WE TREAT our animals inconsistently in the UK 鈥� no official oversees the inhumane poisoning of wild Norway rats, for example, but step outside the law when using the same species in research and you risk prosecution.
This isn鈥檛 because of any material differences, but because of tradition, prejudice and ignorance. We create arbitrary categories: farmed animals, wildlife, research animals, pets, 鈥減ests鈥� and 鈥済ame鈥�. These are perpetuated through regulations providing wildly different levels of protection and care. At one extreme, the UK has the toughest regulatory environment in the world 鈥� for animals in research 鈥� and at the other are its laws ostensibly protecting wildlife, a dog鈥檚 dinner of outrageous omissions and egregious practice. This, despite supporting a view that vertebrates and a growing number of invertebrates are sentient.
Advertisement
Wildlife 鈥渕anagement鈥� laws in the UK are riddled with indefensible exemptions. Unlike people working in slaughterhouses or technicians euthanising animals in a research facility, with very few exceptions, there is no legal requirement for anyone killing wildlife to be trained or supervised. with a are used to trap, poison and kill. Of the few not yet proven to be inhumane, a simple description of their mode of action is enough to turn the stomach of the majority of people.
Adding insult to injury, in the UK, much of this equipment is freely available. There is no independent inspectorate. This contrasts with research, where every investigator, premises and procedure is licensed and overseen by a powerful government inspectorate. In the US, where treatment of wildlife is similarly unaccountable, an even greater range of inhumane killing equipment is available.
What passes for wildlife management in the UK (and many other countries) falls little short of a free-for-all. But it doesn鈥檛 go unnoticed. There are seeking a prohibition on the use of traps and snares. This campaigning has a long history. Similar efforts driven by public revulsion led to the ban on the wanton beating of draught horses in the street and replaced the unreliable poleaxe with the captive bolt pistol to kill cattle humanely.
But why the lack of progress on wildlife? Most killing of wildlife in the UK takes place on private land given over to shooting, and those involved go to great lengths to keep it private. Of necessity, most studies of it are desktop-based or 鈥渁fter the event鈥�, with conclusions drawn from post-mortem examination. In short, vested interests hamper change.
Decisions involving the fate of animals are ethical and should be made on the basis of utility. That is, as well as considering 鈥渉ow?鈥�, it is important to consider 鈥渨hy?鈥�, so that, on balance, the benefits outweigh the harms. A combination of statutory ethical review and a tough regulator means animal research is well governed. In contrast, there is no independent ethical review of the reasons or the methods for killing wildlife, nor any statutory inspection. The utility of wildlife killing is also questionable when so much is done to protect non-native birds released for shooting.
In 2017, an International Expert Forum on Wildlife Control . These have been widely adopted by conservation bodies. Globally, governments have been more reticent, but requiring animal sentience to be considered when legislating should mean that similar principles will underpin policy.
How do we address sentience in wildlife? Start with a root-and-branch review of lethal control. Then perhaps we can treat our wildlife with a bit more respect.
听
Alick Simmons is the UK鈥檚 former deputy chief听veterinary officer and author of
