Animal welfare, social license, and wildlife use industries

Perspective: Social License as a Lens for Improving Ethical and Welfare Standards in Cephalopod Research

Interest in cephalopods as comparative models in neuroscience, cognition, behavior, and ecology is surging due to recent advances in culture and experimental techniques. Although cephalopods have a long history in research, their use had remained limited due to the challenges of funding work on comparative models, the lack of modern techniques applicable to them, and the small number of labs with the facilities to keep and house large numbers of healthy animals for long periods. Breakthroughs in each of these areas are now creating new interest in cephalopods from researchers who trained and worked in other models, as well as allowing established cephalopod labs to grow and collaborate more widely. This broadening of the field is essential to its long-term health, but also brings with it new and heightened scrutiny from animal rights organizations, federal regulatory agencies, and members of the public. As a community, it is critical that scientists working with cephalopods engage in discussions, studies, and communication that promote high standards for cephalopod welfare. The concept of "social license to operate," more commonly encountered in industry, recreation, and agriculture, provides a useful lens through which to view proactive steps the cephalopod research community may take to ensure a strong future for our field. In this Perspective, I discuss recent progress in cephalopod ethics and welfare studies, and use the conceptual framework of Social License to Operate to propose a forward-looking, public-facing strategy for the parallel development of welfare-focused best practices and scientific breakthroughs.

Used like Pawns or Treated like Kings? How Narratives around Racehorse Welfare in the 2023 Grand National May Affect Public Acceptance: An Informed Commentary

The 2023 Grand National steeplechase race was delayed when protesters from the animal rights group, 'Animal Rising', gained access to the course just prior to the race. The international media spotlight was focused on what is already a high-profile event and the social licence of both this race and racing in general was scrutinised. Both at the time and for several days afterwards, the general public was exposed to two different narratives from pro- and anti-racing communities. This paper discusses these perspectives and the potential impact on the general public's relationship with racing. Whilst well-meaning and aiming to promote racing, much of the racing industry's commentary inadvertently risked damaging its reputation due to a poor understanding of social licence principles. We explore the reasons for these two groups' alternative perspectives on welfare and suggest considerations for change. Ultimately, if 'the people's race' is to maintain its social licence, the racing community needs to both understand and embrace the concept. Welcoming independent opinions, engaging with different viewpoints, accepting that change is inevitable and, most importantly, being proactive in making changes to prioritise equine welfare will all help racing to move towards greater public acceptance.

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.

Social License to Operate - Why Public Perception Matters for Horse Sport - Some Personal Reflections

What is a social license to operate (SLO)? Why would this concept matter for horse sport? In perhaps its simplest form, "social license to operate" is the public's perception of an industry or activity. It is a challenging concept to fully grasp because it does not arrive as a document given by a government agency. Yet it is every bit as important-perhaps more so. Does the industry in question operate with transparency? Does the public believe in the integrity of the stakeholders who are most likely to benefit from the activity? Do people believe there is legitimacy in the scrutinized industry or discipline? Industries who operate with impunity, during our current era of 24-7-365 scrutiny do so at their own risk. It is no longer acceptable to say, "but we've always done it this way." It is no longer acceptable to say, "if we just educate the naysayers, they'll understand our position." Our horse industry will have a challenging time in the current environment convincing stakeholders that horses are "happy athletes" if we are merely avoiding blatantly abusive practices. The public, as well as a large percentage of equestrian stakeholders, want to be convinced that we truly believe "horse welfare shall be paramount." This is not merely a hypothetical, ethical assessment exercise. This is real; this is a threat; and the horse industry should consider themselves put on notice.

Social Licence to Operate: What Can Equestrian Sports Learn from Other Industries?

