The significance of shooting angle in seal shooting

The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between shooting angle to the head and animal welfare outcomes in the hunt of young harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus). The study population consisted of young harp seals belonging to the Greenland Sea harp seal population. A sample of 171, 2-7 weeks old, weaned harp seals of both sexes were included. The study was conducted as an open, randomised parallel group designed trial during the regular hunt. The animals were allocated into four groups, A-D, according to the observed shooting angle to the head, defined as the angle between the direction of the shot and the longitudinal axis of the animal's head: (A) directly from the front; (B) obliquely from the front; (C) directly from the side; and (D) obliquely or directly from behind. Instantaneous death rate (IDR) and time to death (TTD) were the main variables. The mean IDR differed significantly between groups and was highest in group B (96.8%) and lowest in group C (66.7%). For all groups combined it was 84.2%. The mean TTD for seals not rendered instantaneously unconscious or dead (n = 27) differed significantly between groups and was shortest in group A (16 s) and longest in group C (85 s). However, the number of animals included in the TTD analysis was limited. In conclusion, based on the significantly higher IDR, the shooting angle obliquely from the front is recommended to help achieve the best animal welfare outcomes during the hunt of young harp seals.

Why humans kill animals and why we cannot avoid it

Killing animals has been a ubiquitous human behaviour throughout history, yet it is becoming increasingly controversial and criticised in some parts of contemporary human society. Here we review 10 primary reasons why humans kill animals, discuss the necessity (or not) of these forms of killing, and describe the global ecological context for human killing of animals. Humans historically and currently kill animals either directly or indirectly for the following reasons: (1) wild harvest or food acquisition, (2) human health and safety, (3) agriculture and aquaculture, (4) urbanisation and industrialisation, (5) invasive, overabundant or nuisance wildlife control, (6) threatened species conservation, (7) recreation, sport or entertainment, (8) mercy or compassion, (9) cultural and religious practice, and (10) research, education and testing. While the necessity of some forms of animal killing is debatable and further depends on individual values, we emphasise that several of these forms of animal killing are a necessary component of our inescapable involvement in a single, functioning, finite, global food web. We conclude that humans (and all other animals) cannot live in a way that does not require animal killing either directly or indirectly, but humans can modify some of these killing behaviours in ways that improve the welfare of animals while they are alive, or to reduce animal suffering whenever they must be killed. We encourage a constructive dialogue that (1) accepts and permits human participation in one enormous global food web dependent on animal killing and (2) focuses on animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Doing so will improve the lives of both wild and domestic animals to a greater extent than efforts to avoid, prohibit or vilify human animal-killing behaviour.

Ethical Treatment of Invasive and Native Fauna in Australia: Perspectives through the One Welfare Lens

Simple Summary

A public forum can reveal a wide range of perspectives on the ethical treatment of animals. This article describes how a panel of experts navigated through a discussion on the many and varied challenges of attempting to manage invasive and native fauna in Australia. The panel acknowledged the variety of these fauna, their effects on others and the consequences of control measures for three parties: animals, humans and the environment. The One Welfare concept has been developed to guide humans in the ethical treatment of non-human animals, each other and the environment. The forum accepted the need to consider this triple line, and exemplifies the merits of a One Welfare approach to discussions such as this. We used a series of questions about past, present and anticipated practices in wildlife control as the core of the panel discussion. We revealed five different but intersecting perspectives: conservation action, wildlife research, invasive animal ecology, mainstream animal protection and compassionate conservation. This article shows how understanding of lines of contention on various core topics can provide a framework for further discourse that may bear fruit in the form of One Welfare solutions.

Abstract

The One Welfare concept is proposed to guide humans in the ethical treatment of non-human animals, each other and the environment. One Welfare was conceptualized for veterinarians but could be a foundational concept through which to promote the ethical treatment of animals that are outside of direct human care and responsibility. However, wild-living animals raise additional ethical conundrums because of their multifarious values and roles, and relationships that humans have with them. At an open facilitated forum, the 2018 Robert Dixon Memorial Animal Welfare Symposium, a panel of five experts from different fields shared their perspectives on “loving and hating animals in the wild” and responded to unscripted questions from the audience. The Symposium’s objectives were to elucidate views on the ethical treatment of the native and invasive animals of Australia and to identify some of the resultant dilemmas facing conservationists, educators, veterinarians and society. Here, we document the presented views and case studies and synthesize common themes in a One Welfare framework. Additionally, we identified points of contention that can guide further discourse. With this guide in place, the identification and discussion of those disparate views was a first step toward practical resolutions on how to manage wild-living Australian fauna ethically. We concluded that there was great utility in the One Welfare approach for any discourse about wild animal welfare. It requires attention to each element of the triple bottom line and ensures that advocacy for one party does not vanquish the voices from other sectors. We argue that, by facilitating a focus on the ecology in the context of wild animal issues, One Welfare is more useful in this context than the veterinary context for which it was originally developed.

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.

Research priorities to fill knowledge gaps in wild boar management measures that could improve the control of African swine fever in wild boar populations

The European Commission asked EFSA to provide study designs for the investigation of four research domains (RDs) according to major gaps in knowledge identified by EFSA in a report published in 2019: (RD 1) African swine fever (ASF) epidemiology in wild boar; (RD 2) ASF transmission by vectors; (RD 3) African swine fever virus (ASFV) survival in the environment, and (RD 4) the patterns of seasonality of ASF in wild boar and domestic pigs in the EU. In this Scientific Opinion, the second RD on ASF epidemiology in wild boar is addressed. Twenty-nine research objectives were proposed by the working group and broader ASF expert networks and 23 of these research objectives met a prespecified inclusion criterion. Fourteen of these 23 research objectives met the predefined threshold for selection and so were prioritised based on the following set of criteria: (1) the impact on ASF management; (2) the feasibility or practicality to carry out the study; (3) the potential implementation of study results in practice; (4) a possible short time-frame study (< 1 year); (5) the novelty of the study; and (6) if it was a priority for risk managers. Finally, after further elimination of three of the proposed research objectives due to overlapping scope of studies published during the development of this opinion, 11 research priorities were elaborated into short research proposals, considering the potential impact on ASF management and the period of one year for the research activities.

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.

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 &lt; 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.

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.

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.

Detectability and activity patterns of sambar deer (Rusa unicolor) in Baw Baw National Park, Victoria

Introduced sambar deer (Rusa unicolor) are increasing in abundance and distribution across much of south-eastern Australia and causing damage to native ecosystems. However, the current paucity of knowledge surrounding many aspects of sambar deer ecology is limiting our capacity to make informed management decisions, and properly gauge the extent of deer impacts. Here we investigate correlates of sambar deer detectability and describe activity patterns of sambar deer in Baw Baw National Park (BBNP) to inform control operations. Camera traps were deployed in BBNP between October and December 2016. We used an occupancy modelling framework to investigate sambar deer detectability and camera trap record time stamps to determine sambar deer activity patterns. Sambar deer were found to be significantly more detectable near roads and in areas of sparse tree density and displayed strong crepuscular activity patterns. Control operations carried out along roads at dawn and dusk could be effective, at least in the short term. Likewise, aerial culling could be an effective control option for sambar deer populations in BBNP. This study highlights the utility of camera trap data to inform the application of control operations for cryptic invasive species.

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.

"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.

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.