Navigating social-ecological changes: A mixed-method analysis of extensive livestock systems in southern Patagonian forests, Argentina

Sustainable livestock management plays a crucial role in food production, climate change mitigation, and cultural preservation. Our study aimed to identify and analyse the diversity of social-ecological conditions that characterize extensive livestock systems in southern Patagonia. We integrated data collected from interviews and secondary sources and analysed data using hierarchical cluster analysis and non-metric multidimensional scaling to identify distinct ranching types. A qualitative analysis of key informant interviews identified key social-ecological changes for each type. The results emphasize the impact of administration, production, and biophysical factors on shaping different livestock ranching schemes. Further, we identified three significant social-ecological changes driving the dynamics of these systems, including shifts from (1) sheep to cattle ranching, (2) domestic to feral cattle ranching, and (3) landowners to tenant land managers. These findings have implications for policymakers seeking to develop strategies tailored to diverse realities, ensuring the sustainability of livestock systems in Tierra del Fuego.

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.

Rethinking the utility of the Five Domains model

The Five Domains model is influential in contemporary studies of animal welfare. It was originally presented as a conceptual model to understand the types of impact that procedures may impose on experimental animals. Its application has since broadened to cover a wide range of animal species and forms of animal use. However, it has also increasingly been applied as an animal welfare assessment tool, which is the focus of this paper. Several critical limitations associated with this approach have not been widely acknowledged, including that: (1) it relies upon expert or stakeholder opinion, with little transparency around the selection of these individuals; (2) quantitative scoring is typically attempted despite the absence of clear principles for aggregation of welfare measures and few attempts to account for uncertainty; (3) there have been few efforts to measure the repeatability of findings; and (4) it does not consider indirect and unintentional impacts such as those imposed on non-target animals. These deficiencies lead to concerns surrounding testability, repeatability and the potential for manipulation. We provide suggestions for refinement of how the Five Domains model is applied to partially address these limitations. We argue that the Five Domains model is useful for systematic consideration of all sources of possible welfare compromise and enhancement, but is not, in its current state, fit-for-purpose as an assessment tool. We argue for wider acknowledgment of the operational limits of using the model as an assessment tool, prioritisation of the studies needed for its validation, and encourage improvements to this approach.

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.

Animal welfare outcomes of helicopter-based shooting of deer in Australia

Abstract Context Helicopter-based shooting has been widely used to kill deer in Australasia, but the animal welfare outcomes of this technique have not been evaluated. Aim To assess the animal welfare outcomes of helicopter-based shooting of deer in Australia by quantifying the fates of deer seen and shot at, the duration of procedures and the number and location of bullet wounds in deer. Methods Three deer control operations were assessed. These operations targeted: (1) chital deer (Axis axis) in Queensland, (2) fallow deer (Dama dama) in Australian Capital Territory and (3) fallow deer in New South Wales. For each operation, an independent veterinarian conducted ante-mortem (i.e. from the helicopter as shooting occurred) and post-mortem (i.e. from the ground after shooting had ceased) observations. The ante-mortem data were used to estimate the proportion of deer seen that were shot, chase time (CT), time to insensibility (TTI) and total time (TT; CT + TTI). The numbers and locations of bullet wounds were recorded post-mortem. Key results Ante-mortem and post-mortem observations were performed for 114–318 and 60–105 deer, respectively, in the three operations. Shots were fired at 69–76% of deer that were observed. Median CT ranged from 73 to 145 s. Median TTI ranged from 17 to 37 s and median TT ranged from 109 to 162 s. The mean number of bullet wounds per deer ranged from 1.43 to 2.57. Animal welfare outcomes were better in the two fallow deer operations than in the chital deer operation. In both fallow deer operations, most deer were shot multiple times and at least once in the head or thorax. In contrast, chital deer were shot fewer times and less often in the head or thorax, and non-fatal wounding was observed. Conclusions The best animal welfare outcomes were achieved when helicopter-based shooting operations followed a fly-back procedure and mandated that multiple shots were fired into each animal. Implications Animal welfare outcomes for helicopter-based deer shooting in Australia could be improved with a national-level standard operating procedure requiring helicopters to fly back over shot animals and repeatedly shoot animals in the head or thorax.

