1
|
Almeida A, García Fernández B, Papadopoulou P. Animals as performers or exhibits: A study of their relevance to Portuguese, Spanish, and Greek pre-service teachers. J APPL ANIM WELF SCI 2023; 26:647-669. [PMID: 35098832 DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2021.2013219] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
This study involves Portuguese, Spanish and Greek pre-service primary teachers (n = 210) and pre-service kindergarten teachers (n = 195) and identifies through a questionnaire a) their personal opinions and b) perception of the didactic value of eight performances with live animals. The results were compared by course among countries and between courses in the same country. Globally, the pre-service teachers neither showed a great personal interest, nor recognized great didactic relevance in these shows. Pre-kindergarten teachers from Portugal and Spain tend to value them more positively as a way to bring children closer to animals. Shows with aquatic mammals received the greatest appreciation in both dimensions, especially in the Greek sample; birds of prey shows were valued more by the Iberian participants. Violent shows, such as fighting animals and bullfighting, were very negatively viewed. Shows with pets and birds of prey were viewed frequently as more detrimental to animals than they are. The results show that a better understanding of the impact of each show on animals is needed, if pre-service teachers are to make informed decisions in their professional future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- António Almeida
- Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa/CICS.NOVA, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
| | - Beatriz García Fernández
- Science Education, Department of Pedagogy, Faculty of Education of Ciudad Real, University of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain), Ciudad Real, Spain
| | - Penelope Papadopoulou
- Biological Education, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Western Macedonia, Florina, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Macdonald DW. Mitigating Human Impacts on Wild Animal Welfare. Animals (Basel) 2023; 13:2906. [PMID: 37760306 PMCID: PMC10525650 DOI: 10.3390/ani13182906] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2023] [Revised: 09/06/2023] [Accepted: 09/11/2023] [Indexed: 09/29/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David W Macdonald
- The Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU), Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Tubney House, Abingdon Road, Tubney OX13 5QL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Freire R, Massaro M, McDonald S, Trathan P, Nicol CJ. A Citizen Science Trial to Assess Perception of Wild Penguin Welfare. Front Vet Sci 2021; 8:698685. [PMID: 34386538 PMCID: PMC8353176 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.698685] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2021] [Accepted: 06/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Wild penguins are facing increased threats to their populations and their welfare as a consequence of human activities. Understanding the perception of animal welfare is essential to identify ethical concerns related to the negative impact of anthropogenic factors on wild species and to guide conservation efforts that reflect societal values. Since penguin conservation is of general interest, we examined the human dimension of welfare assessment across a range of interest groups concerned with penguins, seabird biology and wildlife conservation. We provided participants with a Penguin Welfare Assessment Tool (PWAT) based on the five domains model. The PWAT supports consideration of the impact of four physical aspects on welfare-relevant mental states. Bibliometric analysis of keywords from 347 scientific articles indicated that penguins around the world face five main types (themes) of anthropogenic factors and we then developed five hypothetical scenarios, each related to one theme. Seventy-five participants scored the overall impact of the events described in the scenarios on penguin welfare as negative using the PWAT. Participants rated short-duration, high-intensity events (i.e., being trapped in a ghost fishing net) as having a significantly more severe impact on penguin welfare than low-intensity, long-duration events (P < 0.0001). Scores provided by participants for each domain for each scenario were largely as expected and we found good correlation (all P < 0.0001) between the physical domains and “mental state” for all scenarios, indicating that the tool was facilitating the participants' assessment of welfare. No evidence was found that experience of working or studying penguins, or indeed any other demographic factor investigated, influenced the assessments of welfare. We found little agreement between participants in the scores provided (unalike scores mostly between 0.7 and 0.8), and agreement between participants with experience of working with penguins was no better than between participants without such experience. We discuss the possibility that low agreement within different interest groups may be improved by providing more scientific information to support the evaluation of penguin welfare. We conclude that scientific knowledge of penguin biological responses to anthropogenic factors is vital to support the evaluation of wild penguin welfare by the public and other stakeholders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rafael Freire
- Institute for Land, Water and Society, School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia
| | - Melanie Massaro
- Institute for Land, Water and Society, School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia
| | - Simon McDonald
- Spatial Data Analysis Unit, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia
| | | | - Christine J Nicol
- Royal Veterinary College, University of London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
do Vale CA, Sant'Anna AC, Júnior JGC, Prezoto F. Reflections on Potential Risk Factors of Callitrichidae Run Over in an Urban Area: A Case Report of Marmoset Deaths. J APPL ANIM WELF SCI 2020; 24:392-399. [PMID: 32627594 DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2020.1785883] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
Interest in the well being of wild animals in their natural habitats is still lower than that of domesticated animals and captive wild animals. Urban development is one of the events that has the greatest impact on fauna, as it affects the survival and well being of wild species in many ways. This study aimed to record death by being run over of two Callithrix penicillata (black-tufted) marmosets in a fragmented environment by urbanization and to discuss how anthropic intervention modifies species behavior and influences their well being, and to suggest measures which can reduce the occurrence of incidents, thereby contributing to maintaining the fauna and their well being.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caroline Almeida do Vale
- Laboratório de ecologia comportamental e bioacústica, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brasil
