Transparency and communication can improve wildlife welfare outcomes: A case of kangaroos

All countries manage human and wildlife coexistence. Where traditionally humans may have killed animals perceived to be a problem, this is often no longer legal or socially acceptable. Decision-makers tend to feel less strongly about coexistence issues than the people who attempt to influence them on behalf of human or wildlife interests. It has been argued that links between human interests and decisions affecting wildlife should be transparent, and that open decision making processes involving a range of local stakeholders will improve outcomes for humans and wildlife. This paper examines one case incident in an ongoing conflict between an international car racing track and kangaroos that have occasionally been found on the track during a race, causing danger to themselves and race participants. A secret local government report and plan to cull kangaroos was obtained using Freedom of Information legislation. When released to the media the subsequent public discussion showed a much greater concern for kangaroo stress, harm and right to live than the official report, and called for consideration of a range of alternatives to culling. This led to postponement of culling plans, and commitment to a more open community discussion of options. The case clearly supports claims that greater transparency and local stakeholder participation in management decision processes can improve welfare outcomes for non-human animals.

[1]  Louise Boronyak-Vasco,et al.  Using tradeable permits to improve efficiency, equity and animal protection in the commercial kangaroo harvest , 2015 .

[2]  Tara L. Teel,et al.  Human Dimensions of Wildlife , 2018, Environmental Psychology.

[3]  D. Ramp Bringing Compassion to the Ethical Dilemma in Killing Kangaroos for Conservation , 2013, Journal of Bioethical Inquiry.

[4]  Tara L. Teel,et al.  Linking Society and Environment: A Multilevel Model of Shifting Wildlife Value Orientations in the Western United States* , 2009 .

[5]  E. Paul Us and them: scientists' and animal rights campaigners' views of the animal experimentation debate. , 1995, Society & animals : social scientific studies of the human experience of other animals.

[6]  Wendy Jarrett Openness and transparency in animal research , 2017, Lab animal.

[7]  S. Riley,et al.  What Are They Thinking? Exploring Layperson Conceptualizations of Wildlife Health and Disease , 2014 .

[8]  Ana D Davidson,et al.  License to Kill: Reforming Federal Wildlife Control to Restore Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function , 2014 .

[9]  S. Dubois Understanding humane expectations : public and expert attitudes towards human-wildlife interactions , 2014 .

[10]  J. Yeates,et al.  Animal research through a lens: transparency on animal research , 2015, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[11]  R. Wallace,et al.  Co-Managing Human–Wildlife Conflicts: A Review , 2006 .

[12]  Tara L. Teel,et al.  Understanding the Diversity of Public Interests in Wildlife Conservation , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[13]  H. Harshaw,et al.  Exploring “Humane” Dimensions of Wildlife , 2013 .