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.

I Am a Compassionate Conservation Welfare Scientist: Considering the Theoretical and Practical Differences Between Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare

Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare are two disciplines whose practitioners advocate consideration of individual wild animals within conservation practice and policy. However, they are not, as is sometimes suggested, the same. Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare are based on different underpinning ethics, which sometimes leads to conflicting views about the kinds of conservation activities and decisions that are acceptable. Key differences between the disciplines appear to relate to their views about which wild animals can experience harms, the kinds of harms they can experience and how we can know about and confidently evidence those harms. Conservation Welfare scientists seek to engage with conservation scientists with the aim of facilitating ongoing incremental improvements in all aspects of conservation, i.e., minimizing harms to animals. In contrast, it is currently unclear how the tenets of Compassionate Conservation can be used to guide decision-making in complex or novel situations. Thus, Conservation Welfare may offer modern conservationists a more palatable approach to integrating evidence-based consideration of individual sentient animals into conservation practice and policy.

Maw S, Johnson PJ, W. Macdonald D. 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.

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.

Free-ranging horse management in Australia, New Zealand and the United States: socio-ecological dimensions of a protracted environmental conflict

Management of free-ranging horses (Equus ferus caballus) is a complex socio-ecological issue in Australia (AU), New Zealand (NZ), and the United States (US). In these countries, horses are the results of colonial introductions and occupy very harsh rangeland environments exerting a grazing disturbance that has generated ecological concerns. Although many social and ecological concerns are similar, each country also has nuances. In 2018, we conducted a field-based comparison of AU, NZ, and US using an inductive approach to identify similarities, differences, and emerging themes through conversations with >100 individuals from New South Wales Australia, the North Island of New Zealand, and the western US. Additional data sources included field observations and archival documents. Consistent emergent themes identified included: strong public emotion, politicization of management, population growth concerns, negative ecological impact concerns, agreement that horses should be treated humanely, disagreement as to what practices were the most humane, interest and scepticism about fertility control, the need for transparency, compromise to accommodating horses and acknowledgement of social values, and recognition that collaboration is the only means to achieve both healthy rangelands and healthy horses. Unique themes identified included: NZ empowering advocate groups to become part of the solution, conflict between horses and livestock is a mostly US conflict, equids originated in the US, concern about the sustainability of adoption programs, different expectations/options for management on private lands, cultural history such as brumby running in AU, permanent branding of horses in the US, litigation as a uniquely US strategy (although a judgement on recent AU litigation is pending), government data accepted to guide removals in NZ but not always in AU or US, and complex heterogeneous land surface ownership patterns makes management difficult in the US. The difficulty of horse management in these countries is attributed to social intricacies rather than biological/ecological gaps of knowledge.

Mortality and Operational Attributes Relative to Feral Horse and Burro Capture Techniques Based on Publicly Available Data From 2010-2019

Management of excessive feral horse (Equus ferus caballus) and burro (Equus asinus) populations in the United States and globally has been a controversial subject for decades. I reviewed all available US federal feral horse and burro daily gather reports from 2010 to 2019 to extract equine species, technique (bait trapping or helicopter gathering), reason (emergency or other), number gathered, number of mortalities, and mortality attributes (acute or chronic/pre-existing condition, specific cause). I found 70 reports (bait trapping burros n = 10, bait trapping horses n = 24, helicopter gathering horses n = 21) from 9 states (AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WY) representing 28,821 horses and 2,005 burros. For bait trapping, 100 animals died (4 burros, 96 horses) with 16 acute causes (1 burro, 15 horses) and 84 chronic/pre-existing causes (3 burros, 81 horses). For helicopter gathering, 268 horses died with 62 acute causes and 206 chronic/pre-existing causes. Mortality ratios did not differ by capture technique (P > .05) for broken necks, emaciation, acute causes, or chronic/pre-existing causes. The most common mortality-causing problems were structural deformations, club foot, blindness, and emaciation. The more horses gathered per day resulted in a greater proportion of chronic/pre-existing mortalities for both trapping techniques, but only an increase of acute mortalities for helicopter gathering. The slope suggests 1 acute mortality for every 300 horses gathered. The capture mortality rate across all gathers [1.1% (368 mortalities out of 30,826 horses and burros captured)] is below a general threshold of 2% suggested for wildlife studies.

