Pros And Cons Of Pro Culling

Feral animals and surplus animals are understood as environmental threats. Some impacts are, reduction of biodiversity, economical damage, noise pollution and many more. One major strategy of eradicating these animals is culling. However, culling is complex due to opposing perspectives (for and against). Many may argue that culling is inappropriate because of animal rights, inhumanity and so forth. This leads to a whole range of economical, ecological and socio-cultural controversies. It is important to stop these controversies by proposing an answer to whether culling should be practiced or not. This essay will advance the idea that culling is inappropriate yet displaying both perspectives.

Economic factors are major driving features of arguments for and against culling. One of pro culling concepts is feral and surplus animals have increased the amount of environmental damage. This positively correlates with economical damage, as funds are needed for restoration. For example, feral water buffalos located in Kakadu National Park contaminate water sources (Robinson et al., 2004). As a result, Jawoyn people suffer from “buffalo belly” needing medical attention (Robinson et al., 2004). Another main issue is water buffalos tend to feed on croplands and cause erosion. It is vital to fix these problems as Jawoyn people depend on those resources to survive. Consequently, it costs more money to provide food, replenish croplands, clean waterholes and hire medical aid. This is deemed as unnecessary because culling can potentially prevent

such problems. Additionally, culling can increase spatial availability and consumer efficiency. Eradicating surplus/feral animals allow animals of higher value (more endangered) to reside (Lacy, 1995). This means protecting a greater valued species opposed to focusing on surplus/feral animals, saves time and money. Furthermore, culling increases land availability that can be used for agriculture allowing more food production. This could potentially drive economy due to more employment and food availability. Economically, culling is an expensive investment; it includes tonnes of money spent for research, supplies and maintenance. If culling backfired with its aim at reducing feral/surplus animals, money spent is wasted. Shown in Lazenby, Mooney & Dickman (2015) study, culled areas increased feral cat populations. Similarly, ferrets in British island also increased due to eradication (Bodey, Bearhop & McDonald, 2011). A reason why this may occur is dominant adults were exterminated instead of young. This also increases the chances of survival and eventually regenerates the population. Additionally, subsidised culling could potentially lead to economic growth, for example kangaroos in Australia encourages eco-tourism (Animal liberation, 2015). Eco-tourism is profitable as it attracts local and international communities to wildlife conservations and zoos. For international communities, more money is spent on accommodations and plane tickets. Hence, on an economical level culling is inappropriate due to higher risks of losing money, more investments and less profitable outcomes (no eco-tourism).

Organisms depend on Earth and its health, without a healthy Earth survival is detrimental. Ecology ensures a balanced relationship between human and environment. Culling is an anthropogenic act, deciding whether it should be practiced or not would contribute to the environment. One main concern of ecology is invasive species. In Australia, cane toads are classified as ecological threats to native faunas (Shine & Doddy, 2011). Another species, feral cats, kills about 7.2 native animals within 24 hours per cat (McGregor, Legge, Jones & Johnson, 2015). These invasive species colonise habitats and increase competition. Resulting in higher mortality rates of native species, which decreases biodiversity and contribute to pollution (faecal waste, noise, etc.). Hence, culling invasive species will reduce competition and allow native species to flourish increasing biodiversity. Opposing this perspective is culling may disrupt the ecosystem. Feral/superabundant animals have in-cooperated themselves into the ecosystem, other flora and fauna had adapted to work with these animals such as predator and prey cycles (Kennedy et al, 2012). If culling occurred, a sudden change of reducing surplus/feral animals may result in an unbalanced ecosystem possibly harming other species. Additionally, Jenkins et al. (2007) and Bolzoni and De Leo (2013) proposed culling might encourage the spread of viruses. In Jenkins et al. (2007) research, culled areas prompt spatial distributions of badgers, which spread bovine tuberculosis across wide areas. Also, Bolzoni and De Leo (2013) concluded eradication enforces selective pressures of virulence evolution, changing ecological conditions surge the resilience of these pathogens increasing its survivability. Viruses will thrive and more money is needed to prevent these measures. Thus, natural selection is preferred opposed to performing anthropogenic acts. Despite the negatives of invasive species, it is evident that culling may cause more disruptions to the ecosystem hence culling should not be performed.

Socio-cultural factors anticipate most arguments for and against culling. Culling can be selective due to beliefs of ethical and humane ways of killing. Consequently, humans rank the importance of animals in terms of its sentience and cognition. Pro culling sees a utilitarian perspective where it is culturally believed to perceive a better future rather than focusing on an individual. Acknowledge in Lacy’s (1995) academic journal, some communities believe in culling due to its benefits as a whole. For example in sanctuaries, surplus animals that no longer want to procreate or have lesser genetic diversity should be replaced by another species (of a greater value) with higher genetic diversity/willingness to breed. Culling is seen as being more efficient and acceptable in helping future generations. However, other cultures such as Jawoyn and animal advocates disagree with culling. These people focus on the sentience of individual animals, taking into consideration its emotions and wellbeing. Outlined in Robinson et al. (2004) research, Jawoyn people formed an emotional and spiritual connection with feral horses believing they created stories and history. As a result, culling horses would lose culture in Jawoyn tribe. Furthermore, Farnworth et al. (2014) study shows general public disagreement towards culling due to inhumane and painful deaths. This shows humans develop consciousness for individual animals, provoking guilt when animals are lethally eradicated. Therefore, believing in intrinsic values and rights of animals, which fully disagrees culling. Ultimately on a socio-cultural perspective, other cultures should be respected (Jawoyn) and every animal/being should have a right to its own life no matter the sentience level. It is wrongful to take ones life away even if it is humane or ethical. Hence, culling should not be practiced.

In current society, culling is a controversial topic.

Yet, despite these controversies culling should not be practiced due to economical, ecological and socio-cultural reasons. Such as, failed culling (money wastage), eco-tourism, disruption of ecosystem, increase viral spread, disrespecting cultures and inhumanity. However, culling is still practiced today. The only way to stop is by finding a balance between the two opposing

perspectives.