 |
Ethical and Social
Issues
The entire subject of
wildlife contraception is attended by a variety of strongly
held attitudes both favoring and objecting to this approach.
Public discussions are seldom rational. For example, despite
the obvious limitations to the available technology some advocates
will make loud and unrealistic claims that wildlife contraception
can one day completely replace public hunting. On the other
side, and despite evidence to the contrary, opponents will
express fears of harm after eating treated animals, or will
object on the basis of high cost, or will insist that a problem
that took 20 years to develop be solved in one year. Anyone
seriously considering involving themselves or their community
in wildlife contraception should first read Kirkpatrick and
Turner 1995, 1997. At very least, do not expect unemotional
and dispassionate discussions to occur when this topic is
broached (see Kirkpatrick and Turner 1997).
The most serious ethical consideration is when to manage and
why. Should wildlife populations be reduced by any method
because they inconvenience humans? Should seals be contracepted
because they are suspected of harming the economy of a fishing
village? Should wolves be contracepted because they are eating
caribou that sport hunters spend lots of money to shoot? Should
an endangered species be contracepted? Who makes the decisions,
and on what basis? These are serious questions involving the
ethics of both science and wildlife management and they must
be considered before application of this technology is applied
to our wildlife resources.
|
|
