The influence of culpability, harm to animals, and professional education on attitudes about killing animals in the name of conservation

Wild animals of particular species are increasingly killed in the name of conservation (KITNOC). That is, in the name of achieving traditional goals of conservation. Attitudes about KITNOC are not well studied. We sought to understand whether attitudes about KITNOC among college students are associated with their professional education. To do so, we surveyed current and recently graduated college students (n = 398) from seven major universities in Iran between January and March 2022. These respondents were from four disciplines: environmental science, veterinary science, engineering, or law. The survey elicited attitudes for three different scenarios, involving trophy-hunting lions, killing free-ranging dogs, and killing pythons. While attitudes varied considerably among the scenarios and among individuals, there was an overall tendency to oppose KITNOC. While receiving an education in environmental science was associated with KITNOC attitudes, the association was not strong enough to result in group-level differences between those receiving different kinds of education. More positive views about KITNOC tended to be held by males and those expressing more support for anthropocentric beliefs – all else being equal. The strongest associations were that opposition to KITNOC was greatest among those who thought it is more important than others to consider: (i) less harmful methods of solving the conservation problem, and (ii) that humans, not the animals to be killed, were culpable for the conservation harms. These results imply the values that should be addressed when decisions about KITNOC are developed. We recommend fostering value-based discussions in conservation policy that address culpability and harm.