Simple Summary

Most societies regulate human activities using laws that state clearly what is, and is not, legally permissible. However, there is a second layer of permission that is granted—or revoked—by the public. This second layer is known as a ‘social licence to operate’ (SLO), and it represents an intangible, implicit agreement between the public and an industry or group. The public may approve of an activity, in which case it can proceed with minimal formalised restrictions, or it may disapprove, and this may herald legal restrictions, or even an outright ban. This review discusses the concept of SLO in relation to equestrianism. Experience from other industries suggests that, to maintain its SLO, equestrianism should take an ethics-based, proactive, progressive, and holistic approach to the protection of equine welfare, and should establish the trust of all stakeholders, including the public. Trust will only ensue if society is confident that equestrianism operates transparently, that its leaders and practitioners are credible, legitimate, and competent, and that its practice reflects society’s values. Earning and maintaining this status will undoubtedly require substantial effort and funding—inputs that should be regarded as an investment in the future of the sport.

Abstract

The concept of ‘social licence to operate’ (SLO) is relevant to all animal-use activities. An SLO is an intangible, implicit agreement between the public and an industry/group. Its existence allows that industry/group to pursue its activities with minimal formalised restrictions because such activities have widespread societal approval. In contrast, the imposition of legal restrictions—or even an outright ban—reflect qualified or lack of public support for an activity. This review discusses current threats to equestrianism’s SLO and suggests actions that those across the equine sector need to take to justify the continuation of the SLO. The most important of these is earning the trust of all stakeholders, including the public. Trust requires transparency of operations, establishment and communication of shared values, and demonstration of competence. These attributes can only be gained by taking an ethics-based, proactive, progressive, and holistic approach to the protection of equine welfare. Animal-use activities that have faced challenges to their SLO have achieved variable success in re-establishing the approval of society, and equestrianism can learn from the experience of these groups as it maps its future. The associated effort and cost should be regarded as an investment in the future of the sport.

Large carnivore hunting and the social license to hunt

The social license to operate framework considers how society grants or withholds informal permission for resource extractors to exploit publicly owned resources. We developed a modified model, which we refer to as the social license to hunt (SLH). In it we similarly consider hunters as operators, given that wildlife are legally considered public resources in North America and Europe. We applied the SLH model to examine the controversial hunting of large carnivores, which are frequently killed for trophies. Killing for trophies is widespread, but undertaken by a minority of hunters, and can pose threats to the SLH for trophy-seeking carnivore hunters and potentially beyond. Societal opposition to large carnivore hunting relates not only to conservation concerns but also to misalignment between killing for trophies and dominant public values and attitudes concerning the treatment of animals. We summarized cases related to the killing of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), wolves (Canis lupus), and other large carnivores in Canada, the United States, and Europe to illustrate how opposition to large carnivore hunting, now expressed primarily on social media, can exert rapid and significant pressure on policy makers and politicians. Evidence of the potential for transformative change to wildlife management and conservation includes proposed and realized changes to legislation, business practice, and wildlife policy, including the banning of some large carnivore hunts. Given that policy is ultimately shaped by societal values and attitudes, research gaps include developing increased insight into public support of various hunting policies beyond that derived from monitoring of social media and public polling. Informed by increased evidence, the SLH model can provide a conceptual foundation for predicting the likelihood of transient versus enduring changes to wildlife conservation policy and practice for a wide variety of taxa and contexts.

The Welfare of Animals in Australian Filmed Media

Simple Summary

Animals are frequently featured in film and television in Australia and globally. Monitoring and regulating animal welfare throughout production is therefore imperative for the film industry to maintain its social license to operate. In this commentary, we compare Australia’s state and territory-based legislation and regulation concerning the welfare of animals in filmed media to those in the United States and the United Kingdom and assess the regulations against the Five Domains Model of animal welfare. Historical examples of animal incidents in Australian film are used to illustrate deficiencies in regulation. We identify three themes of welfare concerns including incidents on-set, incidents off-set, and effects of portrayal on perception or ownership of specific species or breeds. A lack of uniform regulation across Australian states and territories is demonstrated, with regulations only partially addressing behavioural interactions or mental state of the animal. This highlights the need for standardised national legislation and improved monitoring and regulation of the welfare of animals in Australian filmed media.

