The Ethics of Reintroducing Large Carnivores

• Published in: Conservation and Society
• Main Authors: Lee, A., Laird, A.M., Brann, L., Coxon, C., Hamilton, A.J., Lawhon, L.A., Martin, J.A., Rehnberg, N., Tyrrell, B.P., Welch, Z., Hale, B., Alagona, P.S.
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Medknow 2021
• Subjects: Ursus arctos
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_20_131; https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/cs.cs_20_131

Efforts to reintroduce species to portions of their historic ranges are growing in number and kind. These include proposals and projects to reintroduce large carnivores in areas where these species have been absent for decades. Reintroductions, like all conservation efforts, involve not only empirical and logistical problems, but also complex normative questions. So, what are the obligations, values, permissions, restrictions, and demands that citizens, conservationists, wildlife managers, and other impacted parties must address? This paper attempts to organise, summarise and briefly analyse the diverse suite of common normative arguments concerning large carnivore reintroduction. Clarifying arguments as a methodological approach grounded in environmental ethics sheds light on many implicit ethical presuppositions that underwrite reintroduction efforts. As an example, we use the grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ), whose populations have grown in recent years in both Europe and North America. Whereas past efforts to recover grizzlies in the lower 48 U.S. states focused on the Northern Rockies and North Cascades, research, legal proceedings, and other proposals have emerged to return the species to other portions of its historic range, including California. Clarifying ethical arguments that may arise from large carnivore reintroduction can contribute to a more civil public discourse and effective decision-making processes.