Welfare aspects of vertebrate pest control and culling: ranking control techniques for humaneness

Technical assessment of mechanical and electronic traps to facilitate future improvements in trap efficacy and humaneness

BACKGROUND

Snap traps and electronic traps are the main devices for nonchemical management of rodent pests. Traps should be efficient and should not cause unnecessary suffering of animals. Harmonized, systematic test methods are required to make sure that mechanical forces or electrical parameters are optimal to achieve swift unconsciousness and death. This study aimed to describe technical trap properties that can be used to facilitate future improvements in trap efficacy and humaneness.

METHODS

We constructed a device to assess spring energy, triggering force, impulse and clamping force, and developed an arrangement to assess effective voltage, current, effective current and effective energy taking effect on rodent bodies in electronic traps - all without the use of animals. Descriptive data of trap characteristics were collated.

RESULTS

All factors showed variability among snap trap models and trigger types, and there was considerable overlap between mouse and rat traps. For most trap models, there was no difference among new snap traps and traps that had been trigged 20 times. Effective current and effective energy decreased with lower voltage input, but the traps indicated weak battery by LED lights, and one model switched off automatically when voltage was insufficient.

CONCLUSION

With the device and the electronic arrangement, the majority of snap trap models and electronic traps available on the market can be assessed in a standardized and repeatable way. Matching the data generated in this study with data on time for trapped target animals to reach irreversible unconsciousness, and experiences from pest control practitioners, should allow relating properties of traps to efficacy and animal welfare issues. This can support further development and optimization of traps for nonchemical rodent pest control. © 2024 Julius Kuehn-Institut and The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

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.

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.

One Biosecurity: a unified concept to integrate human, animal, plant, and environmental health

In the wake of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the world has woken up to the importance of biosecurity and the need to manage international borders. Yet strong sectorial identities exist within biosecurity that are associated with specific international standards, individual economic interests, specific research communities, and unique stakeholder involvement. Despite considerable research addressing human, animal, plant, and environmental health, the science connections between these sectors remain quite limited. One Biosecurity aims to address these limitations at global, national, and local scales. It is an interdisciplinary approach to biosecurity policy and research that builds on the interconnections between human, animal, plant, and environmental health to effectively prevent and mitigate the impacts of invasive alien species. It provides an integrated perspective to address the many biosecurity risks that transcend the traditional boundaries of health, agriculture, and the environment. Individual invasive alien plant and animal species often have multiple impacts across sectors: as hosts of zoonotic parasites, vectors of pathogens, pests of agriculture or forestry, as well as threats to biodiversity and ecosystem function. It is time these risks were addressed in a systematic way. One Biosecurity is essential to address several major sociological and environmental challenges to biosecurity: climate change, increasing urbanisation, agricultural intensification, human global mobility, loss of technical capability as well as public resistance to pesticides and vaccines. One Biosecurity will require the bringing together of taxonomists, population biologists, modellers, economists, chemists, engineers, and social scientists to engage in a new agenda that is shaped by politics, legislation, and public perceptions.

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.

Dilemmas in the Management of Liminal Rodents-Attitudes of Dutch Pest Controllers

Simple Summary

Most people think the welfare of non-human animals matters. However, when it comes to rats and mice labeled as ‘pests’, welfare generally appears less important. Together with stakeholders in the field of pest management, we are working to develop a framework for less harmful rodent control that can be used by pest controllers. An online survey was carried out in order to find out to what extent Dutch pest controllers take the welfare of rats and mice into account as part of their profession. Our findings show that respondents pay attention to animal welfare and believe that some methods used cause severe animal suffering. Also, they think there are situations in which more attention for preventive methods (e.g., cleaning, removing food sources, or closing holes in a building) benefits both humans and pest animals. They indicate, however, that it is sometimes hard to include animal welfare in their work. An important reason for this is that clients do not always want to invest sufficient money in prevention. The findings of this study are useful for further conversations with pest controllers and their clients on how to safeguard animal welfare. Furthermore, they are relevant to the framework we are developing.

