November 21, 2022 by Editor

International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control

REVIVE believes that all wildlife management carried out in Scotland should conform to the Seven Principles for Ethical Wildlife Control. We accept that in some cases ethical wildlife management may be necessary - e.g for conservation or agriculture - but it must be done right.

Killing wildlife so that more grouse (a wild bird) can be shot for sport - Killing to Kill - does not fit with these principles and is not a good enough reason to kill our wildlife. These seven ethical principles are below:

Modifying human practices

‘A first response to human-wildlife conflict should be to focus on how human behaviour has affected the ecosystem and to address the root causes of conflict rather than only the problematic outcome.’

Grouse moors are unnatural ecosystems created by humans. Barren hillsides created to be filled with artificially high densities of ground-nesting birds will inevitably attract predators. Grouse moor reform should aim to return our uplands to a more naturally balanced ecosystem, thus addressing the root cause of the many problems they create.

Justification for control

‘The need for wildlife control should be justified with evidence that substantial harm is being caused to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems, and/or other animals … the seriousness of the perceived problem should be considered and an objective evaluation of the effects of no control actions being undertaken should be conducted. Justifying control requires reconciling perceived and real harms and conflicting values.’

The persecution of hares, foxes, weasels, stoats and corvids on grouse moors is conducted as a preventative measure against the possibility of them decreasing grouse numbers. No ‘objective evaluation of the effects of no control actions being taken’ has been conducted. More importantly, it is highly questionable whether ‘substantial harm’ is being caused by these animals, even if they do affect grouse to some degree. The ‘seriousness of the perceived problem’ is subjective: is maintaining an artificially high density of one species, so that people can shoot them for sport, in line with the values of most people in Scotland?

Clear and achievable outcome-based objectives

'Ethically defensible decisions to control wildlife require clear objectives and sound evidence that the proposed methods can achieve the objectives … The objective of wildlife control should be specific, measurable, and outcome-based, where the outcome relates to the desired reduction of harm … rather than simply reducing the number of target animals.’

To meet these requirements, gamekeepers would need to be able to prove that killing other animals results in an increased grouse population. There has been no such research to date. However, evidence has shown that lethal control of foxes can be ineffective, as more foxes will move in to fill the territory, so uncoordinated fox control does not reduce fox density.

Animal Welfare

'Control methods should predictably and effectively cause the least animal welfare harms to the least number of animals … Both typical effects and worst-case scenarios need to be considered when evaluating the welfare effects of a proposed method. In addition, methods that result in the least welfare harm when used by knowledgeable and competent professionals may be more harmful when used by untrained individuals.’

As mentioned previously, snaring and trapping cause immense and prolonged suffering even when carried out ‘typically’ and by a competent operator. The ‘worst-case scenarios’ are truly horrific. Unnecessary harm is caused to additional
individuals when non-target species are caught, or dependent young are left behind. There is no possibility that any of these methods ‘cause the least welfare harms to the least number of animals’

Social acceptability

'Decisions regarding wildlife control inevitably involve human values, which differ from person to person and across communities. For example, different people assign different weights to protection of property or livelihoods, to native species, and risks to human safety. People also differ in how they prioritise harms to affected animals such as suffering and loss of life. This diversity of interests calls for an open process of community engagement informed by the relevant science ...’

Currently, shooting and the use of traps, snares and stink pits are informed neither by relevant science nor community engagement. These practices are carried out far from the public eye, and most people in Scotland are not aware of
them. Polls suggest that those who are, do not support them. Grouse moor reform is in the interests of the communities involved for other reasons too. The formation of the REVIVE coalition reflects this; it brings together social justice, environmental and animal welfare organisations in recognition that grouse moor reform is imperative for all of these causes

Systemic planning

'Decisions to control wildlife should be integrated into a program of long-term systematic management. If control actions are used on an ad-hoc basis without being integrated into a systematic, long-term management program, any benefit is likely to be short lived and control actions may be used repeatedly without achieving a sustainable solution. This is particularly problematic if control actions carry substantial animal welfare or other costs.’

Individual estates usually have killing built into their management plans, but the lack of co-ordination between them and the organisations managing neighbouring land blocks, effectively lead to an ad-hoc approach as described here. Creating a program of long-term systematic management of foxes, corvids, hares, stoats and weasels on grouse moors would require more transparency, an evidence-based approach, and cohesion between neighbouring estates (and may be found to be unnecessary and undesirable once the other principles have been considered).

Decision making by specifics rather than labels

‘When animals are labeled with terms such as introduced, abundant, and pest, broad approaches to control are sometimes advocated and little attention is paid to the specifics of the case. Wildlife control should not be undertaken just because a negatively labeled species is present … Animals assigned labels with negative connotations often receive less welfare consideration than valued species … Because vertebrate animals of similar cognitive and emotional complexity can be expected to have similar capacities for suffering, there is no reason consideration of animal welfare should depend on how a species has been categorised or the potential detrimental effects of the animal’s presence or behaviour.’

This is at the heart of the problem. All of the species focused on in this report are routinely referred to as ‘pests’ or ‘vermin’ as they threaten the grouse stocks available for shooting. As previously mentioned, the protections for these species falls short of those given to domestic animals or other wild species. This is nonsensical and unacceptable ethically. Foxes are closely related to our beloved pet dogs, and as such must have similar capacities for joy and suffering, yet we subject them to cruelty that we would find abhorrent if applied to dogs. Any discussion of killing wild animals must avoid labels, as part of a broader cultural shift away from vilifying certain species, and towards a more harmonious relationship with nature.

« Land Reform