Cull of the Wild: killing in the name of conservation by Hugh Warwick
Bloomsbury Publishing | March 2024 | ISBN 978-1399403740 | Hardback 304 pages | £19

This is a book that should be required reading before anyone is even allowed to engage in debate about conservation ethics. By ‘debate’, of course I mean the expression of opinions about complex, nuanced topics, such as ‘is it right to kill to conserve?’, the sort of polarized views we all too quickly fall into especially
through social media. So, Hugh Warwick has done us all a favour in exploring these and related issues through a series of case studies, both close to home and further afield, without shying away from asking hard questions, of himself and others, and crucially not averse to modifying his own views on the basis of objective evidence. Surely this is a desirable position for us all to adopt, the primacy of fact over opinion?

My fear is that some may find its initial delve into hard-core philosophical principles hard going and off-putting. That discussion is important, but my advice would be to read the first chapter once, and then again after reading through a few of the case studies that follow – it all seems to come together then and make much more sense.

As the narrative of the book expands, so the philosophical conundrums, challenges and considerations expand, from the simple ‘should species x be killed to benefit species y’, to ‘if objective evidence suggest the answer to the above is yes, then what are the primary considerations? Effectiveness? Targeting? Compassion?’. All very important considerations
and ones that benefit from the basic ethical premise of the author, a long-term vegan.

There are also interesting explorations of things we could all usefully learn from in all walks of life, especially conflict resolution through empathy. The section from page 68 is an especially powerful few pages covering the cull of the wild that accompanies attempts
to ‘conserve the shooters’ privilege’ – the killing (legally and otherwise) of predators that have the temerity seek a share of the landscape overloaded with pheasants, a landscape within which the birds themselves conduct their own culls, of invertebrates, snakes etc. All to create a crop of birds themselves to be killed. Devastating reading, especially when one
sees how it quickly breaks down from illegal killing of predators to death threats against human beings.

Only at the very end of the book did the subject that is my personal red line emerge: trophy hunting, the selling of killing and legitimisation of the taking of trophies to demonstrate ‘prowess’, in order to fund the conservation of other individual or species. In my view, that is nothing short of rewarding psychopathy. The author’s position throughout the book is to maintain objective distance to avoid polarization, but on this topic of trophy hunting he observes that there is no common ground to be found: ‘some things are wrong’, an insight provided by a professor friend who said ‘fundamentally, I believe that ethics should precede science’.

If the above comments suggest the book is austere and worthy, sorry. It is not! The author has the most engaging style, full of gentle humour, weaving anecdote and dialogue into even the most potentially distasteful topics (for some). And in doing so, making it all so much easier to swallow, like washing down syrup of figs with malt whisky. Not everyone
will want to grapple with the contradictions and conundrums, but those are the very folk who should do so if we want a society built on consensus instead of conflict.

Reviewed by Dr Chris Gibson FBNA and BNA Trustee

First published in BNA News Bulletin Issue 22 November 2024, p 24.