{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03359858532272325, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00618921308576481, 'mean_word_length': 5.658823529411765, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Role of Ethical Judgments Related to Wildlife Fertility Control

Certain species of wildlife cause considerable damage and therefore receive management attention. Traditional management methods rely on lethal control, but fertility control is increasingly being advocated as a more humane alternative. Because wildlife management decisions are influenced by citizen input, it is important to understand what makes people support or oppose lethal control and fertility control. We studied six U.S. communities trying to manage large populations of white-tailed deer or feral cats and categorized the ethical arguments citizens used to support their positions on lethal and fertility control methods. We identified two broad categories of ethical arguments. Arguments in the “obligations to people” category focused on (1) decision-making procedures, (2) public policy decisions, and (3) management outcomes. Arguments in the “obligations to animals and the environment” category focused on (1) life, suffering, and death, (2) altered characteristics of animals, (3) individuals and communities, and (4) invasive species impacts.