--Robert H. Schmidt
In 1991, I was invited by the USDA's Animal Damage Control program to participate in a futuring effort, and I had the opportunity to sit in on a lengthy discussion of professional ethics. Although the focus of the conversation was a code of ethics for ADC employees, I believed it had great relevance for the wildlife damage management profession. This effort, along with numerous conversations with wildlife damage management practitioners, led me to put together a summary of the ethical concerns I heard at this meeting into a draft code of ethics for the wildlife damage management profession.
Over the past five years, this draft code has been reprinted in a variety of wildlife damage-related publications: trade magazines, newsletters of the National Animal Damage Control Association, the Northeast Association of Wildlife Damage Biologists, Critter Control, Inc., and the Texas A&M University's wildlife extension newsletter, as well as on the WDAMAGE Internet discussion list. I've also handed out literally hundreds of copies, asking for input and suggestions.
A code of ethics defines some minimum ethical standard for a profession. Ethics deal with the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group, and the set of principles of good and bad conduct. When applied to a group (or a profession), it is important to recognize that this is a self-imposed standard. The profession itself defines what is acceptable and what is not, and individuals make a conscious choice to join or not to join. Thus, activities and behaviors not meeting these minimum, self-imposed standards defined in the code of ethics are, by definition, unethical behaviors.
How does this apply to wildlife damage management? I believe that the social and biological complexity of the wildlife damage management field requires a specific code of ethics. I also know that I am not alone in reaching this conclusion. However, the exact wording of a code of ethics for wildlife damage managers, and the idea that a code is needed or useful, are both controversial points.
For example, I have received comments questioning the overall effectiveness of a code of ethics in modifying human behavior. One respondent noted that "... most often codes of ethics for any profession or activity are merely nice sounding words which make individuals feel good but are of little or questionable value otherwise, except for public relations purposes." Another respondent commented that "... I think the code of ethics already exists, and has for some time, although not on paper or in a concise statement. The reason people within the wildlife damage management profession have gotten such a bum rap is that many have knowingly chosen not to follow the 'unwritten code.' For this reason I don't see the utility of developing an official code of ethics because it would not affect the behavior of those who choose not to follow it, and those that would follow it are already doing so."
These are certainly significant concerns, but the majority of comments I received noted that a code of ethics was important: "The code of ethics can strengthen the unity of a professional operation by setting a general guideline for the worker." "I think the concept is a positive one, and I can agree with most of the elements of the code." "After spending five years in the nuisance wildlife control field, I have seen that the formulation of a set of guidelines based on solid and rational values is of paramount importance to the future of the industry. Without it there would be no protocol by which to police our ranks and direct animal damage control in a positive direction."
What follows below is my attempt to draft a revised, profession-wide code of ethics. I have taken all of the comments that I received on the first draft and tried to the best of my ability to develop a synthesis of the various suggestions and concerns. I don't claim to speak for the entire profession in this effort, although I know I speak for some. This is an attempt to continue the dialogue started earlier. It is important to note that this would be a voluntary code of ethics. Becoming a signatory to this code of ethics would demonstrate that you define the following set of actions as the minimum requirement for professionalism in the wildlife damage management arena. Failing to sign it does not identify you as unethical. It means you don't guarantee the following behaviors to the public, your clients, and your peers. Here, then is version 2.0 of the draft wildlife damage management code of ethics:
As a wildlife damage management professional,...
I look forward to receiving your comments on this draft code, and I encourage you to spread this column widely. Distribute it to your peers, your competitors, and your customers. Pass them out to the Nuisance Wildlife Control Operators, the Pest Control Operators, the wildlife biologists, and the local, state, and federal regulators. Send it to your state trappers' organization and your state NWCO association. Make sure the local humane society sees it, as well as employees of the federal Animal Damage Control program.
Let me know whether developing a profession-wide code of ethics is destructive, helpful, or critical. Give me input into the specific elements of the code. I'll tally up the comments and prepare them for a future issue of WCT magazine. It is your profession, and your professional perspective will dictate how this profession, and this code of ethics, evolves.
Also, please feel free to add your comments to the discussion on a code of ethics for Wildlife Damage Management through the Wildlife Damage Management Bulletin Board.
Last updated: 4 May 2000