Ethical management of wildlife. Lethal versus nonlethal control of white‐tailed deer

Abstract

Calls for ethical management of wildlife in the international conservation community 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 commitments 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 control; in terms of naturalness, lethal control may have the edge. However, this conclusion is tentative. There are insufficient studies on the welfare effects of different control methods, and the specificities will also make a difference. In conclusion, there is no simple or single answer as to what constitutes “ethical management” of deer populations. Different values can be prioritized, and different 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.

Application of decision tools to ethical analysis in biodiversity conservation

“…However, the tools did not determine the final choice. There are different and sometimes conflicting ethical approaches to conservation (Biasetti & de Mori, 2020; Gamborg et al., 2012). Biodiversity conservation can intersect various dimensions of value, and which of these to prioritize depends on underlying assumptions.…”

A practical framework for ethics assessment in wildlife management decision‐making

“…Applying this factor in deciding what methods to allow for taking wildlife might include an analysis of the risk of causing harm or pain by wounding versus ensuring a quick kill and minimizing the chance of suffering (Gamborg et al 2020). The development of best management practices for trapping by White et al (2020) displayed application of this ethical consideration.…”

The Animal Welfare Consequences and Moral Implications of Lethal and Non-Lethal Fox Control Methods

“…For instance, foxes can feel hungry if barriers lead to their displacement from foraging areas, and feelings of discomfort can be experienced following their exposure to visual or acoustic deterrents. The welfare consequences of the use of non-lethal control methods are rarely examined [ 35 ], but calls for an ethical evaluation of these are increasing [ 36 ].…”