1
|
Draper C, Lewis C, Jayson S, Osuch F. Private Keeping of Dangerous Wild Animals in Great Britain. Animals (Basel) 2024; 14:1393. [PMID: 38791611 PMCID: PMC11117220 DOI: 10.3390/ani14101393] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2024] [Revised: 04/24/2024] [Accepted: 04/29/2024] [Indexed: 05/26/2024] Open
Abstract
We analysed the licences issued by British local government authorities under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, which regulates the private keeping of wild animals categorised as "dangerous", to assess the scope and scale of private keeping of dangerous wild animals in Great Britain. Results are compared with historical data from England and Wales, showing that there has been an overall decrease both in the total population of dangerous wild animals privately kept under licence and the number of licences, resulting primarily from a decrease in the farming of wild boar and ostrich, and from certain other species no longer requiring a licence to be kept. Nonetheless, the private keeping of dangerous wild animals remains prevalent, with a total population of 3950 animals kept under licence, and at least one-third of local authorities in Britain licensing keepers of one or more such animals. The population of non-farmed dangerous taxa has increased by 59% in 20 years, with notable increases in crocodilians (198%), venomous snakes (94%), and wild cats (57%). We present evidence that the average cost of a licence to keep dangerous wild animals has fallen over time, and that there is a negative association between cost and licensing. The current schedule of species categorised as dangerous is compared to a formally recognised list of species kept in zoos assessed by risk to the public. Problems with the legislation, enforcement of the licensing system, and animal welfare for privately kept dangerous wild animals are identified and discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chris Draper
- Performing Animal Welfare Society, Galt, CA P.O. Box 849, USA
| | - Chris Lewis
- Born Free Foundation, Frazer House, 14 Carfax, West Sussex RH12 1ER, UK; (C.L.)
| | - Stephanie Jayson
- Farthings Veterinary Group, Farthings Hill, Guildford Road, West Sussex RH12 1TS, UK
| | - Frankie Osuch
- Born Free Foundation, Frazer House, 14 Carfax, West Sussex RH12 1ER, UK; (C.L.)
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Shaw MN, Borrie WT, McLeod EM, Miller KK. Wildlife Photos on Social Media: A Quantitative Content Analysis of Conservation Organisations’ Instagram Images. Animals (Basel) 2022; 12:ani12141787. [PMID: 35883335 PMCID: PMC9311588 DOI: 10.3390/ani12141787] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2022] [Revised: 07/06/2022] [Accepted: 07/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Although images are more effective than words at communicating important conservation ideas, different aspects of these images have been demonstrated to have positive and negative effects on viewers’ views towards wildlife and towards the organisation that posted the image. The most prevalent and engaging characteristics of wildlife photographs posted to Instagram in 2020 and 2021 were assessed using a quantitative content analysis, with Australian organisations as a case study. The findings show that conservation organisations can confidently share and post photographs that promote positive attitudes towards wildlife and the conservation organisation, and that Instagram posts can feature and promote a wide range of currently underrepresented species. Abstract Wildlife populations are vanishing at alarmingly high rates. This issue is being addressed by organisations around the world and when utilizing social media sites like Instagram, images are potentially more powerful than words at conveying crucial conservation messages and garnering public support. However, different elements of these images have been shown to potentially have either positive or negative effects on viewers’ attitudes and behaviours towards wildlife and towards the organisation posting the image. This study used a quantitative content analysis to assess the most common and engaging elements of wildlife images posted to Instagram in 2020 and 2021, using Australian conservation organisations as a case study. A total of 670 wildlife images from the Instagram accounts of 160 conservation organisation Instagram accounts were coded and analysed. Results highlight that the most common image elements used included natural backgrounds, mammals and birds, and no human presence. In addition, it was found that the taxon of the animal featured in a post and the presence of humans did not impact engagement levels. Our findings highlight the potential for Instagram posts to feature and promote a wide range of currently underrepresented species, and for conservation organisations to be able to confidently share and post images that promote positive perceptions of both the animal and the conservation organisation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Meghan N. Shaw
- Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Melbourne 3125, Australia; (W.T.B.); (K.K.M.)