Abstract

When non-human animals are labeled as ‘pests’, their moral status and welfare seem relatively unimportant. In a multi-stakeholder project, we develop an assessment frame for a more responsible rodent management that includes animal welfare. An online survey among 129 Dutch pest controllers was carried out in order to find out more about pest controllers’ attitudes about animal welfare. Respondents indicate to consider animal welfare in their job. They see differences in the welfare impact of different rodent control methods. A dilemma may occur when methods with a high impact, such as rodenticides, are ofttimes used in practice. Respondents also indicate that in different real-life scenarios (the hospital kitchen vs. the private backyard), a different weight may be attributed to the importance of animal welfare. Almost half of the respondents encounter difficulties when weighing animals against human interests. The problems are mainly related to clients who are not willing to invest sufficient money in preventive methods, where respondents do believe in. Some differences were found between respondents depending on membership of a professional association for pest controllers. The results of this study are relevant input for focus groups with pest controllers and their clients and for the development of the aforementioned assessment frame.

Minimizing animal welfare harms associated with predation management in agro-ecosystems

The impacts of wild predators on livestock are a common source of human-wildlife conflict globally, and predators are subject to population control for this reason in many situations. Animal welfare is one of many important considerations affecting decisions about predation management. Recent studies discussing animal welfare in this context have presented arguments emphasizing the importance of avoiding intentional harm to predators, but they have not usually considered harms imposed by predators on livestock and other animals. Efforts to mitigate predation impacts (including 'no control' approaches) cause a variety of harms to predators, livestock and other wildlife. Successfully minimizing the overall frequency and magnitude of harms requires consideration of the direct, indirect, intentional and unintentional harms imposed on all animals inhabiting agricultural landscapes. We review the harms resulting from the management of dingoes and other wild dogs in the extensive beef cattle grazing systems of Australia to illustrate how these negative impacts can be minimized across both wild and domestic species present on a farm or in a free-ranging livestock grazing context. Similar to many other predator-livestock conflicts, wild dogs impose intermittent harms on beef cattle (especially calves) including fatal predation, non-fatal attack (mauling and biting), pathogen transmission, and fear- or stress-related effects. Wild dog control tools and strategies impose harms on dingoes and other wildlife including stress, pain and death as a consequence of both lethal and non-lethal control approaches. To balance these various sources of harm, we argue that the tactical use of lethal predator control approaches can result in harming the least number of individual animals, given certain conditions. This conclusion conflicts with both traditional (e.g. continuous or ongoing lethal control) and contemporary (e.g. predator-friendly or no-control) predation management approaches. The general and transferable issues, approaches and principles we describe have broad applicability to many other human-wildlife conflicts around the world.

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.

Free-ranging horse management in Australia, New Zealand and the United States: socio-ecological dimensions of a protracted environmental conflict

Management of free-ranging horses (Equus ferus caballus) is a complex socio-ecological issue in Australia (AU), New Zealand (NZ), and the United States (US). In these countries, horses are the results of colonial introductions and occupy very harsh rangeland environments exerting a grazing disturbance that has generated ecological concerns. Although many social and ecological concerns are similar, each country also has nuances. In 2018, we conducted a field-based comparison of AU, NZ, and US using an inductive approach to identify similarities, differences, and emerging themes through conversations with >100 individuals from New South Wales Australia, the North Island of New Zealand, and the western US. Additional data sources included field observations and archival documents. Consistent emergent themes identified included: strong public emotion, politicization of management, population growth concerns, negative ecological impact concerns, agreement that horses should be treated humanely, disagreement as to what practices were the most humane, interest and scepticism about fertility control, the need for transparency, compromise to accommodating horses and acknowledgement of social values, and recognition that collaboration is the only means to achieve both healthy rangelands and healthy horses. Unique themes identified included: NZ empowering advocate groups to become part of the solution, conflict between horses and livestock is a mostly US conflict, equids originated in the US, concern about the sustainability of adoption programs, different expectations/options for management on private lands, cultural history such as brumby running in AU, permanent branding of horses in the US, litigation as a uniquely US strategy (although a judgement on recent AU litigation is pending), government data accepted to guide removals in NZ but not always in AU or US, and complex heterogeneous land surface ownership patterns makes management difficult in the US. The difficulty of horse management in these countries is attributed to social intricacies rather than biological/ecological gaps of knowledge.