| | | | | | - Fábio Prezoto
- Laboratório de ecologia comportamental e bioacústica, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brasil
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Allen BL, Hampton JO. Minimizing animal welfare harms associated with predation management in agro-ecosystems. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2020; 95:1097-1108. [PMID: 32302055 DOI: 10.1111/brv.12601] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2019] [Revised: 03/24/2020] [Accepted: 03/26/2020] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
The impacts of wild predators on livestock are a common source of human-wildlife conflict globally, and predators are subject to population control for this reason in many situations. Animal welfare is one of many important considerations affecting decisions about predation management. Recent studies discussing animal welfare in this context have presented arguments emphasizing the importance of avoiding intentional harm to predators, but they have not usually considered harms imposed by predators on livestock and other animals. Efforts to mitigate predation impacts (including 'no control' approaches) cause a variety of harms to predators, livestock and other wildlife. Successfully minimizing the overall frequency and magnitude of harms requires consideration of the direct, indirect, intentional and unintentional harms imposed on all animals inhabiting agricultural landscapes. We review the harms resulting from the management of dingoes and other wild dogs in the extensive beef cattle grazing systems of Australia to illustrate how these negative impacts can be minimized across both wild and domestic species present on a farm or in a free-ranging livestock grazing context. Similar to many other predator-livestock conflicts, wild dogs impose intermittent harms on beef cattle (especially calves) including fatal predation, non-fatal attack (mauling and biting), pathogen transmission, and fear- or stress-related effects. Wild dog control tools and strategies impose harms on dingoes and other wildlife including stress, pain and death as a consequence of both lethal and non-lethal control approaches. To balance these various sources of harm, we argue that the tactical use of lethal predator control approaches can result in harming the least number of individual animals, given certain conditions. This conclusion conflicts with both traditional (e.g. continuous or ongoing lethal control) and contemporary (e.g. predator-friendly or no-control) predation management approaches. The general and transferable issues, approaches and principles we describe have broad applicability to many other human-wildlife conflicts around the world.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin L Allen
- Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, 4350, Australia.,Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, 6034, South Africa
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Causation, Responsibility, and Harm: How the Discursive Shift from Law and Ethics to Social Justice Sealed the Plight of Nonhuman Animals. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2020; 29:246-267. [PMID: 32159488 DOI: 10.1017/s096318011900104x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
Moral and political philosophers no longer condemn harm inflicted on nonhuman animals as self-evidently as they did when animal welfare and animal rights advocacy was at the forefront in the 1980s, and sentience, suffering, species-typical behavior, and personhood were the basic concepts of the discussion. The article shows this by comparing the determination with which societies seek responsibility for human harm to the relative indifference with which law and morality react to nonhuman harm. When harm is inflicted on humans, policies concerning negligence and duty of care and principles such as the 'but for' rule and the doctrine of double effect are easily introduced. When harm is inflicted on nonhumans, this does not happen, at least not any more. As an explanation for the changed situation, the article offers a shift in discussion and its basic terminology. Simple ethical considerations supported the case for nonhuman animals, but many philosophers moved on to debate different views on political justice instead. This allowed the creation of many conflicting views that are justifiable on their own presuppositions. In the absence of a shared foundation, this fragments the discussion, focuses it on humans, and ignores or marginalizes nonhuman animals.
Collapse
|
7
|
Feber RE, Johnson PJ, Macdonald DW. Shooting pheasants for sport: What does the death of Cecil tell us? PEOPLE AND NATURE 2020. [DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10068] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Ruth E. Feber
- Wildlife Conservation Research Unit Recanati‐Kaplan Centre Department of Zoology University of Oxford Oxford UK
| | - Paul J. Johnson
- Wildlife Conservation Research Unit Recanati‐Kaplan Centre Department of Zoology University of Oxford Oxford UK
| | - David W. Macdonald
- Wildlife Conservation Research Unit Recanati‐Kaplan Centre Department of Zoology University of Oxford Oxford UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Beausoleil NJ, Mellor DJ, Baker L, Baker SE, Bellio M, Clarke AS, Dale A, Garlick S, Jones B, Harvey A, Pitcher BJ, Sherwen S, Stockin KA, Zito S. "Feelings and Fitness" Not "Feelings or Fitness"-The Raison d'être of Conservation Welfare, Which Aligns Conservation and Animal Welfare Objectives. Front Vet Sci 2018; 5:296. [PMID: 30538995 PMCID: PMC6277474 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00296] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2018] [Accepted: 11/05/2018] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ngaio J. Beausoleil
- Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, School of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
| | - David J. Mellor
- Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, School of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
| | - Liv Baker
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Sandra E. Baker
- Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, Recanati-Kaplan Centre, University of Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
| | - Mariagrazia Bellio
- Institute of Land Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia
| | - Alison S. Clarke
- Veterinary Emergency Centre and Hospital, JCU Vet, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia
| | - Arnja Dale
- Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Steve Garlick
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Possumwood Wildlife Recovery and Research, Bungendore, NSW, Australia
| | - Bidda Jones
- Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia
| | - Andrea Harvey
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | | | | | - Karen A. Stockin
- Coastal Marine Research Group, Institute of Natural and Mathematical Sciences, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Sarah Zito
- Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Auckland, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|