manage TB in cattle in the UK. However, it is striking that concerns about the potential suffering of the affected animals themselves are often given little attention or completely ignored in policies aimed at dealing with wild animals. McCulloch and Reiss argue that this could be remedied by means of a “mandatory application of formal and systematic Animal Welfare Impact Assessment (AWIA)”. Optimistically, they consider that an AWIA could help to resolve controversies involving wild animals. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the potential of AWIA. We begin by showing how ideas akin to AWIA already play a significant role in other animal ethics controversies, particularly those concerning laboratory animal use and livestock production; and we bring in lessons learnt from these controversies. Then we comment on the suggested development and application of AWIA in the case of badger control. Finally, we discuss the prospects of applying AWIA to other sorts of wild animal controversy. We argue that the AIWA, as developed by McCulloch and Reiss, relies on several dubious premises, including that killing is a welfare issue. Furthermore, we argue that AWIA is unlikely to prevent serious moral disagreements over how to weigh concerns about wild animals against priorities in human health, the health of domestic and farm animals, and biodiversity, but that it may nonetheless serve to limit harms imposed on the wild animals.     

Animal Rearing as a Contract?

Can animals, and especially cattle, be the subject ofmoral concern? Should we care about their well-being?Two competing ethical theories have addressed suchissues so far. A utilitarian theory which, inBentham's wake, extends moral consideration to everysentient being, and a theory of the rights orinterests of animals which follows Feinberg'sconceptions. This includes various positions rangingfrom the most radical (about animal liberation) tomore moderate ones (concerned with the well-being ofanimals). Notwithstanding their diversity, theseconceptions share some common flaws. First, as anextension of primarily anthropocentric theories (aboututility or rights) they still participate in the flawsof the original setting. Second, extending them tonon-human beings raises the problem of the borderwhich is to be drawn between what can be included inthe purview of moral consideration and what is leftoutside. Third, such theories are not able to distinguishbetween an ethics of wildlife and an ethics ofdomestic life, which too often leads to preposterousstatements. We would like to argue (i) that we should distinguishbetween environmental ethics (concerned withpopulations, species, biotic communities) and animalethics (where animals are taken into consideration individually);(ii) that individualist animal ethics are not relevantfor animal rearing; (iii) that animal rearing is a hierarchicalrelationship which rules are to be found in the fiction of a domesticcontract. Hence, we would like to construct a new conception ofthe ethics of the relation between men and the cattlethey breed based on the idea of a domestic contract.Our main assumption is Mary Midgleys's anthropologicalassumption, according to which human communities,since the Neolithic age, have always included variousanimals, so that relations of sociability have alwaysexisted between human beings and animals within thedomestic community (a mixed community). In order tospecify the hierarchical and non-egalitarian, butinclusive reciprocal obligations and relations insidesuch a community, we will elaborate on the notion ofa ``domestic contract'', an implicitly assumedidea traced back to Lucretius and whichwe will follow up to the physiocrats and Adam Smith.We will show that such an idea relies upon theassumption of communication between cattle farmer andanimals, of shared experience and exchanges betweenthe two parties. We will then show how modern factory,or battery animal farming, can be seen as unilaterallybreaking this domestic contract, forsaking ourduties towards domestic animals.     

Regulating overabundant ungulate populations: an example for elk in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado

In many areas of the world, populations of native ungulates have become so abundant that they are believed to be harming vegetation and disrupting ecosystem function. Methods for controlling overabundance populations include culling animals from the population and controlling fertility using contraceptives. However, understanding the feasibility these alternatives requires insight into their long-term effects on populations. We constructed a simulation model to evaluate options for regulating elk populations in and around Rocky Mountain National Park and used the model to compare different treatment options. Methods were evaulated with respect to the time required to reduce the population to a target level, the number of animals treated and/or culled and the risk of extinction. We contrasted culling with lifetime-effect contraceptives and yearlong contraceptives. Lifetime contraceptives required treating the fewest animals to maintain the population at desired targets. However, this approach also causes the greatest population variability and potential risk of extinction. Yearlong contraceptives required treatment of dramatically more animals but had essentially no extinction risk whereas culling produced intermediate levels of both extinction risk and number of animals treated. These results characterize the risks and benefits of alternative control strategies for overabundant wildlife. They emerge from a modeling approach that can be broadly useful in helping managers in choose between alternatives for regulating overabundant wildlife.     

