People vs wildlife: how to make conservation decisions when both are at stakePeople vs wildlife: how to make conservation decisions when both are at stake

Apr 20 / Adam Barlow

When a conservation decision affects both people and wildlife, the answer is rarely to prioritise one over the other. The goal is to identify the option that is fairest and least harmful across all those affected, based on a structured process that takes seriously the beliefs, values, and morals of every stakeholder, including the interests of wildlife. There is no formula for getting this right, but there is a clear way to work through it.

Source: WildTeam. (2026). Ethical Decision-Making for Wildlife Conservation v1. WildTeam UK, Cumbria, UK.

All WildTeam best practices are grounded in an extensive review of the relevant scientific and professional literature and are peer-reviewed by conservation experts from across the sector to ensure accuracy, practicality, and global applicability.

You can dwnload this best practice when you access the course.

Why this question has no simple answer
What makes these decisions so difficult
The stand for fairness principle
A process for working through the dilemma
Common mistakes and how to avoid them
When no option is acceptable to everyone
Key takeaways
FAQ

Few questions come up more often in conservation than this one. Should a marine protected area be enforced strictly, protecting reef ecosystems but restricting the fishing that coastal communities depend on? Should a predator reintroduction go ahead, restoring ecological function but increasing the risk to farmers' livestock? Should a protected area boundary be expanded, securing critical habitat but reducing access to land that local people have farmed for generations?

These are not questions with obvious answers. They are ethical dilemmas, and what makes them dilemmas is precisely that every available option involves some form of harm. There is no choice that is simply right. The question is which option causes the least harm and can be most fairly justified to everyone affected, including the wildlife whose interests are also at stake.

Framing these situations as people versus wildlife is understandable, but it is also part of the problem. It suggests a binary choice between two sides when the reality is almost always more complex. The people affected are rarely a single group with a single view. The wildlife interests at stake are rarely reducible to a single species or outcome. And the options available are rarely limited to full protection on one hand and no protection on the other.

A structured approach to ethical decision-making does not resolve that complexity, but it gives you a way to work through it honestly and reach a decision you can explain and stand behind.

Three things make decisions involving both people and wildlife particularly hard to navigate.

First, the people affected hold different beliefs, values, and morals, and those differences are not simply misunderstandings to be corrected. A farming community that believes a predator reintroduction threatens their children's safety and livelihoods is not wrong to hold that belief. A conservation organisation that values genetic connectivity and ecological integrity is not wrong to hold theirs. These are different ways of understanding what matters and how people should act, and they deserve to be taken seriously on their own terms.

Second, the interests of wildlife are real but often poorly represented in decision-making processes. Wildlife cannot attend consultations or submit objections. Their interests have to be actively considered and articulated by those involved in the decision. This requires deliberate effort, not just a passing reference to biodiversity outcomes.

Third, inaction is not neutral. Choosing not to make a decision, or delaying it in the hope that the situation will resolve itself, is itself a choice with consequences. Ecosystems continue to degrade, conflicts continue to escalate, and trust between communities and conservation organisations continues to erode. The pressure to act, even when the right course of action is unclear, is real.

Of the six principles that guide ethical decision-making in conservation, the stand for fairness principle is the one most directly relevant to decisions involving both people and wildlife.

The purpose of this principle is to guide you in making decisions that are just, inclusive, and accountable in how they distribute benefits, burdens, access, and influence. It recognises that conservation operates within societies marked by inequality, and that ethical decision-making must actively address those imbalances rather than reproduce them. It extends beyond current human generations to consider future generations and the interests of wildlife.

In practice, applying this principle means ensuring that the decision-making process itself is fair, not just the outcome. It means including representatives from all groups that will be affected by the decision, not just those with the loudest voices or most institutional power. It means designing approaches that ensure conservation benefits reach marginalised and underrepresented groups. And it means choosing options that consider the needs of both people and other species, rather than treating one as automatically subordinate to the other.

This principle sits alongside five others: think beyond self, respect nature's wholeness, honour diverse wisdom, acknowledge time, and face difficult truths. Together they provide a framework for keeping decisions grounded in conservation values even when the situation is complex and the stakes are high.

When a conservation decision affects both people and wildlife, working through it well involves three stages.

