INVASIVE ANIMALS: KILLING FOR THE GREATER GOOD OR SHSORT-TERM EXPEDIENCY?

Riley, S

INVASIVE ANIMALS: KILLING FOR THE GREATER GOOD OR SHSORT-TERM EXPEDIENCY?

Riley, S

Permalink

Publication Type:: Conference Proceeding
Citation:: 2014
Issue Date:: 2014

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Microsoft Word XML

Download Accepted Manuscript versionMicrosoft Word XML (81.52 kB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Riley, S https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8079-7069	en_US
dc.date	2014-11-15	en_US
dc.date.issued	2014	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	2014	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/31103
dc.description.abstract	Abstract The regulation of ‘invasive’ or ‘pest’ animals presents decision makers with many challenges. These include how to manage species that are instrumental in the decline of native biodiversity, or otherwise conflict with the human use of natural resources. In this context, philosophies of environmental ethics regard the value of animals as an integral component of the decision-making process. This calls into question how regulators appraise competing interests and whether regimes should be shaped by utilitarian notions of welfare or extend to consideration of the life of individual species. Using the Model Codes of Practice for the Humane Control of animals such as goats, camels, donkeys and horses (Model Codes), the paper explores how invasive or pest animals are regulated in Australia. The description of pest animals in the Model Codes includes species that are ‘troublesome’ or a ‘general nuisance’. While these descriptors considerably widen the reach of the regime they do not automatically determine how society should deal with ‘pest’ species. The paper argues that the Model Codes become a locus for acquiescing on the impacts of ‘pest’ animals as well as deciding what welfare considerations are relevant to their eradication. At the same time, welfare concerns are rationalised to the point that killing becomes the preferred regulatory option. Indeed, by invoking the risk that invasive or pest species pose, the Model Codes conclude that the species must be killed otherwise management goals remain unfulfilled. Killing animals thus becomes an assimilated part of the reality of natural resource management. Yet this approach does not adequately consider either the long-term effectiveness of culling or the morality of wholesale killing.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	All Things Great and Small: Interdisciplinary Interspecies Community	en_US
dc.title	INVASIVE ANIMALS: KILLING FOR THE GREATER GOOD OR SHSORT-TERM EXPEDIENCY?	en_US
dc.type	Conference Proceeding
utslib.location.activity	UC Davis Conference Center – The Interdisciplinary Animal Studies Group at UC Davis	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
dc.location.activity	UC Davis Conference Center – The Interdisciplinary Animal Studies Group at UC Davis
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/e-Press
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.consider-herdc	false	en_US
pubs.finish-date	2014-11-18	en_US
pubs.start-date	2014-11-15	en_US

Abstract:

Abstract The regulation of ‘invasive’ or ‘pest’ animals presents decision makers with many challenges. These include how to manage species that are instrumental in the decline of native biodiversity, or otherwise conflict with the human use of natural resources. In this context, philosophies of environmental ethics regard the value of animals as an integral component of the decision-making process. This calls into question how regulators appraise competing interests and whether regimes should be shaped by utilitarian notions of welfare or extend to consideration of the life of individual species. Using the Model Codes of Practice for the Humane Control of animals such as goats, camels, donkeys and horses (Model Codes), the paper explores how invasive or pest animals are regulated in Australia. The description of pest animals in the Model Codes includes species that are ‘troublesome’ or a ‘general nuisance’. While these descriptors considerably widen the reach of the regime they do not automatically determine how society should deal with ‘pest’ species. The paper argues that the Model Codes become a locus for acquiescing on the impacts of ‘pest’ animals as well as deciding what welfare considerations are relevant to their eradication. At the same time, welfare concerns are rationalised to the point that killing becomes the preferred regulatory option. Indeed, by invoking the risk that invasive or pest species pose, the Model Codes conclude that the species must be killed otherwise management goals remain unfulfilled. Killing animals thus becomes an assimilated part of the reality of natural resource management. Yet this approach does not adequately consider either the long-term effectiveness of culling or the morality of wholesale killing.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/31103