Reconsidering humaneness

Evaluation of rifle cartridge and shot placement for euthanizing feral swine (Sus scrofa) in traps

Feral swine are a highly destructive invasive species around the globe. Wildlife managers commonly trap and euthanize feral swine with firearms to reduce their adverse impacts. The utility of euthanizing domestic swine with firearms has been considered when emergency situations arise such as in the event of a foreign animal disease outbreak in domestic swine. Similarly, the rapid depopulation of domestic swine facilities became necessary when the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted pork production in 2020. Evaluation of the effects of caliber, cartridge, size of feral swine, and shot placement on effectiveness and safety of the method is needed. We collected data from feral swine euthanized in traps on how those variables influenced the effectiveness in time to death and number of shots required and safety risks based on the occurrence of bullet pass-through (i.e., bullet exiting the pig). We tested 3 cartridges of 2 calibers (0.22 long rifle, 0.22 Winchester magnum rimfire, and 0.308 Winchester) delivered from a rifle with 3 shot placements targeting the brain. From 570 euthanization events, we calculated an average time to death of 100.06 (SD = 29.24) s, with larger feral swine taking slightly longer. Most feral swine (73%) were euthanized with a single shot but averaged 1.28 (SD = 0.48) shots overall. Safety risks from pass-through shots were more common when using the 0.308 Winchester cartridge, and when rear and side shot placements were used. Overall, we recommend a 0.22 long rifle cartridge and frontal shot placement as an effective and safe option for euthanizing feral swine in traps, and likely for domestic swine of similar size and shot distances.

Mitigating Human Impacts on Wild Animal Welfare

Human activities negatively impact the welfare of wild vertebrates in many different contexts globally, and countless individual animals are affected. Growing concern for wild animal welfare, especially in relation to conservation, is evident. While research on wild animal welfare lags behind that focused on captive animals, minimising human-induced harm to wild animals is a key principle. This study examines examples of negative anthropogenic impacts on wild animal welfare, how these may be mitigated and what further research is required, including examples from wildlife management, biodiversity conservation, wildlife tourism and wildlife trade. Further, it discusses the relationship between animal welfare and biodiversity conservation, and synergies that may be achieved between these. Ultimately, it is discussed how the welfare of wild animals may be balanced with other priorities to ensure that welfare is afforded due consideration in interactions between people and wildlife.

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.

Intensive Adoption as a Management Strategy for Unowned, Urban Cats: A Case Study of 25 Years of Trap-Assess-Resolve (TAR) in Auckland, New Zealand

Globally, unowned urban cats are a major concern because they may suffer from poor welfare and cause problems, including public health risks, nuisances, and urban wildlife predation. While management options are often presented as a choice between culling or trap−neuter−return (TNR), for 25 years, the Lonely Miaow (Inc.) charity in Auckland, New Zealand (hereafter LM), has used a third strategy—intensive adoption or trap−assess−resolve (TAR). As of 2019, of 14,611 unowned cats trapped, 64.2% were adopted, 22.2% were euthanized if unsocialised or in grave ill-health, 5.7% were neutered and returned to the site, and 7.9% had other outcomes, such as being transferred to other shelters. Adoption rates increased over this time, exceeding 80.0% in 2018 and 2019. The cost of processing each cat from capture to adoption rose from NZD 58 in 1999 to NZD 234 by 2017. Approximately 80% of colonies (sites where cats were trapped) were around residential areas. Approximately 22% of cats required veterinary treatment after capture; common ailments included respiratory infections, ringworm, dental problems, and trauma. Consistently, 52% of cats were young kittens (<10 weeks old), c. 80% of cats were <1 year old, and only c. 2% were estimated to be >5 years old. TAR avoids euthanasia where possible. Its effectiveness would be enhanced by fewer abandonments of owned cats and kittens, fitting within integrated strategies for the control of unowned cats involving community education. Cat adoptions improve the welfare of cats and, with appropriate husbandry, should alleviate concerns about nuisances, public health, and attacks on wildlife or the cats themselves, essentially benefitting the community and the cats. This case study is relevant to other cities around the world that are seeking to manage unowned cats.