Recognise the dilemma clearly: The first task is to frame the dilemma accurately. This means identifying who the decision-maker is, naming the specific stakeholders and perspectives involved, and describing the core tension in terms that all parties would recognise as fair. Vague framings such as "conservation priorities conflict with community interests" are not useful. They obscure who is actually affected, what they actually believe, and what the real trade-offs are. It also means understanding how the dilemma has come to exist. Most conflicts between people and wildlife interests have a history, shaped by past policy decisions, economic pressures, colonial legacies, and changing ecological conditions. Understanding that history is not just context. It is part of understanding the dilemma itself.

Identify what each stakeholder believes, values, and considers morally acceptable: Before any options are assessed, it is essential to understand what each stakeholder believes to be true, what they consider important, and how they think people should behave in this situation. These are not the same thing, and treating them as interchangeable leads to solutions that address the wrong problem. Beliefs are about what people think is true, such as believing that a proposed intervention will damage rather than protect the ecosystem, or that conservation organisations have historically broken their promises. Values are about what people consider important, such as valuing food security, cultural continuity, or biodiversity. Morals are about how people think others should act, such as believing it is wrong to impose restrictions on communities without their consent. Importantly, this stage should also include the interests of wildlife, even though wildlife cannot speak directly. Who will represent those interests in the process? What do the best available evidence and ecological knowledge tell us about what wildlife populations need? These questions need deliberate answers, not assumptions.

Assess options against all affected interests: Once the landscape of beliefs, values, and morals is understood, the task is to identify the available options and assess how acceptable each one is to each stakeholder, including from the perspective of wildlife interests. This means predicting the likely results of each option, assessing how acceptable those results are, and selecting the option that is most justifiable across the full range of affected interests. This process will rarely produce a perfect answer. Most options will be acceptable to some stakeholders and not others. The goal is not unanimous agreement but the most defensible decision available, reached through a process that took everyone's perspective seriously.

Mistake 1: Assuming one side must win

Problem: The decision is framed as a choice between protecting people or protecting wildlife, which obscures the range of options that might better balance both sets of interests.

Solution: Reframe the question. Rather than asking which side to prioritise, ask which option causes the least harm across all affected interests and can be most fairly justified.

Mistake 2: Treating affected communities as a single voice

Problem: The community most visibly involved in a conflict is consulted as if it speaks for all affected people, leaving out women, younger generations, marginalised groups, and those outside the immediate area who may also be affected.

Solution: Systematically identify all stakeholder groups, including those less able to make their voices heard, and ensure the process creates opportunities for their perspectives to inform the decision.

Mistake 3: Failing to represent wildlife interests actively

Problem: Wildlife interests are referenced in general terms but never specifically articulated or represented in the decision-making process. The result is that decisions are made on the basis of human perspectives alone, with wildlife interests treated as background context.

Solution: Identify who will actively represent wildlife interests in the process, what evidence is available about what those interests require, and how the results of each option will affect wildlife specifically.

Mistake 4: Skipping the history

Problem: The conflict is treated as a present-moment disagreement without understanding how past decisions, injustices, and broken promises have shaped current positions. Solutions that ignore this history are likely to repeat it.

Solution: Document how the dilemma has emerged from each stakeholder's perspective, including historical, economic, cultural, and ecological factors.

Mistake 5: Reaching a decision without being able to justify it

Problem: A decision is made, but the reasoning behind it is not documented. Stakeholders who are negatively affected have no way of understanding how their perspectives were considered, and no basis for trusting that they were.

Solution: Document who made the decision, the process by which it was reached, and why the selected option was considered the most justifiable given the perspectives and options available.

In some situations, even after thorough consultation and careful analysis, no available option will be considered acceptable by all stakeholders. This is not a failure of the process. It reflects the difficulty of conservation work and the reality that some dilemmas cannot be resolved without someone bearing a cost.

In these cases, several things remain important. Dissenting views should be documented respectfully, with a clear record of how they were considered. Mechanisms to monitor harm and revisit the decision over time should be built in where possible. And where a decision is likely to negatively affect a group, steps should be taken to provide material, relational, or symbolic support, whether through compensation, alternative provision, or public acknowledgement of the harm caused.

Transparency about how and why a decision was reached matters as much as the decision itself. A decision that causes harm but is reached through a rigorous, inclusive, and honest process is more defensible, and more likely to be accepted over time, than one that produces a better short-term outcome but cannot be explained or justified to those affected.

People versus wildlife is rarely the right frame. Most conservation dilemmas involve multiple human stakeholder groups with different perspectives, and wildlife interests that deserve active representation rather than passive reference.

Fairness applies to the process, not just the outcome. A decision reached through an inclusive, honest, and well-documented process is more defensible than one that produces a good outcome through an opaque or exclusionary one.

