Animal Welfare vs Conservation

The fields of animal welfare and conservation both address social issues relating to non-human animals. Many areas of the two fields overlap and it is often necessary to utilize research from both areas in order to address problems in either field. It is often beneficial to both sides to work together to achieve the best possible outcomes for both wildlife conservation and animal welfare, providing “compassionate conservation” (1). However, this is not always the case. Animal welfarists are concerned with the wellbeing of an individual animal with no discrimination toward them on the basis of species. On the other hand, conservationists take a holistic approach and focus on the protection of wildlife and ecosystems (2), sometimes at the expense of the welfare or lives of individual animals.

An example of conflicting views of the two sides would be their opinions of zoos. From a conservationist point of view, zoos are essential to preserving species that are vulnerable or on the verge of extinction, mainly due to anthropological and natural habitat loss (3). Zoo advocates claim that these facilities allow ex situ breeding which is essential for reintroducing threatened species back into the wild. Conservationists also argue that zoos are vital for the scientific research and study of animals and to educate visitors. Research can help scientists gain a better understanding of environmental change on wildlife, population management and veterinary care (3).

Conversely, to animal advocates, zoos are seen as unnecessary, cruel and exploitative of animals for entertainment. Welfarists would say we do not have the right to confine any animal, endangered or not, nor deny them of their natural habitat allowing them to perform normal behavior. Poor housing, isolation, lack of mental stimulation and sometimes abuse are the main concerns and can cause physical and mental health issues (4). They also argue that captive breeding and reintroduction to the wild is not always effective as animals born and raised in captivity cannot always adapt to life in their natural habitat. They also pose risks to in situ wildlife, for example, disease and parasite risk (5). Visitors to zoos can also cause stress to the animals, sometimes “pounding on exhibit windows, throwing objects, or taunting animals to get some kind of response” (4).

In my opinion, the welfare of the individual animal comes first. In the case of zoos, I do not believe any of the benefits to conservation or science outweigh the potential suffering to the animals in captivity. Clearly it would be preferable to prevent the extinction of any species but a miserable life in captivity is not a life worth living. Most conservation-welfare issues are extremely complicated and often have conservationists and welfarists divided, examples include the culling of wildlife pests (6) such as badgers in the UK and the argument of whether or not to rehabilitate and reintroduce orangutans back into the wild in Indonesia and Malaysia (7). Essentially, I consider the welfare of the greatest number of animals to be of priority and sometimes that means a small number of animals will suffer as a consequence – but only as a last resort. Sometimes this may coincide with the aims of conservationists but for different reasons. If the only option is to remove a number of animals to save the lives of a greater number of animals, not considering their species, then this should be done in the most humane way possible, even if that means losing a species of flora or fauna.

References

1. Ramp, D. and Bekoff, M. (2015). Compassion as a Practical and Evolved Ethic for Conservation. BioScience, 65(3), pp.323-327.

2. Keulartz, J. (2015). Captivity for Conservation? Zoos at a Crossroads. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(2), pp.335-351.

3. Minteer, B. and Collins, J. (2013). Ecological Ethics in Captivity: Balancing Values and Responsibilities in Zoo and Aquarium Research under Rapid Global Change. ILAR Journal, 54(1), pp.41-51.

4. Bekoff, M. and Meaney, C. (2013). Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

5. Gainer, D., Burton, J., Chivers, D., Ancrenaz, M., Leiman, A. and Redmond, I. (2009). World Land Trust. In: The Great Ape Debate: Controversy Surrounding Orang-utan Conservation. [online] London: World Land Trust. Available at: http://www.worldlandtrust.org/documents/great-ape-debate-transcript.pdf [Accessed 1 Oct. 2017].

6. Littin, K. and Mellor, D. (2005). Strategic animal welfare issues: ethical and animal welfare issues arising from the killing of wildlife for disease control and environmental reasons. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l'OIE, 24(2), pp.767-782.

7. Vaughan, A. (2017). Debate: What's the best way to protect orang-utans?. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2009/apr/29/debate-orangutan-protection [Accessed 30 Sep. 2017].