I’ve long been interested in ways in which humans can peacefully coexist with so-called “problem” animals, including predators. In most cases, conservation protocols that call for killing these animals make no sense and do not work in the long run. I’ve always favored non-lethal methods based on the principles of compassionate conservation to stop their killing ways.1 For these and other reasons, I was pleased to learn of an important new book by Drs. Katie Javanaud, Clair Linzey, and Andrew Linzey, who work at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, titled The Ethics of Predator Control: A Scottish Case Study which “critically assesses the morality of predator control, aligning with broader discussions on sentience, suffering, and human responsibilities towards nonhuman animals.” Here’s what Katie Javanaud had to say about this case study that can serve as an exemplary model for many different conservation projects globally.

Marc Bekoff: Why did you and your colleagues write The Ethics of Predator Control?

Dr. Katie Javanaud: Our book emerged from a previous collaboration with The League Against Cruel Sports that funded independent research into predator control on Scottish moorland used for grouse shooting. The League supplied information but in no way attempted to influence our findings. We were shocked to learn of the vast number of animals killed (approximately 260, 000) each year as part of predator control measures in rural Scotland. We aimed to scrutinise the justifications (or excuses) often given in defence of wide-ranging predator control practices and to see whether the use of live traps, DOC traps, snares, stink pits, and poisons, among others, really did result in otherwise unachievable conservation goals or whether, in fact, they were really the means of keeping grouse numbers artificially high and thereby facilitating ‘blood sports.’

Our book takes the suffering of the animals affected by these predator control measures seriously and, just like the traps, snares, and poisons themselves, does not discriminate based on species membership.

MB: How does your book relate to your backgrounds and general areas of interest?

KJ: Each of us is committed to raising the plight of animals through academic research, and our book seeks to expose the limitations in the arguments of those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo for the satisfaction of fleeting human pleasure even at the expense of immense and protracted animal suffering.2

MB: What topics do you consider, and what are some of your major messages?

KJ: Our central message is that the use of predator control methods on Scottish moorland used for grouse shooting is both morally unjustifiable, causing immense harm and suffering to a wide range of sentient animals, and, not only ineffective, but often counter-productive as a means of conserving endangered species.

The research indicates that almost 40 percent of the animals killed through predator control measures are ‘non-target’ species. The laying of traps and poisons – ostensibly to protect threatened ground nesting birds such as capercaillie, lapwing, and curlew from predators – therefore poses a threat to the very species (and others besides) allegedly protected by such measures.

Despite constant claims by organisations with vested interests in ‘blood sports’ concerning the necessity of predator control measures for conservation purposes, there is a dearth of evidence that supports the idea that laying traps and poisons is helping to conserve ground-nesting birds. On the contrary, despite dramatic declines in the populations of foxes and weasels (some of ground-nesting birds’ main predators) over the last 25 years, there has not been a corresponding increase in the populations of ground-nesting birds, but, rather, these species too have been in decline. We argue that, all too often, appeals to conservation are being used as a smokescreen to conceal the real reasons behind the extensive laying of traps and poisons.

Another important message we seek to convey is that the measures used for predator control on Scotland’s moorland are anything but ‘humane.’ Again, whilst those with vested interests in sustaining the grouse shooting industry will argue that the killing of 260,000 animals in traps and by poison can be achieved ‘humanely,’ the evidence indicates otherwise. Take the use of ‘live traps’ as an example: even where the law is complied with (which is not always the case), animals can suffer immense stress and both physical and psychological discomfort during the 24 hours they may be confined before the trap is inspected. Similarly, poisoned animals all too often suffer painful and protracted deaths.

Lastly, we argue that predator control, at least in the Scottish context, is itself out of control. There are no means to enforce or ensure compliance with the laws supposed to protect animals from enduring the worst suffering. The rural and hard-to-reach locations of many of the sites where traps and poisons are laid mean that captured animals risk being left trapped for indefinitely long periods of time. Even if the majority of gamekeepers take their legal duties seriously, those who fail to risk inflicting untold suffering on defenceless animals who are out of sight and out of mind.

MB: How does your work differ from others that are concerned with some of the same general topics?

KJ: Whereas lots of arguments have been made against ‘blood sports,’ our work focuses on the plight of the animals who suffer and die even before a single bullet is fired at grouse. Our book, therefore, provides a broader context to discussions surrounding the immorality of ‘blood sports’ in general and grouse shooting in particular, revealing the scale of the killing to be far greater than one would initially suppose.

Ethics and Morality Essential Reads

MB: Are you hopeful that, as people learn more about this topic, they will pay attention to the details of conservation protocols and practices?

KJ: Yes, we are hopeful that exposing the ‘con’ in conservation claims made by organisations such as the GWCT will encourage policymakers to think more seriously about how to protect Scotland’s endangered species. The argument that reducing predator numbers will lead to better outcomes for endangered species is spurious. In our book, we discuss the clear links between illegal raptor persecution and land managed specifically for grouse shooting.

We are also heartened by the Scottish Parliament’s decision to ban the use of snares. Although this decision was long overdue, and the result of tireless campaigns by numerous organisations such as OneKind, NASC, Animal Aid, the League Against Cruel Sports, and others, we are hopeful that by exposing the truth and the innate cruelty of other forms of predator control, we can help to shift the needle for some of Scotland’s most vulnerable animals.