EventsThe 1st International Electronic Conference on Animals—Global Sustainability and Animals: Science, Ethics and Policy
Published
This submission belongs to the session C. Sustainable animal welfare, ethics, policies and politics of the event The 1st International Electronic Conference on Animals—Global Sustainability and Animals: Science, Ethics and Policy
Published date
02 Dec, 2020
Citation
Emma Frances Randall, Nieky van Veggel, Is there a wild animal welfare emergency facilitated by negative linguistic framing in wildlife population control studies?, in Proceedings of The 1st International Electronic Conference on Animals—Global Sustainability and Animals: Science, Ethics and Policy, 5 December–20 December 2020, MDPI: Basel, Switzerland, doi: 10.3390/IECA2020-08828
Share
Email
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Is there a wild animal welfare emergency facilitated by negative linguistic framing in wildlife population control studies?

1. Writtle University College
Abstract

As the world human population continues grow in number and mobility, and the impacts of climate change take effect, the opportunities for problematic relationships with non-human animals multiply. There are escalating threats to health from wild vectors of zoonotic disease, and so called ‘invasive’ species have been identified as a significant direct driver of an unprecedented period of global biodiversity loss. This brings a sense of genuine urgency to control problematic wild populations; in the UK alone, it is estimated that 38 million wild mammals and birds are killed as pests. However, the impact of these animals is not always objectively appraised. Control interventions are often ineffective, may be counterproductive and can cause severe suffering. Decisions about when, where and how to control animal populations can be affected by attitudes and philosophical perspectives, influenced by how language is used.

A systematic review of wildlife population control studies was carried out to determine whether negative linguistic framing of animals was associated with poor welfare outcomes. Framework analysis of titles, abstracts and keywords was used, and assessments made of the welfare impacts of control methods. This analysis revealed language that framed target populations in terms of War, Threat, Place, Victim, Value, Sentience and Naturalness with a range of associated themes. There was a relationship between negative framing and methods with the most adverse welfare outcomes, but the effect was not consistent. It was clear that there are cultural conventions within the science that were reinforced or challenged depending on many factors including the status of the species and the context of the intervention. More work to explore and challenge cultural conventions in describing targeted animals, and robust reporting of the welfare impacts of control methods are needed to tackle this, often disregarded, animal welfare emergency.

Keywords
Wildlife population control
Wild animal welfare
Welfare assessment
Linguistic framing
Invasive species
Pest management
Systematic literature review
Manuscript
Poster
Animals conference PowerPoint slides Emma Randall submission.pdf
Keeping dairy cows for longer: a critical literature review on dairy cow longevity in high milk-producing countries
Identification and validation of operational welfare indicators appropriate for small-scale goat farming in Chile