Advantages and limitations of the Five Domains model for assessing welfare impacts associated with vertebrate pest control

Use of an expert elicitation methodology to compare welfare impacts of two approaches for blood sampling European badgers (Meles meles) in the field

In the UK and Republic of Ireland, the European badger (Meles meles) is considered the most significant wildlife reservoir of the bacterium Mycobacterium bovis, the cause of bovine tuberculosis (bTB). To expand options for bTB surveillance and disease control, the Animal and Plant Health Agency developed a bespoke physical restraint cage to facilitate collection of a small blood sample from a restrained, conscious badger in the field. A key step, prior to pursuing operational deployment of the novel restraint cage, was an assessment of the relative welfare impacts of the approach. We used an established welfare assessment model to elicit expert opinion during two workshops to compare the impacts of the restraint cage approach with the only current alternative for obtaining blood samples from badgers in the field, which involves administration of a general anaesthetic. Eleven panellists participated in the workshops, comprising experts in the fields of wildlife biology, animal welfare science, badger capture and sampling, and veterinary science. Both approaches were assessed to have negative welfare impacts, although in neither case were overall welfare scores higher than intermediate, never exceeding 5-6 out of a possible 8. Based on our assessments, the restraint cage approach is no worse for welfare compared to using general anaesthesia and possibly has a lower overall negative impact on badger welfare. Our results can be used to integrate consideration of badger welfare alongside other factors, including financial cost and efficiency, when selecting a field method for blood sampling free-living badgers.

The agency domain and behavioral interactions: assessing positive animal welfare using the Five Domains Model

Animal welfare denotes how an animal experiences their life. It represents the overall mental experiences of an animal and is a subjective concept that cannot be directly measured. Instead, welfare indicators are used to cautiously infer mental experiences from resource provisions, management factors, and animal-based measures. The Five Domains Model is a holistic and structured framework for collating these indicators and assessing animal welfare. Contemporary approaches to animal welfare management consider how animals can be given opportunities to have positive experiences. However, the uncertainty surrounding positive mental experiences that can be inferred has resulted in risk-averse animal welfare scientists returning to the relative safety of positivism. This has meant that aspects of positive welfare are often referred to as animal 'wants'. Agency is a concept that straddles the positivist-affective divide and represents a way forward for discussions about positive welfare. Agency is the capacity of individual animals to engage in voluntary, self-generated, and goal-directed behavior that they are motivated to perform. Discrete positive emotions are cautiously inferred from these agentic experiences based on available knowledge about the animal's motivation for engaging in the behavior. Competence-building agency can be used to evaluate the potential for positive welfare and is represented by the Behavioral Interactions domain of the Five Domains Model. In 2020, The Model was updated to, amongst other things, include consideration of human-animal interactions. The most important aspect of this update was the renaming of Domain 4 from "Behavior" to "Behavioral Interactions" and the additional detail added to allow this domain's purpose to be clearly understood to represent an animal's opportunities to exercise agency. We illustrate how the Behavioral Interactions domain of The Model can be used to assess animals' competence-building agency and positive welfare. In this article, we use the examples of sugar gliders housed in captivity and greyhounds that race to illustrate how the agentic qualities of choice, control, and challenge can be used to assess opportunities for animals to exercise agency and experience positive affective engagement.

New insights in improving sustainability in meat production: opportunities and challenges

Treating livestock as senseless production machines has led to rampant depletion of natural resources, enhanced greenhouse gas emissions, gross animal welfare violations, and other ethical issues. It has essentially instigated constant scrutiny of conventional meat production by various experts and scientists. Sustainably in the meat sector is a big challenge which requires a multifaced and holistic approach. Novel tools like digitalization of the farming system and livestock market, precision livestock farming, application of remote sensing and artificial intelligence to manage production and environmental impact/GHG emission, can help in attaining sustainability in this sector. Further, improving nutrient use efficiency and recycling in feed and animal production through integration with agroecology and industrial ecology, improving individual animal and herd health by ensuring proper biosecurity measures and selective breeding, and welfare by mitigating animal stress during production are also key elements in achieving sustainability in meat production. In addition, sustainability bears a direct relationship with various social dimensions of meat production efficiency such as non-market attributes, balance between demand and consumption, market and policy failures. The present review critically examines the various aspects that significantly impact the efficiency and sustainability of meat production.

Rethinking the utility of the Five Domains model

The Five Domains model is influential in contemporary studies of animal welfare. It was originally presented as a conceptual model to understand the types of impact that procedures may impose on experimental animals. Its application has since broadened to cover a wide range of animal species and forms of animal use. However, it has also increasingly been applied as an animal welfare assessment tool, which is the focus of this paper. Several critical limitations associated with this approach have not been widely acknowledged, including that: (1) it relies upon expert or stakeholder opinion, with little transparency around the selection of these individuals; (2) quantitative scoring is typically attempted despite the absence of clear principles for aggregation of welfare measures and few attempts to account for uncertainty; (3) there have been few efforts to measure the repeatability of findings; and (4) it does not consider indirect and unintentional impacts such as those imposed on non-target animals. These deficiencies lead to concerns surrounding testability, repeatability and the potential for manipulation. We provide suggestions for refinement of how the Five Domains model is applied to partially address these limitations. We argue that the Five Domains model is useful for systematic consideration of all sources of possible welfare compromise and enhancement, but is not, in its current state, fit-for-purpose as an assessment tool. We argue for wider acknowledgment of the operational limits of using the model as an assessment tool, prioritisation of the studies needed for its validation, and encourage improvements to this approach.

Expert assessment of the impact of ship-strikes on cetacean welfare using the Welfare Assessment Tool for Wild Cetaceans

Human activities are increasingly impacting our oceans and the focus tends to be on their environmental impacts, rather than consequences for animal welfare. Global shipping density has quadrupled since 1992. Unsurprisingly, increased levels of vessel collisions with cetaceans have followed this global expansion of shipping. This paper is the first to attempt to consider the severity of ship-strike on individual whale welfare. The methodology of the 'Welfare Assessment Tool for Wild Cetaceans' (WATWC) was used, which is itself based upon the Five Domains model. Expert opinion was sought on six hypothetical but realistic case studies involving humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) struck by ships. Twenty-nine experts in the cetacean and welfare sector took part. They were split into two groups; Group 1 first assessed a case we judged to be the least severe and Group 2 first assessed the most severe. Both groups then additionally assessed the same four further cases. This was to investigate whether the severity of the first case influenced judgements regarding subsequent cases (i.e. expert judgements were relative) or not (i.e. judgements were absolute). No significant difference between the two groups of assessors was found; therefore, the hypothesis of relative scoring was rejected. Experts judged whales may suffer some level (>1) of overall (Domain 5) harm for the rest of their lives following a ship-strike incident. Health, closely followed by Behaviour were found to be the welfare aspects most affected by ship-strikes. Overall, the WATWC shows a robust potential to aid decision-making on wild cetacean welfare.