Anticoagulant Rodenticides, Islands and Animal Welfare Accountancy

Simple Summary

Anticoagulant rodenticides are a mainstay of rodent management in many domestic, municipal, agricultural, and conservation settings. Anticoagulant poisoning has poor welfare outcomes for mammals and birds and, worldwide, this means potentially very large numbers of animals are poisoned annually consequent (intended or not) to rodenticide use. Critical differences in use patterns of anticoagulants applied for ongoing rodent control, versus application for rodent eradication especially on islands, have clear implications for animal welfare costs measured as cumulative number of animals affected over time. Here we outline these differences and discuss how animal welfare considerations can be weighed in decisions to use anticoagulant rodenticides for island eradication attempts.

Abstract

Anticoagulant rodenticides are used to manage rodents in domestic, municipal, agricultural, and conservation settings. In mammals and birds, anticoagulant poisoning causes extensive hemorrhagic disruption, with the primary cause of death being severe internal bleeding occurring over days. The combined severity and duration of these effects represent poor welfare outcomes for poisoned animals. Noting a lack of formal estimates of numbers of rodents and nontarget animals killed by anticoagulant poisoning, the ready availability and worldwide use of anticoagulants suggest that very large numbers of animals are affected globally. Scrutiny of this rodent control method from scientific, public, and regulatory perspectives is being driven largely by mounting evidence of environmental transfer of residual anticoagulants resulting in harmful exposure in wild or domestic animals, but there is also nascent concern for the welfare of targeted rodents. Rodent control incurs a cumulative ledger of animal welfare costs over time as target populations reduced by poisoning eventually recover to an extent requiring another reduction. This ‘rolling toll’ presents a critical contrast to the animal welfare accountancy ledger for eradication scenarios, where rodent populations can be completely removed by methods including anticoagulant use and then kept from coming back (e.g., on islands). Successful eradications remove any future need to control rodents and to incur the associated animal welfare costs.

Humanely Ending the Life of Animals: Research Priorities to Identify Alternatives to Carbon Dioxide

: The use of carbon dioxide (CO2) for stunning and killing animals is considered to compromise welfare due to air hunger, anxiety, fear, and pain. Despite decades of research, no alternatives have so far been found that provide a safe and reliable way to induce unconsciousness in groups of animals, and also cause less distress than CO2. Here, we revisit the current and historical literature to identify key research questions that may lead to the identification and implementation of more humane alternatives to induce unconsciousness in mice, rats, poultry, and pigs. In addition to the evaluation of novel methods and agents, we identify the need to standardise the terminology and behavioural assays within the field. We further reason that more accurate measurements of consciousness state are needed and serve as a central component in the assessment of suffering. Therefore, we propose a roadmap toward improving animal welfare during end-of-life procedures.

Biological control of pests and a social model of animal welfare

This paper considers the sociocultural implications of biological pest control that sit at the cusp of managing an invasive species for conservation or productivity (i.e. a 'natural enemy') and socially driven 'manipulating life' arguments. We consider the role of perceived humaneness or, more accurately, animal welfare as it relates to managing invasive species from a scientific and social perspective. In order to highlight and articulate particular nuances and standards across different pest control contexts, we use three case examples (feral cats, wild rabbits, and invasive cane toads) and explore where biological pest control and animal welfare interests intersect. The paper summarises key scientific welfare concerns and then extends the literature to also examine key social characteristics of each pest management scenario, including lay perceptions of animal welfare, the sociocultural context that pests exist within, and overarching psychological factors contributing to public sentiment, including perceived risks. The subsequent descriptive model presented is useful in articulating core sociocultural beliefs relative to each case and how these antecedent associations and attitudes about an animal influence subsequent beliefs about a pest management strategy and ultimately acceptance of the management approach. The model can inform invasive species management policies and highlight key sociocultural factors likely to influence public responses. The model also informs interdisciplinary science designed to develop acceptable and socially responsible biocontrol strategies that consider public perceptions of animal welfare and cultural appropriateness.

