Abstract

Environmental groups advocate the preservation of an area within British Columbia's coastal temperate rainforest as a sanctuary for grizzly bears. Debate among government, industry, and environmental spokespersons has provided arguments but no resolution. We have applied to this issue available biological knowledge on grizzly bears and the arguments of a range of ethical theories. The theories of three professionally trained ethicists were included: Tom Regan, Holmes Rolston III, and Arne Naess. Aldo Leopold's prominent position in the conservation movement justifies his "land ethic" as a fourth ethical theory. All four theories agree that the area should be preserved. Contrary to this fundamental agreement, the theories diverge when tested against a "hard" conservation scenario, the conflict between the protection of the last surviving grizzly bears versus the survival of a culturally distinct human tribe. Application of the principles developed by Regan and Naess recommend that human interests should override the preservation of grizzly bears, whereas Leopold's and Rolston's arguments favor the preservation of the area for the bears. Our work can be used as a model of how the gap between biological sciences, ethical theories, and ecosystem management can be bridged successfully.