Sustainability and the Thoroughbred Breeding and Racing Industries: An Enhanced One Welfare Perspective

As society debates the use of animals in sport, entertainment, and leisure, there is an increasing focus on the welfare, social, and ecological impacts of such activities on the animals, human participants, people close to them, and the physical environment. This article introduces the "Enhanced One Welfare Framework" to reveal significant costs and benefits associated with Thoroughbred breeding and racing globally. In addition, relative to calls to ban horseracing and similar activities as part of sustainability approaches that focus chiefly on animals, the "Enhanced One Welfare Framework" is better positioned politically to guide discussions that renegotiate the conditions under which horses are used for sport and the impact racing has on humans and the planet. In 2020, the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities issued its minimum horse welfare standards based on the Five Domains model, positioning lifelong horse welfare as "fundamentally important to the viability and sustainability of the industry". In this article, we critique the One Welfare framework's historic lack of focus on sport and enhance it by including sport, leisure, and entertainment and framing it within the Five Domains model. We offer a novel extension of the Five Domains model beyond animal welfare to consider human welfare and the physical environmental impacts of the sport, leisure, and entertainment industries and propose innovations that may help thoroughbred breeding and racing assure a sustainable future.

Assessing animal welfare impact of fourteen control and dispatch methods for house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) and black rat (Rattus rattus)

Population control of the house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) and black rat (Rattus rattus) is common practice worldwide. Our objective was to assess the impact on animal welfare of lethal and non-lethal control methods, including three dispatch methods. We used the Sharp and Saunders welfare assessment model with eight experts scoring eleven control methods and three dispatch methods used on the three species. We presumed the methods were performed as prescribed, only taking into account the effect on the target animal (and not, for example, on non-target catches). We did not assess population control efficacy of the methods. Methods considered to induce the least suffering to the target animal were captive-bolt traps, electrocution traps and cervical dislocation, while those with the greatest impact were anticoagulants, cholecalciferol and deprivation. Experts indicated considerable uncertainty regarding their evaluation of certain methods, which emphasises the need for further scientific research. In particular, the impact of hydrogen cyanide, chloralose and aluminium phosphide on animal welfare ought to be investigated. The experts also stressed the need to improve Standard Operating Procedures and to incorporate animal welfare assessments in Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The results of our study can help laypeople, professionals, regulatory agencies and legislators making well-informed decisions as to which methods to use when controlling commensal rodents.

Identification of potential welfare and survival indicators for stranded cetaceans through international, interdisciplinary expert opinion

Management of live cetacean strandings generally focuses on refloating animals, yet there is a lack of scientific data to inform decision-making. Valid indicators that are practical to measure are needed to assess welfare status and survival likelihood for stranded cetaceans. The Delphi method was applied to gather international and interdisciplinary expert opinion to provide face validity to potential indicators of stranded cetacean welfare and survival likelihood. Two online questionnaires were conducted. In the first questionnaire these experts identified potential indicators of stranded cetacean welfare and survival likelihood. These indicators were subsequently scored by the same experts in questionnaire two, based on their value for assessing welfare/survival likelihood and being practical to measure. Indicators considered valuable and practical for assessing welfare and survival likelihood at strandings included animal-based indices of body and skin condition, signs of physical trauma, respiration rate and various behaviours. Resource-/management-based indicators related mainly to human intervention and should be correlated with animal-based indices to provide relevant evaluations. Importantly, inextricable links between welfare and survival for stranded cetaceans are emphasized, with 90% of indicators being similar for both. Investigations into these indicators should be conducted to develop a practical, science-based assessment framework to inform decision-making during stranding events.

Scientific Assessment of the Welfare of Trapped Mammals—Key Considerations for the Use of the Sharp and Saunders Humaneness Assessment Model

Simple Summary

The use of traps is key to the success of many wildlife management programs but the species trapped, type of trap used and its application will influence the impacts it has on animal welfare. Scientific assessment of the impacts of trapping on mammal welfare is necessary to justify the use of traps, aid trap selection, improve trap performance and develop international standards. The Sharp and Saunders humaneness assessment model was developed for the purpose of assessing the relative humaneness of a range of pest animal control methods and has been used to assess the welfare impacts of trapping on various mammal species. The model is based on the established Five Domains model, the structure of which represents the understanding that an animal’s welfare state arises due to the sum of its mental experiences which may include pain, breathlessness, thirst or fear, among many others. Here we make key recommendations for those wishing to apply the Sharp and Saunders model to scientifically assess the welfare impacts of traps. Consideration of these points will help optimize the value of information produced using the model to support ethical wildlife management practice and policy and retain social acceptance of management programs that involve trapping.

Abstract

Scientific assessment of the impacts of trapping on mammal welfare is necessary to inform cost-benefit analyses of using traps in wildlife management, improve trap performance and trapping processes and develop international trap standards. The Sharp and Saunders humaneness assessment model was developed specifically for assessing welfare impacts in vertebrate wildlife management and has been used to assess the impacts of trapping various mammals. It is a specific version of the more general Five Domains model for welfare assessment which is based on the understanding that welfare state reflects the sum of the animal’s mental experiences. Our experience of applying the Sharp and Saunders model allows us to make key recommendations for those wishing to use it. First, the exact parameters of the trapping scenario to be assessed must be decided. Second, assessments should be based on published data, as well as integrating both scientific and practitioner expertise to provide rigorous and relevant outcomes. Third, conclusions about welfare impacts should be based on the appropriate indicators. As far as is possible, mental experiences should be inferred using animal-based indicators, and some representation should be provided of the scorers’ confidence in the data on which assessment is based. Careful consideration of these points will help optimize the value of information produced using the model for wildlife management decision-making.

An assessment of animal welfare impacts in wild Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) management

Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) are considered one of the most significant vertebrate pests globally, because of their impacts on human and animal health. There are legal and moral obligations to minimise the impacts of wildlife management on animal welfare, yet there are few data on the relative welfare impacts of rat trapping and baiting methods used in the UK with which to inform management decisions. Two stakeholder workshops were facilitated to assess the relative welfare impacts of six lethal rat management methods using a welfare assessment model. Fifteen stakeholders including experts in wildlife management, rodent management, rodent biology, animal welfare science, and veterinary science and medicine, participated. The greatest welfare impacts were associated with three baiting methods, anticoagulants, cholecalciferol and non-toxic cellulose baits (severe to extreme impact for days), and with capture on a glue trap (extreme for hours) with concussive killing (mild to moderate for seconds to minutes); these methods should be considered last resorts from a welfare perspective. Lower impacts were associated with cage trapping (moderate to severe for hours) with concussive killing (moderate for minutes). The impact of snap trapping was highly variable (no impact to extreme for seconds to minutes). Snap traps should be regulated and tested to identify those that cause rapid unconsciousness; such traps might represent the most welfare-friendly option assessed for killing rats. Our results can be used to integrate consideration of rat welfare alongside other factors, including cost, efficacy, safety, non-target animal welfare and public acceptability when selecting management methods. We also highlight ways of reducing welfare impacts and areas where more data are needed.

The Welfare of Animals in Australian Filmed Media

Simple Summary

Animals are frequently featured in film and television in Australia and globally. Monitoring and regulating animal welfare throughout production is therefore imperative for the film industry to maintain its social license to operate. In this commentary, we compare Australia’s state and territory-based legislation and regulation concerning the welfare of animals in filmed media to those in the United States and the United Kingdom and assess the regulations against the Five Domains Model of animal welfare. Historical examples of animal incidents in Australian film are used to illustrate deficiencies in regulation. We identify three themes of welfare concerns including incidents on-set, incidents off-set, and effects of portrayal on perception or ownership of specific species or breeds. A lack of uniform regulation across Australian states and territories is demonstrated, with regulations only partially addressing behavioural interactions or mental state of the animal. This highlights the need for standardised national legislation and improved monitoring and regulation of the welfare of animals in Australian filmed media.

