Evaluating airsoft electric guns for control of invasive brown treesnakes

Deathly Silent: Exploring the Global Lack of Data Relating to Stranded Cetacean Euthanasia

Simple Summary

Cetacean strandings are frequent in occurrence and are likely to become even more common globally because of the effects of escalating anthropogenic activities. Due to the compromised state of stranded animals, euthanasia is often recommended or required. However, current knowledge and implementation of euthanasia methods remain highly variable, with limited data on the practicalities and welfare impacts of procedures. This study sought to evaluate the available published data on cetacean euthanasia in order to highlight significant knowledge gaps and provide direction to improve the welfare of stranded cetaceans. Data from the peer-reviewed literature and published reports were analysed, and significant knowledge gaps highlighted. Two main euthanasia methods, chemical and ballistics, were reported, with few details provided on the specific application of these. Few data were available about time to death/insensibility, parameters commonly required to assess the welfare impacts of killing methods. Overall, the findings highlight the lack of available information on cetacean euthanasia and suggest avenues for future work to improve welfare through the use of appropriate methods and increased data collection.

Abstract

The compromised state of stranded cetaceans means that euthanasia is often required. However, current knowledge and implementation of euthanasia methods remain highly variable, with limited data on the practicalities and welfare impacts of procedures. This study evaluated the available published data on cetacean euthanasia, highlighting knowledge gaps and providing direction to improve stranded cetacean welfare. A total of 2147 peer-reviewed articles describing marine mammal euthanasia were examined. Of these 3.1% provided details on the method used, with 91% employing chemical methods. Two countries, the United Kingdom (UK) and New Zealand (NZ), provided euthanasia reports to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) between 2007 and 2020. Methods employed were reported for 78.3% and 100% of individual cetaceans euthanised in the UK and NZ, respectively. In the UK, chemical euthanasia was most common (52%), whilst in NZ only ballistics methods were used. Few data were available about time to death/insensibility (TTD); 0.5% of peer-reviewed articles provided TTD, whilst TTD was reported for 35% of individuals in the UK and for 98% in NZ. However, IWC reports lacked detail on how death/insensibility were assessed, with multiple individuals “presumed instantly” killed. Overall, the findings highlight the lack of available information on cetacean euthanasia, and suggest increased data collection and the application of appropriate methods to improve welfare.

A comparison of fragmenting lead-based and lead-free bullets for aerial shooting of wild pigs

In response to the health threats posed by toxic lead to humans, scavenging wildlife and the environment, there is currently a focus on transitioning from lead-based to lead-free bullets for shooting of wild animals. We compared efficiency metrics and terminal ballistic performance for lead-based and lead-free (non-lead) bullets for aerial shooting of wild pigs (Sus scrofa) in eastern Australia. Ballistic testing revealed that lead-based and lead-free bullets achieved similar performance in precision and muzzle kinetic energy (E0) levels (3337.2 J and 3345.7 J, respectively). An aerial shooting trial was conducted with wild pigs shot with one type of lead-based and one type of lead-free bullets under identical conditions. Observations were made from 859 shooting events (n = 430 and 429 respectively), with a sub-set of pigs examined via gross post-mortem (n = 100 and 108 respectively), and a further sub-set examined via radiography (n = 94 and 101 respectively). The mean number of bullets fired per pig killed did not differ greatly between lead-based and lead-free bullets respectively (4.09 vs 3.91), nor did the mean number of bullet wound tracts in each animal via post-mortem inspection (3.29 vs 2.98). However, radiography revealed a higher average number of fragments per animal (median >300 vs median = 55) and a broader distribution of fragments with lead-based bullets. Our results suggest that lead-based and lead-free bullets are similarly effective for aerial shooting of wild pigs, but that the bullet types behave differently, with lead-based bullets displaying a higher degree of fragmentation. These results suggest that aerial shooting may be a particularly important contributor to scavenging wildlife being exposed to lead and that investigation of lead-free bullets for this use should continue.

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.