Animal Welfare in Predator Control: Lessons from Land and Sea. How the Management of Terrestrial and Marine Mammals Impacts Wild Animal Welfare in Human-Wildlife Conflict Scenarios in Europe

The Animal Welfare Consequences and Moral Implications of Lethal and Non-Lethal Fox Control Methods

Control methods are applied worldwide to reduce predation on livestock by European red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Lethal methods can inflict suffering; however, moral debate about their use is lacking. Non-lethal methods can also inflict suffering and can unintentionally lead to death, and yet both the welfare consequences and ethical perspectives regarding their use are rarely discussed. The aim of this study was to investigate the animal welfare consequences, the level of humaneness, the ethical considerations and the moral implications of the global use of fox control methods according to Tom Regan's animal rights view and Peter Singer's utilitarian view. According to Regan, foxes ought not to be controlled by either lethal or potentially harmful non-lethal methods because this violates the right of foxes not to be harmed or killed. According to Singer, if an action maximises happiness or the satisfaction of preferences over unhappiness or suffering, then the action is justified. Therefore, if and only if the use of fox control methods can prevent suffering and death in livestock in a manner that outweighs comparable suffering and death in foxes is one morally obligated to use them. It is clear that lethal fox control methods and some non-lethal methods are inhumane.

Human-Wild Animal Conflict in Banja Woreda, Awi Zone, Ethiopia

Human-wild animal conflict has serious conservation consequences, both for populations of wild animals and for the people who live around wild animals’ habitats. The aim of this study was to assess the human-wild animal conflict in Banja Woreda, Awi Zone, Ethiopia. First, the area was selected purposively because it is expected to be prone to a high level of human-wild animal conflict, and then the selected areas were stratified based on the distance to wild animals’ habitats. A total of 95 household heads (HHs) from the two kebeles were interviewed using structured and semistructured questionnaires. Additional information was also gathered through focus group discussions (FGDs), key informant interviews, and personal observation during data collection. About 84 (88%) of the respondents replied that wild animals had an effect on the livelihood of the local communities through both crop and livestock loss. The crop and animal loss was different across the distance categories of the study area ( $P<0.05$ ). The highest proportion of loss was reported in the closest settlement than far-located settlements. The chi-square association test shows that there was a significant association ( $P<0.05$ ) between livelihood activity across crops and domestic animal loss. The farmers who led their livelihoods in both farming and livestock activity reported higher animal and crop losses than the only farming or livestock activity. The crop types that were more raided by wild animals were maize and potato. The risks of crop raiding were significantly different among crop varieties ( $P<0.05$ ). Wild animals affected crops in different development stages, and mature stage ranked the first followed by fruiting stage. Crop growth stages that were attacked by wild animals showed significant variations ( $P<0.05$ ). Of the crop type that was attacked by wild animals, potato was highly attacked, which reaches to 113.8 quintals (28%), followed by maize 96 quintals (23%) and small millet 74.7 quintals (18%) within three years. The loss of crops in the kebeles was not significantly different ( $P>0.05$ ). Wild animals also affected the domestic animals; accordingly, 79 (83.2%) of the respondents replied that wild animals attacked all domestic animals and the remaining 16 (16.8%) said wild animals attacked goats, sheep, and chickens. However, the animal loss in the kebeles was not significantly different ( $P>0.05$ ). The trend of the population status of wild animals was significantly different among the perceptions of respondents ( $P<0.05$ ). The settlement near the forest habitat of wild animals and habitat loss due to agricultural expansion and deforestation were the major causes of conflict. The proportion of the causes of human-wild animal conflict in the area was significantly different ( $P<0.05$ ). According to the respondents, the most effective controlling mechanisms of the conflict were guarding, followed by fencing and slipping at night in cropland. Out of the total number of respondents, 65 (68.4%) said guarding is the most effective conflict control mechanism, for protecting both crop and livestock. To limit the negative impact of human-wild animal conflict, good wild animal habitat management is required, such as minimizing agricultural expansion and overgrazing, demarcating the forest habitats for wild animals only, and creating awareness among local communities.

Wildlife Trade for Belief-Based Use: Insights From Traditional Healers in South Africa