Abstract

Animals play a significant role in the production of film and television in Australia and globally. Given this, regulating and monitoring their welfare on- and off-set is imperative. We therefore aim to compare Australia’s state and territory-based legislation and regulation to those in the United States and the United Kingdom and assess regulations against the Five Domains Model of animal welfare. Historical examples of animal incidents in Australian film are used to illustrate potential deficiencies. We reviewed archived media for animal welfare incidents on and off production sets. We demonstrate a lack of uniformity, with 37.5% (3/8) of states and territories providing targeted Codes of Practice for animals in filmed media, and partially addressing behavioural interactions or mental state within the Five Domains Model. Three themes of welfare concerns were identified including incidents on-set, incidents off-set, and effects of portrayal on perception or ownership of specific species. This highlights the need for standardised national legislation and improved monitoring and regulation. Further research should quantify the number of animals used in productions, describe the type and duration of the work the animals undertake, investigate the frequency of animal welfare incidents, and explore alternative methods to the use of live animals in film and television.

Feral horse cause-specific mortality relative to mustering (gathering) and individual demographic attributes in the USA

Abstract ContextMustering (gathering) feral horses (Equus ferus caballus) often cause mortalities, yet cause-specific details are lacking. AimsGiven the need to optimise horse welfare, we analysed public horse muster data from the USA to understand specific causes of mortalities. MethodsWe coded 393 individual horse mortality reports for 92 cause-specific mortality terms (keywords informing the deciphering of specific causes of mortality classified as anatomical, causal or conditional) and demographic details (age, sex, and body condition). Data were derived from 50 musters across seven states with at least one horse mortality. Musters were coded for type (helicopter or bait), emergency or regular planned efforts, and number of horses mustered and shipped daily. Key ResultsMore horses were euthanased than died naturally (330 (84.0%) and 39 (9.9%) respectively), and more horses had chronic than acute conditions (317 (80.7%) and 76 (19.3%) respectively), with both trends holding for both sexes and across ages. Body condition scores (BCS) for female horses were skewed low, whereas male horse BCS data were more normally distributed. Female horses had lower BCS than did male horses (P < 0.001). On average, each horse mortality had two cause-specific mortality terms, ranging from 1 to 7. Only 57 horses (14.5%) had terms describing anatomy, cause and condition, concurrently. Phi coefficients (φ; indicators of fidelity and constancy) for cause-specific terms were related to demographic or muster attributes and were analysed with post hoc ANOVA tests of estimated marginal means to allow for ranking. Female horses were most often described as emaciated, weak, and starving, whereas male horses were described as lame, arthritic, blind or dangerous. Bait trapping and emergency musters included horses that were starving, dehydrated and weak. ConclusionsGenerally, disorders associated with legs and feet, eyes, necks and nutrition were the most prevalent cause-specific mortality issues. Using a machine learning approach, validation and test accuracy were high for predicting euthanasia versus natural mortalities, but low for predicting acute versus chronic mortalities. Individual horse demographics or daily muster features had a greater relative influence than did capture type or emergency status in both comparisons. ImplicationsThese results provide practical insight for potential cause-specific mortalities relative to demographics and muster techniques.

Animal welfare testing for shooting and darting free-ranging wildlife: a review and recommendations