Abstract

Animals play a significant role in the production of film and television in Australia and globally. Given this, regulating and monitoring their welfare on- and off-set is imperative. We therefore aim to compare Australia’s state and territory-based legislation and regulation to those in the United States and the United Kingdom and assess regulations against the Five Domains Model of animal welfare. Historical examples of animal incidents in Australian film are used to illustrate potential deficiencies. We reviewed archived media for animal welfare incidents on and off production sets. We demonstrate a lack of uniformity, with 37.5% (3/8) of states and territories providing targeted Codes of Practice for animals in filmed media, and partially addressing behavioural interactions or mental state within the Five Domains Model. Three themes of welfare concerns were identified including incidents on-set, incidents off-set, and effects of portrayal on perception or ownership of specific species. This highlights the need for standardised national legislation and improved monitoring and regulation. Further research should quantify the number of animals used in productions, describe the type and duration of the work the animals undertake, investigate the frequency of animal welfare incidents, and explore alternative methods to the use of live animals in film and television.

Increasing the Awareness of Animal Welfare Science in Marine Mammal Conservation: Addressing Language, Translation and Reception Issues

Simple Summary

Traditional conservation strategy focuses on population-level effects. However, the rapidly evolving scientific discipline of animal welfare science, in conjunction with growing societal expectations around the value of individuals, is prompting change in conservation. Despite growing recognition of this approach in terrestrial conservation efforts, limited application of animal welfare science to marine mammals has been observed. To investigate the factors underlying this disparity, we undertook an initial “Welfare in the Wild” workshop at the 32nd European Cetacean Society conference (La Spezia, Italy) to explore expert opinion on this topic. Secondly, we analysed the English language peer-reviewed literature to assess to what extent marine mammal welfare research is reported. The results of the workshop reveal a range of views about the scientific discipline of animal welfare science, with participants’ definitions varying depending on their disciplinary expertise. Meanwhile, the extensive literature review spanning 1950 to July 2020 revealed extremely low reporting of research related to welfare in the context of marine mammals, with only 0.96% (n = 299) of all published articles on marine mammal taxa (n = 31,221) featuring the word welfare in either the title, abstract or keywords. This highlighted a need to explore differences and distil common themes. Here we suggest practical solutions to the language, translation and reception issues of this cross-disciplinary collaboration between animal welfare science and marine mammal conservation.

Abstract

Integrating welfare principles into conservation strategy is an emerging synthesis that encourages consideration of individual animals’ quality of life in research, policies and law. However, these principles have gained limited traction in marine compared to terrestrial animal conservation. This manuscript investigates several factors that may be contributing to this disparity. In order to gauge current understanding of animal welfare science principles by marine mammal researchers and other stakeholders, a “Welfare in the Wild” workshop was convened at the 32nd European Cetacean Society conference (La Spezia, Italy, April 2018). The workshop was attended by 30 participants who completed pre- and post-workshop surveys on animal welfare principles. The survey results highlight a range of different views about exactly what animal welfare science is and how it can be applied to marine mammals. Specifically, participants’ definitions appeared to vary depending on the type of employment or research they engaged in, indicating a need for an interdisciplinary common language. Secondly, we analysed the peer-reviewed literature in order to ascertain where marine mammal publications exploring welfare were being published. From 1950 to July 2020, a total of 299 articles featured both marine mammal taxa (one or more) and the word welfare in the title, abstract or keywords. This represents just 0.96% of the total peer-reviewed published papers on marine mammal taxa (n = 31,221) during the same period. When examining articles published within “Welfare and Ethics” (n = 6133) and “Aquatic-focused” (n = 139,352) journals, just 1.2% (n = 71) and 0.04% (n = 57) of articles, respectively, featured the word welfare when examining marine mammals. With the aim of exploring how explicitly including welfare evaluations in marine mammal research and management can benefit conservation outcomes, we framed our workshop and quantitative literature review findings to provide practical solutions to the language, translation and reception issues of this burgeoning cross-disciplinary collaboration.

The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human-Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare

Throughout its 25-year history, the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment has been regularly updated to include at each stage the latest authenticated developments in animal welfare science thinking. The domains of the most up-to-date Model described here are: 1 Nutrition, 2 Physical Environment, 3 Health, 4 Behavioural Interactions and 5 Mental State. The first four domains focus attention on factors that give rise to specific negative or positive subjective experiences (affects), which contribute to the animal's mental state, as evaluated in Domain 5. More specifically, the first three domains focus mainly on factors that disturb or disrupt particular features of the body's internal stability. Each disturbed or disrupted feature generates sensory inputs which are processed by the brain to form specific negative affects, and these affects are associated with behaviours that act to restore the body's internal stability. As each such behaviour is essential for the survival of the animal, the affects associated with them are collectively referred to as "survival-critical affects". In contrast, Domain 4, now named Behavioural Interactions, focusses on evidence of animals consciously seeking specific goals when interacting behaviourally with (1) the environment, (2) other non-human animals and (3) as a new feature of the Model outlined here, humans. The associated affects, evaluated via Domain 5, are mainly generated by brain processing of sensory inputs elicited by external stimuli. The success of the animals' behavioural attempts to achieve their chosen goals is reflected in whether the associated affects are negative or positive. Collectively referred to as "situation-related affects", these outcomes are understood to contribute to animals' perceptions of their external circumstances. These observations reveal a key distinction between the way survival-critical and situation-related affects influence animals' aligned behaviours. The former mainly reflect compelling motivations to engage in genetically embedded behavioural responses, whereas the latter mainly involve conscious behavioural choices which are the hallmarks of agency. Finally, numerous examples of human-animal interactions and their attendant affects are described, and the qualitative grading of interactions that generate negative or positive affect is also illustrated.

Using the Five Domains Model to develop welfare assessment guidelines for Thoroughbred horses in New Zealand

This review outlines the processes followed by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) when developing its Thoroughbred Welfare Assessment Guidelines. It accepted that guidance on welfare management must be based on up-to-date knowledge of how animal welfare is understood scientifically. NZTR established an expert panel to facilitate this process. First, major changes in animal welfare science thinking over the last 40 years were considered. For example, the separate biological function and affective state orientations were later accepted as dynamically interacting elements within the body operating as an integrated whole entity; conceptual problems with the Five Freedoms framework led to the formulation of the Five Provisions and Welfare Aims paradigm and development of the Five Domains Model for assessing nutritional, environmental, health, behavioural and mental facets of animal welfare; and the initial major focus on negative experiences evolved to include both negative and positive experiences. The Five Domains Model was very effective for illustrating up-to-date understanding of animal welfare and its use demonstrated how comprehensive animal welfare assessments may be conducted. The NZTR panel followed a sequential approach that included an update on animal welfare thinking and the Five Provisions and Welfare Aims paradigm; the generic Five Domains Model was refocused specifically on equids; a detailed model assessment of equine welfare practices was conducted; enhanced equine welfare practices were emphasised by comparing them to inadequate welfare practices; guidelines were framed in terms which provide domain-specific advice on provisions that achieve positive welfare; other domain-specific guidelines were focused on welfare-compromising consequences of inadequate provisions; and welfare-appropriate conditions were clarified for all stages of a Thoroughbred's life cycle (in work and rest) to facilitate exercising a life-long duty of care. Finally, the guidelines were expressed in general terms to avoid them becoming overly detailed and unwieldy. They therefore do not address specific welfare issues such as use of whips, bits, spurs and tight nosebands, however the Five Domains Model may also be used for these specific purposes. The guidelines, and the way they were formulated, provide an example of one approach which other organisations may find immediately useful, or which may stimulate them to devise their own approaches when progressing such equine welfare initiatives.

