Managing human-deer conflicts: Ethical dilemmas of non-lethal control

The control of wildlife in suburban setting is a vexing question for wildlife managers and other professionals, as effective control is elusive, and there are heated public debates about all available strategies. This paper... [ view full abstract ]

The control of wildlife in suburban setting is a vexing question for wildlife managers and other professionals, as effective control is elusive, and there are heated public debates about all available strategies. This paper explores ethical issues raised by the use of non-surgical, pharmaceutical fertility control to manage reproduction using the case of white-tailed deer (WTD) in the Eastern USA. A high density of WTD has led to human-deer conflicts which traditionally have been solved by hunting. Recently, however, there has been a push towards non-lethal control, especially fertility control. Although the scientific and technical aspects are beginning to be better understood, the underlying value issues require further exploration. The paper analyses the ethical issues raised – as seen from the perspectives of animal rights, utilitarianism and, notably, concern for wildness – by three main avenues for addressing perceived problems caused by WTD populations: (a) attitudinal and behavioural changes in humans: including efforts to keep deer and humans apart, risk-avoiding behaviour, or trying to change attitudes to deer; and/or (b) actual changes in the deer population, by means of lethal control (e.g. culling/sport hunting); and/or (c) by non-lethal control, primarily pharmaceutical methods of fertility control. The conclusion is that stakeholders with different ethical concerns and deeply held values are likely to understand the nature of the problem very differently and likely to defend different ways of resolving it. Nonetheless, changes in human behaviour rather than pharmaceutical fertility control to reduce deer populations seem preferable from all three ethical perspectives. In addition, it is concluded that it is less clear how pharmaceutical population control compares in ethical terms with hunting. Finally, although changes in human behaviour may seem the ethically preferable option, practical issues seem, if not formidable, then at least considerable.