Pest Species: Culling Costs Eight Times More Than the Damage

In a context where biodiversity is already fragile, these findings directly challenge the relevance of a system that annually kills millions of animals with no demonstrated benefit.

The slaughter of “nuisance” species, a very costly public policy

Each year, about 1.7 million animals are culled in France under regulations governing so-called nuisance species. Red foxes, weasels, martens, or magpies are among the main targets of this policy, implemented for decades in the name of protecting agricultural activities and hunting interests. However, the figures revealed by researchers from the National Museum of Natural History and the University of the West of England in a study published on March 9 in the journal Biological Conservation are unequivocal. The annual cost of these operations ranges from 103 to 123 million euros. By contrast, the damages attributed to these animals reach at most 23 million euros per year. In other words, the community spends up to eight times more to eliminate these species than to repair the damages they cause.

Beyond the financial question, the study flags another fundamental problem: the ineffectiveness of culling. The data analyzed, covering the period 2015-2022, show no link between the number of animals killed in a given year and the level of damage observed in the following year. In other words, killing more animals does not reduce damages. This finding challenges one of the central arguments justifying this policy. Moreover, certain species, such as the fox or some birds, manage to compensate for losses quickly through their reproductive capacity. Thus, despite the elimination of 12.4 million animals between 2015 and 2022, the populations in question do not decline meaningfully.

Species that contribute to ecological balance

One of the aspects most often overlooked in the debate concerns the ecological services these animals provide. Far from being merely sources of nuisance, these species play an essential role in ecosystems. Foxes, for example, actively help regulate rodent populations, thereby reducing certain agricultural damages. Meanwhile, birds such as crows or magpies contribute to seed dispersal and the cleanup of carcasses. By massively removing these species, current policies risk ecological imbalances, or even aggravating some problems they claim to resolve.

In light of these findings, the very legitimacy of labeling certain species as “nuisance” is being questioned. This administrative categorization, which enables the systematic culling of specific species, appears increasingly detached from scientific realities. According to the authors of this study, current policies rely more on historical or cultural perceptions than on objective data. Or, in a time of ecological crisis, such an approach seems hard to justify.

Moreover, the average cost per animal killed is approximately 64 euros. A significant expenditure which, combined with the overall inefficiency of the system, raises questions about the prudence of maintaining this model. In this context, many voices are calling for a fundamental overhaul of wildlife management policies. The aim would be to favor non-lethal solutions, better aligned with the ecological and economic challenges of today.