Paper proposal for IAEP 2020: "The case for minimizing anthropogenic mortality in wildlife management"

I have just composed and submitted my paper abstract "The case for minimizing anthropogenic mortality in wildlife management" to the organizers of the 2020 conference of the International Association for Environmental Philosophy, to be held in Toronto, Canada, October 10-12th.

***

The case for minimizing anthropogenic mortality in wildlife management  

PROPOSAL 

Recent research has established that humans currently act as an unsustainable super-predator, with kill rates that by far surpasses the kill rates of other predators (Darimont et al. 2015). This is a key factor behind the contemporary marginalization of wildlife globally and the escalating biodiversity crisis. Darimont et al. (2015) suggest that humans should regard other predators as representing models of sustainable behaviour and aim for reducing kill rates until they are at comparable levels. This may be characterized as the “sustainable predation” view. While I have some sympathy for that view, I instead propose the “minimizing predation” view, which holds that anthropogenic mortality in wildlife management (i.e. the extent of deaths among wildlife caused by humans) should be minimized. I suggest that this should be a central goal in wildlife management, and that society´s performance with regard to reducing anthropogenic mortality among wildlife should be seen as a key success factor in the assessment of conservation efforts. 

Conceptually, this discussion should take a wide, comprehensive notion of wildlife management as its starting point, since this is what makes most sense from a human ecology perspective. Conceived of in this way, wildlife management involves any management of wildlife by the hands of humans, regardless of whether the management is public or private, whether it is legal or illegal, and whether it is related to sustenance (hunting or fishing), regulation of animal populations, or any other lethal or non-lethal encounters between humans and wild animals. With such a comprehensive notion of wildlife management, any encounter between humans and wild animals falls within the scope of our discussion. 

The finding that humans are currently unsustainable super-predators is reflected in the fact that many today regard “wildlife management” as synonymous with making use of lethal management practices. I experienced this first-hand when I once called my local wildlife committee for advice on how to handle a baby seagull gone astray just outside my entrance door and was advised to get a firm grip around its neck and bang its head against the wall. Killing appears to be the gut reaction of many humans whenever they encounter wild animals that they perceive to cause problems. Whether one adopts the “sustainable predation” view or the “minimizing predation” view, changing the human mindset towards wild animals will require persistent and long-term action, and a vigorous focus on non-lethal ways to treat animals. 

The main arguments in favor of the “minimizing predation” view can be outlined as follows:  

1. Humans have a moral responsibility that implies that the killing of animals must be justified in terms of needs and in light of possible alternative actions; if killings are not justified by the satisfaction of needs, or if alternative actions are practically and morally preferable, then the killings in question should not occur. 
2. Given the currently historically high human population, even kill rates on par with those of other predators will likely result in an excessive human ecological dominance which may not be reconcilable with acknowledging the intrinsic value of all sentient beings and/or resolving the biodiversity crisis. 
3. Pragmatically, reducing kill rates as much as possible is preferable to any fixed goal.  

On a final note, the discussion outlined here could at some later occasion fruitfully be expanded to also address issues related to liminal animals, many of which are treated as pest species (cf. the baby seagull); domesticated animals, most of which are killed routinely; and non-animal wildlife.  

Reference 

Darimont, Chris T., Caroline H. Fox, Heather M. Bryan and Thomas E. Reimchen. 2015. The unique ecology of human predators. Science 349 (6250): 858–861.   

SHORT ABSTRACT 

I argue that anthropogenic mortality (deaths caused by humans) among wildlife should be minimized, suggest that this should be a central goal in wildlife management, and that society´s performance with regard to reaching this goal should be seen as a key success factor in the assessment of conservation efforts. This “minimizing predation” view is contrasted with the “sustainable predation” view which implies that human kill rates should be reduced until they are on par with the kill rates of non-human predators. I outline a moral, an ecological, and a pragmatic argument in favor of the “minimizing predation” view.