Wildlife interests need active representation. Because wildlife cannot speak for themselves, their interests must be deliberately identified, articulated, and included in how options and results are assessed.

Understanding beliefs, values, and morals is not optional. Solutions that address the wrong problem, because they misread why people hold the positions they do, tend to fail. Understanding the full picture takes more time upfront and saves more time in the long run.

A decision you can justify is a decision that builds trust. In conservation, where relationships with communities and stakeholders are long-term, the quality of your decision-making process has consequences that outlast any individual decision.

ONE PAYMENT, FULL ACCESS, MAXIMUM VALUE.

Unlock unlimited learning with the WildTeam Annual Membership. For £290/year, you get full access to every course in our school, including all current courses and all future courses released during your membership. Individual courses cost £190 each. With 7 courses already available, buying them separately would cost £1330. Membership gives you access to all of them, plus future releases, for less than the price of two.

This framing tends to obscure more than it reveals. The ethical decision-making approach does not establish a fixed hierarchy between human and wildlife interests. Instead, it asks you to take all affected interests seriously, assess the options available as fairly as possible, and select the most justifiable course of action given the full picture. In some situations, the most justifiable option will place greater weight on ecological outcomes. In others it will place greater weight on human welfare. What matters is that the reasoning is honest, documented, and defensible.

Wildlife interests need to be actively articulated rather than assumed. This means identifying who in the process will represent those interests, drawing on the best available ecological evidence about what wildlife populations need, and including wildlife as a consideration when assessing the acceptability of both options and predicted results. It also means recognising the intrinsic worth of individual animals, not just population-level outcomes, which the respect nature's wholeness principle addresses directly.

Opposition from an affected community is not simply an obstacle to be overcome. It is information about what the community believes, values, and considers morally acceptable, and it deserves to be understood on those terms. The starting point is to understand why they oppose it, what historical or current factors drive that opposition, and what options might address their concerns while still achieving meaningful conservation outcomes. If, after that process, the most justifiable decision still involves proceeding over community opposition, that decision should be documented honestly, including what steps will be taken to acknowledge and address the harm caused.

Yes, though the process will need to be applied more quickly and with fewer resources than a long-term planning decision would allow. Even under time pressure, framing the dilemma clearly, considering whose interests are at stake, and being able to explain the decision reached are all achievable. A compressed version of the process is always better than no process at all, and it is far more defensible than a reactive decision made without any structured reasoning.

Stakeholder consultation asks people what they want. Ethical decision-making goes further by asking why they want it, what beliefs and values sit behind their position, and how their moral commitments shape what they consider acceptable. This deeper understanding changes how options are assessed and which decision is ultimately selected. It also requires active representation of interests, such as wildlife or future generations, that standard consultation processes tend to omit.

The Ethical Decision-Making for Wildlife Conservation best practice provides detailed guidance on each stage of the process, including worked examples and a free conservation ethics worksheet. The online course covers the same material in a structured, practical format.

Latest from our blog

Conservation databases

Directory of UK higher education conservation courses

Most people looking into a conservation career know the obvious routes: a biology or zoology degree, maybe a master's if they want to specialise. What is harder to see from the outside is just how many UK universities now run dedicated conservation courses, and how different those courses are from each other, from broad environmental science degrees to master's built around a single skill set like GIS, wildlife health or protected area management. This post lists every course from a working reference list of UK conservation-related degree courses, grouped by institution from A to Z, from Abertay University through to the last entry on the list, with the course level and a link to the official course page for each one. It is a working reference for the sector rather than a ranking, useful whether you are choosing between universities and want to see the full range of what is on offer, a careers adviser trying to point students somewhere beyond the usual handful of names, a working professional looking for a master's to build on existing experience, or an institution checking how its own course listing compares. It also covers how the list was put together and what it does and does not cover.

Conservation databases

The A to Z of US conservation organisations

A handful of US conservation organisations get most of the attention: The Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society. The sector runs far wider than that, made up of hundreds of organisations working at very different scales, from national institutions with large staff and budgets to state wildlife federations and single issue land trusts. This post lists every organisation from a working reference list of US conservation, wildlife and environmental NGOs, grouped under the letter each one starts with, from the Adirondack Mountain Club through to the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, with a short note on what each one does and a link to its website. It is a working reference for the sector rather than a ranking, useful for job hunting to see employers beyond the household names, for building a partnership or funding case and finding the right specialist organisation, for a student mapping the range of the sector, or for anyone tracking how far US conservation stretches beyond the well known names. It also covers why four letters of the alphabet have no entry, how the list was put together, and what it does and does not cover.

