Numerous people around the world are interested in the best ways to conserve nonhuman animals (animals) in an era in which humans wantonly trespass into their lives and their homes and harm them in the name of conservation or in the name of coexistence that far too often translates into in the name of humans. In hedgehog-loving ecologist and author Hugh Warwick's new book, Cull of the Wild: Killing in the Name of Conservation, he takes "a balanced and open approach to this emotive subject and speaks to experts on all sides of the debate [about]. How do we protect endangered native species? Which species do we prioritize? And how do we reckon with the ethics of killing anything in the name of conservation?"
While I agree that Hugh's approach is heartfelt and balanced, I have argued that killing in the name of conservation or coexistence is an oxymoron that makes little to no sense because the life of every single individual matters. Who are we to decide who lives and who dies? Whether I agree with Hugh and others is immaterial, and his book will force everyone to reconsider how they feel about this controversial and recurring approach to conservation.
Marc Bekoff: Why did you write Cull of the Wild?
Hugh Warwick: The first ecological study I undertook was looking at the effect of hedgehogs on the ground-nesting birds, on an island to which they had been imported. North Ronaldsay, the northernmost of the Orkneys, is small, flat, and home to an amazing avian fauna. The hedgehogs were introduced by postmen in 1974 to try and control garden pests. Up until then, there were no hogs around.
That was in 1986—I repeated the work in 1991, and then, a decade later shared all my experience with the people looking to deal with the same problem on the Outer Hebridean islands of the Uists. The conservationists decided to kill these hedgehogs and I did research that stopped the cull four years later.
At the same time, I met a conservationist from New Zealand. The decision to kill hedgehogs was made there for the same reasons—they were exported in the 1860s. Initially, I argued that this was not necessary but after analyzing the data, it was clear that there were no alternatives.1
This left me feeling challenged. My heart was utterly opposed to killing (I have not eaten meat for nearly 40 years) but my head could see why it was necessary.
Source: Pixabay/Pexels.updownedit
That is why I wrote the book—to try and get a better understanding of these conflicts—both those between my head and my heart, but also the conflicts we have unleashed on the world by moving wildlife around, and by degrading the ecosystems to such an extent that new species make an easy home.
MB: Who do you hope to reach with your book?
HW: Part of the motivation for writing this book has been to get the study and appreciation of ecology raised on the agenda. I know that some people will be outraged by the concept of killing for conservation. I hope that in reading the book people will recognize how very complicated this can be and realize how the study of ecology is worth taking more seriously. Often, the decision about whether to kill an animal ends up being taken by someone who is not an expert.
The overarching fascination with economics, politics, and celebrity drives news and media—but all of those things are just subsets of the ecosystem as a whole. If this book can push the study of ecology a little higher into people’s minds, I will be satisfied.
MB: What are some of the major topics you consider?
HW: A thread running through this book is the conflict between my head and heart. My prejudices were also challenged. I had assumed that my position leaned much more towards the deontological binary of right and wrong—thou shalt not kill. But as I read more, and met and interviewed many experts, I found that Peter Singer’s utilitarianism became a far more persuasive argument.
The argument that we should let nature take her course was a frequent critique. But the problems are anthropogenic—we caused them. By abrogating responsibility for the clean-up of nature, we are just dumping an extra burden on this precious world.
However, what I learned from Wayne Linklater was very important. His work in New Zealand and his critique of the Predator Free program made me think about the shift in thinking we need to take. Most simply, New Zealand is uniquely vulnerable to invasive non-native species. This may be because of its evolutionary isolation, but it is also because it is degraded by extractive industries. We have been sold a Lord of the Rings view of these islands, but there is a far more damaged reality beneath the land of the Hobbits.
I was also deeply moved by some of those who remained embedded in their normative thinking. Compassionate Conservation should be woven into any strategies to tackle these complex issues.2 But both sides need to be grown up enough to give a little—leaving this to a social media-generated shouting match where there are only two answers reveals so much about the business model of that world we use to communicate—and also reveals how much easier it is to ignore compromise.
MB: Are you hopeful that as people learn more about the dark side of conservation, they will be concerned about killing for conservation?
HW: Alick Simmons has written a superb book called Treated Like Animals. He was one of the leading government vets in the UK and kindly let me sit and bombard him with questions. He made such mind-shifting important points for me and a lot of that was around the capacity of animals to suffer. One of my problems with the utilitarian spreadsheet is that there is rarely a column for suffering—this is something I want every wildlife manager to take on board and own. They are responsible for the suffering of individual animals, each capable of experiencing joy and fear. Not thinking about this does not mean it goes away.
Every death has to be consciously felt by those involved. Possibly the collective pain is something that might tip the balance.
References
In conversation with author Hugh Warwick who has a particular fondness for hedgehogs.
1) New Zealand's ongoing and brutal war on wildlife raises numerous questions about humans having to kill invasive animals "in the name of conservation." See, for example, Is There Hope for Ending New Zealand's War on Possums?; Why New Zealand's Policy of Killing Animals Harms Children; Jane Goodall Says Don't Use 1080, Jan Wright Says Use More; Does Everybody Really Hate Possums? The Bandwagon Effect. So too does the killing of barred owls to save spotted owls. See Killing Barred Owls to Save Spotted Owls? Problems From Hell and Why would anyone want to shoot half a million barred owls?
2) The four guiding principles of compassionate conservation are: first do no harm, individuals matter, value all wildlife, and peaceful coexistence. For discussion see: Compassionate Conservation Finally Comes of Age: Killing in the name of conservation doesn't work; Killing "In the Name of Coexistence" Doesn't Make Much Sense. Compassionate Conservation, Sentience, and Personhood; Compassionate Conservation Isn't Seriously or Fatally Flawed; Compassionate Conservation Matures and Comes of Age; Ramp, Daniel and Marc Bekoff. Compassion as a Practical and Evolved Ethic for Conservation. BioScience, 65, 323-327, 2015; Arian Wallach, Marc Bekoff, Michael Paul Nelson, and Chelsea Batavia. Promoting predators and compassionate conservation. Conservation Biology 29(5), 1481-1484, 2015; Arian Wallach, Marc Bekoff, Chelsea Batavia, Michael P. Nelson, and Daniel Ramp. Summoning compassion to address the challenges of conservation. Conservation Biology 32 (6), 2018.
Bekoff, Marc. The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy―and Why They Matter. New World Library, 2024.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Rami G Khouri
visit website