The use of animals and plants as traditional remedies for medical and magico-religious purposes has a long history of socio-cultural and economic importance in South Africa. Herein, we aim to characterize the social and economic value of wild animal species used in traditional, belief-based medicine within South Africa from traditional healers’ perspective and to explore healers’ knowledge of plant-based alternatives to wildlife-based derivatives for this type of trade. Through structured surveys with five traditional healers, we sought to gain insight into the range of wild animal species used, as well as the purpose, the perceived commercial value and the perceived availability of commonly used species. Particular focus was placed on exploring the socio-economic value of lions due to their prominence within the traditional medicine market, both in South Africa and internationally. Three of the respondents interviewed had been generating an income from traditional healing for between 30 and 50 years, and the overall monetary gain across all respondents was between ZAR 30,000 (1,800 USD) and 120,000 (7,200 USD) per annum. Our study confirms that a wide range of wild animal species are used in traditional healing practices in South Africa, for both medicinal and magico-religious purposes. The traditional healers we interviewed cited 20 common wild animals from a range of vertebrate classes including birds, reptiles, mammals, and one invertebrate. These included a number of species listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Traditional healers cited 32 different uses for wild animal parts, as well as 19 alternative plant-based preparations. For lions specifically, four out of five practitioners listed lions among their top three profitable derivatives and three practitioners reported that lion had become the most rare or unavailable species in the last 5 years. Although our study is based on a limited number of interview participants, we believe that our findings provide valuable initial insights into the socio-economic drivers of traditional healing practices in South Africa, and that further research quantifying medicinal and belief-based use of wild animal ingredients and their plant-based alternatives could help to inform approaches to managing related pressures exerted on wild populations in South Africa in the future.

Increasing the Awareness of Animal Welfare Science in Marine Mammal Conservation: Addressing Language, Translation and Reception Issues

Simple Summary

Traditional conservation strategy focuses on population-level effects. However, the rapidly evolving scientific discipline of animal welfare science, in conjunction with growing societal expectations around the value of individuals, is prompting change in conservation. Despite growing recognition of this approach in terrestrial conservation efforts, limited application of animal welfare science to marine mammals has been observed. To investigate the factors underlying this disparity, we undertook an initial “Welfare in the Wild” workshop at the 32nd European Cetacean Society conference (La Spezia, Italy) to explore expert opinion on this topic. Secondly, we analysed the English language peer-reviewed literature to assess to what extent marine mammal welfare research is reported. The results of the workshop reveal a range of views about the scientific discipline of animal welfare science, with participants’ definitions varying depending on their disciplinary expertise. Meanwhile, the extensive literature review spanning 1950 to July 2020 revealed extremely low reporting of research related to welfare in the context of marine mammals, with only 0.96% (n = 299) of all published articles on marine mammal taxa (n = 31,221) featuring the word welfare in either the title, abstract or keywords. This highlighted a need to explore differences and distil common themes. Here we suggest practical solutions to the language, translation and reception issues of this cross-disciplinary collaboration between animal welfare science and marine mammal conservation.

Abstract

Integrating welfare principles into conservation strategy is an emerging synthesis that encourages consideration of individual animals’ quality of life in research, policies and law. However, these principles have gained limited traction in marine compared to terrestrial animal conservation. This manuscript investigates several factors that may be contributing to this disparity. In order to gauge current understanding of animal welfare science principles by marine mammal researchers and other stakeholders, a “Welfare in the Wild” workshop was convened at the 32nd European Cetacean Society conference (La Spezia, Italy, April 2018). The workshop was attended by 30 participants who completed pre- and post-workshop surveys on animal welfare principles. The survey results highlight a range of different views about exactly what animal welfare science is and how it can be applied to marine mammals. Specifically, participants’ definitions appeared to vary depending on the type of employment or research they engaged in, indicating a need for an interdisciplinary common language. Secondly, we analysed the peer-reviewed literature in order to ascertain where marine mammal publications exploring welfare were being published. From 1950 to July 2020, a total of 299 articles featured both marine mammal taxa (one or more) and the word welfare in the title, abstract or keywords. This represents just 0.96% of the total peer-reviewed published papers on marine mammal taxa (n = 31,221) during the same period. When examining articles published within “Welfare and Ethics” (n = 6133) and “Aquatic-focused” (n = 139,352) journals, just 1.2% (n = 71) and 0.04% (n = 57) of articles, respectively, featured the word welfare when examining marine mammals. With the aim of exploring how explicitly including welfare evaluations in marine mammal research and management can benefit conservation outcomes, we framed our workshop and quantitative literature review findings to provide practical solutions to the language, translation and reception issues of this burgeoning cross-disciplinary collaboration.

Estimating the Cultural Value of Wild Animals in the Qinling Mountains, China: A Choice Experiment

In this study, we use the choice experiment method to evaluate the value of wild animals in the surrounding areas of the Changqing National Nature Reserve in China. For areas focused on biodiversity conservation, the results of wild animal value evaluation can provide a basis for the formulation of local ecological compensation standards. We identified wild animals, natural landscape features, infrastructure and facilities, and ticket price as major attributes determining the utility and value of the reserve area. The results of our field survey suggest that the cultural value of wild animals is significantly higher than the value of the infrastructure and other natural landscapes. Tourists indicated a willingness-to-pay of 31.4 Yuan to see wild animals in captivity, compared to 71.9 Yuan to see wild animals in the field. Moreover, tourists with different characteristics have different preferences for the cultural value of wildlife. Female tourists have a higher willingness-to-pay than male tourists. In addition, as age, education, and income level increase, tourists' willingness-to-pay also increases. These conclusions can provide a reference for local government to formulate wildlife protection compensation and ecotourism ticket pricing.

Minimizing animal welfare harms associated with predation management in agro-ecosystems

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.