Public attitudes to animal welfare and landholder resource limitations: implications for total grazing pressure management in the southern rangelands of Australia

Sustainable grazing in the nationally iconic southern rangelands of Australia requires landholders to actively manage the grazing pressure from both domestic livestock and non-domestic herbivores. Landholders have primary responsibility for controlling the non-domestic herbivores. In doing so, they must meet the Australian public’s expectations for resource conservation (mainly a public good) and animal welfare. Governments are also involved in the management of non-domestic herbivores via native and feral animal legislation and control programs. The Australian public will not accept cruelty to animals, perceived or otherwise. In this paper we explore the challenges faced by landholders in their attempts to manage the grazing pressure from native herbivores, particularly kangaroos, feral goats and feral pigs, while meeting the Australian public’s expectations for animal welfare. Landholders typically live on extensive properties and their capacity to manage these is influenced by high climate variability, low labour availability, commodity price fluctuations and limited capital available for investment in new technologies. The additional requirement to reduce the grazing pressure from kangaroos, feral goats and feral pigs is a significant burden on already time-poor landholders. Hence, there is a critical disparity between landholders’ capacity and their responsibility to effectively manage the non-domestic herbivores on their properties. We suggest that current expectations of landholders to deliver public benefits by publicly acceptable practices are unreasonable. Further, we suggest that governments should accept more responsibility for managing non-domestic grazing pressure. The concept of duty of care to land management provides a means by which a more appropriate division of responsibilities between landholders and government could be achieved to ensure that valued attributes of this iconic Australian landscape are retained.

"Feelings and Fitness" Not "Feelings or Fitness"-The Raison d'être of Conservation Welfare, Which Aligns Conservation and Animal Welfare Objectives

Increasingly, human activities, including those aimed at conserving species and ecosystems (conservation activities) influence not only the survival and fitness but also the welfare of wild animals. Animal welfare relates to how an animal is experiencing its life and encompasses both its physical and mental states. While conservation biology and animal welfare science are both multi-disciplinary fields that use scientific methods to address concerns about animals, their focus and objectives sometimes appear to conflict. However, activities impacting detrimentally on the welfare of individual animals also hamper achievement of some conservation goals, and societal acceptance is imperative to the continuation of conservation activities. Thus, the best outcomes for both disciplines will be achieved through collaboration and knowledge-sharing. Despite this recognition, cross-disciplinary information-sharing and collaborative research and practice in conservation are still rare, with the exception of the zoo context. This paper summarizes key points developed by a group of conservation and animal welfare scientists discussing scientific assessment of wild animal welfare and barriers to progress. The dominant theme emerging was the need for a common language to facilitate cross-disciplinary progress in understanding and safeguarding the welfare of animals of wild species. Current conceptions of welfare implicit in conservation science, based mainly on "fitness" (physical states), need to be aligned with contemporary animal welfare science concepts which emphasize the dynamic integration of "fitness" and "feelings" (mental experiences) to holistically understand animals' welfare states. The way in which animal welfare is characterized influences the way it is evaluated and the emphasis put on different features of welfare, as well as, the importance placed on the outcomes of such evaluations and how that information is used, for example in policy development and decision-making. Salient examples from the New Zealand and Australian context are presented to illustrate. To genuinely progress our understanding and evaluation of wild animal welfare and optimize the aims of both scientific disciplines, conservation and animal welfare scientists should work together to evolve and apply a common understanding of welfare. To facilitate this, we propose the formal development of a new discipline, Conservation Welfare, integrating the expertise of scientists from both fields.

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.

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.

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.

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.