Conservation databases

The A to Z of UK conservation organisations

Most people can name a handful of UK conservation charities, and stop there. The sector is far larger than that, made up of hundreds of organisations working at very different scales, from national institutions with thousands of staff to single species trusts run by a handful of people. This post lists every organisation from a working reference list of UK conservation, wildlife and environmental NGOs, grouped under the letter each one starts with, from A Rocha UK through to the Zoological Society of London, with a short note on what each one does and a link to its website. It is a working reference for the sector rather than a ranking, useful whether you are job hunting and want to see employers beyond the household names, building a partnership or funding case and looking for the right specialist organisation, a student trying to understand the range of the sector, or curious how far UK conservation stretches beyond the well known names. It also covers why two letters of the alphabet have no entry, how the list was put together, and what it does and does not cover.

Organisational development

How to spot conservation job applicants who are ready to do the job from the start

Hiring for conservation roles is harder than it looks. Applications frequently look similar, candidates describe experience in ways that are difficult to assess, and the standard hiring process of CV plus interview is a poor filter for the thing that matters most: whether someone can do the job to the required standard from the start. This post draws on experience reviewing over a thousand conservation job applications to explain why CVs are unreliable signals of vocational competency, why the conservation sector applies rigorous credential standards to research roles but almost none to professional roles like project management, and why vocational training certification assessed through independent examination is the most reliable indicator that a candidate is ready to contribute from day one. It covers how to use certification at each stage of the hiring process, from job description through shortlisting and interview to conditional offers, and why organisations that train their own staff to a certified standard also become more attractive to candidates who have invested in their own development.

Stay connected with WildTeam

Get practical tools, training insights, and opportunities to help you deliver more effective conservation projects.

I would like to receive news, tips and tricks, and other promotional material

Thanks for connecting!

People vs wildlife: how to make conservation decisions when both are at stakePeople vs wildlife: how to make conservation decisions when both are at stake

Quick answer

UNLOCK OUR FULL BEST PRACTICES AND GET CERTIFIED CONSERVATION SKILLS

Contents

Why this question has no simple answer

What makes these decisions so difficult

The stand for fairness principle

A process for working through the dilemma

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

When no option is acceptable to everyone

Key takeaways

ONE PAYMENT, FULL ACCESS, MAXIMUM VALUE.

Project Management | Project Planning | Grant Writing | Stakeholder Engagement | Monitoring and Evaluation

FAQ

Is it ever right to prioritise wildlife over people?

How do you represent the interests of wildlife in a decision-making process?

What if the community most affected by a decision opposes the conservation action entirely?

Does this approach work for urgent decisions, such as an immediate human-wildlife conflict?

How is this different from standard stakeholder consultation?

What resources are available to help apply this approach?

Latest from our blog

Directory of UK higher education conservation courses

The A to Z of US conservation organisations

The A to Z of UK conservation organisations

How to spot conservation job applicants who are ready to do the job from the start

Related articles

ABOUT

EXPLORE

LEGAL

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

EMPOWERING CONSERVATIONISTS TO RESTORE NATURE

People vs wildlife: how to make conservation decisions when both are at stakePeople vs wildlife: how to make conservation decisions when both are at stake

Quick answer

UNLOCK OUR FULL BEST PRACTICES AND GET CERTIFIED CONSERVATION SKILLS

Contents

Why this question has no simple answer

What makes these decisions so difficult

The stand for fairness principle

A process for working through the dilemma

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

When no option is acceptable to everyone

Key takeaways

ONE PAYMENT, FULL ACCESS, MAXIMUM VALUE.

Project Management | Project Planning | Grant Writing | Stakeholder Engagement | Monitoring and Evaluation

FAQ

Is it ever right to prioritise wildlife over people?

How do you represent the interests of wildlife in a decision-making process?

What if the community most affected by a decision opposes the conservation action entirely?

Does this approach work for urgent decisions, such as an immediate human-wildlife conflict?

How is this different from standard stakeholder consultation?

What resources are available to help apply this approach?

Latest from our blog

Directory of UK higher education conservation courses

The A to Z of US conservation organisations

The A to Z of UK conservation organisations

How to spot conservation job applicants who are ready to do the job from the start

Related articles

ABOUT

EXPLORE

LEGAL

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

EMPOWERING CONSERVATIONISTS TO RESTORE NATURE

Stay connected with WildTeam

LAUNCHING YOUR CAREER IN WILDLIFE CONSERVATION