Feral animals and surplus animals are understood as environmental threats. Some impacts are, reduction of biodiversity, economical damage, noise pollution and many more. One major strategy of eradicating these animals is culling. However, culling is complex due to opposing perspectives (for and against). Many may argue that culling is inappropriate because of animal rights, inhumanity and so forth. This leads to a whole range of economical, ecological and socio-cultural controversies. It is important to stop these controversies by proposing an answer to whether culling should be practiced or not. This essay will advance the idea that culling is inappropriate yet displaying both perspectives.
Economic factors are major driving features of arguments…show more content… Ecology ensures a balanced relationship between human and environment. Culling is an anthropogenic act, deciding whether it should be practiced or not would contribute to the environment. One main concern of ecology is invasive species. In Australia, cane toads are classified as ecological threats to native faunas (Shine & Doddy, 2011). Another species, feral cats, kills about 7.2 native animals within 24 hours per cat (McGregor, Legge, Jones & Johnson, 2015). These invasive species colonise habitats and increase competition. Resulting in higher mortality rates of native species, which decreases biodiversity and contribute to pollution (faecal waste, noise, etc.). Hence, culling invasive species will reduce competition and allow native species to flourish increasing biodiversity. Opposing this perspective is culling may disrupt the ecosystem. Feral/superabundant animals have in-cooperated themselves into the ecosystem, other flora and fauna had adapted to work with these animals such as predator and prey cycles (Kennedy et al, 2012). If culling occurred, a sudden change of reducing surplus/feral animals may result in an unbalanced ecosystem possibly harming other species. Additionally, Jenkins et al. (2007) and Bolzoni and De Leo (2013) proposed culling might encourage the spread of viruses. In Jenkins et al. (2007) research, culled areas prompt spatial distributions of badgers, which…show more content… Culling can be selective due to beliefs of ethical and humane ways of killing. Consequently, humans rank the importance of animals in terms of its sentience and cognition. Pro culling sees a utilitarian perspective where it is culturally believed to perceive a better future rather than focusing on an individual. Acknowledge in Lacy’s (1995) academic journal, some communities believe in culling due to its benefits as a whole. For example, in sanctuaries, surplus animals that no longer want to procreate or have a lesser genetic diversity should be replaced by another species (of a greater value) with higher genetic diversity/willingness to breed. Culling is seen as being more efficient and acceptable in helping future generations. However, other cultures such as Jawoyn and animal advocates disagree with culling. These people focus on the sentience of individual animals, taking into consideration its emotions and wellbeing. Outlined in Robinson et al. (2004) research, Jawoyn people formed an emotional and spiritual connection with feral horses, believing they created stories and history. As a result, culling horses would lose the culture in Jawoyn tribe. Furthermore, Farnworth et al. (2014) study shows general public disagreement towards culling due to inhumane and painful deaths. This shows humans develop consciousness of individual animals, provoking guilt when animals are lethally eradicated.