I Am a Compassionate Conservation Welfare Scientist: Considering the Theoretical and Practical Differences Between Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare

Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare are two disciplines whose practitioners advocate consideration of individual wild animals within conservation practice and policy. However, they are not, as is sometimes suggested, the same. Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare are based on different underpinning ethics, which sometimes leads to conflicting views about the kinds of conservation activities and decisions that are acceptable. Key differences between the disciplines appear to relate to their views about which wild animals can experience harms, the kinds of harms they can experience and how we can know about and confidently evidence those harms. Conservation Welfare scientists seek to engage with conservation scientists with the aim of facilitating ongoing incremental improvements in all aspects of conservation, i.e., minimizing harms to animals. In contrast, it is currently unclear how the tenets of Compassionate Conservation can be used to guide decision-making in complex or novel situations. Thus, Conservation Welfare may offer modern conservationists a more palatable approach to integrating evidence-based consideration of individual sentient animals into conservation practice and policy.

Animal Welfare in Predator Control: Lessons from Land and Sea. How the Management of Terrestrial and Marine Mammals Impacts Wild Animal Welfare in Human-Wildlife Conflict Scenarios in Europe

The control of predators, on land and in the sea, is a complex topic. Both marine and terrestrial mammal predators come into conflict with humans in Europe in many ways and yet their situations are rarely compared. Areas of conflict include the predation of livestock and farmed fish, and the perceived competition for wild prey (for example wolves competing with hunters for deer and seals competing with fishermen for salmon). A lethal method (shooting) and non-lethal methods of conflict reduction (including enclosures, guarding, and aversion) used for terrestrial large carnivores (e.g., bear, wolf, wolverine, lynx) and marine mammals (seals) are discussed. Control measures tend to be species- and habitat-specific, although shooting is a widely used method. Potential impacts on predator welfare are described and welfare assessments which have been developed for other wildlife control scenarios, e.g., control of introduced species, are considered for their potential use in assessing predator control. Such assessments should be applied before control methods are chosen so that decisions prioritizing animal welfare can be made. Further work needs to be carried out to achieve appropriate and widely-accepted animal welfare assessment approaches and these should be included in predator management planning. Future research should include further sharing of approaches and information between terrestrial and marine specialists to help ensure that animal welfare is prioritized.

A Ten-Stage Protocol for Assessing the Welfare of Individual Non-Captive Wild Animals: Free-Roaming Horses (Equus Ferus Caballus) as an Example

Knowledge of the welfare status of wild animals is vital for informing debates about the ways in which we interact with wild animals and their habitats. Currently, there is no published information about how to scientifically assess the welfare of free-roaming wild animals during their normal day-to-day lives. Using free-roaming horses as an example, we describe a ten-stage protocol for systematically and scientifically assessing the welfare of individual non-captive wild animals. The protocol starts by emphasising the importance of readers having an understanding of animal welfare in a conservation context and also of the Five Domains Model for assessing welfare. It goes on to detail what species-specific information is required to assess welfare, how to identify measurable and observable indicators of animals' physical states and how to identify which individuals are being assessed. Further, it addresses how to select appropriate methods for measuring/observing physical indicators of welfare, the scientific validation of these indicators and then the grading of animals' welfare states, along with assigning a confidence score. Finally, grading future welfare risks and how these can guide management decisions is discussed. Applying this ten-stage protocol will enable biologists to scientifically assess the welfare of wild animals and should lead to significant advances in the field of wild animal welfare.

Efficacy and welfare assessment of an encapsulated para-aminopropiophenone (PAPP) formulation as a bait-delivered toxicant for feral cats (Felis catus)

Abstract ContextFeral cats are invasive predators of small and medium-sized fauna throughout Australia. The only broad-scale population-management technique for feral cats currently available in Australia is poison baiting. As poison baits for feral cats must be surface-laid, this can lead to the unintended exposure of non-target species consuming the baits. Encapsulation of a toxin within a robust, controlled-release pellet implanted within the meat lure (the combination of which is termed the Curiosity® bait) substantially reduces the potential risk to non-target species. Para-aminopropiophenone (PAPP) has been shown to be an effective toxin to which cats are highly susceptible. AimsThe present study aimed to measure the efficacy of encapsulating PAPP toxin in a controlled-release pellet on feral cats in a pen situation and to document the observed behaviours through the toxication process. MethodsPen trials with captive cats were undertaken to document efficacy of encapsulating PAPP toxin in a controlled-release pellet and to assess the behaviours during toxicosis. These behaviours inform an assessment of the humaneness associated with the Curiosity bait using a published relative humaneness model. Key resultsThe trials demonstrated a 95% consumption of the toxic pellet and observed the pattern of behaviours exhibited during the intoxication process. There was a definitive delay in the onset of clinical signs and death followed at ~185min after the first definitive sign. The humaneness using the relative humaneness model was scored at ‘mild suffering’. ConclusionsThe encapsulating PAPP toxin in a controlled-release pellet for feral cats is effective. The feral cats display a range of behaviours through the toxication process, and these have been interpreted as mild suffering under the relative humaneness model. ImplicationsThe documented efficacy and behaviours of encapsulating PAPP toxin in a controlled-release pellet provides knowledge of how the PAPP toxin works on feral cats, which may assist in decision-making processes for conservation land managers controlling feral cats and whether to incorporate the use of the Curiosity® bait into existing management techniques.

Compassionate versus consequentialist conservation

Ethical treatment of wildlife and consideration of animal welfare have become important themes in conservation, but ethical perspectives on how best to protect wild animals and promote their welfare are diverse. There are advantages to the consequentialist harms ethical framework applied in managing wild herbivores for conservation purposes. To minimize harms while achieving conservation goals, we argue that overabundant wild herbivores should in many cases be managed through consumptive in situ killing. Advantages of this policy are that the negative welfare states imposed on animals last only a short time; remaining animals are not deprived of positive welfare states (e.g., linked to rearing offspring); poor welfare states of animals in overabundant populations are avoided (e.g., starvation); negative welfare impacts on heterospecifics through resource depletion (i.e., competition) are prevented; harvesting meat reduces the number of (agricultural) animals raised to supply meat; and minimal costs maximize funding for other wildlife management and conservation priorities. Alternative ethical approaches to our consequentialist framework include deontology (containing animal rights) and virtue ethics, some of which underpin compassionate conservation. These alternative ethical approaches emphasize the importance of avoiding intentional killing of animals but, if no population reduction occurs, are likely to impose considerable unintentional harms on overabundant wildlife and indirectly harm heterospecifics through ineffective population reduction. If nonlethal control is used, it is likely that overabundant animals would be deprived of positive welfare states and economic costs would be prohibitive. We encourage conservation stakeholders to consider animal-welfare consequentialism as an ethical approach to minimize harms to the animals under their care as well as other animals that policies may affect while at the same time pursuing conservation goals.