Several important techniques for managing wildlife rely on ballistics (the behaviour of projectiles), including killing techniques (shooting) as well as capture and marking methods (darting). Because all ballistic techniques have the capacity to harm animals, animal welfare is an important consideration. Standardised testing approaches that have allowed refinement for other physical killing and capture methods (e.g. traps for mammals) have not been applied broadly to ballistic methods. At the same time, new technology is becoming available for shooting (e.g. subsonic and lead-free ammunition) and darting (e.g. dye-marker darts). We present several case studies demonstrating (a) how basic ballistic testing can be performed for novel firearms and/or projectiles, (b) the benefits of identifying methods producing undesirable results before operational use, and (c) the welfare risks associated with bypassing testing of a technique before broad-scale application. Following the approach that has been used internationally to test kill-traps, we suggest the following four-step testing process: (1) range and field testing to confirm accuracy and precision, the delivery of appropriate kinetic energy levels and projectile behaviour, (2) post-mortem assessment of ballistic injury in cadavers, (3) small-scale live animal pilot studies with predetermined threshold pass/fail levels, and (4) broad-scale use with reporting of the frequency of adverse animal welfare outcomes. We present this as a practical approach for maintaining and improving animal welfare standards when considering the use of ballistic technology for wildlife management.

Social License and Animal Welfare: Developments from the Past Decade in Australia

"Social license to operate" (SLO) refers to the implicit process by which a community gives an industry approval to conduct its current business activities. It has become an important focus for many natural resource management fields (especially mining), but there is less awareness of its role in animal use industries. This article describes how animal welfare has recently become arguably the most crucial consideration underpinning the SLO for Australian animal use industries. It describes several industries in Australia that have faced animal welfare scrutiny in the past decade (2010-2020) to illustrate how persistent issues can erode SLO, lead to regulatory bans, and decimate previously profitable industries. Industries described include the live export of livestock, greyhound and horse racing, kangaroo harvesting, and dairy and sheep farming. In these cases, there has been intense public discourse but little scholarly progress. This article examines factors that may have contributed to these developments and suggests approaches that may assist these industries in maintaining their SLO. Animal welfare has become a mainstream societal concern in Australia, and effective management of the community's expectations will be essential for the maintenance of SLO for many animal use industries.

Current Societal Views about Sustainable Wildlife Management and Conservation: A Survey of College Students in China

Simple Summary

Wildlife conservation and management has become a very complex public policy issue in China as concerns about animal welfare and empathy for animals have emerged, especially in the younger generation. Science-based conservation policy and strategy that focus on sustainable management are perceived as less irrelevant today and can often be in conflict with emerging attitudes and values. Sustainable wildlife management adheres to the conservation concept of effective combination of species conservation and sustainable utilization, with an aim to establish a long-acting species conservation model that promotes all-round development of ecology, society, and economy, and has traditionally formed the basis of conservation management. This study designed a semi-structured questionnaire, which aimed to assess attitudes of Chinese college students towards sustainable wildlife management and wildlife conservation, and investigate the role of demographic and other characteristics on attitude. From October 2018 to April 2019, nine universities (including “Double First-Class” universities, first-tier universities, second-tier universities), and four three-year colleges in China were selected as survey sites, where face-to-face interviews were conducted among students. The results show that students broadly support the sustainable wildlife management but not in issues relating to “Animal Welfare and Rights” and “Trophy Hunting”. Students with lowest support for the theory and practice of sustainable wildlife management are vegetarians, freshmen, and those who have taken environmental protection electives in their educational program.

Abstract

Wildlife conservation and management has become a very complex public policy issue in China as concerns over on animal welfare and empathy for animals have grown. Science-based conservation strategies that are oriented toward sustainable wildlife management (SWM) are under threat as these new attitudes and values emerge and take hold. This study accesses the attitudes of college students towards SWM and wildlife conservation, and investigates demographic characteristics influencing their attitudes in China, a country that is traditionally associated with consumptive use of wildlife and SWM, but where new ideas about wildlife conservation are emerging. From October 2018 to April 2019, nine universities (including “Double First-Class” universities, first-tier universities, second-tier universities), and four three-year colleges in China were selected as survey locations, and face-to-face interviews were conducted with 1991 students. A total of 1977 questionnaires were recovered, of which 1739 were valid, with a completion rate of 88%. A Likert seven-point scale method was used to score students’ attitudes, and a classification and regression tree (CART) was used to analyze whether their attitudes were affected by their demographic characteristics. The results show that although students are broadly supportive of the theory of SWM, some are deeply antagonistic about on SWM on issues that arouse strong emotions such as “Animal Welfare and Rights” and “Trophy Hunting”. Demographic characteristics of students affect their degree of support for the SWM with support for SWM lower among vegetarians, freshmen, and students who have taken environmental protection electives. This research suggests that the theory of SWM requires to be refreshed and adapted to appeal to the younger generation of Chinese students, with SWM principles integrated into the environmental education programs of universities and three-year colleges. More attention should also be attached to media publicity by the government about wildlife conservation so as to enhance awareness of the need for SWM.