Feral horse cause-specific mortality relative to mustering (gathering) and individual demographic attributes in the USA

Abstract ContextMustering (gathering) feral horses (Equus ferus caballus) often cause mortalities, yet cause-specific details are lacking. AimsGiven the need to optimise horse welfare, we analysed public horse muster data from the USA to understand specific causes of mortalities. MethodsWe coded 393 individual horse mortality reports for 92 cause-specific mortality terms (keywords informing the deciphering of specific causes of mortality classified as anatomical, causal or conditional) and demographic details (age, sex, and body condition). Data were derived from 50 musters across seven states with at least one horse mortality. Musters were coded for type (helicopter or bait), emergency or regular planned efforts, and number of horses mustered and shipped daily. Key ResultsMore horses were euthanased than died naturally (330 (84.0%) and 39 (9.9%) respectively), and more horses had chronic than acute conditions (317 (80.7%) and 76 (19.3%) respectively), with both trends holding for both sexes and across ages. Body condition scores (BCS) for female horses were skewed low, whereas male horse BCS data were more normally distributed. Female horses had lower BCS than did male horses (P &lt; 0.001). On average, each horse mortality had two cause-specific mortality terms, ranging from 1 to 7. Only 57 horses (14.5%) had terms describing anatomy, cause and condition, concurrently. Phi coefficients (φ; indicators of fidelity and constancy) for cause-specific terms were related to demographic or muster attributes and were analysed with post hoc ANOVA tests of estimated marginal means to allow for ranking. Female horses were most often described as emaciated, weak, and starving, whereas male horses were described as lame, arthritic, blind or dangerous. Bait trapping and emergency musters included horses that were starving, dehydrated and weak. ConclusionsGenerally, disorders associated with legs and feet, eyes, necks and nutrition were the most prevalent cause-specific mortality issues. Using a machine learning approach, validation and test accuracy were high for predicting euthanasia versus natural mortalities, but low for predicting acute versus chronic mortalities. Individual horse demographics or daily muster features had a greater relative influence than did capture type or emergency status in both comparisons. ImplicationsThese results provide practical insight for potential cause-specific mortalities relative to demographics and muster techniques.

Social License and Animal Welfare: Developments from the Past Decade in Australia

"Social license to operate" (SLO) refers to the implicit process by which a community gives an industry approval to conduct its current business activities. It has become an important focus for many natural resource management fields (especially mining), but there is less awareness of its role in animal use industries. This article describes how animal welfare has recently become arguably the most crucial consideration underpinning the SLO for Australian animal use industries. It describes several industries in Australia that have faced animal welfare scrutiny in the past decade (2010-2020) to illustrate how persistent issues can erode SLO, lead to regulatory bans, and decimate previously profitable industries. Industries described include the live export of livestock, greyhound and horse racing, kangaroo harvesting, and dairy and sheep farming. In these cases, there has been intense public discourse but little scholarly progress. This article examines factors that may have contributed to these developments and suggests approaches that may assist these industries in maintaining their SLO. Animal welfare has become a mainstream societal concern in Australia, and effective management of the community's expectations will be essential for the maintenance of SLO for many animal use industries.

Updating the AIHTS Trapping Standards to Improve Animal Welfare and Capture Efficiency and Selectivity

In 1999, after pressure from the European Union, an Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) that would result in the banning of the steel-jawed leghold traps in the European Community, Canada, and Russia was signed. The United States implemented these standards through an Agreed Minute with the European Community. Over the last two decades, scientists have criticized the AIHTS for (1) omitting species that are commonly trapped; (2) threshold levels of trap acceptance that are not representative of state-of-the-art trap technology; (3) excluding popular traps which are commonly used by trappers although they are known to cause prolonged pain and stress to captured animals; (4) inadequate coverage of capture efficiency and species selectivity (i.e., number of captures of target and non-target species) performance. Concerns about the ability of standards and test procedures to ensure animal welfare, and about the implementation of standards, have also been voiced by wildlife biologists, managers, and conservation groups. In this review, we present a synopsis of current trapping standards and test procedures, and we compare the standards to a then contemporary 1985-1993 Canadian trap research and development program. On the basis of the above-noted concerns about AIHTS, and our experience as wildlife professionals involved in the capture of mammals, we formulated the following hypotheses: (1) the list of mammal species included in the AIHTS is incomplete; (2) the AIHTS have relatively low animal welfare performance thresholds of killing trap acceptance and do not reflect state-of-the-art trapping technology; (3) the AIHTS animal welfare indicators and injuries for restraining traps are insufficient; (4) the AIHTS testing procedures are neither thorough nor transparent; (5) the AIHTS protocols for the use of certified traps are inadequate; (6) the AIHTS procedures for the handling and dispatching of animals are nonexistent; (7) the AIHTS criteria to assess trap capture efficiency and species selectivity are inappropriate. We conclude that the AIHTS do not reflect state-of-the-art trapping technology, and assessment protocols need to be updated to include trap components and sets, animal handling and dispatching, and trap visit intervals. The list of traps and species included in the standards should be updated. Finally, the concepts of capture efficiency and trap selectivity should be developed and included in the standards. Based on our review, it is clear that mammal trapping standards need to be revisited to implement state-of-the-art trapping technology and improve capture efficiency and species selectivity. We believe that a committee of international professionals consisting of wildlife biologists and veterinarians with extensive experience in the capture of mammals and animal welfare could produce new standards within 1-2 years. We propose a series of measures to fund trap testing and implement new standards.