Welfare-aligned Sentience: Enhanced Capacities to Experience, Interact, Anticipate, Choose and Survive

The focus of this opinion is on the key features of sentience in animals which can experience different states of welfare, encapsulated by the new term 'welfare-aligned sentience'. This term is intended to exclude potential forms of sentience that do not enable animals in some taxa to have the subjective experiences which underlie different welfare states. As the scientific understanding of key features of sentience has increased markedly during the last 10 to 15 years, a major purpose here is to provide up-to-date information regarding those features. Eleven interconnected statements about sentience-associated body functions and behaviour are therefore presented and explained briefly. These statements are sequenced to provide progressively more information about key scientifically-supported attributes of welfare-aligned sentience, leading, in their entirety, to a more comprehensive understanding of those attributes. They are as follows: (1) Internal structure-function interactions and integration are the foundations of sentience; (2) animals posess a capacity to respond behaviourally to a range of sensory inputs; (3) the more sophisticated nervous systems can generate subjective experiences, that is, affects; (4) sentience means that animals perceive or experience different affects consciously; (5) within a species, the stage of neurobiological development is significant; (6) during development the onset of cortically-based consciousness is accompanied by cognitively-enhanced capacities to respond behaviourally to unpredictable postnatal environments; (7) sentience includes capacities to communicate with others and to interact with the environment; (8) sentience incorporates experiences of negative and positive affects; (9) negative and positive affective experiences 'matter' to animals for various reasons; (10) acknowledged obstacles inherent in anthropomorphism are largely circumvented by new scientific knowledge, but caution is still required; and (11) there is increasing evidence for sentience among a wider range of invertebrates. The science-based explanations of these statements provide the foundation for a brief definition of 'welfare-aligned sentience', which is offered for consideration. Finally, it is recommended that when assessing key features of sentience the same emphasis should be given to positive and negative affective experiences in the context of their roles in, or potential impacts on, animal welfare.

Forensic Use of the Five Domains Model for Assessing Suffering in Cases of Animal Cruelty

Simple Summary

Courts hearing cases about alleged ill-treatment of animals frequently utilise expert opinions which evaluate the nature and seriousness of reported negative welfare impacts. For several decades the Courts have required statements about such impacts to be supported mainly by physical and/or clinical evidence, usually regarding commentary about animals’ subjective experiences as being scientifically unsupported anthropomorphic speculation. This approach is well aligned with a view of animal welfare developed in the 1980s which emphasised scientifically validated features of “biological functioning” and, at an extreme, rejected any reference to subjective experiences that animals might have. However, subjective experiences, which include emotions, feelings, moods, and motivations, technically known as affects or affective states, became an increasing focus for animal behaviour scientists from the 1990s. This is now known as the “affective state” conceptual framework and it has been strengthened during the last two decades by integrating the findings of animal behaviour scientists and neuroscientists who explored brain processes that generate affective experiences. This provided cogent scientific support both for the existence of specific affects and the use of animals’ behaviour and some physiological responses to identify them. Two outcomes are noteworthy: first, that an animal’s welfare state is now very widely regarded by animal welfare scientists to reflect all of its affects experienced at any particular time, i.e., what the animal is experiencing subjectively; and second, that the extensive scientific understanding of the brain processes underlying affective experiences now convincingly negates spurious accusations of anthropomorphic speculation. These and other matters are considered here. It is concluded that the Courts’ current heavy reliance on physical and/or clinical evidence of ill-treatment should be modified. Instead, Courts should now recognise—as validly based—expert opinions that provide cogent evidence of untoward affective outcomes caused by ill-treatment, supplemented where appropriate by any relevant physical and/or clinical evidence if that is available.

Abstract

Conceptual frameworks for understanding animal welfare scientifically are widely influential. An early “biological functioning” framework still influences expert opinions prepared for Courts hearing animal cruelty cases, despite deficiencies in it being revealed by the later emergence and wide scientific adoption of an “affective state” framework. According to “biological functioning” precepts, indices of negative welfare states should predominantly be physical and/or clinical and any that refer to animals’ supposed subjective experiences, i.e., their “affective states”, should be excluded. However, “affective state” precepts, which have secure affective neuroscience and aligned animal behaviour science foundations, show that behavioural indices may be utilised to credibly identify negative welfare outcomes in terms of negative subjective experiences, or affects. It is noted that the now very wide scientific acceptance of the “affective state” framework is entirely consistent with the current extensive international recognition that animals of welfare significance are “sentient” beings. A long list of negative affects is discussed and each one is described as a prelude to updating the concept of “suffering” or “distress”, often referred to in animal welfare legislation and prosecutions for alleged ill-treatment of animals. The Five Domains Model for assessing and grading animal welfare compromise is then discussed, highlighting that it incorporates a coherent amalgamation of “biological functioning” and “affective state” precepts into its operational features. That is followed by examples of severe-to-very-severe ill-treatment of dogs. These include inescapable psychological and/or physical abuse or mistreatment, excessively restrictive or otherwise detrimental housing or holding conditions, and/or seriously inadequate provision of the necessities of life, in each case drawing attention to specific affects that such ill-treatment generates. It is concluded that experts should frame their opinions in ways that include negative affective outcomes. Moreover, the cogency of such analyses should be drawn to the attention of the Judiciary when they are deliberating on suffering in animals, thereby providing a basis for them to move from a current heavy reliance on physical and/or clinical indices of cruelty or neglect towards including in their decisions careful evaluations of animals’ negative affective experiences.

Using the Five Domains Model to Assess the Adverse Impacts of Husbandry, Veterinary, and Equitation Interventions on Horse Welfare

Simple Summary

Using an adaptation of the domain-based welfare assessment model, a panel of horse welfare professionals (with professional expertise in psychology, equitation science, veterinary science, education, welfare, equestrian coaching, advocacy, and community engagement) assessed the perceived harms, if any, resulting from 116 interventions that are commonly applied to horses. Scores for Domain 5 (the integrated mental impact) gathered after extensive discussion during a four-day workshop aligned well with overall impact scores assigned by the same panellists individually before the workshop, although some rankings changed after workshop participation. Domain 4 (Behaviour) had the strongest association with Domain 5, whilst Domain 1 (Nutrition) had the weakest association with Domain 5, implying that the panellists considered commonly applied nutritional interventions to have less of a bearing on subjective mental state than commonly applied behavioural restrictions. The workshop defined each intervention, and stated assumptions around each, resulting in a set of exemplar procedures that could be used in future equine welfare assessments.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to conduct a series of paper-based exercises in order to assess the negative (adverse) welfare impacts, if any, of common interventions on domestic horses across a broad range of different contexts of equine care and training. An international panel (with professional expertise in psychology, equitation science, veterinary science, education, welfare, equestrian coaching, advocacy, and community engagement; n = 16) met over a four-day period to define and assess these interventions, using an adaptation of the domain-based assessment model. The interventions were considered within 14 contexts: C1 Weaning; C2 Diet; C3 Housing; C4 Foundation training; C5 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly medical); C6 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly surgical); C7 Elective procedures; C8 Care procedures; C9 Restraint for management procedures; C10 Road transport; C11 Activity—competition; C12 Activity—work; C13 Activity—breeding females; and C14 Activity—breeding males. Scores on a 1–10 scale for Domain 5 (the mental domain) gathered during the workshop were compared with overall impact scores on a 1–10 scale assigned by the same panellists individually before the workshop. The most severe (median and interquartile range, IQR) impacts within each context were identified during the workshop as: C1 abrupt, individual weaning (10 IQR 1); C2 feeding 100% low-energy concentrate (8 IQR 2.5); C3 indoor tie stalls with no social contact (9 IQR 1.5); C4 both (i) dropping horse with ropes (9 IQR 0.5) and forced flexion (9 IQR 0.5); C5 long-term curative medical treatments (8 IQR 3); C6 major deep intracavity surgery (8.5 IQR 1); C7 castration without veterinary supervision (10 IQR 1); C8 both (i) tongue ties (8 IQR 2.5) and (ii) restrictive nosebands (8 IQR 2.5); C9 ear twitch (8 IQR 1); C10 both (i) individual transport (7.00 IQR 1.5) and group transport with unfamiliar companions (7 IQR 1.5); C11 both (i) jumps racing (8 IQR 2.5) and Western performance (8 IQR 1.5); C12 carriage and haulage work (6 IQR 1.5); C13 wet nurse during transition between foals (7.5 IQR 3.75); and C14 teaser horse (7 IQR 8). Associations between pre-workshop and workshop scores were high, but some rankings changed after workshop participation, particularly relating to breeding practices. Domain 1 had the weakest association with Domain 5. The current article discusses the use of the domain-based model in equine welfare assessment, and offers a series of assumptions within each context that future users of the same approach may make when assessing animal welfare under the categories reported here. It also discusses some limitations in the framework that was used to apply the model.