- Correspondence:
| | - William T. Borrie
- Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Melbourne 3125, Australia; (W.T.B.); (K.K.M.)
| | - Emily M. McLeod
- Department of Wildlife Conservation and Science, Zoos Victoria, Parkville 3052, Australia;
| | - Kelly K. Miller
- Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Melbourne 3125, Australia; (W.T.B.); (K.K.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Williamson MJ, Curnick DJ, Jacoby DM, Durant SM, O’Neill HM. Ethical considerations in natural history film production and the need for industry-wide best practice. Glob Ecol Conserv 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01981] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
|
4
|
Bergman JN, Buxton RT, Lin HY, Lenda M, Attinello K, Hajdasz AC, Rivest SA, Tran Nguyen T, Cooke SJ, Bennett JR. Evaluating the benefits and risks of social media for wildlife conservation. Facets (Ott) 2022. [DOI: 10.1139/facets-2021-0112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Given its extensive volume and reach, social media has the potential to widely spread conservation messaging and be a powerful tool to mobilize social change for conserving biodiversity. We synthesized gray and primary academic literature to investigate the effects of social media on wildlife conservation, revealing several overarching benefits and risks. We found that social media can increase pro-conservation behaviours among the public, increase conservation funding, and incite policy changes. Conversely, social media can contribute to species exploitation and illegal trade, cause unprecedented increases in tourism in protected areas, and perpetuate anti-conservation behaviours via misinformation. In most cases, we found that content sharing on social media did not result in a detectable impact on conservation; in this paper, however, we focus on providing examples where conservation impact was achieved. We relate these positive and negative outcomes of social media to psychological phenomena that may influence conservation efforts and discuss limitations of our findings. We conclude with recommendations of best practices to social media administrators, public social media users, nongovernmental organizations, and governing agencies to minimize conservation risks while maximizing beneficial outcomes. By improving messaging, policing online misconduct, and providing guidance for action, social media can help achieve wildlife conservation goals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jordanna N. Bergman
- Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
| | - Rachel T. Buxton
- Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
| | - Hsien-Yung Lin
- Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
| | - Magdalena Lenda
- Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, 111 Ren’ai Road, Suzhou Industrial Park, Suzhou, Jiangsu, 215123, China
- Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Mickiewicza 33, Kraków, 31–120, Poland
| | - Kayla Attinello
- Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
| | - Adrianne C. Hajdasz
- Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
| | - Stephanie A. Rivest
- Department of Biology, University of Ottawa, 75 Laurier Avenue E, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada
| | - Thuong Tran Nguyen
- Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
| | - Steven J. Cooke
- Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
- Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
| | - Joseph R. Bennett
- Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
- Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Human Positioning in Close-Encounter Photographs and the Effect on Public Perceptions of Zoo Animals. Animals (Basel) 2021; 12:ani12010011. [PMID: 35011117 PMCID: PMC8749715 DOI: 10.3390/ani12010011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2021] [Revised: 12/08/2021] [Accepted: 12/18/2021] [Indexed: 02/02/2023] Open
Abstract
With the rising popularity of social media, conservation organisations and zoos need to understand its impact on public perceptions of the animals they house and their role in conservation. In addition, many zoos offer close-encounter experiences, and visitors frequently share images from these experiences online. This study measured the effects that viewing such encounter images had on public perceptions of both the zoo and the animals they saw. One of sixteen images was randomly presented to participants in two samples: one of Zoo Community followers and members of Zoos Victoria (n = 963), and a representative sample of the Australian public (n = 1619). Each image featured one of four animals (Eclectus parrot, Kangaroo Island kangaroo, Monteith's leaf insect, Centralian carpet python) and one of four human positions (human and animal touching, human and animal ~30 cm apart, human and animal ~1 m apart, animal alone). Results indicated that viewing different animals and the different human positions within these human-animal encounter images can affect public perceptions of zoo animals. In particular, the closer the proximity of a human to an animal in an image, the more likely respondents were to think that the animal was not displaying a natural behaviour and the more likely it was for General Public respondents to think that the animal would make a good pet. These findings can be used by zoos, wildlife tourism, and media organisations to ensure that they are sending clear, positive, and intended messages about zoo facilities and animals, as well as providing insights into animal encounter images in wider settings.
