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.

Impacts of Anthropogenic Disturbance on Vegetation Dynamics: A Case Study of Wadi Hagul, Eastern Desert, Egypt

Irresponsible human interventions, encroachment of natural habitats, and climate change negatively affect wildlife. In this study, the effects of human influence on Wadi Hagul, an unprotected area in the north of the Egyptian Eastern Desert that has recently been subjected to blatant encroachments of vegetation, were studied. The most important of these threats is the construction of the new road Al-Galala-Wadi Hagul-Zafarana. In Wadi Hagul, 80 species are reported in this study; the most represented plant families are Asteraceae (15 species) and Brassicaceae (6 species). Perennial, chamaephyte and Saharo-Arabian species were recorded in the highest percentage. Detrended canonical correspondence analysis showed that latitude, longitude, altitude, silt, sand contents, pH, and CO₃^2- content are the factors that have the highest effect on vegetation distribution in the studied stands. Several invasive and alien species such as Euphorbia prostrata have been listed; these species typically have a negative effect on native species. The Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index (SAVI) indicated a decrease in plant cover during the study period, as compared to previous years. In 2013 and 2020, SAVI ranged from -0.02 to 0.42 and from -0.18 to 0.28, respectively. Recently, the violation and destruction of wildlife have increased, therefore, preserving it along with general biodiversity has become an urgent necessity.

Animal Harms and Food Production: Informing Ethical Choices

Simple Summary

Consideration of animal welfare in food choices has become an influential contemporary theme. Traditional animal welfare views about food have been largely restricted to direct and intentional harms to livestock in intensive animal agriculture settings. However, many harms to animals arising from diverse food production practices in the world are exerted indirectly and unintentionally and often affect wildlife. Here we apply a qualitative analysis of food production by considering the breadth of harms caused by different food production systems to wild as well as domestic animals. Production systems are identified that produce relatively few and relatively many harms. The ethical implications of these findings are discussed for consumers concerned with the broad animal welfare impacts of their food choices.

Abstract

Ethical food choices have become an important societal theme in post-industrial countries. Many consumers are particularly interested in the animal welfare implications of the various foods they may choose to consume. However, concepts in animal welfare are rapidly evolving towards consideration of all animals (including wildlife) in contemporary approaches such as “One Welfare”. This approach requires recognition that negative impacts (harms) may be intentional and obvious (e.g., slaughter of livestock) but also include the under-appreciated indirect or unintentional harms that often impact wildlife (e.g., land clearing). This is especially true in the Anthropocene, where impacts on non-human life are almost ubiquitous across all human activities. We applied the “harms” model of animal welfare assessment to several common food production systems and provide a framework for assessing the breadth (not intensity) of harms imposed. We considered all harms caused to wild as well as domestic animals, both direct effects and indirect effects. We described 21 forms of harm and considered how they applied to 16 forms of food production. Our analysis suggests that all food production systems harm animals to some degree and that the majority of these harms affect wildlife, not livestock. We conclude that the food production systems likely to impose the greatest overall breadth of harms to animals are intensive animal agriculture industries (e.g., dairy) that rely on a secondary food production system (e.g., cropping), while harvesting of locally available wild plants, mushrooms or seaweed is likely to impose the least harms. We present this conceptual analysis as a resource for those who want to begin considering the complex animal welfare trade-offs involved in their food choices.

Recognizing animal personhood in compassionate conservation

Compassionate conservation is based on the ethical position that actions taken to protect biodiversity should be guided by compassion for all sentient beings. Critics argue that there are 3 core reasons harming animals is acceptable in conservation programs: the primary purpose of conservation is biodiversity protection; conservation is already compassionate to animals; and conservation should prioritize compassion to humans. We used argument analysis to clarify the values and logics underlying the debate around compassionate conservation. We found that objections to compassionate conservation are expressions of human exceptionalism, the view that humans are of a categorically separate and higher moral status than all other species. In contrast, compassionate conservationists believe that conservation should expand its moral community by recognizing all sentient beings as persons. Personhood, in an ethical sense, implies the individual is owed respect and should not be treated merely as a means to other ends. On scientific and ethical grounds, there are good reasons to extend personhood to sentient animals, particularly in conservation. The moral exclusion or subordination of members of other species legitimates the ongoing manipulation and exploitation of the living worlds, the very reason conservation was needed in the first place. Embracing compassion can help dismantle human exceptionalism, recognize nonhuman personhood, and navigate a more expansive moral space.

Myths and assumptions about human-wildlife conflict and coexistence

Recent extinctions often resulted from humans retaliating against wildlife that threatened people's interests or were perceived to threaten current or future interests. Today's subfield of human-wildlife conflict and coexistence (HWCC) grew out of an original anthropocentric concern with such real or perceived threats and then, starting in the mid-1990s, with protecting valued species from people. Recent work in ethics and law has shifted priorities toward coexistence between people and wild animals. To spur scientific progress and more effective practice, we examined 4 widespread assumptions about HWCC that need to be tested rigorously: scientists are neutral and objective about HWCC; current participatory, consensus-based decisions provide just and fair means to overcome challenges in HWCC; wildlife threats to human interests are getting worse; and wildlife damage to human interests is additive to other sources of damage. The first 2 assumptions are clearly testable, but if they are entangled can become a wicked problem and may need debunking as myths if they cannot be disentangled. Some assumptions have seldom or never been tested and those that have been tested appear dubious, yet the use of the assumptions continues in the practice and scholarship of HWCC. We call for tests of assumptions and debunking of myths in the scholarship of HWCC. Adherence to the principles of scientific integrity and application of standards of evidence can help advance our call. We also call for practitioners and interest groups to improve the constitutive process prior to decision making about wildlife. We predict these steps will hasten scientific progress toward evidence-based interventions and improve the fairness, ethics, and legality of coexistence strategies.

