Reconsidering humaneness

Abstract

Animal welfare is increasingly important in the understanding of how human activity affects wildlife, but the conservation community is still grappling with meaningful terminology when communicating this aspect of their work. One example is the use of the terms "humane" and "inhumane." These terms are used in scientific contexts, but they also have legal and social definitions. Without reference to a defined technical standard, describing an action or outcome as humane (or inhumane) constrains science communication because the terms have variable definitions; establish a binary (something is either humane or inhumane); and imply underlying values reflecting a moral prescription. Invoking the term "humane," and especially the strong antithesis "inhumane," can infer a normative judgment of how animals ought to be treated (humane) or ought not to be treated (inhumane). The consequences of applying this terminology are not just academic. Publicizing certain practices as humane can create blurred lines around contentious animal welfare questions and, perhaps intentionally, defer scrutiny of actual welfare outcomes. Labeling other practices as inhumane can be used cynically to erode their public support. We suggest that, if this normative language is used in science, it should always be accompanied by a clear, contextual definition of what is meant by humane.

Social licence to cull: Examining scepticism toward lethal wildlife removal in cities

“…To them, moral legitimacy must be determined separately on the basis of justification according to ethical principles. The latter critique is important to our context insofar as it involves lethal harm to non‐human animals, a practice whose morality is frequently contested across publics (Hampton, Fisher, et al, 2020). Resistance to urban wildlife culling ostensibly demonstrated a more populist/public acceptance behind SLO than a moral one.…”

Intensive Adoption as a Management Strategy for Unowned, Urban Cats: A Case Study of 25 Years of Trap–Assess–Resolve (TAR) in Auckland, New Zealand

“…However, there is a risk that timid cats are euthanized unnecessarily or that unsuitable cats are adopted. Other ethical considerations Fits within a utilitarian or consequentialist ethical approach, in which managers strive to achieve the best outcomes overall for all animals involved [ 96 , 97 ], which in this case would include the cats themselves, other organisms or people threatened with diseases, and wildlife at risk of predation. Follows a deontological or rights approach respecting intrinsic animal rights, although ethically TNR must also justify neutering [ 98 ] and death of kittens when neutering pregnant queens [ 82 ].…”

Social License and Animal Welfare: Developments from the Past Decade in Australia

“…Such one-way approaches to communication with stakeholders are usually formed without consultation [43]. Public relations strategies recognize that a threat to SLO exists, but attempt to address the threat with claims purported to ensure "humane" outcomes, although often lacking a science-based definition of what "humane" means [81]. The live export industry has been accused of this approach for much of its existence [82].…”