Anthropogenic Threats to Wild Cetacean Welfare and a Tool to Inform Policy in This Area

Entanglement in recreational fishing gear poses a threat to estuarine and coastal dolphins: Animal welfare and population level impacts should guide intervention decision making

Derelict and active fishing gear poses a threat to marine wildlife. This study details Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin entanglements in recreational fishing gear in the Peel-Harvey Estuary, Western Australia between 2016 and 2022. Eight entanglements were recorded, three resulted in death. While concerning from an animal welfare perspective, the impact of entanglements on the viability of the local dolphin population was low. This is as majority of affected individuals were juvenile males. Should entanglements result in the loss of reproductive females, or impact their reproductive success, the population trajectory could quickly change. As such, management decision making should consider population level impacts as well as the welfare of entangled individuals. Government agencies, together with relevant stakeholders, should work together to maintain preparedness to respond to entanglements and take preventative action that lowers the risk of interactions with recreational fishing gear.

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.

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.

Dairy vs beef production - expert views on welfare of cattle in common food production systems

Consumers' views and concerns about the welfare of farm animals may play an important role in their decision to consume dairy, meat and/or plants as their primary protein source. As animals are killed prematurely in both dairy and beef industries, it is important to quantify and compare welfare compromises in these two sectors before the point of death. Seventy world-leading bovine welfare experts based in 23 countries were asked to evaluate the likelihood of a bovine to experience 12 states of potential welfare concern, inspired by the Welfare Quality® protocol. The evaluation focused on the most common beef and dairy production systems in the experts' country and was carried out separately for dairy/beef calves raised for red meat, dairy/beef calves raised for veal, dairy/beef calves raised as a replacement, and for dairy/beef cows. The results show experts rated the overall likelihood of a negative welfare state (i.e. welfare risk) to be higher in animals from dairy herds than from beef herds, for all animal categories, regardless of whether they were used to produce milk, red meat or veal. These findings suggest that consuming food products derived from common dairy production systems (dairy or meat) may be more harmful to the welfare of animals than consuming products derived from common beef production systems (i.e. from animals solely raised for their meat). Raising awareness about the linkage between dairy and meat production, and the toll of milk production on the welfare state of animals in the dairy industry, may encourage a more sustainable and responsible food consumption.

Evaluating Potential Cetacean Welfare Indicators from Video of Live Stranded Long-Finned Pilot Whales (Globicephala melas edwardii)

Despite the known benefit of considering welfare within wildlife conservation and management, there remains a lack of data to inform such evaluations. To assess animal welfare, relevant information must be captured scientifically and systematically. A key first step is identifying potential indicators of welfare and the practicality of their measurement. We assessed the feasibility of evaluating potential welfare indicators from opportunistically gathered video footage of four stranded odontocete species (n = 53) at 14 stranding events around New Zealand. The first stranded cetacean ethogram was compiled, including 30 different behaviours, 20 of which were observed in all four species. Additionally, thirteen types of human intervention were classified. A subset of 49 live stranded long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas edwardii) were assessed to determine indicator prevalence and to quantify behaviours. Four ‘welfare status’ and six ‘welfare alerting’ non-behavioural indicators could be consistently evaluated from the footage. Additionally, two composite behavioural indicators were feasible. Three human intervention types (present, watering, and touching) and five animal behaviours (tail flutter, dorsal fin flutter, head lift, tail lift, and head side-to-side) were prevalent (>40% of individuals). Our study highlights the potential for non-invasive, remote assessments via video footage and represents an initial step towards developing a systematic, holistic welfare assessment framework for stranded cetaceans.

The impact of marine debris on cetaceans with consideration of plastics generated by the COVID-19 pandemic

The accumulation of human-derived debris in the oceans is a global concern and a serious threat to marine wildlife. There is a volume of evidence that points to deleterious effects of marine debris (MD) on cetaceans in terms of both entanglement and ingestion. This review suggests that about 68% of cetacean species are affected by interacting with MD with an increase in the number of species reported to have interacted with it over the past decades. Despite the growing body of evidence, there is an ongoing debate on the actual effects of plastics on cetaceans and, in particular, with reference to the ingestion of microplastics and their potential toxicological and pathogenic effects. Current knowledge suggests that the observed differences in the rate and nature of interactions with plastics are the result of substantial differences in species-specific diving and feeding strategies. Existing projections on the production, use and disposal of plastics suggest a further increase of marine plastic pollution. In this context, the contribution of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic to marine plastic pollution appears to be substantial, with potentially serious consequences for marine life including cetaceans. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic offers an opportunity to investigate the direct links between industry, human behaviours and the effects of MD on cetaceans. This could help inform management, prevention efforts, describe knowledge gaps and guide advancements in research efforts. This review highlights the lack of assessments of population-level effects related to MD and suggests that these could be rather immediate for small populations already under pressure from other anthropogenic activities. Finally, we suggest that MD is not only a pollution, economic and social issue, but also a welfare concern for the species and populations involved.

