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.

One size does not fit all: Monitoring faecal glucocorticoid metabolites in marsupials.

Marsupial research, conservation, and management can benefit greatly from knowledge about glucocorticoid (GC) secretion patterns because GCs influence numerous aspects of physiology and play a crucial role in regulating an animal's response to stressors. Faecal glucocorticoid metabolites (FGM) offer a non-invasive tool for tracking changes in GCs over time. To date, there are relatively few validated assays for marsupials compared with other taxa, and those that have been published generally test only one assay. However, different assays can yield very different signals of adrenal activity. The goal of this study was to compare the performance of five different enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for monitoring adrenocortical activity via FGM in 13 marsupial species. We monitored FGM response to two types of events: biological stressors (e.g., transport, novel environment) and pharmacological stimulation (ACTH injection). For each individual animal and assay, FGM peaks were identified using the iterative baseline approach. Performance of the EIAs for each species was evaluated by determining (1) the percent of individuals with a detectable peak 0.125-4.5days post-event, and (2) the biological sensitivity of the assay as measured by strength of the post-event response relative to baseline variability (Z-score). Assays were defined as successful if they detected a peak in at least 50% of the individuals and the mean species response had a Z⩾2. By this criterion, at least one assay was successful in 10 of the 13 species, but the best-performing assay varied among species, even those species that were closely related. Furthermore, the ability to confidently assess assay performance was influenced by the experimental protocols used. We discuss the implications of our findings for biological validation studies.

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.

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.

Field immobilization of feral 'Judas' donkeys (Equus asinus) by remote injection of medetomidine and ketamine and antagonism with atipamezole.

The Judas technique is a method used for landscape control of feral donkeys (Equus asinus) in northern Australia. Central to the success of any Judas program is the safe, efficient, and humane attachment of the telemetry device. For feral donkeys, this involves the use of field immobilization. We examine the replacement of the current chemical capture agent, succinylcholine, with contemporary immobilization agents to achieve positive animal welfare outcomes. A combination of medetomidine and ketamine delivered by remote injection from a helicopter was used to capture 14 free-ranging feral donkeys for the fitting of telemetry collars in Western Australia in November 2010. Dose rates of 0.14 mg/kg medetomidine and 4.1 mg/kg ketamine were appropriate to immobilize animals in 9 min (± SD = 3). Mean recovery time (total time in recumbency) was 21 min (± 14). All animals recovered uneventfully after being administered atipamezole, a specific antagonist of medetomidine, intramuscularly at 0.35 mg/kg. Physiologic parameters were recorded during recumbency, with environment-related hyperthermia being the only abnormality recognized. No significant complications were encountered, and this drug combination represents an efficient approach to capturing wild donkeys. This new method allows a rapid, safe, cost-effective approach to the immobilization of feral donkeys for use as Judas animals. This drug combination will replace the relatively inhumane succinylcholine for the field immobilization of feral donkeys.