Jim Barrington: is the concept of managing wildlife acceptable?

Hunting with hounds has dominated news stories about animal welfare for decades, yet a more fundamental question about our wildlife is rarely asked. Consequently, this debate misses a crucial stage – one that requires an answer before we can move on to discuss hunting or indeed any of the other methods of control. In this instance it is a query aimed more at those opposed to hunting rather than those in favour of it. The question is this: Is the concept of managing wildlife acceptable? It's a simple question and prompts an explanation as to what wildlife management is, what the aims are and what methods should be available. It also demands a response from those who do not accept wildlife management, because for all talk about what is disliked, we rarely hear what is acceptable to the critics of hunting with hounds. Despite the importance of wildlife management, it's surprising how little mention of it is made in media debates, which inevitably fall into 'kill or not to kill' arguments and only benefit the anti-hunt position by exploiting the public's ignorance about the issues and activities involved. Yet management, as opposed to pest control, is central to numerous issues and problems surrounding wildlife today. The two positions, arguments in favour of management and those opposed, should be examined. The aims of wildlife management are: • to maintain sustainable and healthy populations of indigenous species • to meet biodiversity targets • to reduce populations of over successful species • to protect populations of vulnerable species • to protect habitats • to confront and reduce disease • to protect livestock, forestry and crops Various options, in addition to legislation and stewardship schemes, are available to achieve these ends including fencing, diversion feeding, relocation, deterrence and, of course, lethal methods. Leaving open all of these choices, depending upon different geographical areas and conditions, is important, but it is also naïve to think that lethal control must be excluded. While some people may feel uncomfortable about killing an animal for any reason, the vast majority will accept the aims and objectives of wildlife management when properly explained. Furthermore, when hunting with hounds is seen in this context, as a process that is selective and non-wounding, the picture becomes clearer. In other words, hunting is not primarily 'pest control' which generally seeks to eradicate, but an activity that fits perfectly into the ethos of wildlife management. Now to the other side of the debate and those who would argue that the future of wildlife should be left to nature. The attractiveness of this argument is obvious and will be happily accepted by many people, as it removes from the discussion the killing of animals by humans and, in doing so, alleviates any feelings of guilt. Yet if this view is meant to be the 'least suffering' option, then its supporters are sadly mistaken and is an indication of a lack of understanding of life and death in the wild. As the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management states, "Death in the wild, in the absence of predators and without man's intervention is variously protracted pain, sepsis, gangrene, starvation hypothermia, inability to feed, inability to hold territory, for days probably weeks before death finally supervenes." Doing nothing can hardly be regarded as good animal welfare. Yet oddly some people opposed to any form of culling, which they regard as cruel, argue that their non-interventionist stance is justified precisely because animals in the wild will naturally die awful deaths. But what about those vulnerable species that would simply be over-run by the more successful ones? Do we just let them die out? What about certain species that will destroy their own habitat and that of other species if left uncontrolled? What about diseases that may wipe-out many individual animals or even a whole species? Indeed, what about diseases that affect human interests or even jump species and infect humans? Just leave it all to nature? What is important about this debate is that it provides a third position, one which ignores those simplistic and unrealistic "kill or not to kill" categories and counters the view that all those involved in field-sports just kill for fun. The wildlife management position is strengthened even further if a wild mammals welfare law, based on sound evidence as opposed to opinion or prejudice, is introduced to address genuine cruelty, replacing the Hunting Act. It's a winning formula that the vast majority of reasonable people will support, improves animal welfare and removes hunting once and for all from the political agenda.