Fundamental Concepts, Knowledge Gaps and Key Concerns Relating to Welfare and Survival of Stranded Cetaceans

Wildlife management can influence animal welfare and survival, although both are often not explicitly integrated into decision making. This study explores fundamental concepts and key concerns relating to the welfare and survival of stranded cetaceans. Using the Delphi method, the opinions of an international, interdisciplinary expert panel were gathered, regarding the characterisation of stranded cetacean welfare and survival likelihood, knowledge gaps and key concerns. Experts suggest that stranded cetacean welfare should be characterised based on interrelated aspects of animals’ biological function, behaviour, and mental state and the impacts of human interventions. The characterisation of survival likelihood should reflect aspects of stranded animals’ biological functioning and behaviour as well as a 6-month post-re-floating survival marker. Post-release monitoring was the major knowledge gap for survival. Welfare knowledge gaps related to diagnosing internal injuries, interpreting behavioural and physiological parameters, and euthanasia decision making. Twelve concerns were highlighted for both welfare and survival likelihood, including difficulty breathing and organ compression, skin damage and physical traumas, separation from conspecifics, and suffering and stress due to stranding and human intervention. These findings indicate inextricable links between perceptions of welfare state and the likely survival of stranded cetaceans and demonstrate a need to integrate welfare science alongside conservation biology to achieve effective, ethical management at strandings.

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.

Assessing North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Welfare

Welfare assessments have been largely successful in improving management and quality of life for animals in human care. This has prompted an increased interest in their use for free-ranging wild animals to assess health, environment, and human-induced impacts that influence policy decisions. The North Atlantic Right Whale (NARW, Eubalaena glacialis) is one of the most endangered whale species. NARWs constantly face serious injuries and mortalities due to human activities, which poses both a species conservation and an individual welfare concern. Establishing a standardized welfare assessment for the NARW is a holistic way to understand the cumulative effects of anthropogenic activities at both the individual and population levels. To investigate the potential use of welfare assessments in NARWs, we performed a brief literature review to explore the history and utility of animal welfare assessments. Following the review, we developed a welfare assessment tool specific to the NARW. The goal is for biologists to apply this tool to understand NARW welfare in conjunction with research in the field. Ultimately, the information gained from this review can aid in public dissemination of the results of human impacts on NARW welfare and may help influence future conservation policies.

A Citizen Science Trial to Assess Perception of Wild Penguin Welfare

Wild penguins are facing increased threats to their populations and their welfare as a consequence of human activities. Understanding the perception of animal welfare is essential to identify ethical concerns related to the negative impact of anthropogenic factors on wild species and to guide conservation efforts that reflect societal values. Since penguin conservation is of general interest, we examined the human dimension of welfare assessment across a range of interest groups concerned with penguins, seabird biology and wildlife conservation. We provided participants with a Penguin Welfare Assessment Tool (PWAT) based on the five domains model. The PWAT supports consideration of the impact of four physical aspects on welfare-relevant mental states. Bibliometric analysis of keywords from 347 scientific articles indicated that penguins around the world face five main types (themes) of anthropogenic factors and we then developed five hypothetical scenarios, each related to one theme. Seventy-five participants scored the overall impact of the events described in the scenarios on penguin welfare as negative using the PWAT. Participants rated short-duration, high-intensity events (i.e., being trapped in a ghost fishing net) as having a significantly more severe impact on penguin welfare than low-intensity, long-duration events (P < 0.0001). Scores provided by participants for each domain for each scenario were largely as expected and we found good correlation (all P < 0.0001) between the physical domains and “mental state” for all scenarios, indicating that the tool was facilitating the participants' assessment of welfare. No evidence was found that experience of working or studying penguins, or indeed any other demographic factor investigated, influenced the assessments of welfare. We found little agreement between participants in the scores provided (unalike scores mostly between 0.7 and 0.8), and agreement between participants with experience of working with penguins was no better than between participants without such experience. We discuss the possibility that low agreement within different interest groups may be improved by providing more scientific information to support the evaluation of penguin welfare. We conclude that scientific knowledge of penguin biological responses to anthropogenic factors is vital to support the evaluation of wild penguin welfare by the public and other stakeholders.

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.

Marine mammal conservation: over the horizon

Marine mammals can play important ecological roles in aquatic ecosystems, and their presence can be key to community structure and function. Consequently, marine mammals are often considered indicators of ecosystem health and flagship species. Yet, historical population declines caused by exploitation, and additional current threats, such as climate change, fisheries bycatch, pollution and maritime development, continue to impact many marine mammal species, and at least 25% are classified as threatened (Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable) on the IUCN Red List. Conversely, some species have experienced population increases/recoveries in recent decades, reflecting management interventions, and are heralded as conservation successes. To continue these successes and reverse the downward trajectories of at-risk species, it is necessary to evaluate the threats faced by marine mammals and the conservation mechanisms available to address them. Additionally, there is a need to identify evidence-based priorities of both research and conservation needs across a range of settings and taxa. To that effect we: (1) outline the key threats to marine mammals and their impacts, identify the associated knowledge gaps and recommend actions needed; (2) discuss the merits and downfalls of established and emerging conservation mechanisms; (3) outline the application of research and monitoring techniques; and (4) highlight particular taxa/populations that are in urgent need of focus.

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.