Trophy Hunting, Canned Hunting, Tiger Farming, and the Questionable Relevance of the Conservation Narrative Grounding International Wildlife Law

Yann Prisner-Levyne
{"title":"Trophy Hunting, Canned Hunting, Tiger Farming, and the Questionable Relevance of the Conservation Narrative Grounding International Wildlife Law","authors":"Yann Prisner-Levyne","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2020.1866236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Trophy hunting, canned hunting, and tiger farming have attracted much negativity from the general public because of their trivialization of wild animals’ lives and welfare. Yet they persist because of their perceived conservation value. This article seeks to demonstrate that whether these activities have conservation value or not is irrelevant. As science demonstrates Darwin’s theory that the difference in cognitive abilities between humans and non-human animals is one of degree, it becomes more and more difficult to justify the objectification of animal life enshrined into international wildlife law and conservation policies. This trivialization of animal life is the result of the utilitarian narrative that grounds conservation policies reflected in international wildlife law where the end justifies all means, no matter how ethically controversial they may be. As the lives of wild animals are objectified and trivialized as these activities exemplify, conservation for sustainable use remains the sole yardstick to legalize or ban wildlife exploitation-based industries at the international and national level. The weight of scientific evidence demonstrating high cognitive abilities of non-human animals in several orders of the Animal Kingdom, however, supports many animal ethics theories that wild animals and animals’ lives in general have intrinsic worth. As such, wild animals are at least moral patients, entitling them to a minimum of specifically tailored rights that cannot be automatically overridden by mere trivial anthropocentric interests, but rather weighted against them. A more zoocentric rights-based approach to international wildlife law could yield better conservation results than the current utilitarian species-focused approach.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2020.1866236","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Trophy hunting, canned hunting, and tiger farming have attracted much negativity from the general public because of their trivialization of wild animals’ lives and welfare. Yet they persist because of their perceived conservation value. This article seeks to demonstrate that whether these activities have conservation value or not is irrelevant. As science demonstrates Darwin’s theory that the difference in cognitive abilities between humans and non-human animals is one of degree, it becomes more and more difficult to justify the objectification of animal life enshrined into international wildlife law and conservation policies. This trivialization of animal life is the result of the utilitarian narrative that grounds conservation policies reflected in international wildlife law where the end justifies all means, no matter how ethically controversial they may be. As the lives of wild animals are objectified and trivialized as these activities exemplify, conservation for sustainable use remains the sole yardstick to legalize or ban wildlife exploitation-based industries at the international and national level. The weight of scientific evidence demonstrating high cognitive abilities of non-human animals in several orders of the Animal Kingdom, however, supports many animal ethics theories that wild animals and animals’ lives in general have intrinsic worth. As such, wild animals are at least moral patients, entitling them to a minimum of specifically tailored rights that cannot be automatically overridden by mere trivial anthropocentric interests, but rather weighted against them. A more zoocentric rights-based approach to international wildlife law could yield better conservation results than the current utilitarian species-focused approach.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
运动狩猎,罐头狩猎,老虎养殖,以及国际野生动物法保护叙事的可疑相关性
摘要运动狩猎、罐头狩猎和老虎养殖因其对野生动物的生命和福利的轻视而引起了公众的强烈不满。然而,它们仍然存在,因为它们被认为具有保护价值。本文试图证明这些活动是否具有保护价值是无关紧要的。随着科学证明达尔文的理论,即人类和非人类动物之间的认知能力差异是程度上的差异,越来越难以证明国际野生动物法和保护政策中对动物生命的客观化是合理的。这种对动物生命的轻视是功利主义叙事的结果,功利主义叙事是保护政策的基础,反映在国际野生动物法中,在这些法律中,目的证明了一切手段是正当的,无论这些手段在伦理上有多大争议。正如这些活动所示,野生动物的生命被物化和琐细化,因此,在国际和国家层面上,保护野生动物以实现可持续利用仍然是使以野生动物开发为基础的行业合法化或禁止的唯一标准。然而,大量科学证据表明,在动物王国的几个目中,非人类动物具有很高的认知能力,这支持了许多动物伦理理论,即野生动物和动物的生命总体上具有内在价值。因此,野生动物至少是道德上的病人,赋予它们最低限度的特别定制的权利,这些权利不能被微不足道的人类中心主义利益自动推翻,而是对它们不利。与目前功利主义的以物种为中心的方法相比,以动物权利为基础的国际野生动物法可能会产生更好的保护效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Drawing upon the findings from island biogeography studies, Norman Myers estimates that we are losing between 50-200 species per day, a rate 120,000 times greater than the background rate during prehistoric times. Worse still, the rate is accelerating rapidly. By the year 2000, we may have lost over one million species, counting back from three centuries ago when this trend began. By the middle of the next century, as many as one half of all species may face extinction. Moreover, our rapid destruction of critical ecosystems, such as tropical coral reefs, wetlands, estuaries, and rainforests may seriously impair species" regeneration, a process that has taken several million years after mass extinctions in the past.
期刊最新文献
Lost in Translation? Why Outdated Notions of Normativity in International Law Explain Germany’s Failure to Give Effect to the Ramsar Convention of 1971 Wild Things: Animal Rights in EU Conservation Law Addressing Illegal Transnational Trade of Totoaba and Its Role in the Possible Extinction of the Vaquita Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility Carceral Logics: Human Incarceration and Animal Captivity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1