Digital animal deathscapes

The online circulation of animals killed for conservation

Bibliographic Data

ID8964124
AuthorsAlexandra Palmer (0000-0001-5273-4813, School of Biological Sciences and School of Social Sciences University of Auckland Auckland New Zealand, corresponding author)
Year2024
Volume50
Issue3
Publication date2024-11-25
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueTransactions of the Institute of British Geographers (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0020-2754 • E-ISSN: 1475-5661
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/tran.12733
OpenAlexW4404701673
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited43

This paper brings together animals, death, and digital geographies to examine the sharing of dead animal imagery on social media by conservationists in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ). It is particularly concerned with two key questions: (1) Why (and how) do dead animals attract support for conservation? (2) How are personal feelings about animal death navigated in the public space of social media? In answering these questions, this paper extends geographical research on animals' affective allures (including online) beyond the realm of the living, and contributes to ongoing conversations around how to live with ‘unwanted others’. I draw on interviews with the leaders of conservation groups about whether, when, and why they post images of dead animals and kill counts, which I collectively refer to as ‘death media’. I show that because some viewers (at times disparaged as ‘precious’) were expected to respond with physical and/or moral disgust, conservationists typically only share death on ‘mainstream’ platforms if it is sufficiently sanitised or incorporated into positive narratives—though more commonly, death is absent from these platforms. Other audiences, particularly volunteer trappers, were described as ‘pragmatic’ or ‘bloodthirsty’; death was shared with these audiences to cultivate affects of hope and solidarity, in a context where killing can affectively feel like success. Yet even those comfortable with both killing and viewing death media at times expressed regret and sadness at the deaths of pests; they simply avoid sharing these feelings online. Death media thus perpetuate the public un‐grievability of ‘pests’, despite indications that even those who do the work of killing may experience sadness privately. I conclude by asking: what would be needed for pests killed for conservation to become grievable online, and how could doing so change relationships between humans and ‘pest’ animals

Business · Circulation (fluid dynamics · Engineering · Geographies of human-animal interactions · Human-Animal Interaction Studies · Wildlife Ecology and Conservation

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access