Hormones, stress and the welfare of animals

There are numerous endocrine (hormonal) responses during stress and these are often complex. This complexity makes the study of endocrine stress responses challenging and the challenges are intensified when attempts are made to use measures of hormones to assess the welfare of animals because so many endocrine systems are activated during stress and because there are countless stimuli that trigger these systems. Most research has concentrated on only a small number of these endocrine systems, particularly the hypothalamo–pituitary adrenal axis and the sympathoadrenal system, and there is a need to broaden the scope of endocrine systems that are studied. Furthermore, systematic approaches are required to establish when the actions of hormones associated with stress responses result in physiological and/or behavioural consequences that will have negative or positive effects on the welfare of animals.

To Group or Not to Group? Good Practice for Housing Male Laboratory Mice

Simple Summary

Wild mice live in territories inhabited by one adult male, several females, and their offspring. This cannot be replicated in the laboratory, so male mice are usually housed in single-sex groups or individually. However, there can be serious animal welfare problems associated with both these approaches, such as lack of social contact when housed individually or aggression between males when kept in groups. Group housing is widely recommended to give male laboratory mice the opportunity to behave as ‘social animals’, but social stress can be detrimental to the welfare of these animals, even without injurious fighting. All of this can also affect the quality of the science, giving rise to ethical concerns. This review discusses whether it is in the best welfare interests of male mice to be housed in groups, or alone. We conclude that it is not possible to give general recommendations for good practice for housing male laboratory mice, as responses to single- and group-housing can be highly context-dependent. The welfare implications of housing protocols should be researched and considered in each case.

Abstract

It is widely recommended to group-house male laboratory mice because they are ‘social animals’, but male mice do not naturally share territories and aggression can be a serious welfare problem. Even without aggression, not all animals within a group will be in a state of positive welfare. Rather, many male mice may be negatively affected by the stress of repeated social defeat and subordination, raising concerns about welfare and also research validity. However, individual housing may not be an appropriate solution, given the welfare implications associated with no social contact. An essential question is whether it is in the best welfare interests of male mice to be group- or singly housed. This review explores the likely impacts—positive and negative—of both housing conditions, presents results of a survey of current practice and awareness of mouse behavior, and includes recommendations for good practice and future research. We conclude that whether group- or single-housing is better (or less worse) in any situation is highly context-dependent according to several factors including strain, age, social position, life experiences, and housing and husbandry protocols. It is important to recognise this and evaluate what is preferable from animal welfare and ethical perspectives in each case.

Operational Details of the Five Domains Model and Its Key Applications to the Assessment and Management of Animal Welfare

Simple Summary

The Five Domains Model is a focusing device to facilitate systematic, structured, comprehensive and coherent assessment of animal welfare; it is not a definition of animal welfare, nor is it intended to be an accurate representation of body structure and function. The purpose of each of the five domains is to draw attention to areas that are relevant to both animal welfare assessment and management. This paper begins by briefly describing the major features of the Model and the operational interactions between the five domains, and then it details seven interacting applications of the Model. These underlie its utility and increasing application to welfare assessment and management in diverse animal use sectors.

Abstract

In accord with contemporary animal welfare science understanding, the Five Domains Model has a significant focus on subjective experiences, known as affects, which collectively contribute to an animal’s overall welfare state. Operationally, the focus of the Model is on the presence or absence of various internal physical/functional states and external circumstances that give rise to welfare-relevant negative and/or positive mental experiences, i.e., affects. The internal states and external circumstances of animals are evaluated systematically by referring to each of the first four domains of the Model, designated “Nutrition”, “Environment”, “Health” and “Behaviour”. Then affects, considered carefully and cautiously to be generated by factors in these domains, are accumulated into the fifth domain, designated “Mental State”. The scientific foundations of this operational procedure, published in detail elsewhere, are described briefly here, and then seven key ways the Model may be applied to the assessment and management of animal welfare are considered. These applications have the following beneficial objectives—they (1) specify key general foci for animal welfare management; (2) highlight the foundations of specific welfare management objectives; (3) identify previously unrecognised features of poor and good welfare; (4) enable monitoring of responses to specific welfare-focused remedial interventions and/or maintenance activities; (5) facilitate qualitative grading of particular features of welfare compromise and/or enhancement; (6) enable both prospective and retrospective animal welfare assessments to be conducted; and, (7) provide adjunct information to support consideration of quality of life evaluations in the context of end-of-life decisions. However, also noted is the importance of not overstating what utilisation of the Model can achieve.

International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control

Human-wildlife conflicts are commonly addressed by excluding, relocating, or lethally controlling animals with the goal of preserving public health and safety, protecting property, or conserving other valued wildlife. However, declining wildlife populations, a lack of efficacy of control methods in achieving desired outcomes, and changes in how people value animals have triggered widespread acknowledgment of the need for ethical and evidence-based approaches to managing such conflicts. We explored international perspectives on and experiences with human-wildlife conflicts to develop principles for ethical wildlife control. A diverse panel of 20 experts convened at a 2-day workshop and developed the principles through a facilitated engagement process and discussion. They determined that efforts to control wildlife should begin wherever possible by altering the human practices that cause human-wildlife conflict and by developing a culture of coexistence; be justified by evidence that significant harms are being caused to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems, and/or other animals; have measurable outcome-based objectives that are clear, achievable, monitored, and adaptive; predictably minimize animal welfare harms to the fewest number of animals; be informed by community values as well as scientific, technical, and practical information; be integrated into plans for systematic long-term management; and be based on the specifics of the situation rather than negative labels (pest, overabundant) applied to the target species. We recommend that these principles guide development of international, national, and local standards and control decisions and implementation.

Neurophysiological assessment of animal welfare

Livestock industries such as the pork industry are striving to continuously improve the welfare of animals. Inherent to the success of this is the ability to rigorously assess the welfare of animals in the field. While much progress has been made towards the development of methodology to assess the welfare of animals, there have been major challenges to establishing practical and definitive procedures to assess the welfare of animals. These include, but are not limited to, establishing a universally accepted definition of animal welfare and the choice of measures that are taken from the animal to assess its welfare. Measures of biological functioning and affective (emotional) state of the animal have been common, but there have been many limitations in terms of practical application. Some of the reasons for this include the choice of physiological measures, which are often restrictive in providing information about welfare, affective measures being restricted to specific behavioural measures and the biological-functioning and affective-states approaches being undertaken in isolation. Biological and affective functioning are integrated and controlled by the brain. Many of the regions of the brain involved in the regulation of biological and emotional functioning have been identified. Furthermore, there is considerable knowledge about the roles and interactions among the neurophysiological systems in these brain regions. We propose a strategy to use this knowledge to develop procedures to assess animal welfare. The initial phase is to identify the neural pathways that regulate the physiological and emotional processes that allow animals to adapt and cope. The next phase is to determine the activity of these pathways in conscious animals in the field. This requires the identification of biomarkers of specific neuronal activity that can be measured in the conscious animal in the field. Emerging technologies are offering promise in the identification of such biomarkers and some of these are already applicable to the pig. There is now the opportunity to apply this strategy within the pork industry to assess the welfare of pigs throughout the value chain.

