Anthropogenic influence and wildlife intervention

Abstract It may be difficult to decide when to intervene to assist wildlife facing population, health or welfare threats. At present, decisions about interventions are often based on a binary conception of whether harmful processes are deemed to be “anthropogenic” or “natural,” where the former is used to justify intervention. However, this criterion has recently been challenged. First, the longstanding anthropogenic influence of Indigenous peoples has been underestimated. Second, anthropogenic changes are now so deep and wide-ranging that it is unclear if anything can be said to have a wholly “natural” cause. So, using the anthropogenic criterion to underpin wildlife management decisions will be extremely hard to maintain. We use three contemporary case studies from around the world to illustrate these difficulties, and how they can lead to uncertainty and inconsistency in management. We briefly outline possible ways to rethink justifications for wildlife intervention that might better suit the Anthropocene.