Wildlife Farms, Stigma and Harm

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Wildlife farming is a practice where wild animals are legally bred for consumption in a manner similar to agricultural animals. This is a controversial conservation practice that also has implications for animal welfare and human livelihoods. However, most work on wildlife farming has focused solely on conservation or animal welfare rather than considering all of these ethical factors simultaneously. This paper uses interview data with academics to analyze (a) the harms and benefits of wildlife farms and (b) how wildlife farms are labeled detrimental (stigmatized) or acceptable. Results indicate that consideration of the harms and benefits of wildlife farms incorporate conservation, animal welfare, scale disparities between sustenance and commercial farms, consumer preferences, species differences, the dynamics of demand for wildlife products, and governance. Whether wildlife farms are stigmatized or accepted is influenced by different social constructions of the term “wildlife farm”, if there is a stigma around use of a species, a form of production, or the perceived quality of a wildlife product, cultural differences, consumer preferences, geopolitical factors, and demand reduction efforts. This paper discusses how the ethics of wildlife farms are constructed and how shifts in context can alter the ethical repercussions of wildlife farms. ABSTRACT: Wildlife farming, the commercial breeding and legal sale of non-domesticated species, is an increasingly prevalent, persistently controversial, and understudied conservation practice. The adoption or rejection of wildlife farms is a complex process that incorporates numerous ethical considerations: conservation, livelihoods, animal welfare, and cultural practices. This paper uses qualitative interview data with key informants (academics) to analyze (a) the harms and benefits of wildlife farms and (b) the factors that influence whether wildlife farms are stigmatized or accepted. In evaluations of wildlife farming’s harms and benefits, respondents incorporated multiple considerations: animal welfare, environmental impacts, scale disparities between sustenance and commercial farms, consumer preferences, species differences, the substitutability and accessibility of wildlife products, and governance. The results further indicated that the stigmatization or acceptance of wildlife farms is affected by the “wildlife farm” label, if there is a stigma around use of a species, a form of production, or the perceived quality of a wildlife product, cultural differences in wildlife use, wildlife consumer typology, geopolitical factors, and demand reduction efforts. This paper analyzes the complexities of wildlife farming such that stakeholders can understand the impacts of this practice on species, human communities, individual animals, and the legal and illegal wildlife trades.