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.

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.

Global trade in exotic pets 2006-2012.

International trade in exotic pets is an important and increasing driver of biodiversity loss and often compromises the standards required for good animal welfare. We systematically reviewed the scientific and gray literature and used the United Nations Environment Programme - World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) trade database to establish temporal and geographical trade patterns of live exotic birds, mammals, and reptiles and to describe trends in research, taxonomic representation, and level of threat and legal protection of species traded. Birds were the most species-rich and abundant class reported in trade; reptiles were second most abundant but unusually the most studied in this context; and mammals were least abundant in trade. Mammalian and reptilian species traded as pets were more likely to be threatened than expected by random. There have been a substantial number of Appendix I listed captive-bred mammals and birds and wild-caught birds and reptiles reported in trade to CITES. We identified the Middle East's emerging role as a driver of demand for exotic pets of all taxa alongside the well-established and increasing role of South America and Southeast Asia in the market. Europe, North America, and the Middle East featured most heavily in trade reports to CITES, whereas trade involving South America and Southeast Asia were given most emphasis in the literature. For effective monitoring of and appropriate response to the international exotic pet trade, it is imperative that the reliability and detail of CITES trade reports improve and that scientific research be directed toward those taxa and locations that are most vulnerable.

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

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.

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.

Erratum: Baker, S.E.; Maw, S.A.; Johnson P.J.; Macdonald, D.W. Not in My Backyard: Public Perceptions of Wildlife and 'Pest Control' in and around UK Homes, and Local Authority 'Pest Control'.

The authors wish to make the following corrections to their paper [...].

Not in My Backyard: Public Perceptions of Wildlife and 'Pest Control' in and around UK Homes, and Local Authority 'Pest Control'.

Human-wildlife conflict occurs globally. Attempts to control 'pest' wildlife involve killing and harming the welfare of animals on a vast scale. We examined public perceptions of 10 wildlife species/groups and wildlife management, in and around UK homes, and public authority 'pest control' provision, in an effort to identify ethical, welfare-friendly ways to reduce conflict. Most people reported never having problems with each of the 10 species, and reported problems for some species were largely tolerated. Wasps, mice, and rats were the most frequently problematic species, the least tolerated, and those for which local authorities most often offered pest control services. Do-It-Yourself pest control was preferred over professional control, except for with wasps. People wanted control to be quick, lasting, and safe for people and non-target animals. Where people accepted lethal control, they were nevertheless concerned for animal welfare. Drivers of pest status were complex, while drivers of demand for control were fewer and species-specific. Local authority pest control provision increased over the four years studied, but only half of councils offered advice on preventing/deterring wildlife; this advice was patchy and variable in quality. Greater focus is required on preventing/deterring rather than controlling wildlife problems. Councils should provide standardised, comprehensive advice on prevention/deterrence and prevention/deterrence services.

Consequences Matter: Compassion in Conservation Means Caring for Individuals, Populations and Species.

Human activity affecting the welfare of wild vertebrates, widely accepted to be sentient, and therefore deserving of moral concern, is widespread. A variety of motives lead to the killing of individual wild animals. These include to provide food, to protect stock and other human interests, and also for sport. The acceptability of such killing is widely believed to vary with the motive and method. Individual vertebrates are also killed by conservationists. Whether securing conservation goals is an adequate reason for such killing has recently been challenged. Conventional conservation practice has tended to prioritise ecological collectives, such as populations and species, when their interests conflict with those of individuals. Supporters of the 'Compassionate Conservation' movement argue both that conservationists have neglected animal welfare when such conflicts arise and that no killing for conservation is justified. We counter that conservationists increasingly seek to adhere to high standards of welfare, and that the extreme position advocated by some supporters of 'Compassionate Conservation', rooted in virtue ethics, would, if widely accepted, lead to considerable negative effects for conservation. Conservation practice cannot afford to neglect consequences. Moreover, the do-no-harm maxim does not always lead to better outcomes for animal welfare.

