猫的分类:管理奥特罗、新西兰和英国的边界野地

IF 4.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
A. Palmer, Virginia Thomas
{"title":"猫的分类:管理奥特罗、新西兰和英国的边界野地","authors":"A. Palmer, Virginia Thomas","doi":"10.1002/pan3.10519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nManagement of domestic and wild animals is an integral part of conservation and is often based on how an animal is categorised. For example, feral cats are often killed, while valued companion cats and native wildcats are protected.\n\nDrawing on qualitative research and using the concept of boundary‐work, this paper examines the complex categorisation and management of cats within conservation in Britain and Aotearoa, New Zealand (NZ). We examine how, both in theory and in practice, valued companion and wildcats are distinguished from unprotected feral cats, and in‐between categories of stray and hybrid cats.\n\nWe demonstrate that stakeholders draw boundaries between cat categories differently. These differences in boundary‐drawing reflect the inherent blurriness of category boundaries, practical challenges and, importantly, differences in values, in particular whether priority is placed on the life of the cat or the cat's potential victim, particularly native or game birds. This can mean that laws outlining protections for specific categories of animals have limited effect if, in practice, those encountering cats draw boundaries differently.\n\nThis paper also reports on important differences between the two case studies. In NZ, even cat advocates support the humane killing of unambiguously feral cats while this is less true in Britain. Furthermore, due to the nature of the contexts, conservationists in NZ are more inclined to assume that ambiguous cats are feral whereas conservationists in Britain are more inclined to assume that they are wildcats.\n\nThis paper demonstrates that values not only shape people's perceptions and treatment of animals but also how they draw boundaries between them. This finding may have important implications for understanding other controversies in conservation and animal management.\n\nRead the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.","PeriodicalId":52850,"journal":{"name":"People and Nature","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Categorisation of cats: Managing boundary felids in Aotearoa New Zealand and Britain\",\"authors\":\"A. Palmer, Virginia Thomas\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pan3.10519\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n\\n\\nManagement of domestic and wild animals is an integral part of conservation and is often based on how an animal is categorised. For example, feral cats are often killed, while valued companion cats and native wildcats are protected.\\n\\nDrawing on qualitative research and using the concept of boundary‐work, this paper examines the complex categorisation and management of cats within conservation in Britain and Aotearoa, New Zealand (NZ). We examine how, both in theory and in practice, valued companion and wildcats are distinguished from unprotected feral cats, and in‐between categories of stray and hybrid cats.\\n\\nWe demonstrate that stakeholders draw boundaries between cat categories differently. These differences in boundary‐drawing reflect the inherent blurriness of category boundaries, practical challenges and, importantly, differences in values, in particular whether priority is placed on the life of the cat or the cat's potential victim, particularly native or game birds. This can mean that laws outlining protections for specific categories of animals have limited effect if, in practice, those encountering cats draw boundaries differently.\\n\\nThis paper also reports on important differences between the two case studies. In NZ, even cat advocates support the humane killing of unambiguously feral cats while this is less true in Britain. Furthermore, due to the nature of the contexts, conservationists in NZ are more inclined to assume that ambiguous cats are feral whereas conservationists in Britain are more inclined to assume that they are wildcats.\\n\\nThis paper demonstrates that values not only shape people's perceptions and treatment of animals but also how they draw boundaries between them. This finding may have important implications for understanding other controversies in conservation and animal management.\\n\\nRead the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"People and Nature\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"People and Nature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10519\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"People and Nature","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10519","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

家畜和野生动物的管理是保护的一个组成部分,通常基于动物的分类。例如,野猫经常被杀死,而有价值的伴侣猫和本地野猫则受到保护。利用定性研究和边界工作的概念,本文研究了英国和新西兰奥特罗阿保护区内猫的复杂分类和管理。我们研究了有价值的伴侣猫和野猫如何在理论和实践中与无保护的野猫区分开来,以及流浪猫和杂交猫的类别之间的区别。我们证明了利益相关者在cat类别之间划分的边界不同。这些边界绘制的差异反映了类别边界的固有模糊性、实际挑战,以及重要的价值观差异,特别是优先考虑猫的生命还是猫的潜在受害者,特别是本地鸟类或猎鸟。这可能意味着,如果在实践中,那些遇到猫的人划定的界限不同,那么概述保护特定种类动物的法律效果有限。本文还报告了两个案例研究之间的重要区别。在新西兰,即使是猫的拥护者也支持人道地杀死毫无疑问的野猫,而在英国,这种情况就不那么真实了。此外,由于环境的性质,新西兰的自然资源保护主义者更倾向于认为模棱两可的猫是野生的,而英国的自然资源保护主义者更倾向于认为它们是野猫。本文表明,价值观不仅塑造了人们对动物的看法和对待方式,还影响了人们如何在动物之间划定界限。这一发现可能对理解保护和动物管理方面的其他争议具有重要意义。在《华尔街日报》博客上阅读免费的《简明语言摘要》。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Categorisation of cats: Managing boundary felids in Aotearoa New Zealand and Britain
Management of domestic and wild animals is an integral part of conservation and is often based on how an animal is categorised. For example, feral cats are often killed, while valued companion cats and native wildcats are protected. Drawing on qualitative research and using the concept of boundary‐work, this paper examines the complex categorisation and management of cats within conservation in Britain and Aotearoa, New Zealand (NZ). We examine how, both in theory and in practice, valued companion and wildcats are distinguished from unprotected feral cats, and in‐between categories of stray and hybrid cats. We demonstrate that stakeholders draw boundaries between cat categories differently. These differences in boundary‐drawing reflect the inherent blurriness of category boundaries, practical challenges and, importantly, differences in values, in particular whether priority is placed on the life of the cat or the cat's potential victim, particularly native or game birds. This can mean that laws outlining protections for specific categories of animals have limited effect if, in practice, those encountering cats draw boundaries differently. This paper also reports on important differences between the two case studies. In NZ, even cat advocates support the humane killing of unambiguously feral cats while this is less true in Britain. Furthermore, due to the nature of the contexts, conservationists in NZ are more inclined to assume that ambiguous cats are feral whereas conservationists in Britain are more inclined to assume that they are wildcats. This paper demonstrates that values not only shape people's perceptions and treatment of animals but also how they draw boundaries between them. This finding may have important implications for understanding other controversies in conservation and animal management. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
People and Nature
People and Nature Multiple-
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
9.80%
发文量
103
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信