Deconstructing compassionate conservation
© 2019 Society for Conservation Biology..
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.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2019 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2019 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:33 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology - 33(2019), 4 vom: 09. Aug., Seite 760-768 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 11.12.2019 Date Revised 17.12.2019 published: Print Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1111/cobi.13366 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM298233150 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM298233150 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225093720.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/cobi.13366 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0994.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM298233150 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)31206825 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Hayward, Matt W |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Deconstructing compassionate conservation |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2019 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 11.12.2019 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 17.12.2019 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2019 Society for Conservation Biology. | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a animal rights | |
| 650 | 4 | |a animal welfare | |
| 650 | 4 | |a bienestar animal | |
| 650 | 4 | |a conservación basada en evidencias | |
| 650 | 4 | |a conservación efectiva | |
| 650 | 4 | |a control letal | |
| 650 | 4 | |a derechos animales | |
| 650 | 4 | |a effective conservation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a especies invasoras | |
| 650 | 4 | |a evidence-based conservation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a invasive species | |
| 650 | 4 | |a invasives | |
| 650 | 4 | |a invasoras | |
| 650 | 4 | |a lethal control | |
| 650 | 4 | |a reubicación | |
| 650 | 4 | |a translocation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a 入侵 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a 入侵物种 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a 动物权力 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a 动物福利 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a 基于证据的保护 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a 有效保护 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a 灭杀控制 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a 迁地保护 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Callen, Alex |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Allen, Benjamin L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ballard, Guy |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Broekhuis, Femke |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bugir, Cassandra |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Clarke, Rohan H |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Clulow, John |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Clulow, Simon |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Daltry, Jennifer C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Davies-Mostert, Harriet T |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fleming, Peter J S |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Griffin, Andrea S |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Howell, Lachlan G |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kerley, Graham I H |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Klop-Toker, Kaya |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Legge, Sarah |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Major, Tom |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Meyer, Ninon |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Montgomery, Robert A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Moseby, Katherine |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Parker, Daniel M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Périquet, Stéphanie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Read, John |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Scanlon, Robert J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Seeto, Rebecca |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Shuttleworth, Craig |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Somers, Michael J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tamessar, Cottrell T |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tuft, Katherine |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Upton, Rose |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Valenzuela-Molina, Marcia |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wayne, Adrian |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Witt, Ryan R |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wüster, Wolfgang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology |d 1999 |g 33(2019), 4 vom: 09. Aug., Seite 760-768 |w (DE-627)NLM098176803 |x 0888-8892 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:33 |g year:2019 |g number:4 |g day:09 |g month:08 |g pages:760-768 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13366 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 33 |j 2019 |e 4 |b 09 |c 08 |h 760-768 | ||