Consequences Matter: Compassion in Conservation Means Caring for Individuals, Populations and Species.

Paul J Johnson ,Piero Genovesi,Alayne Cotterill,Holly O’Donnell,Duan Biggs,Alexandra Zimmermann,Steve Redpath,Amy Dickman,Emma Dale,Luigi Boitani,Peter Tyrrell,Joelene Hughes,Lovemore Sibanda,Axel Moehrenschlager,Clive Hambler,Lydia K.d Katsis ,Pritpal S Soorae ,Bart J Harmsen ,Meshach Andres Pierre ,Doug P Armstrong ,John G Ewen ,Andrew J Loveridge ,Egil Dröge ,Vanessa M Adams ,Christopher A J O'kane ,Sandra E Baker ,Lauren A Harrington ,Amy E Hinks ,Mark R Stanley Price ,D Douglas ,Ruth E Feber

doi:10.3390/ani9121115

Abstract

Simple SummaryActing to preserve biodiversity can involve harming individual animals. It has recently been argued that conventional practice has placed too much emphasis on the preservation of collective entities, such as populations and species, at the expense of suffering for individuals. At least some advocates of the ‘Compassionate Conservation’ movement find any deployment of lethal measures in the interests of conservation to be unacceptable. This shifts the balance of priorities too far. While conservationists have a duty to minimise harm, and to use non-lethal measures where feasible, there will be serious implications for conservation if this movement were to be widely influential. Furthermore, the ‘do-no-harm’ maxim the compassionate conservationists advocate does not always promote the welfare of individual animals.Human activity affecting the welfare of wild vertebrates, widely accepted to be sentient, and therefore deserving of moral concern, is widespread. A variety of motives lead to the killing of individual wild animals. These include to provide food, to protect stock and other human interests, and also for sport. The acceptability of such killing is widely believed to vary with the motive and method. Individual vertebrates are also killed by conservationists. Whether securing conservation goals is an adequate reason for such killing has recently been challenged. Conventional conservation practice has tended to prioritise ecological collectives, such as populations and species, when their interests conflict with those of individuals. Supporters of the ‘Compassionate Conservation’ movement argue both that conservationists have neglected animal welfare when such conflicts arise and that no killing for conservation is justified. We counter that conservationists increasingly seek to adhere to high standards of welfare, and that the extreme position advocated by some supporters of ‘Compassionate Conservation’, rooted in virtue ethics, would, if widely accepted, lead to considerable negative effects for conservation. Conservation practice cannot afford to neglect consequences. Moreover, the do-no-harm maxim does not always lead to better outcomes for animal welfare.

Highlights

Conservation action can have repercussions for animal welfare
Wallach et al alluded to the Kantian maxim that it is wrong to treat people as merely means, by implication extending it to individual animals, which are widely attributed intrinsic value
Hampton et al [25] explored the welfare implications of lethal control of overabundant wild herbivores in the broader interests of nature conservation, using an explicitly consequentialist methodology. They showed that lethal control can plausibly lead to a net positive effect on individual wellbeing compared with taking no action

Summary

Introduction

Conservation action can have repercussions for animal welfare. Is it ever acceptable to kill individual animals in the interests of protecting a population or a species? May invasive rodents be killed to defend native birds? May problem predators be shot if this promotes tolerance of the predator species by the local people affected? Quandaries like these, impinging on the fate of sentient beings, are not uncommon. Wallach et al [1] highlighted the ethical challenges that arise when the interests of individual animals conflict with those of ecological collectives (such as populations or species) They promote a version of ‘compassionate conservation’, placing concern for individuals as a central principle, and argue that the current and historical focus of conservation practice on preserving collectives is not conducive to compassion for individual animals. They claim that conservationists have ‘routinely ignored the impact of action on individuals’ and go so far as to state that conservationists ‘often’. Assume a binary choice between compassion for individuals or conservation This badly misrepresents how conservation is currently practised—conservationists demonstrably and increasingly seek to incorporate high welfare standards into their work. Shifting the balance too far in favour of the individual over the collective risks inhibiting our ability to conserve biodiversity, and at a time when the need to act has never been greater [9]

Conservation

The ‘Hard’ Cases

Risks of Perverse Outcomes

Areas of Agreement

Conclusions