Cargando…

Fertility Control and the Welfare of Free-Roaming Horses and Burros on U.S. Public Lands: The Need for an Ethical Framing

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Because the ethical foundation for the management of free-roaming horses and burros is very muddled, debates over approaches to their management, including fertility control, focus almost exclusively on practicality. In the U.S., this tendency is reinforced by the federal laws that g...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rutberg, Allen T., Turner, John W., Herman, Karen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9559278/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36230397
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani12192656
_version_ 1784807619716710400
author Rutberg, Allen T.
Turner, John W.
Herman, Karen
author_facet Rutberg, Allen T.
Turner, John W.
Herman, Karen
author_sort Rutberg, Allen T.
collection PubMed
description SIMPLE SUMMARY: Because the ethical foundation for the management of free-roaming horses and burros is very muddled, debates over approaches to their management, including fertility control, focus almost exclusively on practicality. In the U.S., this tendency is reinforced by the federal laws that govern public lands management, which center decision-making processes on calculations about how to divide yield among users. Inevitably, outside market forces bias these decisions towards overuse, which ultimately harms the land. In our view, the land and all its inhabitants, including free-roaming horses and burros, wildlife, and people, will only thrive if the pressures of commercial use are removed, and if management is guided by ethics of care, which have rich and diverse cultural origins. Application of care ethics will specifically provide more clarity to horse and burro management, including the selection of appropriate fertility control agents. ABSTRACT: To be effective and publicly acceptable, management of free-roaming horses and burros in the United States and elsewhere needs a consistent ethical framing of the animals and the land they occupy. In the U.S., the two laws that largely govern wild horse and burro management, the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act and the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”), rest on conflicting foundations, the former based on an ethic of care and the latter on largely utilitarian principles. These conflicts specifically fuel debates over the selection of appropriate fertility control agents for horse and burro management. Because land-use and management decisions are largely controlled by the FLPMA, and because the ethical treatment of animals is typically considered under conditions established by their use, both the larger debate about equids and land management and the specific debate about fertility control are dominated by cost/benefit calculations and avoid broader ethical considerations. In our view, the long-term health and ethical treatment of free-roaming horses and burros, the lands they occupy, and the wildlife and people they share it with will require the replacement of the resource-use model with a more holistic, care-based approach.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9559278
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95592782022-10-14 Fertility Control and the Welfare of Free-Roaming Horses and Burros on U.S. Public Lands: The Need for an Ethical Framing Rutberg, Allen T. Turner, John W. Herman, Karen Animals (Basel) Commentary SIMPLE SUMMARY: Because the ethical foundation for the management of free-roaming horses and burros is very muddled, debates over approaches to their management, including fertility control, focus almost exclusively on practicality. In the U.S., this tendency is reinforced by the federal laws that govern public lands management, which center decision-making processes on calculations about how to divide yield among users. Inevitably, outside market forces bias these decisions towards overuse, which ultimately harms the land. In our view, the land and all its inhabitants, including free-roaming horses and burros, wildlife, and people, will only thrive if the pressures of commercial use are removed, and if management is guided by ethics of care, which have rich and diverse cultural origins. Application of care ethics will specifically provide more clarity to horse and burro management, including the selection of appropriate fertility control agents. ABSTRACT: To be effective and publicly acceptable, management of free-roaming horses and burros in the United States and elsewhere needs a consistent ethical framing of the animals and the land they occupy. In the U.S., the two laws that largely govern wild horse and burro management, the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act and the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”), rest on conflicting foundations, the former based on an ethic of care and the latter on largely utilitarian principles. These conflicts specifically fuel debates over the selection of appropriate fertility control agents for horse and burro management. Because land-use and management decisions are largely controlled by the FLPMA, and because the ethical treatment of animals is typically considered under conditions established by their use, both the larger debate about equids and land management and the specific debate about fertility control are dominated by cost/benefit calculations and avoid broader ethical considerations. In our view, the long-term health and ethical treatment of free-roaming horses and burros, the lands they occupy, and the wildlife and people they share it with will require the replacement of the resource-use model with a more holistic, care-based approach. MDPI 2022-10-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9559278/ /pubmed/36230397 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani12192656 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Commentary
Rutberg, Allen T.
Turner, John W.
Herman, Karen
Fertility Control and the Welfare of Free-Roaming Horses and Burros on U.S. Public Lands: The Need for an Ethical Framing
title Fertility Control and the Welfare of Free-Roaming Horses and Burros on U.S. Public Lands: The Need for an Ethical Framing
title_full Fertility Control and the Welfare of Free-Roaming Horses and Burros on U.S. Public Lands: The Need for an Ethical Framing
title_fullStr Fertility Control and the Welfare of Free-Roaming Horses and Burros on U.S. Public Lands: The Need for an Ethical Framing
title_full_unstemmed Fertility Control and the Welfare of Free-Roaming Horses and Burros on U.S. Public Lands: The Need for an Ethical Framing
title_short Fertility Control and the Welfare of Free-Roaming Horses and Burros on U.S. Public Lands: The Need for an Ethical Framing
title_sort fertility control and the welfare of free-roaming horses and burros on u.s. public lands: the need for an ethical framing
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9559278/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36230397
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani12192656
work_keys_str_mv AT rutbergallent fertilitycontrolandthewelfareoffreeroaminghorsesandburrosonuspubliclandstheneedforanethicalframing
AT turnerjohnw fertilitycontrolandthewelfareoffreeroaminghorsesandburrosonuspubliclandstheneedforanethicalframing
AT hermankaren fertilitycontrolandthewelfareoffreeroaminghorsesandburrosonuspubliclandstheneedforanethicalframing