Economic Incentives to Conserve Wildlife on Private Lands: Analysis and Policy

Some believe that provision of private property rights in wildlife on private land provides a powerful economic incentive for nature conservation because it enables property owners to market such wildlife or its attributes. If such marketing is profitable, private landholders will conserve the wildlife concerned and its required habitat. But land is not always most profitably used for exploitation of wildlife, and many economic values of wildlife (such as non-use economic values) cannot be marketed. The mobility of some wildlife adds to the limitations of the private-property approach. While some species may be conserved by this approach, it is suboptimal as a single policy approach to nature conservation. Nevertheless, it is being experimented with, in the Northern Territory of Australia where landholders had a possibility of harvesting on their properties a quota of eggs and chicks of red-tailed black cockatoos for commercial sale. This scheme was expected to provide an incentive to private landholders to retain hollow trees essential for the nesting of these birds but failed. This case and others are analysed. Despite private-property failures, the long-term survival of some wildlife species depends on their ability to use private lands without severe harassment, either for their migration or to supplement their available resources, for example, the Asian elephant. Nature conservation on private land is often a useful, if not essential, supplement to conservation on public lands. Community and public incentives for such conservation are outlined.     

Traffic mortality and the role of minor roads

Roads have large impacts on wildlife, as they form one of the principal causes of mortality, and disturbance and fragmentation of habitat. These impacts are mainly studied and mitigated on major roads. It is, however, a widespread misconception that most animals are killed on major roads. In this paper, we argue that minor roads have a larger impact on wildlife with respect to habitat destruction, noise load and traffic mortality. We use data on traffic related deaths in badgers (Meles meles) in The Netherlands to illustrate that traffic mortality is higher on minor roads. We ask for a more extensive investigation of the environmental impacts of minor roads. Moreover, we argue that the success of mitigation on roads drastically increases when both major and minor roads are integrated in the planning of traffic flows. Therefore, we propose a strategy based on the concept of a "traffic-calmed area". Traffic-calmed areas create opportunities for wildlife by decreasing limitations for animal movement. We ask for further studies to estimate what size traffic-calmed areas should be to maintain minimum viable animal populations.     

The Edge of “Animal Rights”

A central task of environmental ethics, which have been arising since 1960s, is to extend the objects of moral concern beyond the individuals of Homo sapiens. (Here, it involves the issue of the boundary of environmental ethics. In a narrow sense, an environmental ethic must grant moral concern to holistic environmental objects (such as ecosystems). On the other hand, if we broadly define the environmental ethic as an ethic that shows moral concern not limited to Homo sapiens and its individuals only, then, these “generalized” environmental ethics include Peter Singer’s “animal liberation” and Tom Regan’s “animal rights”. In this article, the term “environmental ethic” refers to an environmental ethic in a generalized sense.) All the objects deserving moral concern constitute the moral community. The trajectory and boundary of this extension are different among different schools. Compared to other schools, Tom Regan’s “animal rights” has a relatively smaller moral community, making it more “conservative” at first sight. Meanwhile, the rights view, like other schools, faces the question regarding the edge of moral concern. This question consists of two sub-questions: (1) where is the boundary of the moral community and (2) how ought we to treat the objects of moral concern near the boundary? Given the closeness of Regan’s theory to traditional ethics (regarding the boundary of the moral community), this study is mainly focused on analyzing the edge of moral concern within the framework of the theory of animal rights. Further, I investigate the similarities and differences in the boundary of moral concern among various schools of environmental ethics. The comparative analysis demonstrates a subtle relation between science and moral philosophy, and reveals a similar form of a metaphysical premise adopted by all environmental ethics. This research helps to clarify the moral concern of environmental ethics, which is an essential prerequisite for establishing a new ethic, and therefore helps to consolidate the reference of environmental ethics to environmental management.     

Irrigated Agriculture and Wildlife Conservation: Conflict on a Global Scale

/ The demand for water to support irrigated agriculture has led to the demise of wetlands and their associated wildlife for decades. This thirst for water is so pervasive that many wetlands considered to be hemispheric reserves for waterbirds have been heavily affected; for example, the California and Nevada wetlands in North America, the Macquarie Marshes in Australia, and the Aral Sea in central Asia. These and other major wetlands have lost most of their historic supplies of water and some have also experienced serious impacts from contaminated subsurface irrigation drainage. Now mere shadows of what they once were in terms of biodiversity and wildlife production, many of the so-called "wetlands of international importance" are no longer the key conservation strongholds they were in the past. The conflict between irrigated agriculture and wildlife conservation has reached a critical point on a global scale. Not only has local wildlife suffered, including the extinction of highly insular species, but a ripple effect has impacted migratory birds worldwide. Human societies reliant on wetlands for their livelihoods are also bearing the cost. Ironically, most of the degradation of these key wetlands occurred during a period of time when public environmental awareness and scientific assertion of the need for wildlife conservation was at an all-time high. However, designation of certain wetlands as "reserves for wildlife" by international review boards has not slowed their continued degradation. To reverse this trend, land and water managers and policy makers must assess the true economic costs of wetland loss and, depending on the outcome of the assessment, use the information as a basis for establishing legally enforceable water rights that protect wetlands from agricultural development.     

Ryder’s Painism and His Criticism of Utilitarianism

As a member of the British Oxford Group, psychologist Richard Ryder marked the beginning of the modern animal rights and animal welfare movement in the seventies. By introducing the concept “speciesism.” Ryder contributed importantly to the expansion of this movement. Surprisingly little attention has been paid to Ryder’s moral theory, “painism”, that aims to resolve the conflict between the two predominant rival theories in animal ethics, the deontological of Tom Regan and the utilitarian of Peter Singer. First, this paper examines the kernel and historical sources of Ryder’s painist theory, linking it to the work of John Rawls and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Second, it examines Ryder’s critique of utilitarianism. It is argued that his critique of Singer’s use of the word “sentience” is unconvincing and that his critique of utilitarian aggregation as not taking a full account of the metaphysical separateness of persons, has already been countered and dealt with. Finally this paper looks at some of the counterintuitive implications of Ryder’s theory and argues that utilitarianism might have more resources for dealing with its own alleged counterintuitive implications than Ryder acknowledges.     

Wildlife conservation through people-centred approaches to natural resource management programmes and the control of wildlife exploitation

While the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) introduced a new and progressive outlook on conservation, the South African government has failed to produce a comprehensive legal body of legislation to give effect to its varied obligations. Inconsistency and incompleteness of regulations governing wildlife conservation in conjunction with the failure to implement objectives to conserve wildlife through restricted exploitation with the political, social and economic motives of community conservation must be seen as major contributions to failed conservation goals. This paper analyses post-apartheid conservation laws and policies and argues that current plans for people-centred approaches to natural resource management programmes have been unsuccessful in operationalizing policy goals of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development into transparent plans for implementation. In fact, legal instruments and implementation plans seem to focus on the benefit-sharing components of community participation and therefore fail to address important issues of resource exploitation. It is suggested that where communities are expected to take part in the management of wildlife resources, the responsibility for sustainable wildlife management must be linked to the benefit-sharing instruments of the programmes. However, these would not deal with 'outsiders' like poachers and poaching driven by commercial interests. The paper proposes a model that allows communities to take control over wildlife resources.