CASE STUDIES Bringing Compassion to the Ethical Dilemma in Killing Kangaroos for Conservation Comment on “Conservation Through Sustainable Use” by Rob Irvine Daniel Ramp Received: 3 February 2013 / Accepted: 13 March 2013 / Published online: 18 April 2013 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 Abstract Ethical debate on the killing of kangaroos has polarised conservation and animal welfare science, yet at the heart of these scientific disciplines is the unifying aim of reducing harm to non-human animals. This aim provides the foundation for common ground, culminating in the development of compassionate con- servation principles that seek to provide mechanisms for achieving both conservation and welfare goals. However, environmental decision-making is not de- void of human interests, and conservation strategies are commonly employed that suit entrenched positions and commercial gain, rather than valuing the needs of the non-human animals in need of protection. The case study on the wild kangaroo harvest presents just such a dilemma, whereby a conservation strategy is put for- ward that can only be rationalised by ignoring diffi- culties in the potential for realising conservation benefits and the considerable welfare cost to kanga- roos. Rather than an open debate on the ethics of killing game over livestock, in this response I argue that efforts to bring transparency and objectivity to the public debate have to date been obfuscated by those seeking to maintain entrenched interests. Only by put- ting aside these interests will debate about the exploi- tation of wildlife result in humane, compassionate, and substantive conservation benefits. Keywords Sustainable use . Compassionate conservation . Animal welfare . Kangaroos . Conservation strategies . Entrenched interests Introduction It is undeniable that human land-use practices have led to what has been termed the Earth’ s sixth great biodiversity extinction event (Vitousek et al. 1986; Ceballos, Garcia, and Ehrlich 2010). Human overpopulation will undoubt- edly mark the 21st century as a tipping point in land-use pressure, increasing the emphasis on agricultural food production and security (Godfray et al. 2010) and biodi- versity conservation (Gaston 2005). Thus, solutions for maximising both food security and biodiversity are un- doubtedly of paramount importance in the near future. This is a daunting task, because prevailing agricultural methods are at odds with biodiversity conservation. Similar to rangelands around the world (du Toit, Kock, and Deutch 2010), rangelands in Australia (com- prising 75 percent of the continent) have been substan- tially degraded from over-production of livestock since European settlement in 1788. To rectify this, restoration activities have investigated alternatives to livestock grazing, one being the consumptive use of wildlife. Bioethical Inquiry (2013) 10:267–272 DOI 10.1007/s11673-013-9442-y The original article by Rob Irvine, published in the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry , 9(4): 509–510, can be located at DOI 10.1007/ s11673-012-9403-x. D. Ramp (*) School of the Environment, University of Technology, Sydney, P.O. Box 123, 2007 Broadway, NSW, Australia e-mail: daniel.ramp@uts.edu.au