The following story appeared in the Spring/Summer 2015 issue of Born Free USA’s magazine, Animal Issues Digest.
Those familiar with Born Free will know that we work tirelessly to promote the welfare of wild animals and to conserve wildlife. But, what happens at the intersection of animal welfare and conservation? The sad reality is that many human activities, including those undertaken for a conservation purpose, may directly or indirectly cause harm to individual wild animals. What are we to do when actions to conserve animal populations or species may involve harming individual animals?[teaserbreak]
In recent years, Born Free has worked hard to develop and promote an initiative that we have termed “compassionate conservation.” Compassionate conservation is more than just a new buzzword; it is a new way of looking at conservation problems and their solutions, which draws upon the sciences and practices of animal welfare and conservation biology, and aims to consider individual animals at the heart of conservation.
What exactly do we mean by compassionate conservation? Put simply, we believe that the welfare of individual animals is central to carrying out genuine conservation, and that by forging closer links between animal welfare science and conservation biology, we can improve the effectiveness of conservation.
Consider this: in some cases, both conservation and animal welfare are improved by human interventions. Take, for example, rescuing and releasing a threatened primate from a hunter’s snare. But, what about situations in which conservation and animal welfare are in conflict? For example, it has become relatively common conservation practice for animals to be trapped or hunted “for the good of the species”—the thinking being that, when saving a whole population, losing one or two individuals doesn’t matter.
But, we at Born Free believe that it truly does matter; it matters greatly to those one or two individuals who want to avoid harm and suffering, and who want to survive and thrive as much as any other individual.
Moreover, it matters to the population and species. Animal populations are not made up of identical units who can be removed or replaced at will. Individual animals within a population are varied, with complex interrelationships, and each is important to the survival of the species. One need only consider situations in which a species has a tiny remaining population—such as the beloved Ethiopian wolf, which numbers no more than 550 individual animals—in order to realize that the welfare of just one individual animal can have a significant and lasting impact on the survival of a species (and why Born Free has supported the Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Programme for more than 20 years).
Compassionate conservation challenges the accepted norm that it is always acceptable to sacrifice, capture, or harm individuals so that the species might survive.
Not only do we need to consider our impact on wildlife as representatives of an increasing human population on the planet, but also the impact of our well-intentioned interventions as conservationists. It should no longer be acceptable to reach for the gun, the poison, or the trap when we want to “control” wildlife or promote one species over another. Throughout history, such interventions have been shown time and again to be both unbearably cruel and to have unintended consequences. Nor should it be acceptable to kill or maim wild animals in order to study them.
And, a compassionate conservation approach can be brought to bear on a whole host of problems facing wildlife: from what to do about “invasive” animals threatening populations of wild animals, to how we interact with wildlife as tourists, to what we do about injured wildlife, to the impact of habitat loss on individual animals. Compassionate conservation seeks to minimize situations in which conservation and animal welfare outcomes are in conflict.
While some claim that there is conservation merit in such controversial activities as keeping wild animals in zoos or hunting them for trophies, Born Free believes that these activities—which come at a significant cost to the welfare of animals—are not compassionate conservation. The distinction is much needed and long overdue.
I am proud to say that the term is gaining currency globally as a network of scientists, practitioners, and campaigners has emerged, all united by a common cause: to improve the welfare of wild animals within a conservation context. Several academic papers have employed the term and at least one book included it in its subtitle. There is now even a Centre for Compassionate Conservation at the University of Technology, Sydney, Australia, for which the Born Free Foundation is an international patron organization. And, Born Free has coordinated and cosponsored a series of international conferences and workshops, starting with the groundbreaking Compassionate Conservation Symposium at the University of Oxford in 2010, which brought together academics and practitioners from the animal welfare and conservation fields. We are delighted to be planning a multidisciplinary conference at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada this year, which is sure to take the initiative from strength to strength as invited experts exchange exciting ideas and debate controversies.
What we hope to achieve is not simply more humane conservation research and practice, but a whole new approach to conservation. By combining consideration of the welfare of individual animals and conservation, we are convinced that we can both reduce harm and suffering, and improve conservation outcomes.
Encouraging a move to a compassionate conservation approach may take time, and we may meet some resistance. But, on our journey, we could do a lot worse than recall Born Free’s tagline: “Keep Wildlife in the Wild.”