"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.

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.

Moles and Mole Control on British Farms, Amenities and Gardens after Strychnine Withdrawal.

Moles are considered pests in Britain, but this issue has been little studied. Lower welfare standards have been tolerated for moles than for most other managed wild mammal species, as use of both the controversial poison, strychnine, and unregulated traps have been permitted. Strychnine was withdrawn in 2006 and there were fears that mole populations would increase as a result. In 2007, we conducted a comprehensive, nationwide survey of land manager perceptions, opinions and behaviour regarding moles and mole control on farms, amenities and domestic gardens in Britain. We surveyed 2150 land managers (achieving a 59% response rate) and ground-truthed 29 responses. Moles were reported to be present on most farms and amenities, and 13% of gardens, and were more common in lighter soils. Where present, moles were usually considered pests, this being more likely in Wales, Scotland and northern England, on livestock and mixed farms, and on large, high-value amenities, e.g., racecourses and golf courses. Mole control followed similar patterns to mole presence. More control may occur than is economically, and therefore potentially ethically, justified. Control should be more carefully considered and, where necessary, more effectively targeted. Kill-trapping was the favoured recent and future method on farms and amenities, even if strychnine was to be reintroduced; however, because mole traps are currently unregulated, some might not meet current welfare standards if tested. We found no evidence for an increase in moles since a farm questionnaire survey conducted in 1992; this could have wider implications for future wildlife management policy changes.

The Customer Isn't Always Right-Conservation and Animal Welfare Implications of the Increasing Demand for Wildlife Tourism.

Tourism accounts for 9% of global GDP and comprises 1.1 billion tourist arrivals per annum. Visits to wildlife tourist attractions (WTAs) may account for 20-40% of global tourism, but no studies have audited the diversity of WTAs and their impacts on the conservation status and welfare of subject animals. We scored these impacts for 24 types of WTA, visited by 3.6-6 million tourists per year, and compared our scores to tourists' feedback on TripAdvisor. Six WTA types (impacting 1,500-13,000 individual animals) had net positive conservation/welfare impacts, but 14 (120,000-340,000 individuals) had negative conservation impacts and 18 (230,000-550,000 individuals) had negative welfare impacts. Despite these figures only 7.8% of all tourist feedback on these WTAs was negative due to conservation/welfare concerns. We demonstrate that WTAs have substantial negative effects that are unrecognised by the majority of tourists, suggesting an urgent need for tourist education and regulation of WTAs worldwide.

Mechanical performance of rat, mouse and mole spring traps, and possible implications for welfare performance.

Lethal spring traps are widely used for killing small mammals in the UK. Many require government approval, based primarily on humaneness. However, mole traps and break-back traps for rats and mice are exempt; those available vary widely in price and apparent quality. The EU is considering implementing a Trapping Directive that would alter UK legislation, and a recent report advised the EU that trapping legislation should cover all trapped species and encourage improvement of traps. Mechanical trap performance is often used as an indicator of welfare impact. We examined the mechanical evidence for scope to improve the welfare standards of rat, mouse and mole spring traps. We measured mechanical performance among a range of rat, mouse and mole traps. Impact momentum values varied 6-8 fold, and clamping force values 4-5.5 fold, among traps for killing each species. There was considerable overlap in the performance of rat and mouse traps. Trap-opening angle and spring type were related to impact momentum and clamping force in traps for both species. There was no relationship between price and mechanical performance in traps for any species, except talpa mole traps. We are unable to judge the direct welfare impact of the traps tested, but rather the potential welfare threat associated with their exemption from approval. The wide variation in mechanical performance in traps for each species, overlap in performance between rat and mouse traps and increasing availability of weaker plastic rodent traps indicate considerable scope for improving the humaneness of spring traps for rats, mice and moles. We conclude that all such traps should be subject to the UK approval process. New welfare categories might improve trap standards further. Our results could also help improve rodent trap design and assist consumers in selecting more powerful traps. Many thousands of rats, mice and moles might benefit.

