For years it was considered an almost automatic solution: eliminating animals deemed harmful to reduce economic problems. But today that certainty is wavering, not only from an ethical point of view, but also from a scientific one. Research by the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, published in the magazine Biological Conservationin fact calls into question the entire management system of species considered “harmful”.
The numbers are hard to ignore. Every year, in France, around 1.7 million animals – including foxes, mustelids, magpies and crows – are killed. The goal is to limit damage to agriculture and other human activities. However, according to the study, the overall cost of these operations varies between 103 and 123 million euros per year, while the actual damages are between 8 and 23 million.
The more it breaks down, the less it resolves
The economic data is only part of the problem. The most surprising aspect concerns the effectiveness of the strategy itself. Scientists analyzed seven years of data, cross-referencing the number of animals killed with the damage declared in the various territories. The result is clear: culling more animals does not reduce damage.
In some cases, the relationship even seems reversed. An increase in killings is followed by an increase in damage the following year, a sign that the system is not working as expected. Furthermore, the interventions are not even targeted. The areas with the most damage are not necessarily those in which felling operations are intensified, making the entire policy disorganized and inefficient.
Ecosystems more complex than you think
Another key element concerns the stability of animal populations. Despite large-scale eliminations, many species maintain constant numbers over time. This is the case of several birds studied and also of the red fox, already analyzed in previous research. This happens because ecosystems react.
When a population is reduced, natural compensation mechanisms come into play: increased reproduction, movements, adaptations. The result is that human intervention loses effectiveness. Meanwhile, the ecological benefits of these species are ignored. Corvids contribute to the spread of plants, while predators such as foxes and mustelids control rodent populations, indirectly protecting crops.
Towards a change of approach
In light of these data, more and more experts are calling for a paradigm shift. The idea is not to ignore problems, but to approach them differently. Non-lethal strategies, such as crop protection systems or deterrent tools, could reduce damage without compromising natural balances. Continuing on this path means investing a lot of resources in a solution that, given the data in hand, is not working.
You might also be interested in:
