Staff Publications

Staff Publications

  • external user (warningwarning)
  • Log in as
  • language uk
  • About

    'Staff publications' is the digital repository of Wageningen University & Research

    'Staff publications' contains references to publications authored by Wageningen University staff from 1976 onward.

    Publications authored by the staff of the Research Institutes are available from 1995 onwards.

    Full text documents are added when available. The database is updated daily and currently holds about 240,000 items, of which 72,000 in open access.

    We have a manual that explains all the features 

Record number 432211
Title Moral Convictions and Culling Animals: A Survey in the Netherlands
Author(s) Cohen, N.E.; Brom, F.W.A.; Stassen, E.N.
Source Anthrozoos 25 (2012)3. - ISSN 0892-7936 - p. 353 - 367.
Department(s) Human Animal Interaction
Animal Breeding and Genetics
Adaptation Physiology
Publication type Refereed Article in a scientific journal
Publication year 2012
Keyword(s) mouth-disease - attitudes - welfare - foot - epidemic - ethics - issues - crisis
Abstract In this paper the results are presented of a national survey in the Netherlands. The aim was to identify and describe the convictions about animals that people have in Dutch society and the role of these in judgments on the culling of healthy animals during an animal disease epidemic. A total of 1,999 responses was received and two groups of respondents were distinguished: A profile (50% of the respondents) and B profile (28%). The A profile respondents considered humans to be superior to animals, whereas the B profile respondents considered both to be equal. Both groups were of the opinion that animals have value, that people have a duty to care for and protect all animals, and that all animals have a right to life. These convictions were based on a number of values, such as animal life, the ability of animals to feel pain and emotions (sentience), and the importance of animal species in the ecosystem. The results of a case study suggest that convictions play a role in judgment. More A respondents agreed with the culling of healthy animals during an animal disease epidemic. More B respondents partly (dis)agreed or disagreed with this. Most respondents (A: 81%, B: 61%) agreed with culling to protect human life. The most important argument against culling was the value of animal life. The A respondents rated all arguments against culling significantly lower than did the B respondents.
There are no comments yet. You can post the first one!
Post a comment
Please log in to use this service. Login as Wageningen University & Research user or guest user in upper right hand corner of this page.