Why is culling necessary

Anthrax is more common in developing countries and countries that do not have veterinary public health programs that routinely vaccinate animals.

Another reason for culling animals is the need to reduce their populations in order to prevent damage of habitat by a rapidly increasing population. Provision of meat in this case becomes a secondary objective. Culling of animals in conservation areas continues to be a controversial issue.

While conservation scientists and protected area managers argue for its use as a management tool to control animal populations, some conservationists consider it morally wrong. Culling, as a game management tool has been used in some protected areas within Zambia and has been undertaken for mainly three reasons: To prevent or reduce habitat degradation caused by high densities of animals; To reduce human-wildlife conflict; and as a species protection strategy e.

Game cropping and culling operations are not restricted to initiatives in protected areas but may also be a regular harvesting technique on game ranches and private lands. Is this a debate about the definition of "natural"? I think there are two strong strains here that get confused in our society. There are people who are really committed to wildlife conservation.

That refers to maintaining the health of the most biodiverse habitats possible. And then there are animal rights advocates, who believe that every animal is ethically considerable and should have the right to live. I think these two camps sometimes overlap in that wildlife conservationists want to find the most humane ways of managing ecosystems, but believe that the genie is out of the bottle—we live in an artificial set of habitats that must be managed or we will lose biodiversity.

And then there are the animal rights people who say we'll deal with that as we come to it, but we have to find a way to make room for every animal to fit into the ark. That's really not my perspective. If wildlife managers don't cull, then nature culls, and we will see animals starving [and] habitat types that used to be vibrant and beautiful consisting of highly reduced numbers of species.

That's the specter that frightens wildlife conservationists, whereas I think those with the animal rights perspective feel that, ethically, we lose our souls if we cannot respect the divine spark in every individual animal.

The sad thing is I think both sides really love nature. But they have a very different view of looking at the future of nature on a planet that is overpopulated by humans.

All rights reserved. Wildlife culls have been in the news a lot lately. Is this a new practice? Share Tweet Email. Why it's so hard to treat pain in infants. This wild African cat has adapted to life in a big city. Animals Wild Cities This wild African cat has adapted to life in a big city Caracals have learned to hunt around the urban edges of Cape Town, though the predator faces many threats, such as getting hit by cars. India bets its energy future on solar—in ways both small and big.

Environment Planet Possible India bets its energy future on solar—in ways both small and big Grassroots efforts are bringing solar panels to rural villages without electricity, while massive solar arrays are being built across the country.

Go Further. Animals Climate change is shrinking many Amazonian birds. Animals Wild Cities This wild African cat has adapted to life in a big city. Animals This frog mysteriously re-evolved a full set of teeth.

Animals Wild Cities Wild parakeets have taken a liking to London. Animals Wild Cities Morocco has 3 million stray dogs. Meet the people trying to help. The government came up with a program to combat the disease. One of the solutions focused on the culling of four pests that were carriers of this disease; rats, sparrows, flies, and mosquitoes. Billions of them were killed. Although the culling of sparrows helped to eliminate the disease, it had a negative impact on the ecosystem.

Sparrows helped to regulate the population of locusts and other insect pests in rural China. Without sparrows, the locusts and pests destroyed a lot of grain, contributing to the Great Famine of China that killed millions of people. In Mauritius, the Mauritius flying fox had been causing great losses to farmers. As a result, the government started culling them.

Unfortunately, instead of the yields increasing, they went down, causing greater losses. The ethics of this practice is a major concern when it comes to the pros and cons of culling animals. Any contact with animals should always be humane. But most of the approaches used when culling, cause pain and suffering to animals.

This is evident in the poultry industry, where almost half of the chickens that hatch are usually male. This means they have to be culled. But the methods of culling chicks are inhumane. Some are suffocated in plastic bags, while others are electrocuted. Other farmers resort to crushing the chicks, a totally unethical practice. Alternative ways of dealing with this problem should be established. For example, breeders can invest in technologies that can establish if an embryo is male or female before the eggs hatch.

The Canadian seal hunt is another example. Every year, thousands of seals are hunted down and killed as a way of controlling their population. However, the brutal way in which they are killed certainly needs to be rechecked. There are situations where the culled species continue increasing because of the culling. So instead of becoming the solution, culling compounds the problem. The feral cats of Tasmania are a case in point. Wildlife biologists in Tasmania wanted to reduce the population of feral cats.

They set up traps to catch and kill the cats. At first, things went well, and the population of feral cats started going down. However, after a while, new cats started appearing.

As a result, the population of cats increased significantly. The same was observed in ferrets on a British island. The culling of ferrets led to a doubling of their population. Scientists have explained that when the older dominant adults are culled, younger animals move in from the surrounding areas to replace the adults. This leads to an explosion of population because the older ones are not there to chase away or kill the younger ones. Also, the removal of some animals creates more space and food for those left, leading to a higher rate of survival and reproduction.

Although culling is often considered essential, it remains a controversial option for managers to employ. If a species is introduced, widely accepted to be damaging to native wildlife or agricultural interests, or occurs in remote areas, culling will often be carried out with public approval.

For example, recent operations that culled hundreds of thousands of feral camels in central Australia raised nary an eyebrow, but initiatives to cull much smaller numbers of feral horses, or brumbies, from alpine and sub-alpine areas regularly raise howls of protest even though the damage caused by horses to high country environments has been well documented.

Of course, people generally have more affinity and closer associations with horses than they do with camels, so emotional responses are not surprising. Culling of native wildlife is also contentious, especially if it involves large, cute, charismatic or iconic species such as flying foxes, dingoes, kangaroos or overabundant populations of koalas.

In all these examples, debates about culling are often loud and emotive. In the case of dingoes, the merits of lethal control are continually being debated, yet shooting, trapping and poison baiting are carried out across much of the continent. The dingo is legally protected to some degree in most states, including Victoria, where it is listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act This change comes approximately a year after the previous bounty program was axed.

For all the resources and emotional energies that are spent on culling, you would be forgiven for thinking that the science of culling operations is well-known and that success is inevitable when operations are properly planned and executed.

Well, yes and no. Culling should work if the size of a pest population is known, if removal methods are available and will reduce the population size and impact by a desired amount, and if the rate of recovery is known.

In the first study we assessed whether ground shooting is effective at reducing fox density in the southern highlands of New South Wales where sheep, primarily, are grazed. To do so we estimated the density of foxes from spotlight counts before and after a fox cull. Prior to culling we estimated that the density of foxes was 4. We thought we would greatly reduce the fox population by removing 47 individuals in 12 nights of ground shooting, but our results suggest that this did not happen.