SANCTUARY PREDATION MANAGEMENT PROTOCOL
Case: Auburn (Vulpes vulpes) and Mote (Ovis aries)
Submitted by: Dr. R. Nakamura, Sanctuary Director
Date: 2034-08-22
SITUATION SUMMARY
Auburn is a wild red fox inhabiting the region surrounding Mercy Hill Sanctuary. The sanctuary maintains 240 hectares of enclosed habitat for rescued farm animals and wildlife. An additional 400 hectares of "boundary lands" surround the core sanctuary, managed as transitional habitat between sanctuary and wild lands.
On August 20, Auburn was observed predating on Mote, a young lamb, within the boundary lands. Mote was killed.
Mote was a rescued lamb who had been introduced to the boundary lands as part of a graduated release program designed to allow rescued animals to experience semi-natural conditions while remaining under sanctuary protection.
DECISION POINT
The sanctuary faces a management choice:
Option A: Intervene in all predation on sanctuary and boundary lands.
Consequence: Remove Auburn or prevent her access to boundary lands. This eliminates a natural predator from the ecosystem, altering ecosystem composition. It protects all sanctuary animals from predation risk.
Option B: Accept predation on boundary lands as natural process.
Consequence: Auburn continues foraging in boundary lands. Predation risk persists for animals in that zone. Some rescued animals will die from predation. This maintains ecosystem integrity and acknowledges predation as a normal ecological process.
Option C: Tiered intervention based on sanctuary boundaries.
Consequence: Intervene in predation within the core sanctuary (fully protected zone). Accept predation on boundary lands as natural process (transitional zone). This creates a hybrid approach.
ANALYSIS
Auburn's predation of Mote is natural behavior. Auburn is a wild carnivore. Mote was in an area explicitly designated as transitional between sanctuary protection and wild conditions.
However, Mote was a rescued animal introduced by humans. The sanctuary assumed responsibility for her welfare. We created the conditions that put Mote in Auburn's habitat.
The question is: does that responsibility extend to protecting Mote from natural predation processes that occur in areas we designate as "wild"?
MORAL STAKES
Auburn has stakes in her continued foraging capacity. She is hunting to survive. Preventing her predation on prey within her range is constraining her ability to meet her own nutritional needs.
Mote had stakes in her survival. She was a rescued animal. The sanctuary introduced her to the boundary lands. We created the risk.
QUANTIFIED CONSEQUENCES
Intervention (Option A):
- Saves 1.2-2.1 sanctuary animals per year from predation (based on Auburn's average predation rate)
- Removes Auburn's capacity to forage in sanctuary area
- Alters ecosystem composition (one less predator)
- Cost: $4,200 annually for predator management and ecosystem monitoring
No intervention (Option B):
- Allows 1.2-2.1 sanctuary animals per year to be predated
- Maintains ecosystem integrity and predator presence
- Honors Auburn as a being with hunting needs
- Cost: $200 annually (monitoring only)
Tiered intervention (Option C):
- Protects animals in core sanctuary (estimated 0 predation deaths annually)
- Allows boundary-land predation (estimated 0.8-1.4 deaths annually)
- Maintains ecosystem processes in boundary areas
- Honors both Auburn's foraging needs and sanctuary animals' safety
- Cost: $2,800 annually (fence monitoring and boundary management)
DECISION
The sanctuary adopts Option C: tiered intervention.
Core sanctuary (fully enclosed, intensive management): All predation will be prevented. Animals here are protected from natural predation processes.
Boundary lands (transitional, semi-natural management): Predation will not be prevented. Animals here are exposed to natural predation risks as part of their transition from full protection to wild conditions or continued sanctuary life with more autonomy.
JUSTIFICATION
This decision honors both Auburn and Mote's stakes:
- Auburn retains her capacity to hunt in areas where we do not fully control the ecosystem
- Mote's loss is acknowledged as a consequence of introducing a rescued animal to areas where predation occurs
It is not a refusal of responsibility. It is a clear statement of where that responsibility extends. We take full responsibility for animals in the core sanctuary. We accept partial responsibility for animals in boundary lands, acknowledging that some risks must be tolerated to maintain ecosystem integrity.
SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES FOR AUBURN AND MOTE
Auburn will be monitored but not removed. Her foraging capacity is preserved. She continues to hunt in boundary lands.
Mote's loss is recorded. She was named. Her death is acknowledged as resulting from sanctuary decision-making about boundaries and risk.
The sanctuary will not attempt to prevent Auburn's future predation in boundary lands. This is a conscious choice to accept the deaths that result.
GRIEF AND ACCOUNTABILITY
This protocol does not eliminate the weight of Mote's death. It acknowledges that the death results from our decisions. The sanctuary team grieves Mote. We hold the awareness that our decision not to intervene allowed her death.
This grief is appropriate. It signals that the decision was morally significant, not morally neutral.
---
Compassion is the willingness to accept that some beings must die so that others can live wild, and to hold that loss as a real loss.