Compassionate conservation

Compassionate conservation is a discipline combining the fields of conservation and animal welfare. Historically, these two fields have been considered separate^[1] and sometimes contradictory to each other.^[2] The proposed ethical principles of compassionate conservation are: "first do no harm, individuals matter, inclusivity, and peaceful coexistence".^[3]

The Eastern gray squirrel is considered an invasive species in some countries. Advocates for compassionate conservation argue that killing individual animals like this is unnecessary.

Compassionate conservationists argue that the conservation movement uses the preservation of species, populations and ecosystems as a measure of success, without explicit concern given to the welfare and intrinsic value of individual animals.^[4] They argue instead, that compassion for all sentient beings should be what guides conservation actions^[5] and claim that the killing of animals in the name of conservation goals is unnecessary, as these same objectives can be achieved without killing.^[6]

Compassionate conservation has been a subject of criticism by some conservationists, who consider the discipline to be harmful to the goals of conservation.^[7][8]

History

The international wildlife charity Born Free Foundation, which advocates for the well-being of individual wild animals, used the phrase "compassionate conservation" as the name for a Oxford-based symposium it hosted in 2010.^[9] The Centre for Compassionate Conservation was created, in 2013, at the University of Technology, Sydney.^[10] Ignoring Nature No More: The Case for Compassionate Conservation, a collection of essays edited by compassionate conservation advocate Marc Bekoff, was published in the same year.^[11]

In the years since, further conferences have been held on the topic and advocates have published multiple articles in conservation journals.^[9]

Criticism

Compassionate conservation has been called "seriously flawed" by certain conservationists, who argue that its implementation is impractical and could lead to negative outcomes for wildlife, ecosystems, humans,^[7] and native biodiversity.^[8] Others argue that the "do no harm" approach goes "too far" and that put into practice, it would not necessarily lead to positive outcomes for the welfare of individual animals.^[12] Andrea S. Griffin et al. argue that compassionate conservation's focus on empathy "is subject to significant biases and that inflexible adherence to moral rules can result in a 'do nothing' approach".^[8]

Several conservation management approaches supported by compassionate conservation as an alternative to lethal control have been scrutinised experimentally or observationally. For example, trap–neuter–return management of feral cat populations is proposed as an alternative to lethal methods such as shooting or baiting. However, research has not found TNR to be an effective means of controlling feral cat populations.^{[13][14][15][16]}

Similarly, the use of wildlife contraceptives has been proposed as a non-lethal method for managing overpopulation in native wildlife species. However, attempts to apply this approach—such as the control of overabundant Koala populations on Kangaroo Island in South Australia—have not been successful due to logistical and cost-effectiveness barriers. Alternative compassionate approaches such as wildlife fertility control were also unsuccessful. As with trap–neuter–return programs, nonlethal reproductive management of a subset of a population often results in compensatory increases in reproductive success among untreated individuals.^[17] Translocation to lower-abundance habitats was also not successful because the translocated individuals often died, negating any "compassionate" benefits of the approach.^[18]

See also

• Conservation welfare
• Opposition to hunting
• Relationship between animal ethics and environmental ethics
• Wild animal suffering
• Wildlife management