Deconstructing compassionate conservation

Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so-called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public

Envisioning the future with ‘compassionate conservation’:An ominous projection for native wildlife and biodiversity

The ‘Compassionate Conservation’ movement is gaining momentum through its promotion of ‘ethical’ conservation practices based on self-proclaimed principles of ‘first-do-no-harm’ and ‘individuals matter’. We argue that the tenets of ‘Compassionate Conservation’ are ideological - that is, they are not scientifically proven to improve conservation outcomes, yet are critical of the current methods that do. In this paper we envision a future with ‘Compassionate Conservation’ and predict how this might affect global biodiversity conservation. Taken literally, ‘Compassionate Conservation’ will deny current conservation practices such as captive breeding, introduced species control, biocontrol, conservation fencing, translocation, contraception, disease control and genetic introgression. Five mainstream conservation practices are used to illustrate the far-reaching and dire consequences for global biodiversity if governed by ‘Compassionate Conservation’. We acknowledge the important role of animal welfare science in conservation practices but argue that ‘Compassionate Conservation’ aligns more closely with animal liberation principles protecting individuals over populations. Ultimately we fear that a world of ‘Compassionate Conservation’ could stymie the global conservation efforts required to meet international biodiversity targets derived from evidenced based practice, such as the Aichi targets developed by the Convention on Biological Diversity and adopted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and the United Nations.Fil: Callen, Alex. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Hayward, Matt W.. Universidad de Newcastle; Australia. Nelson Mandela University; Sudáfrica. Universidad de Pretoria; SudáfricaFil: Klop Toker, Kaya. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Allen, Benjamin L.. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Ballard, Guy. University of New England Australia; Australia. University of New South Wales; AustraliaFil: Beranek, Chad T.. Universidad de Newcastle; Australia. Universidad de Pretoria; SudáfricaFil: Broekhuis, Femke. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Bugir, Cassandra K.. Universidad de Newcastle; Australia. Universidad de Pretoria; SudáfricaFil: Clarke, Rohan H.. Monash University; AustraliaFil: Clulow, John. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Clulow, Simon. Universidad de Newcastle; Australia. Macquarie University; AustraliaFil: Daltry, Jennifer C.. Fauna & Flora International; Reino UnidoFil: Davies Mostert, Harriet T.. Universidad de Pretoria; Sudáfrica. Endangered Wildlife Trust; SudáfricaFil: Di Blanco, Yamil Edgardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Nordeste. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Puerto Iguazú | Universidad Nacional de Misiones. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Puerto Iguazú; ArgentinaFil: Dixon, Victoria. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Fleming, Peter J. S.. University of Queensland; Australia. University of New England; Australia. University of New South Wales; AustraliaFil: Howell, Lachlan G.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Kerley, Graham I. H.. Nelson Mandela University; SudáfricaFil: Legge, Sarah M.. Australian National University, Fenner School Of Environment And Society; Australia. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Lenga, Dean J.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Major, Tom. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Montgomery, Robert A.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Moseby, Katherine. University of New South Wales; AustraliaFil: Meyer, Ninon. Fondation Yaguara Panama; PanamáFil: Parker, Dan M.. University of Mpumalanga; Sudáfrica. Rhodes University.; SudáfricaFil: Périquet, Stéphanie. Ongava Research Centre; SudáfricaFil: Read, John. University of Adelaide; AustraliaFil: Scanlon, Robert J.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Shuttleworth, Craig. Bangor University; Reino Unido. Red Squirrel Trust Wales; Reino UnidoFil: Tamessar, Cottrell T.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Taylor, William Andrew. Endangered Wildlife Trust; SudáfricaFil: Tuft, Katherine. Arid Recovery; AustraliaFil: Upton, Rose M. O.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Valenzuela, Marcia. Universidad de Newcastle; Australia. Instituto Politécnico Nacional. Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados. Departamento de Fisica.; MéxicoFil: Witt, Ryan R.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Wüster, Wolfgang. Bangor University; Reino Unid

Response to comments on “Compassionate Conservation deserves a morally serious rather than dismissive response - reply to Callen et al., 2020”

[No abstract available

Envisioning the future with 'compassionate conservation': An ominous projection for native wildlife and biodiversity

The 'Compassionate Conservation' movement is gaining momentum through its promotion of 'ethical' conservation practices based on self-proclaimed principles of 'first-do-no-harm' and 'individuals matter'. We argue that the tenets of 'Compassionate Conservation' are ideological - that is, they are not scientifically proven to improve conservation outcomes, yet are critical of the current methods that do. In this paper we envision a future with 'Compassionate Conservation' and predict how this might affect global biodiversity conservation. Taken literally, 'Compassionate Conservation' will deny current conservation practices such as captive breeding, introduced species control, biocontrol, conservation fencing, translocation, contraception, disease control and genetic introgression. Five mainstream conservation practices are used to illustrate the far-reaching and dire consequences for global biodiversity if governed by 'Compassionate Conservation'. We acknowledge the important role of animal welfare science in conservation practices but argue that 'Compassionate Conservation' aligns more closely with animal liberation principles protecting individuals over populations. Ultimately we fear that a world of 'Compassionate Conservation' could stymie the global conservation efforts required to meet international biodiversity targets derived from evidenced based practice, such as the Aichi targets developed by the Convention on Biological Diversity and adopted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and the United Nations

Deconstructing compassionate conservation

Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so-called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public

Reintroducing rewilding to restoration – a search for novelty

Rewilding is emerging as a major issue in conservation. However, there are currently a dozen definitions of rewilding that include Pleistocene rewilding, island rewilding, trophic rewilding, functional rewilding and passive rewilding, and these remain fuzzy, lack clarity and, hence, hinder scientific discourse. Based on current definitions, it is unclear how the interventions described under the rewilding umbrella differ from those framed within the long-standing term 'restoration'. Even projects held up as iconic rewilding endeavours invariably began as restoration projects (e.g., Oostvaaderplassen; Pleistocene Park; the return of wolves to Yellowstone, etc.). Similarly, rewilding organisations (e.g., Rewilding Europe) typically began with a restoration focus. Scientific discourse requires precise language. The fuzziness of existing definitions of rewilding and lack of distinction from restoration practices means that scientific messages cannot be transferred accurately to a policy or practice framework. We suggest that the utility of 'rewilding' as a term is obsolete, and hence recommend scientists and practitioners use 'restoration' instead233255259MWH and MJS are funded by the Australia-Africa Universities Network - Partnership Research & Development Fund 201