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

Abstract

Simple Summary: Acting 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.Abstract: 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.

I Am a Compassionate Conservation Welfare Scientist: Considering the Theoretical and Practical Differences Between Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare

“…While Wallach et al offer suffering alongside those animals that are harmed as the appropriate course of action for Compassionate Conservationists, this does not progress our understanding of, or ability to avoid or reduce, such suffering in the future. This lack of clarity poses a real risk to the advancement of individual wild animal welfare in conservation decision-making [6,27,76,145] and highlights, for me, the value of differentiating the more permissive (though imperfect) Conservation Welfare approach.…”

The Ethical Matrix as a Tool for Decision-Making Process in Conservation

“…Nonetheless, conservationists should not pursue animal welfare only for realpolitik. Concern for animal welfare per se is indeed an ever more important aspect of conservation (Johnson et al, 2019), as much as animal welfare science growing attention toward wild animals (Littin and Mellor, 2005;Hampton and Hyndman, 2018). However, behind direct ethical reasons, maintaining a high welfare standard is certainly important for the prolonged success of a conservation endeavor.…”

Reconsidering humaneness

“…2019; Johnson et al. 2019). To remedy this confusing situation, the editors of science journals can hold authors accountable to the appropriate scientific or legal use of the term humane and ensure that any ethical debate is flagged as such.…”

“…The entwinement of scientific and normative facets encouraged by the humaneness paradigm has fostered confusion about the nature of animal welfare. Contemporary examples of this confusion in the wildlife sphere include the compassionate conservation movement (Wallach et al 2018), which proposes that embodying the traditional definition of humane (acting with the virtue of compassion) can adequately address considerations of animal welfare without accounting for the actual outcomes experienced by animals (Hampton et al 2019a;Hayward et al 2019;Johnson et al 2019). To remedy this confusing situation, the editors of science journals can hold authors accountable to the appropriate scientific or legal use of the term humane and ensure that any ethical debate is flagged as such.…”