Changes in the Welfare of an Injured Working Farm Dog Assessed Using the Five Domains Model

Simple Summary

The Five Domains Model is now increasingly used to assess the welfare status of a wide range of species in markedly different circumstances. Particular strengths are that the Model facilitates structured, systematic and comprehensive evaluations of animals’ negative and positive mental experiences, the overall balance of which underlies their welfare status or quality of life. Importantly, the Model also clarifies the specific internal and external factors that give rise to those experiences. The welfare evaluation published here is the first to use the most up-to-date version of the Model, and stands as a detailed example that may assist others undertaking such welfare evaluations in other species and contexts. Moreover, it is the first such evaluation of a companion animal. It employs a fictitious scenario involving a working farm dog before, during and after it sustains a serious hind leg injury requiring amputation and its subsequent rehoming as a pet. A wide range of negative and positive experiences are graded, interactions between them are revealed, and the balance between negative and positive states at different stages of the scenario is described. Such Model evaluations can highlight current practices that merit re-evaluation. More generally, when major welfare issues are identified, use of the Model could enhance expert witness participation in related prosecutions by highlighting scientifically supported connections between indicative physical/functional states and behaviours and their associated negative experiences in ill-treated animals. Five Domains Model evaluations can also facilitate quality of life assessments and end-of-life decisions.

Abstract

The present structured, systematic and comprehensive welfare evaluation of an injured working farm dog using the Five Domains Model is of interest in its own right. It is also an example for others wanting to apply the Model to welfare evaluations in different species and contexts. Six stages of a fictitious scenario involving the dog are considered: (1) its on-farm circumstances before one hind leg is injured; (2) its entanglement in barbed wire, cutting it free and transporting it to a veterinary clinic; (3) the initial veterinary examination and overnight stay; (4) amputation of the limb and immediate post-operative recovery; (5) its first four weeks after rehoming to a lifestyle block; and (6) its subsequent life as an amputee and pet. Not all features of the scenario represent average-to-good practice; indeed, some have been selected to indicate poor practice. It is shown how the Model can draw attention to areas of animal welfare concern and, importantly, to how welfare enhancement may be impeded or facilitated. Also illustrated is how the welfare implications of a sequence of events can be traced and evaluated, and, in relation to specific situations, how the degrees of welfare compromise and enhancement may be graded. In addition, the choice of a companion animal, contrasting its welfare status as a working dog and pet, and considering its treatment in a veterinary clinical setting, help to highlight various welfare impacts of some practices. By focussing attention on welfare problems, the Model can guide the implementation of remedies, including ways of promoting positive welfare states. Finally, wider applications of the Five Domains Model are noted: by enabling both negative and positive welfare-relevant experiences to be graded, the Model can be applied to quality of life assessments and end-of-life decisions and, with particular regard to negative experiences, the Model can also help to strengthen expert witness testimony during prosecutions for serious ill treatment of animals.

Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the "Five Freedoms" towards "A Life Worth Living"

Simple Summary

The Five Freedoms were formulated in the early 1990s and are now well recognised as highly influential in the animal welfare arena. However, a marked increase in scientific understanding over the last two decades now shows that the Five Freedoms do not capture, either in the specifics or the generality of their expression, the breadth and depth of current knowledge of the biological processes that are germane to understanding animal welfare and to guiding its management. For example, this paper refers to some negative experiences that can never be eliminated, merely temporarily neutralised, because they are essential for eliciting behaviours upon which the survival of the animal depends. In addition, it refers to other negative experiences that relate to an animal’s responses to living in poor environments which require improvement, and also to how such experiences may be replaced by positive ones when particular improvements are introduced. For animals to have “lives worth living” it is necessary, overall, to minimise their negative experiences and at the same time to provide the animals with opportunities to have positive experiences. These observations have implications for reviewing and potentially updating minimum standards in codes of welfare. The paper ends with an up-to-date characterisation of the principal features of animal welfare, expressed largely in non-technical terms.

Abstract

The Five Freedoms have had major impact on animal welfare thinking internationally. However, despite clear initial statements that the words ‘freedom from’ should indicate ‘as free as possible from’, the Freedoms have come to be represented as absolute or fundamental freedoms, even rights, by some animal advocate and other groups. Moreover, a marked increase in scientific understanding over the last two decades shows that the Freedoms do not capture the more nuanced knowledge of the biological processes that is germane to understanding animal welfare and which is now available to guide its management. For example, the named negative experiences of thirst, hunger, discomfort and pain, and others identified subsequently, including breathlessness, nausea, dizziness, debility, weakness and sickness, can never be eliminated, merely temporarily neutralised. Each one is a genetically embedded element that motivates animals to behave in particular ways to obtain specific life-sustaining resources, avoid or reduce physical harm or facilitate recovery from infection or injury. Their undoubted negativity creates a necessary sense of urgency to respond, without which animals would not survive. Also, the temporary neutralisation of these survival-critical affects does not in and of itself generate positive experience. This questions the commonly held assumption that good animal welfare will result when these internally generated negative affects are minimised. Animals may also experience other negative affects that include anxiety, fear, panic, frustration, anger, helplessness, loneliness, boredom and depression. These situation-related affects reflect animals’ perceptions of their external circumstances. Although they are elicited by threatening, cramped, barren and/or isolated conditions, they can often be replaced by positive affects when animals are kept with congenial others in spacious, stimulus-rich and safe environments which provide opportunities for them to engage in behaviours they find rewarding. These behaviours may include environment-focused exploration and food acquisition activities as well as animal-to-animal interactive activities, all of which can generate various forms of comfort, pleasure, interest, confidence and a sense of control. Animal welfare management should aim to reduce the intensity of survival-critical negative affects to tolerable levels that nevertheless still elicit the required behaviours, and should also provide opportunities for animals to behave in ways they find rewarding, noting that poor management of survival-critical affects reduces animals’ motivation to utilize such rewarding opportunities. This biologically more accurate understanding provides support for reviewing the adequacy of provisions in current codes of welfare or practice in order to ensure that animals are given greater opportunities to experience positive welfare states. The purpose is to help animals to have lives worth living, which is not possible when the predominant focus of such codes is on survival-critical measures. Finally, an updated characterisation of animal welfare that incorporates this more accurate understanding is presented.

Welfare Impacts of Pindone Poisoning in Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus)

Control methods used to manage unwanted impacts of the European rabbit in Australia and New Zealand include the use of toxic bait containing the anticoagulant pindone. Towards increased certainty in evaluating the animal welfare impacts of pindone poisoning in rabbits, we recorded behavioral and post-mortem data from rabbits which ingested lethal quantities of pindone bait in a laboratory trial. Pindone poisoning in rabbits resulted in welfare compromise, primarily through functional impairments related to internal haemorrhage over a maximum duration of 7 days. Applying this data to a formal assessment framework for ranking animal welfare impacts indicated that pindone had relatively high severity and also duration of welfare impacts in comparison to other rabbit control methods.