High rectal temperature indicates an increased risk of unexpected recovery in anaesthetized badgers.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with sudden early recovery (SER) from anaesthesia in badgers (Meles meles). STUDY DESIGN: Experimental trial. ANIMALS: Ninety-three adult wild badgers. METHODS: Animals were randomly assigned to receive one of four anaesthetics based on medetomidine (M) ketamine (K) and butorphanol (B) combined in different ratios: (i) MKB 20:40:80 microg kg(-1); (ii) MKB 20:40:60 microg kg(-1); (iii) MKB 20:60:40 microg kg(-1); and (iv) ketamine alone 0.2 mg kg(-1). For each animal, induction time was measured and physiological variables (heart rate, respiratory rate and rectal temperature) were recorded at 5-minute intervals during anaesthesia. Cases of SER were recorded and binary logistic regression applied to identify predictive factors. RESULTS: Fourteen animals (15%) exhibited SER. Rectal temperature was the only variable that was a significant predictor of SER. Animals showing SER had significantly higher rectal temperatures which, in contrast to other cases, did not fall during the first 10 minutes of anaesthesia, which was when most SERs occurred. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We recommend that (i) rectal temperature is closely monitored during wild badger anaesthesia and (ii) that animals with higher than expected temperatures are treated with additional caution.

The use and assessment of ketamine-medetomidine-butorphanol combinations for field anaesthesia in wild European badgers (Meles meles).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of four ketamine-based anaesthetics in badgers using a quantitative anaesthesia assessment technique. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized 'blinded' experimental trial. METHODS: The quality of induction, of anaesthesia (at 5-minute intervals) and of recovery were assessed in 93 badgers, given either one of three ketamine (K)-medetomidine (M)-butorphanol (B) combinations: group A - M K B at 20/40/80 microg kg(-1); group B - M K B at 20/40/60 microg kg(-1); and group C - M K B at 20/60/40 microg kg(-1), or ketamine (K) alone at 2 mg kg(-1) (group D). The assessor was ignorant of the combination administered. Physiological variables (heart and respiratory rates and rectal temperature) were measured at 5-minute intervals during anaesthesia. Gingival mucus membrane colour was also recorded. RESULTS: Induction to anaesthesia was most rapid with ketamine (2 mg kg(-1)) although induction quality did not differ between techniques. Ketamine used alone gave the poorest score for anaesthesia quality. Heart rate (HR) and scores for gingival mucus membrane colour were higher in animals anaesthetized with ketamine alone. Rectal temperature did not differ significantly between the techniques at any time during anaesthesia. Ketamine used alone produced the poorest quality of recovery. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The M-K-B combinations investigated overcame several side effects associated with ketamine anaesthesia, but at the expense of more variable induction times, lower HRs, and poorer mucus membrane coloration.

Preliminary comparison of four anaesthetic techniques in badgers (Meles meles).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of four ketamine-based anaesthetic combinations in wild badgers. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, clinical trial. ANIMALS: Twenty-four adult badgers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Animals were divided into four groups of six and were anaesthetized using either intramuscular (IM) ketamine alone (20 mg kg(-1)), ketamine (15 mg kg(-1) IM) and midazolam (0.4 mg kg(-1) IM), ketamine (10 mg kg(-1) IM) and midazolam (1 mg kg(-1) IM) or ketamine (5 mg kg(-1) IM) and medetomidine (80 microg kg(-1) IM) antagonized with atipamezole (0.8 mg kg(-1); IM). Features of each technique, i.e. quality of induction, maintenance and recovery, and the need for additional doses, were assessed using a simple descriptive scale. Physiological variables, i.e. rectal temperature, respiratory rate, heart rate and blood pressure, were also recorded. RESULTS: Combinations of ketamine and midazolam did not produce adequate anaesthesia. The combination of medetomidine and ketamine had few advantages over ketamine alone. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These data will contribute to a wider study attempting to refine anaesthetic techniques in badgers.