Ethical management of wildlife. Lethal versus nonlethal control of white-tailed deer
By C. Gamborg, P. Sandøe, & C. Palmer (2020).
Conservation Science and Practice. Wiley.
Abstract
Calls for ethical management of wildlife in the international conservation com- munity are increasing. However, it is not clear what this actually entails. Using a case of lethal (hunting) and nonlethal control (fertility control) of “chronically abundant” large herbivores such as white-tailed deer in rural and suburban areas of the United States we show what different ethical values and commit- ments may lead to in terms of management preference. The values looked at are humane treatment of deer, not killing them and allowing them a natural life. In terms of deer welfare, fertility control might be, overall, better than lethal con- trol; in terms of naturalness, lethal control may have the edge. However, this conclusion is tentative. There are insufficient studies on the welfare effects of dif- ferent control methods, and the specificities will also make a difference. In con- clusion, there is no simple or single answer as to what constitutes “ethical management” of deer populations. Different values can be prioritized, and differ- ent ethical approaches adopted (e.g., “respecting rights” or “best consequences.”) A better understanding of what is at stake ethically could help both in designing further research and in making transparent and well-informed decisions.
Ethical management of wildlife. Lethal versus nonlethal control of white-tailed deer (pdf)