Does the end justify the means? A media analysis of invasive pig and fox management.
Growing numbers of researchers and animal rights advocates are concerned about the welfare of invasive nonhuman animals, and new government policies echo these concerns. Past survey research, however, shows that the general public defines invasive animal welfare differently than scientists and animal rights advocates. There is little social research that investigates how differing views on the acceptability of invasive animal controls are reconciled in public fora. This article examines how invasive animal control is represented in two newspapers-The Sydney Morning Herald and The Land-in New South Wales, Australia, focusing on the management of invasive foxes and pigs. The findings revealed that efficacy is emphasized more than humaneness, especially among farmers and peri-urban residents, suggesting a disjuncture between new policies and landholders' values. Views of indigenous land managers and amenity migrants are rarely represented yet they need to be actively engaged to ensure effective policy change.