International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control |
| |
| Authors: | Sara Dubois Nicole Fenwick Erin A Ryan Liv Baker Sandra E Baker Ngaio J Beausoleil Scott Carter Barbara Cartwright Federico Costa Chris Draper John Griffin Adam Grogan Gregg Howald Bidda Jones Kate E Littin Amanda T Lombard David J Mellor Daniel Ramp Catherine A Schuppli David Fraser |
| |
| Institution: | 1. British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Vancouver, BC, Canada;2. Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada;3. College of the Environment, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT, U.S.A.;4. Centre for Compassionate Conservation, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia;5. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Tubney, Oxfordshire, U.K.;6. Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, Institute of Veterinary Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand;7. Detroit Zoological Society, MI, U.S.A.;8. Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, Nepean, ON, Canada;9. Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil;10. Born Free Foundation, Broadlands Business Campus, Horsham, U.K.;11. University of Bristol, Bristol, U.K.;12. Wildlife Protection Department, Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.;13. RSPCA UK Wildlife Department, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, West Sussex, U.K.;14. Island Conservation, Santa Cruz, CA, U.S.A.;15. RSPCA Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia;16. Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia;17. Regulation & Assurance Branch, Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand;18. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa |
| |
| Abstract: | Human–wildlife conflicts are commonly addressed by excluding, relocating, or lethally controlling animals with the goal of preserving public health and safety, protecting property, or conserving other valued wildlife. However, declining wildlife populations, a lack of efficacy of control methods in achieving desired outcomes, and changes in how people value animals have triggered widespread acknowledgment of the need for ethical and evidence‐based approaches to managing such conflicts. We explored international perspectives on and experiences with human–wildlife conflicts to develop principles for ethical wildlife control. A diverse panel of 20 experts convened at a 2‐day workshop and developed the principles through a facilitated engagement process and discussion. They determined that efforts to control wildlife should begin wherever possible by altering the human practices that cause human–wildlife conflict and by developing a culture of coexistence; be justified by evidence that significant harms are being caused to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems, and/or other animals; have measurable outcome‐based objectives that are clear, achievable, monitored, and adaptive; predictably minimize animal welfare harms to the fewest number of animals; be informed by community values as well as scientific, technical, and practical information; be integrated into plans for systematic long‐term management; and be based on the specifics of the situation rather than negative labels (pest, overabundant) applied to the target species. We recommend that these principles guide development of international, national, and local standards and control decisions and implementation. |
| |
| Keywords: | animal welfare human‐wildlife conflict justification management policy values vertebrate pest control administració n bienestar de los animales conflicto entre humanos y animales silvestres control de plagas de vertebrados justificació n normas valores |
|
|