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.

Compassionate versus consequentialist conservation

Ethical treatment of wildlife and consideration of animal welfare have become important themes in conservation, but ethical perspectives on how best to protect wild animals and promote their welfare are diverse. There are advantages to the consequentialist harms ethical framework applied in managing wild herbivores for conservation purposes. To minimize harms while achieving conservation goals, we argue that overabundant wild herbivores should in many cases be managed through consumptive in situ killing. Advantages of this policy are that the negative welfare states imposed on animals last only a short time; remaining animals are not deprived of positive welfare states (e.g., linked to rearing offspring); poor welfare states of animals in overabundant populations are avoided (e.g., starvation); negative welfare impacts on heterospecifics through resource depletion (i.e., competition) are prevented; harvesting meat reduces the number of (agricultural) animals raised to supply meat; and minimal costs maximize funding for other wildlife management and conservation priorities. Alternative ethical approaches to our consequentialist framework include deontology (containing animal rights) and virtue ethics, some of which underpin compassionate conservation. These alternative ethical approaches emphasize the importance of avoiding intentional killing of animals but, if no population reduction occurs, are likely to impose considerable unintentional harms on overabundant wildlife and indirectly harm heterospecifics through ineffective population reduction. If nonlethal control is used, it is likely that overabundant animals would be deprived of positive welfare states and economic costs would be prohibitive. We encourage conservation stakeholders to consider animal-welfare consequentialism as an ethical approach to minimize harms to the animals under their care as well as other animals that policies may affect while at the same time pursuing conservation goals.

Heads in the sand: public health and ecological risks of lead-based bullets for wildlife shooting in Australia

Lead (Pb) is a toxic element banned from fuel, paint and many other products in most developed countries. Nonetheless, it is still widely used in ammunition, including rifle bullets, and Pb-based bullets are almost universally used in Australia. For decades, poisoning from Pb shot (shotguns) has been recognised as a cause of disease in waterfowl and Pb shot has been subsequently banned for waterfowl hunting in many jurisdictions. However, the risks posed by Pb-based bullets (rifles) have not been similarly recognised in Australia. Pb-based rifle bullets frequently fragment, contaminating the tissue of shot animals. Consuming this Pb-contaminated tissue risks harmful Pb exposure and, thus, the health of wildlife scavengers (carrion eaters) and humans and their companion animals who consume harvested meat (game eaters). In Europe, North America and elsewhere, the environmental and human health risks of Pb-based bullets are widely recognised, and non-toxic alternatives (e.g. copper-based bullets) are increasingly being used. However, Australia has no comparable research despite widespread use of shooting, common scavenging by potentially susceptible wildlife species, and people regularly consuming shot meat. We conclude that Australia has its collective ‘head in the sand’ on this pressing worldwide One Health issue. We present the need for urgent research into this field in Australia.

Assessment of animal welfare for helicopter shooting of feral horses

Context Helicopter shooting is an effective tool for reducing feral horse (Equus caballus) populations that are considered overabundant. However, this tool has been less commonly used in recent years because of concerns about animal-welfare outcomes, which have not previously been quantified. Aims The aims of the present study were to assess the helicopter shooting of feral horses to determine (1) the duration of stress, (2) the frequency of adverse animal-welfare events and (3) the influence of explanatory variables in determining welfare outcomes. Methods We quantified the welfare outcomes of three helicopter shooting programs in central Australia during 2013 and 2015. We conducted ante-mortem observations of 937 horses and post-mortem observations of 630 horses. We measured the following three parameters to estimate the duration of stress from pursuit and the mode of death: chase time (CT), time to death (TTD) and total time (TT; CT+TTD). We quantified the frequency of adverse animal-welfare events, namely instantaneous death rate (IDR; percentage of animals for which TTD was zero), the apparent frequency of non-fatal wounding, and the frequency of bullet-wound tracts in different anatomical locations. We investigated the role of explanatory variables in determining whether or not a horse had an inferred instantaneous death. Key results For all horses, the median CT was 42s, the median TTD was 0s (median TTD for horses not killed instantaneously was 15s), and median TT was 52s. At least 1% of horses were non-fatally wounded, IDR was 63% (60–66%), and 3% (2–5%) of horses were not shot in the cranium, neck or thorax. Shooter skill was the most important determinant of whether or not a horse had an instantaneous death. Conclusions The animal-welfare outcomes of helicopter shooting appear to be similar for feral horses and feral camels (Camelus dromedarius), the only other species that has been studied using these methods, and could be refined by improving shooter skill. Implications Quantifying animal-welfare outcomes is particularly important for contentious wildlife management techniques. Wildlife managers should integrate the results of welfare studies into decision-making processes rather than excluding contentious techniques from consideration on the basis of perception.

