Is wildlife culling justifiable

It is not as straightforward as you think

Photo by Anastasiya Romanova on Unsplash

Culling refers to the killing or slaughtering of a specific group of animals. In animal husbandry, it can refer to removing weaker or deformed animals from the breeding gene pool. In the context of this article, it refers to removing a particular wildlife species to curb issues such as overpopulation.

Animal lovers would argue that culling is cruel and should be abolished completely. But what if culling could benefit the local wildlife and ecosystem?

This topic isn’t as black and white as the general public thinks. Factors such as the ecological impact and other potential solutions must also be considered when deciding whether to cull a species.

Why cull?

The most common reason often brought up to justify wildlife culling is human-wildlife conflict. As humans continue encroaching into wild areas, conflict between man and animal will increase. Culling will usually be the go-to option if the wild animal in question poses too much of a risk to the local’s safety or way of life. It is the most effective and cost-efficient way of addressing human-wildlife conflicts, but is it justifiable?

When is culling justified?

In my opinion, culling should always be the last and final resort; other options such as relocation and rehabilitation must either be exhausted or not viable for culling to be even considered. Some other factors include:

• The severity of the conflict: Is the animal in question threatening enough to warrant culling? You wouldn’t shoot a raccoon just for rummaging through your trash.
• Economy: Is culling the animal worth the financial cost? Take the Australian Emu war for example.
• Native versus Invasive species: Native species generally have an ecological role, and culling them may result in an ecological imbalance. Invasive species are already an imbalance to the ecosystem, as such culling them is much more justifiable.
• However, the biggest factor to consider is the ecological impact culling has on the environment and the area’s biodiversity. (This can be unrelated to the previous point, as I will explain later.)

Case studies

Photo by Federico Di Dio photography on Unsplash

Let’s look at some case study examples. In the 20th century, wolves in Yellowstone were culled to near extinction as they were perceived as a threat to livestock. However, removing the native apex predator caused the local elk population to explode.

The overpopulation of elk caused a lot of local plant populations to decline, turning Yellowstone from a place full of forests and beautiful flower patches into basically a biological wasteland. Thankfully wolves were reintroduced and the local wolf population recovered before permanent damage was done. (Shameless plugin here if you want to know more about the wolves of Yellowstone.)

Photo by Ed van duijn on Unsplash

Another case study to look at is the feral pigs in Australia. These pigs were originally brought to Australia in the 1800s to be hunted and farmed. However, their population exploded and became uncontrollable due to the lack of natural predators. These pigs were also extremely adaptable, which is a problem for many of the more specialized local species. These pig hunt natives, such as the kiwi, and outcompete larger animals like the cassowary. It is clear that if nothing is done, the feral pigs will drive many of the local Australian animals to extinction.

As such, the Australian government has implemented culling methods such as aerial shooting to reduce the feral pig population, effectively giving local species such as kiwis and cassowaries to thrive.

Photo by John Torcasio on Unsplash

So, is culling native species always ecologically detrimental, while culling invasive species is always ecologically beneficial? As I mentioned, this topic isn’t always black and white. Kangaroos are a species native to Australia and have an ecological role to play. However, since the extinction of the Tasmanian Tiger in the 1900s, there hasn’t exactly been a predator that can keep the kangaroo population in check. Because of the surge in population, the kangaroos would overgraze, damaging native plants and soil health. As such, the Australian government has implemented measures such as licensed kangaroo harvesting to help curb the kangaroo population.

Photo by Craig Manners on Unsplash

Let’s do this one more time. Once again, back in Australia, we have the dingoes. These canines were introduced into Australia around 4,000 years ago by Austronesian seafarers, and while technically not native, they benefit the local ecosystem. Since the Tasmanian tiger’s extinction, Dingoes are the only animals that are capable of hunting kangaroos (though not as effective as Tasmanian tigers as dingoes are unable a take on a fully grown kangaroo). On top of that, they also occasionally hunt other invasive species, such as feral cats and feral pigs. In a twist of things, an introduced species became a keystone species; in regions where dingoes are culled, kangaroo populations explode, and as mentioned, this is detrimental to the local flora population.

Photo by Hans-Jurgen Mager on Unsplash

The last case study I want to look at is the polar bears in Alaska. Polar bears are native to Alaska, and as global temperatures keep rising, the sea ice will keep melting, forcing polar bears to extend their hunting grounds more inland, which often encroaches into local villages. For context, polar bears are one of the few predators that actively hunt humans as prey, so you can see why a polar bear entering a human settlement can cause tons of concern. Usually, this kind of situation would warrant culling. Thankfully, instead of being lazy and opting straight for culling, the local authorities have decided to invest time and money into non-lethal solutions such as relocation and rehabilitation for the more aggressive bears. Some towns have even installed early polar bear warning systems so locals can seek shelter early to avoid polar bear-human conflicts. This case study is a prime example of how, if we are willing to put in the effort, we can avoid the need to cull animals, protecting both humans and wildlife.

Below is a table that summarizes all the case studies that were discussed here:

Conclusion

As we can see, the decision to cull a species isn’t a simple one to make. There are a lot of grey areas, and whether culling is justifiable varies from case to case. While many people think that the decision to cull lies heavily on how much of a threat the animal presents to the local community, I would argue that the decision should be made with the ecological impact in mind. As seen in all the case studies, there usually will be a better solution unless there are ecological implications such as overpopulation.

While the decision to cull is a complex topic, the method of culling is plain and simple. It is our ethical responsibility to ensure that the animal experiences as little pain as possible and that their suffering is minimal. Indiscriminate culling methods such as glue traps and bear traps should never be used, as these usually leave the animal in agony for days and might end up catching unintended targets.

As humans, we have played god for way too long — for thousands of years, we have decided which species lives and which species dies, often without consideration for ramifications, causing the entire globe to be thrown into ecological chaos. Now that Mother Nature is at a tipping point, it is on us to use our power as the most intelligent species on the planet to right these wrongs. Wildlife culling can significantly impact ecosystems, and these impacts can echo for millions of years, so let us do it for the right reasons.