The Case Against Killing Animals Considered Pests: A Wild Animal Welfare Approach

Animals labeled as pests are routinely killed through lethal methods that cause severe suffering. This paper argues that continued reliance on such methods is morally problematic, especially given the expanding range of nonlethal options for both urban and agricultural ecosystems. The paper develops two arguments. First, a proportionality objection according to which the harms caused by lethal control exceed legitimate human interests; second, a nonmaleficence argument claiming that lethal control is unjustifiable when feasible nonlethal alternatives exist. The paper further argues that wild an imal welfare science can inform decision-making when population control is considered, by improving welfare impact assessment.