Planning and conducting aerial culling operations for feral camels

This paper describes the application of aerial culling to the management of feral camels during the Australian Feral Camel Management Project. It covers the following: key challenges involved, guiding principles, enabling factors which facilitated the application of aerial culling, the planning and implementation of actual culling operations, feedback loops, and the key operational achievements of the aerial culling program. Animal welfare was a key consideration under the Australian Feral Camel Management Project. Accordingly, aerial culling was applied in accordance with endorsed jurisdictional Standard Operating Procedures and animal welfare outcomes were formally and independently assessed during the project. Aerial culling was undertaken over an area totalling ~685 000 km2 focusing on the environmental assets identified for the project. In total, 57 aerial culling operations were undertaken resulting in the removal of ~136 000 feral camels, which represented nearly 84% of the total number removed during the project.

Facilitating feral camel removal in Australia through commercial use

Approximately 16.5% of feral camel removal under the Australian Feral Camel Management Project (AFCMP) was by commercial means, via mustering for transport to abattoir (9.3%) and pet-meating in the field (7.2%). The challenges of commercial use of feral camels as a removal method include: variable density, mobility and distribution of the feral camel population; achieving landholder collaboration; accessibility to remote areas by road; availability of yard infrastructure and trucking capacity; and distance to slaughter facilities and end-markets. However, the AFCMP recognised commercial use as important to some Aboriginal communities, bringing a range of economic and social benefits as well as environmental outcomes in terms of reduced feral camel density. To facilitate mustering offtake, a removal assistance scheme was developed, whereby a formal landholder agreement was entered into with various legal requirements, including animal welfare. The agreement incentivised removal of both sexes: payments were for cow camels received at abattoir, but with a concurrent requirement for approximately equal sexes to be delivered to abattoir in an annual contract period. Additional project costs included contract development and oversight, landholder engagement, training and animal welfare auditing. Pet-meating, by way of ground culling and in-field butchering for meat storage in mobile refrigeration units, was also supported by the AFCMP via measures to increase harvest efficiency such as satellite tracking, aerial spotting and improved road access. However, pet-meating ceased mid-project due to changed industry demands. Post-AFCMP, mustering operations continue to service market demand for camel meat. The camel industry is also looking to camel farming to ensure greater continuity and quality of supply than can be achieved through wild harvest.

Effective collaboration and governance processes to underpin large-scale natural resource management projects: the Australian Feral Camel Management Project experience

The Australian Feral Camel Management Project involved a large number of diverse formal collaborators and broader stakeholders. Establishing and maintaining formal and informal collaborations was key to the success of the project. Good governance and communication processes underpin such collaboration and support the ability of projects to be flexible and to respond to unexpected changes in operating environment and/or stakeholder concerns. A priority for the project was to establish enduring relationships that would facilitate ongoing feral camel management.

Outcomes of the Australian Feral Camel Management Project and the future of feral camel management in Australia

The Australian Feral Camel Management Project achieved its feral camel density targets at nominated environmental sites, with feral camel density being used as a de facto measure of feral camel impact. The project recognised that it was only the first step in a more concerted effort to bring feral camel impacts under control and therefore had a major focus on building capacity for future feral camel management. Although it had a management focus, the project provided a valuable opportunity to improve our knowledge of feral camel damage and management with an extensive monitoring and evaluation process. The final report of the project provides 24 recommendations that should be considered by all stakeholders in undertaking ongoing feral camel management.