Assessing Animal Welfare Impacts in the Management of European Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), European Moles (Talpa europaea) and Carrion Crows (Corvus corone)

Human-wildlife conflict is a global issue. Attempts to manage this conflict impact upon wild animal welfare, an issue receiving little attention until relatively recently. Where human activities harm animal welfare these effects should be minimised where possible. However, little is known about the welfare impacts of different wildlife management interventions, and opinions on impacts vary widely. Welfare impacts therefore need to be assessed objectively. Our objectives were to: 1) establish whether an existing welfare assessment model could differentiate and rank the impacts of different wildlife management interventions (for decision-making purposes); 2) identify and evaluate any additional benefits of making formal welfare assessments; and 3) illustrate issues raised by application of the model. We applied the welfare assessment model to interventions commonly used with rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), moles (Talpa europaea) and crows (Corvus corone) in the UK. The model ranked interventions for rabbits (least impact first: fencing, head shot, chest shot) and crows (shooting, scaring, live trapping with cervical dislocation). For moles, managing molehills and tunnels scored least impact. Both spring trapping, and live trapping followed by translocation, scored greater impacts, but these could not be compared directly as they scored on different axes of the model. Some rankings appeared counter-intuitive, highlighting the need for objective formal welfare assessments. As well as ranking the humaneness of interventions, the model highlighted future research needs and how Standard Operating Procedures might be improved. The model is a milestone in assessing wildlife management welfare impacts, but our research revealed some limitations of the model and we discuss likely challenges in resolving these. In future, the model might be developed to improve its utility, e.g. by refining the time-scales. It might also be used to reach consensus among stakeholders about relative welfare impacts or to identify ways of improving wildlife management practice in the field.

Integrating animal welfare into wild herbivore management: lessons from the Australian Feral Camel Management Project

The Australian Feral Camel Management Project (AFCMP) was initiated in 2009 to manage the growing impacts of feral camels (Camelus dromedarius) in Australia. One of the most important considerations for the project was achieving high standards of animal welfare and demonstrating this to stakeholders and the public. The novelty of feral camels as an invasive species meant that relatively little was known about the animal welfare aspects of the available management techniques. To address this knowledge gap, quantitative animal-based assessment tools were developed to allow independent observers to perform repeatable in situ field auditing of the two main control methods used: aerial (helicopter) shooting and live capture (mustering and transport for slaughter). Although observation protocols allowed most stages of aerial shooting (in situ killing) to be assessed, not all stages of live capture operations could be assessed (namely transport and slaughter at ex situ abattoirs) due to the limitations of the jurisdiction of the Australian Feral Camel Management Project. For assessments that were performed, audit results were made available to project partners to allow procedures to be reviewed and published through peer-reviewed literature to improve transparency. Empirical evidence produced through the audit system was also used to refine humaneness ranking assessments comparing management methods. We present the lessons learnt through the animal welfare approach of the AFCMP to assist future wild herbivore management programs.

An animal welfare assessment framework for helicopter darting: a case study with a newly developed method for feral horses

Context Helicopter darting (chemical immobilisation) is a very useful technique for large wild herbivores, such as feral horses (Equus caballus). There is currently no reliable framework to report on the animal welfare impacts of helicopter darting methods. Aim The aim of this study was to develop an animal welfare assessment framework for helicopter darting methods, using quantifiable parameters, and to test it with a case study using a newly developed feral horse capture technique. Methods Quantifiable animal welfare parameters were recorded for 11 feral horses captured using a traditional helicopter darting method in north-western Australia in October 2014. Welfare parameters chosen focused on quantifying the duration of procedures and the frequency of adverse events. They included chase time (CT; min) before darting, induction time (IT; min) between darting and recumbency, recumbency time (RT; min), total time (TT; CT+IT+RT; min), repeat-darting rate (animals requiring >1 dart; %), target zone accuracy rate (darts striking the intended anatomical area; %) and mortality rate (at time of capture and 14 days post-capture; %). Results Median CT was 2 min, median IT was 19 min, median RT was 16 min and median TT was 38 min. Repeat-darting rate was 45%, target zone accuracy rate was 53% and mortality rates (time of capture and 14 days post-capture) were zero. Conclusions Animal welfare parameters can be quantified for helicopter darting through estimation of the duration of procedures and the frequency of adverse events. Use of this framework will allow the identification of parameters requiring refinement for newly developed helicopter darting techniques. Implications Animal welfare parameters are particularly important for helicopter-based darting methods. Pilot studies, using quantified parameters, should be performed for newly developed capture techniques before they are approved for large-scale programs.

Is Wildlife Fertility Control Always Humane?

Investigation of fertility control techniques to reduce reproductive rates in wildlife populations has been the source of much research. Techniques targeting wildlife fertility have been diverse. Most research into fertility control methods has focused upon efficacy, with few studies rigorously assessing animal welfare beyond opportunistic anecdote. However, fertility control techniques represent several very different mechanisms of action (modalities), each with their own different animal welfare risks. We provide a review of the mechanisms of action for fertility control methods, and consider the role of manipulation of reproductive hormones ("endocrine suppression") for the long-term ability of animals to behave normally. We consider the potential welfare costs of animal manipulation techniques that are required to administer fertility treatments, including capture, restraint, surgery and drug delivery, and the requirement for repeated administration within the lifetime of an animal. We challenge the assumption that fertility control modalities generate similar and desirable animal welfare outcomes, and we argue that knowledge of reproductive physiology and behaviour should be more adeptly applied to wild animal management decisions. We encourage wildlife managers to carefully assess long-term behavioural risks, associated animal handling techniques, and the importance of positive welfare states when selecting fertility control methods as a means of population control.

Advantages and limitations of the Five Domains model for assessing welfare impacts associated with vertebrate pest control

Many pest control activities have the potential to impact negatively on the welfare of animals, and animal welfare is an important consideration in the development, implementation and evaluation of ethically defensible vertebrate pest control. Thus, reliable and accurate methods for assessing welfare impacts are required. The Five Domains model provides a systematic method for identifying potential or actual welfare impacts associated with an event or situation in four physical or functional domains (nutrition, environment, health or functional status, behaviour) and one mental domain (overall mental or affective state). Here we evaluate the advantages and limitations of the Five Domains model for this purpose and illustrate them using specific examples from a recent assessment of the welfare impacts of poisons used to lethally control possums in New Zealand. The model has a number of advantages which include the following: the systematic identification of a wide range of impacts associated with a variety of control tools; the production of relative rankings of tools in terms of their welfare impacts; the easy incorporation of new information into assessments; and the highlighting of additional information needed. For example, a recent analysis of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) poisoning in possums revealed the need for more information on the period from the onset of clinical signs to the point at which consciousness is lost, as well as on the level of consciousness during or after the occurrence of muscle spasms and seizures. The model is also valuable because it clearly separates physical or functional and affective impacts, encourages more comprehensive consideration of negative affective experiences than has occurred in the past, and allows development and evaluation of targeted mitigation strategies. Caution must be used in interpreting and applying the outputs of the model, most importantly because relative rankings or grades are fundamentally qualitative in nature. Certain domains are more useful for evaluating impacts associated with slower/longer-acting tools than for faster-acting methods, and it may be easier to identify impacts in some domains than others. Overall, we conclude that the Five Domains model advances evaluation of the animal welfare impacts of vertebrate pest control methods, provided users are cognisant of its limitations.