Collapse
|
6
|
Wilson A, Phillips CJC. Identification and Evaluation of African Lion ( Panthera leo) Cub Welfare in Wildlife-Interaction Tourism. Animals (Basel) 2021; 11:ani11092748. [PMID: 34573714 PMCID: PMC8466773 DOI: 10.3390/ani11092748] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2021] [Revised: 09/09/2021] [Accepted: 09/14/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
African lion (Panthera leo) cubs are extensively used in South Africa in wildlife-interaction tourist activities. Facilities provide close interaction opportunities, but the welfare impacts on the cubs are unclear. A workshop was held with 15 lion-experienced stakeholders, including government officials, nature conservationists, animal welfare organisations, lion breeders, lion handlers, an animal ethologist, wildlife veterinarian, wildlife rehabilitation specialist and an animal rights advocacy group representative. Individual representatives nominated a range of welfare concerns, and 15 were identified for discussion and prioritisation. The leading welfare concern was a lack of governance and regulation within the industry. Participants agreed on nine non-negotiable practices affecting welfare concerns, which included ethical concerns, such as cubs exiting into the ranching industry (farming of lions for hunting) and the bone trade (lions being slaughtered for their bones, which are exported for lion bone wine) once petting age has passed. Welfare concerns representative of current management practices within the lion cub interaction industry were compared for importance using an online adaptive conjoint analysis survey of 60 stakeholders in the industry. The survey identified the most important welfare concerns to be poor social grouping of cubs, an inability for cubs to choose their own environment and retreat from a forced interaction, a lack of trained and dedicated caretakers, and poor breeding practices. The conjoint analysis survey results produced a value model, which can be used as a tool to score cubs' welfare in interaction facilities, and it identified unacceptable practices lacking welfare consideration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ann Wilson
- Applied Behavioural Ecology and Ecosystem Research Unit (ABEERU), Department of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa, Private Bag X6, Florida 1710, South Africa
- Correspondence:
| | - Clive J. C. Phillips
- Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute, Curtin University, Kent St., Bentley, WA 6102, Australia;
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
The Welfare of Animals in Australian Filmed Media. Animals (Basel) 2021; 11:ani11071986. [PMID: 34359113 PMCID: PMC8300105 DOI: 10.3390/ani11071986] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2021] [Revised: 06/16/2021] [Accepted: 06/28/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Animals are frequently featured in film and television in Australia and globally. Monitoring and regulating animal welfare throughout production is therefore imperative for the film industry to maintain its social license to operate. In this commentary, we compare Australia’s state and territory-based legislation and regulation concerning the welfare of animals in filmed media to those in the United States and the United Kingdom and assess the regulations against the Five Domains Model of animal welfare. Historical examples of animal incidents in Australian film are used to illustrate deficiencies in regulation. We identify three themes of welfare concerns including incidents on-set, incidents off-set, and effects of portrayal on perception or ownership of specific species or breeds. A lack of uniform regulation across Australian states and territories is demonstrated, with regulations only partially addressing behavioural interactions or mental state of the animal. This highlights the need for standardised national legislation and improved monitoring and regulation of the welfare of animals in Australian filmed media. Abstract Animals play a significant role in the production of film and television in Australia and globally. Given this, regulating and monitoring their welfare on- and off-set is imperative. We therefore aim to compare Australia’s state and territory-based legislation and regulation to those in the United States and the United Kingdom and assess regulations against the Five Domains Model of animal welfare. Historical examples of animal incidents in Australian film are used to illustrate potential deficiencies. We reviewed archived media for animal welfare incidents on and off production sets. We demonstrate a lack of uniformity, with 37.5% (3/8) of states and territories providing targeted Codes of Practice for animals in filmed media, and partially addressing behavioural interactions or mental state within the Five Domains Model. Three themes of welfare concerns were identified including incidents on-set, incidents off-set, and effects of portrayal on perception or ownership of specific species. This highlights the need for standardised national legislation and improved monitoring and regulation. Further research should quantify the number of animals used in productions, describe the type and duration of the work the animals undertake, investigate the frequency of animal welfare incidents, and explore alternative methods to the use of live animals in film and television.
Collapse
|
8
|
Riordan C, Jacquet J, Franks B. Investigating the welfare and conservation implications of alligator wrestling for American Alligators (Alligator mississippiensis). PLoS One 2020; 15:e0242106. [PMID: 33186369 PMCID: PMC7665580 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242106] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2020] [Accepted: 10/26/2020] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Wildlife tourism attractions (WTA) are popular in the United States, but they may be harmful to the individual animals involved and we question whether they provide benefits to environmental conservation. Most research on the welfare and environmental implications of WTAs focuses on charismatic mammals, with few studies investigating these issues for reptiles. Here we examine alligator wrestling, including its impact on animal welfare and environmental conservation. Using a sample of 94 relevant YouTube videos of alligator wrestling in Florida representing 16 different venues, we coded the environmental and behavioral characteristics evident in each video. We then performed a content analysis of wrestlers’ narration in a subset of 51 videos to analyze the environmental awareness and educational components of alligator wrestling. Our results show systemic welfare harm: 11 venues housed adult alligators together with conspecifics, 96% of alligator wrestling performances facilitated direct contact in the form of physical restraint by one or more human wrestlers, and as many as 96% of the videos did not show a suitable water or waterside features for captive alligators. Furthermore, 12% of performances showed wrestlers flipping alligators onto their backs while 16% showed wrestlers tying alligators’ jaws shut, both of which are known to be acute stressors. Finally, just under half of alligator wrestling commentary (49%) addressed environmental conservation topics, and much of this commentary included contradictory or misleading information that is not likely to benefit alligators in the wild. We argue that alligator wrestling serves no role in promoting positive relationships between humans, animals, and the environment, and instead furthers traditional notions of dominion that undermine welfare and conservation aims.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Casey Riordan
- Department of Environmental Studies, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America
| | - Jennifer Jacquet
- Department of Environmental Studies, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America
| | - Becca Franks
- Department of Environmental Studies, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|