Reconsidering humaneness

Animal welfare is increasingly important in the understanding of how human activity affects wildlife, but the conservation community is still grappling with meaningful terminology when communicating this aspect of their work. One example is the use of the terms "humane" and "inhumane." These terms are used in scientific contexts, but they also have legal and social definitions. Without reference to a defined technical standard, describing an action or outcome as humane (or inhumane) constrains science communication because the terms have variable definitions; establish a binary (something is either humane or inhumane); and imply underlying values reflecting a moral prescription. Invoking the term "humane," and especially the strong antithesis "inhumane," can infer a normative judgment of how animals ought to be treated (humane) or ought not to be treated (inhumane). The consequences of applying this terminology are not just academic. Publicizing certain practices as humane can create blurred lines around contentious animal welfare questions and, perhaps intentionally, defer scrutiny of actual welfare outcomes. Labeling other practices as inhumane can be used cynically to erode their public support. We suggest that, if this normative language is used in science, it should always be accompanied by a clear, contextual definition of what is meant by humane.

Thoroughbred Racehorse Welfare through the Lens of ‘Social License to Operate—With an Emphasis on a U.S. Perspective

This review addresses the question of whether Thoroughbred horse racing is sustainable in the context of current social values. A recently acknowledged framework, known as ‘Social License to Operate’ (SLO), provides us with a lens through which to view and assess racehorse welfare. In multiple surveys of the general public, the horse owning public, and university students, the primary topics of concern regarding Thoroughbred racing show considerable concordance: concern about catastrophic injuries—particularly as related to track surfaces, concern over the racing of two-year-olds, whip use by jockeys, drug/medication policies, and aftercare opportunities for retired Thoroughbred racehorses. Legitimacy of an industry, consent from industry stakeholders, and trust between the community players, are all essential to have and maintain SLO. In the current era of 24/7 global media access, and the proliferation of social media providing an interactive platform for all interested parties, a dramatic change has occurred in commentary related to racehorse welfare concerns. The situation at Santa Anita (California, USA) from late December 2018 through mid-November 2019 demonstrated just how tenuous the SLO for horse racing is. This article will provide a brief review of what ‘Social License to Operate’ is, along with a brief literature review of five of the areas of primary concern voiced by stakeholders.

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.

Underaddressed animal-welfare issues in conservation

Much progress has been made toward assessing and improving animal welfare in conservation. However, several glaring knowledge gaps remain where animal-welfare concerns exist but animal-welfare studies have not been performed in politically sensitive contexts. Based on contemporary issues in Australia, we identified 4 topics that require more research: animal-welfare oversight for operations designated as management (as opposed to research); animal-welfare impacts of biological agents used to control invasive animals; welfare of animals hunted recreationally; and animal-welfare impacts associated with indigenous wildlife use. Animal-welfare science may be applied to these sensitive topics through simple quantitative studies (e.g., quantifying the frequency of adverse animal-welfare events). Several such studies have effectively addressed animal-welfare concerns in similarly contentious contexts, including feral camel (Camelus dromedarius) culling in Australia, recreational hunting in Scandinavia, and indigenous whale hunting in the United States. For discussions of animal welfare in conservation to be evidence-based, courageous research is required in the 4 key areas we identified.