1
|
Kennedy BPA, Boyle N, Fleming PJS, Harvey AM, Jones B, Ramp D, Dixon R, McGreevy PD. Ethical Treatment of Invasive and Native Fauna in Australia: Perspectives through the One Welfare Lens. Animals (Basel) 2022; 12:ani12111405. [PMID: 35681870 PMCID: PMC9179540 DOI: 10.3390/ani12111405] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2022] [Revised: 05/24/2022] [Accepted: 05/27/2022] [Indexed: 12/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary A public forum can reveal a wide range of perspectives on the ethical treatment of animals. This article describes how a panel of experts navigated through a discussion on the many and varied challenges of attempting to manage invasive and native fauna in Australia. The panel acknowledged the variety of these fauna, their effects on others and the consequences of control measures for three parties: animals, humans and the environment. The One Welfare concept has been developed to guide humans in the ethical treatment of non-human animals, each other and the environment. The forum accepted the need to consider this triple line, and exemplifies the merits of a One Welfare approach to discussions such as this. We used a series of questions about past, present and anticipated practices in wildlife control as the core of the panel discussion. We revealed five different but intersecting perspectives: conservation action, wildlife research, invasive animal ecology, mainstream animal protection and compassionate conservation. This article shows how understanding of lines of contention on various core topics can provide a framework for further discourse that may bear fruit in the form of One Welfare solutions. Abstract The One Welfare concept is proposed to guide humans in the ethical treatment of non-human animals, each other and the environment. One Welfare was conceptualized for veterinarians but could be a foundational concept through which to promote the ethical treatment of animals that are outside of direct human care and responsibility. However, wild-living animals raise additional ethical conundrums because of their multifarious values and roles, and relationships that humans have with them. At an open facilitated forum, the 2018 Robert Dixon Memorial Animal Welfare Symposium, a panel of five experts from different fields shared their perspectives on “loving and hating animals in the wild” and responded to unscripted questions from the audience. The Symposium’s objectives were to elucidate views on the ethical treatment of the native and invasive animals of Australia and to identify some of the resultant dilemmas facing conservationists, educators, veterinarians and society. Here, we document the presented views and case studies and synthesize common themes in a One Welfare framework. Additionally, we identified points of contention that can guide further discourse. With this guide in place, the identification and discussion of those disparate views was a first step toward practical resolutions on how to manage wild-living Australian fauna ethically. We concluded that there was great utility in the One Welfare approach for any discourse about wild animal welfare. It requires attention to each element of the triple bottom line and ensures that advocacy for one party does not vanquish the voices from other sectors. We argue that, by facilitating a focus on the ecology in the context of wild animal issues, One Welfare is more useful in this context than the veterinary context for which it was originally developed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brooke P. A. Kennedy
- School of Environment and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia;
- Correspondence:
| | - Nick Boyle
- Taronga Conservation Society Australia, Bradleys Head Road, Mosman, NSW 2088, Australia;
| | - Peter J. S. Fleming
- Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Orange Agricultural Institute, 1447 Forest Road, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia;
- Ecosystem Management, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
| | - Andrea M. Harvey
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, TD School, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia; (A.M.H.); (D.R.)
| | - Bidda Jones
- Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia;
| | - Daniel Ramp
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, TD School, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia; (A.M.H.); (D.R.)
| | - Roselyn Dixon
- School of Education, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia;
| | - Paul D. McGreevy
- School of Environment and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia;
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Causal Loop Analysis Can Identify Solutions to Complex Dog Management Problems in Remote Australian Aboriginal Communities. Animals (Basel) 2021; 11:ani11041056. [PMID: 33918029 PMCID: PMC8070079 DOI: 10.3390/ani11041056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2021] [Revised: 04/04/2021] [Accepted: 04/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Population and health management of dogs and cats in remote communities is challenging due to limited access to veterinary services and high reproductive rates. Financial support for companion animal management within communities is limited and programs delivered by external providers rarely achieve sustainable outcomes. An alternative approach, whereby community participation is enlisted from the beginning before implementing any interventions, may help to achieve sustainable improvements in animal populations and to improve animal health. To this end, stakeholders were interviewed and it was determined that dog overpopulation was the overarching issue. Focus group discussions were then conducted with three of the four same stakeholder groups to uncover the main causes of this issue, followed by solutions being generated that the community could undertake to address the issue. Similar causes were discussed and multiple solutions were developed, with education and training prioritised as the top solutions by all three groups. These will require transformational social adaptations to build the capacity of the local community to implement the solutions. Abstract Companion animal management in Australian remote Aboriginal communities (rAcs) is a complex problem with multiple stakeholders involved, with differing needs, knowledge, power and resources. The Comm4Unity (Cycle of Multiple Methods for Unity—For Community) approach was designed to address such problems. This study represents the second step of the Comm4Unity framework, where a causal loop analysis (CLA) was adapted and tested as a tool to address the issue of dog overpopulation in Wurrumiyanga, and in particular the systemic causes of the problem and necessary transformational management solutions. Ten focus group discussions (FGDs) were held amongst three of the four stakeholder groups identified during the first step in the analysis. The CLA identified 13 positive feedback loops, which drive vicious cycles and perpetuate the dog overpopulation issue. All three groups agreed and developed 22 solutions to address the causes of dog overpopulation. Despite the differences in the framings of the three groups, “training” and “education” were both the top priority solutions for all three groups. The majority of the solutions discussed by the groups were not only transformational but also social, requiring collaboration. This study was successful in so far as transformational actions were co-developed by all FGDs, which may have also built capacity and agency amongst the local community to implement them as a cohesive group.
Collapse
|