Cargando…

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 ha...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Rizzolo, Jessica Bell
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7601737/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33019634
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10101783
_version_ 1783603503065726976
author Rizzolo, Jessica Bell
author_facet Rizzolo, Jessica Bell
author_sort Rizzolo, Jessica Bell
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7601737
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76017372020-11-01 Wildlife Farms, Stigma and Harm Rizzolo, Jessica Bell Animals (Basel) Article 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. MDPI 2020-10-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7601737/ /pubmed/33019634 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10101783 Text en © 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Rizzolo, Jessica Bell
Wildlife Farms, Stigma and Harm
title Wildlife Farms, Stigma and Harm
title_full Wildlife Farms, Stigma and Harm
title_fullStr Wildlife Farms, Stigma and Harm
title_full_unstemmed Wildlife Farms, Stigma and Harm
title_short Wildlife Farms, Stigma and Harm
title_sort wildlife farms, stigma and harm
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7601737/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33019634
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10101783
work_keys_str_mv AT rizzolojessicabell wildlifefarmsstigmaandharm