↓ Skip to main content

International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 4,089)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
15 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
171 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
447 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control
Published in
Conservation Biology, February 2017
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12896
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara Dubois, Nicole Fenwick, Erin A. Ryan, Liv Baker, Sandra E. Baker, Ngaio J. Beausoleil, Scott Carter, Barbara Cartwright, Federico Costa, Chris Draper, John Griffin, Adam Grogan, Gregg Howald, Bidda Jones, Kate E. Littin, Amanda T. Lombard, David J. Mellor, Daniel Ramp, Catherine A. Schuppli, David Fraser

Abstract

Human-wildlife conflicts are commonly addressed by excluding, relocating, or lethally controlling animals with the goal of preserving public health and safety, protecting property, or conserving other valued wildlife. However, declining wildlife populations, a lack of efficacy of control methods in achieving desired outcomes, and changes in how people value animals have triggered widespread acknowledgment of the need for ethical and evidence-based approaches to managing such conflicts. We explored international perspectives on and experiences with human-wildlife conflicts to develop principles for ethical wildlife control. A diverse panel of 20 experts convened at a 2-day workshop and developed the principles through a facilitated engagement process and discussion. They determined that efforts to control wildlife should begin wherever possible by altering the human practices that cause human-wildlife conflict and by developing a culture of coexistence; be justified by evidence that significant harms are being caused to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems, and other animals or other animals; have measurable outcome-based objectives that are clear, achievable, monitored, and adaptive; predictably minimize animal welfare harms to the fewest number of animals; be informed by community values as well as scientific, technical, and practical information; be integrated into plans for systematic long-term management; and be based on the specifics of the situation rather than negative labels (pest, overabundant) applied to the target species. We recommend that these principles guide development of international, national, and local standards and control decisions and implementation. Principios del Consenso Internacional para el Control Ético de la Vida Silvestre Resumen. Los conflictos entre los humanos y la vida silvestre son tratados comúnmente al excluir, reubicar o controlar letalmente a los animales con el objetivo de preservar la salud pública y la seguridad, proteger la propiedad o conservar a otros ejemplares valiosos de vida silvestre. Sin embargo, las poblaciones de vida silvestre declinantes, la falta de efectividad de los métodos de control para obtener los resultados deseados y los cambios en cómo las personas valoran a los animales han disparado un reconocimiento extendido por la necesidad de estrategias éticas basadas en evidencias para manejar dichos conflictos. Exploramos las perspectivas sobre y las experiencias internacionales con los conflictos entre humanos y vida silvestre para desarrollar los principios para un control ético de la vida silvestre. Un panel diverso de veinte expertos se reunió durante dos días en un taller y desarrolló los principios por medio de un proceso de participación facilitada y discusiones. Los expertos determinaron que los esfuerzos para controlar a la vida silvestre deberían comenzar en donde sea posible alterando las prácticas humanas que ocasionan el conflicto humano-vida silvestre y desarrollando una cultura de coexistencia; deberían estar justificados por la evidencia de los daños significativos que afectan a la gente, la propiedad, el sustento, los ecosistemas y otros animales; deberían tener objetivos medibles basados en resultados que son claros, alcanzables, monitoreados y adaptativos; deberían minimizar los daños al bienestar animal para el menor número de animales: deberían estar informados por los valores comunitarios así como la información científica, técnica y práctica; deberían ser integrados a los planes para el manejo sistemático a largo plazo; y deberían estar basados en las especificidades de la situación en lugar de las etiquetas negativas (plaga, sobreabundante) aplicadas a las especies objetivo. Recomendamos que estos principios guíen el desarrollo de los estándares internacionales, nacionales y locales y controlen las decisiones y su implementación. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 171 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 447 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 443 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 81 18%
Researcher 77 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 13%
Student > Bachelor 49 11%
Other 32 7%
Other 62 14%
Unknown 90 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 138 31%
Environmental Science 105 23%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 32 7%
Social Sciences 14 3%
Philosophy 5 1%
Other 44 10%
Unknown 109 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 263. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 March 2024.
All research outputs
#141,000
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#33
of 4,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,201
of 426,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#3
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,089 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 426,815 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.