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.

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.

Physiological stress levels in wild koala sub-populations facing anthropogenic induced environmental trauma and disease

Australian small mammals such as koalas must cope with immense pressure from anthropogenic induced stressors or trauma such as bushfires, vehicle collision impacts and habitat disturbance and land clearance. In addition, they must cope with diseases such as chlamydia. To date, there is no published literature on physiological stress levels in wild koala populations compared with identified environmental stressors. This study investigated physiological stress levels within sub-populations of wild koalas encountering environmental trauma and disease from New South Wales (NSW), Queensland (QLD) and South Australia (SA). Physiological stress was determined using a faecal glucocorticoid (or cortisol) metabolites (FGMs) enzyme-immunoassay (EIA) from 291 fresh faecal samples collected from wild koalas at the point of rescue. A healthy breeding sub-population from a forest reserve in QLD acted as a control group. Clearance of prime Eucalyptus habitat had the largest impact on FGMs, followed by bushfire related factors (e.g. flat demeanour, dehydration and burns injury). Koalas with other sources of physical injury (dog-attacks and vehicle collisions) and disease (chlamydia) also had higher FGMs compared to healthy wild koalas. Healthy wild koalas expressed the lowest median levels of FGMs. Overall, the results highlight that anthropogenic-induced stressors tend to increase physiological stress in wild koalas. Thus, the ultimate stressors such as habitat clearance and bush fire events could increase the incidences of proximate stressors such as dog attacks and vehicle collisions, and increase risks of foliage shortage, diseases and mortality. Therefore, there is need for ecological monitoring, conservation management actions and policy changes to curb the koala population crisis, especially within on-going and future land and road development programs.

The impact of human activities on Australian wildlife

Increasing human population size and the concomitant expansion of urbanisation significantly impact natural ecosystems and native fauna globally. Successful conservation management relies on precise information on the factors associated with wildlife population decline, which are challenging to acquire from natural populations. Wildlife Rehabilitation Centres (WRC) provide a rich source of this information. However, few researchers have conducted large-scale longitudinal studies, with most focussing on narrow taxonomic ranges, suggesting that WRC-associated data remains an underutilised resource, and may provide a fuller understanding of the anthropogenic threats facing native fauna. We analysed admissions and outcomes data from a WRC in Queensland, Australia Zoo Wildlife Hospital, to determine the major factors driving admissions and morbidity of native animals in a region experiencing rapid and prolonged urban expansion. We studied 31,626 admissions of 83 different species of native birds, reptiles, amphibians, marsupials and eutherian mammals from 2006 to 2017. While marsupial admissions were highest (41.3%), admissions increased over time for all species and exhibited seasonal variation (highest in Spring to Summer), consistent with known breeding seasons. Causes for admission typically associated with human influenced activities were dominant and exhibited the highest mortality rates. Car strikes were the most common reason for admission (34.7%), with dog attacks (9.2%), entanglements (7.2%), and cat attacks (5.3%) also high. Admissions of orphaned young and overt signs of disease were significant at 24.6% and 9.7%, respectively. Mortality rates were highest following dog attacks (72.7%) and car strikes (69.1%) and lowest in orphaned animals (22.1%). Our results show that WRC databases offer rich opportunities for wildlife monitoring and provide quantification of the negative impacts of human activities on ecosystem stability and wildlife health. The imminent need for urgent, proactive conservation management to ameliorate the negative impacts of human activities on wildlife is clearly evident from our results.

Can a critical reading of Zoopolis by Donaldson and Kymlicka lead to advocating dialogue between animal rights theorists and zoologists?

This essay is a zoologist’s response to Zoopolis. A political theory of animal rights by Donaldson and Kymlicka (2011). What drew me to look at their new approach was that geography played a part in conceptualising animal communities and, in particular, the specific focus on wild animals and urban wildlife. To oversimplify, Donaldson and Kymlicka say, much of the debate operates within one of three basic moral frameworks: a welfarist, an ecological and a basic rights approach, but none has proved capable of fundamental change. That change will only be possible, they consider, if we can develop a new moral framework that connects the treatment of animals more directly to the fundamental principles of liberal–democratic justice and human rights. A major point of agreement between zoologists and Donaldson’s and Kymlicka’s views is that animals deserve more than being over-ridden at every encounter with human interests. A major stalling point in advocating a dialogue between animal rights theorists and zoologists is where Donaldson and Kymlicka accept the animal rights position at the outset, rather than letting their thesis play out to see what their position might be for each geographic zone and for each species. Also, it is clear that Donaldson’s and Kymlicka’s starting point is the traditional animal rights agenda, which rules out animal research as morally illegitimate. The conservation of Australia’s fauna could not survive in that regime. Consequently, I cannot advocate dialogue between animal rights theorists and zoologists from a critical reading of Zoopolis.