Numerous people around the world are interested in the best ways to conserve nonhuman animals (animals) in an era in which humans wantonly trespass into their lives and their homes and harm them in the name of conservation or in the name of coexistence that far too often translates into in the name of humans. In hedgehog-loving ecologist and author Hugh Warwick's new book, Cull of the Wild: Killing in the Name of Conservation, he takes "a balanced and open approach to this emotive subject and speaks to experts on all sides of the debate [about]. How do we protect endangered native species? Which species do we prioritize? And how do we reckon with the ethics of killing anything in the name of conservation?"

While I agree that Hugh's approach is heartfelt and balanced, I have argued that killing in the name of conservation or coexistence is an oxymoron that makes little to no sense because the life of every single individual matters. Who are we to decide who lives and who dies? Whether I agree with Hugh and others is immaterial, and his book will force everyone to reconsider how they feel about this controversial and recurring approach to conservation.

Marc Bekoff: Why did you write Cull of the Wild?

Hugh Warwick: The first ecological study I undertook was looking at the effect of hedgehogs on the ground-nesting birds, on an island to which they had been imported. North Ronaldsay, the northernmost of the Orkneys, is small, flat, and home to an amazing avian fauna. The hedgehogs were introduced by postmen in 1974 to try and control garden pests. Up until then, there were no hogs around.

That was in 1986—I repeated the work in 1991, and then, a decade later shared all my experience with the people looking to deal with the same problem on the Outer Hebridean islands of the Uists. The conservationists decided to kill these hedgehogs and I did research that stopped the cull four years later.

At the same time, I met a conservationist from New........

© Psychology Today