study: the failure of mass killings as conservation policy

Conservation strategies that rely on lethal control—like poisoning, culling, or aerial shooting—may seem efficient at first glance. But evidence shows they rarely solve the problem long-term. A major study in Current Biology (2024) highlights three critical flaws:

​

Repopulation rebounds: After killing large numbers, animal populations often rebound quickly. Removal leaves ecological niches and resources open, enabling survivors or newcomers to multiply and refill the gap—sometimes even increasing problem density later on.

​

Collateral ecosystem damage: These methods don't discriminate. Non-target species—especially native or endangered wildlife—often suffer unintended harm. That damages fragile ecosystems and undermines conservation goals.

Misplaced incentives: Mass culls can reinforce simplistic, control-based thinking, distracting from lasting solutions that involve community engagement, ongoing veterinary care, data-driven planning, and legal protection systems.

 

In short, lethal control is a temporary fix at best—and potentially harmful at worst. The Current Biology research confirms that humane, science-based strategies outperform mass killings in yield and sustainability. Animal Balance’s model offers a clear alternative: sterilization, education, census-led planning, and legal frameworks that prevent recurrence, protect biodiversity, and build community ownership.