Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T15:32:51.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rating harms to wildlife: a survey showing convergence between conservation and animal welfare views

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

S Dubois  and
D Fraser
S Dubois*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Program, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada
D Fraser
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Program, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Human activities may cause conservation concerns when animal populations or ecosystems are harmed and animal welfare concerns when individuals are harmed. In general, people are concerned with one or the other, as the concepts may be regarded as separate or even at odds. An online purposive survey of 339 British Columbians explored differences between groups that varied by gender, residency, wildlife engagement level and value orientation (conservation-oriented or animal welfare-oriented), to see how they rated the level of harm to wildlife caused by different human activities. Women, urban residents, those with low wildlife engagement, and welfare-orientated participants generally scored activities as more harmful than their counterparts, but all groups were very similar in their rankings. Activities that destroy or alter habitat (urban development, pollution, resource development and agriculture) were rated consistently as most harmful by all groups, including the most conservation-oriented and the most welfare-oriented. Where such a high level of agreement exists, wildlife managers should be able to design management actions that will address both conservation and animal welfare concerns. However, the higher level of concern expressed by female, low engagement and welfare-oriented participants for activities that involve direct killing indicates a need for wildlife managers to consult beyond traditional stakeholders.

Keywords

animal welfareconservationharmhuman activityvalueswildlife
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 22 , Issue 1: Including selected abstracts from the WSPA/Defra Whale Welfare and Ethics Workshop, March 2011 , February 2013 , pp. 49 - 55
Copyright
© 2013 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ahmad, R, Bailey, J, Bornik, Z, Danielson, P, Dowlatabadi, H, Levy, E and Longstaff, H 2006 A web-based instrument to model social norms: NERD survey design and results. The Integrated Assessment Journal 6: 9–36Google Scholar
British Columbia Ministry of Environment 2011 Conservation Framework. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/conservationframework/Google Scholar
Callicott, JB 1989 In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy. State University of New York Press: Albany, USAGoogle Scholar
Curnutt, J 1996 How to argue for and against sport hunting. Journal of Social Philosophy 27: 65–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.1996.tb00238.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czech, B, Devers, PK and Krausman, PR 2001 The relationship of gender to species conservation attitudes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 187–194Google Scholar
Dubois, S and Fraser, D 2003 Conversations with stakeholders 1: Goals, impediments, and relationships in wildlife rehabilitation. Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation 26: 14–22Google Scholar
Elo, S and Kyngäs, SH 2008 The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62: 107-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forman, RTT and Alexander, LE 1998 Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 207-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2008 Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2010 Toward a synthesis of conservation and animal welfare science. Animal Welfare 19: 121–124.Google Scholar
Fraser, D 2012 A ‘practical’ ethic for animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25: 721–746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9353-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D and MacRae, AM 2011 Four types of activities that affect animals: implications for animal welfare science and animal ethics philosophy. Animal Welfare 20: 581–590Google Scholar
Fulton, GR and Ford, HA 2001 The conflict between animal welfare and conservation. Pacific Conservation Biology 7: 152–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup 2010 Flash Eurobarometer No 290 Attitudes towards biodiversity. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_290_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Government of British Columbia 2012a Wildlife Act. http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/free-side/00_96488_01Google Scholar
Government of British Columbia 2012b Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96372_01Google Scholar
Government of Canada 2005 Rural British Columbia profile: a ten-year census analysis (1991-2001). http://www.rural.gc.ca/RURAL/display-afficher.do?id=1245089374518&lang=engGoogle Scholar
HarrisDecima 2010 World Society for the Protection of Animals. Humane treatment of animals survey. http://www.wspa.ca/documents/WSPA-HumaneTreatmentofAnimalsExecutive Summary.pdfGoogle Scholar
Heberlein, TA and Ericsson, G 2005 Ties to the countryside: accounting for urbanites attitudes toward hunting, wolves, and wildlife. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10: 213-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871200591003454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, M 2007 The limits of compassion. The Wildlife Professional 1: 42–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.4004/1933-2866(2007)1[42:TLOC]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, CA, Brown, TL and Scheufele, DA 2007 Gender-biased data in survey research regarding wildlife. Society & Natural Resources 20: 373–377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941 920601161387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellert, SR 1976 Perceptions of animals in American society. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 41: 533–545Google Scholar
Kellert, SR and Berry, JK 1987 Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15: 363–371Google Scholar
Kirkwood, JK and Sainsbury, AW 1996 Ethics of interventions for the welfare of free-living wild animals. Animal Welfare 5: 235–243Google Scholar
Kirkwood, JK, Sainsbury, AW and Bennett, PM 1994 The welfare of free-living wild animals: methods of assessment. Animal Welfare 3: 257–273Google Scholar
Klem, D Jr 1990 Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology 61: 120–128Google Scholar
Kuhnen, VV, Remor, JO and Lima, REM 2012 Breeding and trade of wildlife in Santa Catarina state, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology 72: 59–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842012000100007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longcore, T, Rich, C and Sullivan, LM 2009 Critical assessment of claims regarding management of feral cats by Trap-Neuter-Return. Conservation Biology 23: 887–894. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01174.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Massei, G, Quy, RJ, Gurney, J and Cowan, DP 2010 Can translocations be used to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts? Wildlife Research 37: 428–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR08179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messmer, T 2000 The emergence of human-wildlife conflict management: turning challenges into opportunities. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 45: 97–102. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0964-8305(00)00045-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, D and Perry, G 2008 Improving interactions between animal rights groups and conservation biologists. Conservation Biology 22: 27–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00845.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Regan, T 1983 The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press: Berkeley, USAGoogle Scholar
Sainsbury, AW, Bennett, PM and Kirkwood, JK 1995 The welfare of free-living wild animals in Europe: harm caused by human activities. Animal Welfare 4: 183–206Google Scholar
Salafsky, N, Salzer, D, Stattersfield, AJ, Hilton-Taylor, C, Neugarten, R, Butchart, SHM, Collen, B, Cox, N, Master, LL, O’Connor, S and Wilkie, D 2008 A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conservation Biology 22: 897–911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00937.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, RH 1990 Why do we debate animal rights? Wildlife Society Bulletin 18: 459–461Google Scholar
Soulé, ME 1985 What is conservation biology? BioScience 35: 727–734. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1310054Google Scholar
The Wildlife Society (TWS) 2011 Animal Rights Position Statement. http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/positionstatements/animal_rights_8.30.2011.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wimberger, K, Downs, CT and Boyes, RS 2010 A survey of wildlife rehabilitation in South Africa: is there a need for improved management? Animal Welfare 19: 481–499Google Scholar
Woods, M, McDonald, RA and Harris, S 2003 Predation of wildlife by domestic cats (Felis catus) in Great Britain. Mammal Review 33: 174–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.J365-2907.2003.00017.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaske, JJ 2008 Survey research and analysis: applications in parks, recreation and human dimensions. Venture Publishing Inc, State College: Pennsylvania, USAGoogle Scholar
Zinn, HC and Pierce, CL 2002 Values, gender, and concern about potentially dangerous wildlife. Environment and Behavior 34: 239–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034002005CrossRefGoogle Scholar