Conservation policy & ethics

Compassionate versus consequentialist conservation

By J. Hampton, B. Warburton & P. Sandøe (2018) 
Conservation Biology. Wiley 


Ethical treatment of wildlife and consideration of animal welfare have become important themes in conservation but ethical perspectives on how best to protect wild animals and promote their welfare are diverse. We present the advantages offered by the consequentialist ‘harms’ ethical framework applied to managing wild herbivores for conservation purposes. We argue that, to minimize harms while achieving conservation goals, overabundant wild herbivores should in many cases be managed through consumptive in situ killing. This argument is based on six advantages: 1) imposing negative welfare states on animals being killed for only very short durations, 2) not depriving the remaining animals of positive welfare states (e.g., linked to rearing offspring), 3) preventing overpopulation and poor welfare states facing overabundant populations (e.g., starvation), 4) preventing welfare impacts imposed on heterospecifics through resource depletion (i.e., competition), 5) harvesting meat and thereby not requiring other (agricultural) animals to be raised to supply that meat, and 6) incurring minimal costs and thereby maximizing funding available for other wildlife management and conservation priorities. Alternative ethical approaches to our consequentialist framework comprise deontology (including animal rights), and forms of virtue ethics, some of which underpin ‘compassionate conservation’. These alternative ethical approaches emphasize the importance of avoiding intentional killing of animals but, if no management occurs, are likely to impose considerable unintentional harms on overabundant wildlife and indirectly harm heterospecifics through ineffective population reduction. If non‐lethal control is used, they are likely to deprive overabundant animals of positive welfare states and incur prohibitive economic costs. We encourage all with a stake in conservation to consider animal welfare consequentialism as an ethical approach to minimize harms to the animals under their duty of care as well as other animals that policies may affect while at the same time pursuing conservation goals.

Full text (pdf)

Ethics of Wildlife Management and Conservation: What Should We Try to Protect?

By C. Gamborg, C. Palmer & P. Sandøe (2012)
Nature Education Knowledge. Nature Publishing Group.


Expanding human demands on land, sea and fresh water, along with the impacts of climate change, have made the conservation and management of wild areas and wild animals a top priority. But there are many different reasons for thinking that such conservation is important, and these reasons can shape conservation policies in different ways. Here we'll explore some of the different underlying values that can direct conservation policy, and explain how they can create ethical dilemmas and disagreements.

Wild animals have always been a critical resource for human beings. Historically, food, fur, and leather were key to human survival more recently, wildlife has assumed high economic and cultural significance. Wild animals provide entertainment in circuses, zoos, and wildlife parks, they form a central attraction in international tourism, and they are key members of ecosystems on which humans rely for vital services. Equally, wild animals can be seen as threatening to human beings; for instance, they can be sources of new human diseases (zoonotics), and they can damage or consume human crops. What matters here, whether as resource or threat, is how useful or otherwise wildlife is to human beings. Environmental ethicists often call this instrumental value.

In modern debates about wildlife, however, other values have become increasingly important. One focus is on animal welfare the wellbeing of individual wild animals (e.g., in terms of animals' flourishing, or suffering). There are also concerns about protecting species or populations of wild animals, about protecting the ecosystems of which wild animals form a part, and about protecting wild nature itself (Sandøe & Christiansen 2008). The wellbeing of individual animals matters less where species, ecosystems, or wild nature is emphasized indeed, painful predation may be understood as promoting ecosystem health, or as applying the right kind of selective pressure on a species as a whole.

Although the idea of "wildlife" is usually taken to mean animals not bred or controlled by humans, increasingly, wild animals are not just left alone to live their own lives (Gamborg et al. 2010). In response to pressures on wild animals and their habitats, a nature and wildlife protection movement has grown over the last two centuries. Often this protection has taken the form of active wildlife management, where some species are controlled as part of a policy to promote the success of other species.

This raises key questions about the responsibilities we have to wild animals. What should we try to protect? How should we balance different, potentially conflicting, values such as nature protection and individual animal welfare? First, we'll give an overview of wildlife management values central to these debates. Then we'll outline five different possible ethical perspectives through which it is possible to think about wildlife management and conservation.

Full text (URL)