Does the End Justify the Means? A Media Analysis of Invasive Pig and Fox Management

Abstract Growing numbers of researchers and animal rights advocates are concerned about the welfare of invasive nonhuman animals, and new government policies echo these concerns. Past survey research, however, shows that the general public defines invasive animal welfare differently than scientists...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inSociety & animals Vol. 28; no. 7; pp. 776 - 796
Main Authors Thompson, Beatrice Emma, Grace, Melanie Elyse, Foster, Bridget Clare, Harrison, Claire Louise, Graham, Sonia
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Leiden | Boston Brill 01.12.2020
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Abstract Growing numbers of researchers and animal rights advocates are concerned about the welfare of invasive nonhuman animals, and new government policies echo these concerns. Past survey research, however, shows that the general public defines invasive animal welfare differently than scientists and animal rights advocates. There is little social research that investigates how differing views on the acceptability of invasive animal controls are reconciled in public fora. This article examines how invasive animal control is represented in two newspapers-The Sydney Morning Herald and The Land-in New South Wales, Australia, focusing on the management of invasive foxes and pigs. The findings revealed that efficacy is emphasized more than humaneness, especially among farmers and peri-urban residents, suggesting a disjuncture between new policies and landholders' values. Views of indigenous land managers and amenity migrants are rarely represented yet they need to be actively engaged to ensure effective policy change.
ISSN:1063-1119
1568-5306
DOI:10.1163/15685306-12341593