Search

Cover description: Wolves (Canis lupus) on the island of Isle Royale, Michigan USA. Inbreeding depression, manifest as congenital bone deformities in the vertebral column, is present in Isle Royale wolves. One conservation policy choice in response to inbreeding depression is genetic rescue. Such a decision could involve at least four values: (1) a wilderness value whose virtue is non-interference; (2) the value of healthy populations and ecosystems; (3) the value of gaining more scientific knowledge about genetic rescue; and (4) an animal welfare value of possibly reducing the chance that future Isle Royale wolves experience pain associated with the observed bone deformities. We apply a novel empirical conservation ethics approach to explore: (1) ethical paradigms invoked in justifying policy choices; (2) objects of moral relevance related to choices; and (3) ascriptions of responsibility for action. The study published on pages 394-401 may help position the conservation community to better resolve and diffuse key human dimensions of conservation problems. Photo courtesy of John and Leah Vucetich. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data about values are beneficial for resolving disagreements over conservation policy choices because values influence policy acceptance and compliance with conservation rules. Empirical conservation ethics integrate social science methods with conservation dilemmas to determine the origins of values and contribute new solutions to resolving debate. Using the case of genetically rescuing an inbred population of wolves as a policy exemplar, we explored (1) ethical paradigms invoked in justifying policy choices; (2) objects of moral relevance related to choices; and (3) ascriptions of responsibility for action. Discussion board posts revealed diverse ethical paradigms and ascriptions of responsibility, a strong tendency toward collectivism, and associations between some policy choices and ethical paradigms. Conservation ethics can help the conservation community better understand key human dimensions of conservation problems by providing a novel diagnostic framework for policy debate, structuring stakeholder engagement, and informing evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much of conservation planning has focused on how we should prioritize areas for protection based on biodiversity and cost, but less is known about how we should prioritize areas based upon the level of threat they face. We discuss two opposing threat prioritization strategies: frontier conservation (prioritizing high‐threat areas) and wilderness conservation (prioritizing low‐threat areas). Using a temporally explicit model, we demonstrate that the best strategy depends on a variety of factors, including protection costs, heterogeneity in biodiversity, biodiversity–area relationships, the rate of biodiversity recovery, the rate of change in threats through time, and the timeframe within which we measure conservation outcomes. By quantitatively comparing the impact of these strategies, we aim to shift the debate away from a simple dichotomy of frontier versus wilderness, toward an understanding of the context‐specific benefits of each option, and a discussion of how threat combines with other factors to determine spatial conservation priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]