
%0 Journal Article
%A K. Kirkwood, James 
%T Tackling conservation/welfare conflicts in the management of wild animals
%J Pacific Conservation Biology
%D 2002/03/10
%V 8
%N 1
%P 36-39
%K 
%R https://doi.org/10.1071/PC020036
%U https://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/PC020036 
%X During the last century there were two distinct and profound changes in attitudes to animals. First, it became widely understood that human activities and anthropogenic changes to the environment present a serious threat to biological diversity. In response to this many programmes to protect habitat and to conserve species have been launched. Second, advances in various fields of science led to a strengthening belief in many societies that a wide range of animals may have the capacity for consciousness and thus suffering. This has led to growing concern for the welfare of animals - the quality of their lives - and to the development of extensive bodies of welfare legislation in many countries. Concerns for species conservation and concerns for individual animal welfare do not always pull in the same direction. Around the world, conflicts are becoming commonplace between those who believe it can be justifiable to compromise the interests of individual animals in order to prevent species extinctions and those who do not. Such conflicts may be addressed and hopefully avoided or minimized through use of an ethical review process in which conservation benefits and welfare costs are carefully identified, considered and weighed in a cost/benefit analysis. A second function of this review process is to ensure that, where the decision is taken to proceed with a conservation programme that may adversely affect the welfare of some individuals, all necessary steps are taken to minimize these threats and their possible impacts. 
