The Wildlife Welfare/Conservation Interface: ACES seminar by Pete Goddard

The wildlife welfare / conservation interface

Pete Goddard

Key points

1. The concept of wildlife welfare and the ethical stance

a) A brief overview of animal welfare in general

b) What welfare could mean to a wild animal?

2. How can we assess the welfare of a wild animal?

3. Can welfare values inform conservation decisions?

4. Do individual animals always really benefit from conservation?

As this outline suggests, I will present more questions than answers!

The ethical perspective on animal welfare –how ought we to treat animals?

Utilitarian – what matters are the interests of those who are being affected by what we do; the strongest interests prevail

Animal rights centred – recognition that animals have an inherent independent value

Species integrity – considering the value of the species to be important (perhaps the crux of the conservationist’s approach)

Agent-centred – considers how the way we treat animals impacts on us

Your personal approach to ethical issues will colour how you view the remainder of the seminar

– four different ways to view our duties to animals

Overview of animal welfare

What does welfare mean to a wild animal?

In the context of the current presentation: What could welfare mean to a wild animal?

Photo © Jerry Laker

What does the term “welfare” mean?

Definitions of welfare relate to:

I. Animal’s awareness of it’s situation

(subjective / feelings based)

II. Animal’s state in relation to it’s surroundings and its ability to cope

III. Nature-based – the ability to perform a full range of behaviours

Welfare is a state, not a quantity - no categorical units

An animal can be positioned on a welfare scale in relation to certain criteria

An element of human subjectivity in balancing welfare attributes

Feelings-based: whose feelings? A new research approach:

QBA – Qualitative Behavioural Assessment

An approach based on the descriptive terms developed by panels of observers and analysed statistically using approaches such as principal component analysis.

Shows a high degree of correlation regardless of the background or knowledge of the observers.

Important to ensure that it is not context-specific (ie will a group of animals in a well-bedded pen attract a different “description” to that of a similar group of animals in a barren pen, even if their behaviour is generally similar?)


Definitions of welfare:


(subjective)


III. Nature-based – the ability to perform a full range of behaviours

…. is this third approach more appropriate to wild animals?

If the second approach is easier to apply …


Definitions of welfare:


(subjective)


III. Nature-based – the ability to perform a full range of behavioursWe should consider both the physical and mental state of the individual

Attempt at the description of the term “welfare”

“The state of well-being brought about by meeting the physical, environmental, nutritional, behavioural and social needs of the animals or groups of animals under the care, supervision or influence of people” Appleby, 1996

“Welfare can vary between very poor and very good…” Broom & Johnson, 1993

Nb. Take care to avoid the North American use of the word “welfare” as something provided for those in need.

Why should we be concerned about wild animal welfare anyway? Is this too obvious a question?

Most people inherently sympathetic towards wild animals

For example they like to watch and sometimes interact with them

Animals considered sentient beings (able to experience) and so should be treated with some degree of respect

Recognition that we can have impacts on wild species

Societal differences

Possibly related to views about food animals / religious views

Different countries afford different “rights” to animals

Some of these embodied in legislation

Are there any areas of the world outside of the impact of Man where we don’t impact on wild animals in some way?

As a result of global changes

active conservation measures

may be undertaken to

preserve species

Only 10% of the world’s land is

more than 48 hours’ surface

travel from the nearest city –

leaving forests increasingly open

to human interference

(New Scientist 18.04.09)

Background to thinking about the concept of wildlife welfare

Consideration of wild animal welfare has received relatively little

attention – thus small evidence base

Populations or individuals?

Considerable body of knowledge in relation to farmed livestock

How should the welfare of wild or range animals be assessed?

Are there times we have special responsibility towards wild species?

I will use some examples from wild deer, vicuna & sea birds

Individuals versus groups or populations: another issue to be aware of when thinking about wildlife

Animal welfare is about the individual but…

..how do we balance serious issues for a small number against lesser issues for a large number?

..importantly for conservation, how do we balance the interests of one species against those of another (e.g. predator / prey relationships)?

A starting point:Our level of ethical responsibility

As animals become more “managed” or impacted does our ethical

responsibility increase?

Wild Managed

For example, with increasing intervention in relation to wild deer (fencing, culling, feeding) comes increased responsibility

FAWC’s “Five freedoms”

Freedom from hunger

and thirst

Freedom from discomfort

Freedom from pain,

injury or disease

Freedom to express

normal behaviour

Freedom from fear and

distress

Can we apply these to wild animals?

Is it appropriate to do so?

Photo Scott Newey

Five freedoms for wild animals

Freedom from hunger and

thirst


Freedom from pain, injury or

disease

Freedom to express normal

behaviour

Freedom from fear and

distress

Possibly compromised in natural

state +/- human involvement

Is this likely / possible for wild

animals?

Is this likely for wild animals?

Natural processes cause these

This is where wild animals “win”.

Any difference from domestic

livestock?

Issue of “normal” or “natural” behaviour to consider; for wildlife read “natural”?

Five freedoms for wild or managed animals

Wild Managed

For wild animals – should we intervene?

Freedom from hunger and thirst


Freedom from pain, injury or disease

Freedom to express normal

behaviour

Freedom from fear and distress

Should we intervene to:

Provide food and water at certain times?

Treat or kill animals in severe discomfort

or when injured or diseased?

Provide enhanced or protected

environments or influence predators?

How can we assess the welfare of a wild animal

Welfare can be assessed from observations of:•Physical state (e.g. the presence of emaciation, physical injuries or disease)•Behavioural signs (e.g. position in group; activity pattern; abnormal stance or gait)

So how shall we frame our assessment?

Second main area

A possible new welfare construct for wild animals

Ranging behaviour

Foraging behaviour / food availability

Breeding choice

Lifespan

Solitude vs disturbance

Health status

Does this alternative approach, which focuses on the “nature-based” definition of welfare, help us? Is this a better currency?

A possible new welfare construct for wild animals

Wild Managed

Health

Changes in behaviourAbnormal behaviour patternsChanges in physiologyHealth / mortality

Non-invasive methods to assess wild animal welfare

In all cases - which measures / timeframe

Photo Angela Sibbald

Using this alternative framework to consider wild deer

Nutrition / foraging behaviour

Habitat exclusion / ranging behaviour

Disturbance

Disease / injury incidence

Breeding choice

All things we could evaluate

Using an understanding of population dynamics

Comparing pre- and post-action

disturbance

Long-term reproductive success

Distribution patterns

Impact of human disturbance on red deer

Jayakody, S., Sibbald, A.M., Gordon, I.J. & Lambin, X. 2008:

Red deer Cervus elaphus vigilance behaviour differs with

habitat and type of human disturbance. - Wildl. Biol. 14: 81-91

Photo Sevvandi Jayakody

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Feeding Vigilant

Behaviour type

%

Less_disturbed

Disturbed

Deer fencing - exclosure

A recognition by deer managers that they should aim to prevent welfare problems from arising e.g. winter starvation or exposure, in deer fenced out of winter feeding grounds.

Placing an animal on a welfare scale

Perceived level of welfare Very good

Very poor

Underpinning legislation

Enhanced welfare provision

Presence of negative welfare indicators

Presence of positive welfare indicators

The importance of the presence of positive indicators – do we have these for wild animals?

© Pete Goddard

A life worth living:

Perceived level of welfareVery goodVery poor

Underpinning legislation

Enhanced welfare schemes

Avoidance of negative welfare indicators

Presence of positive welfare indicators

A life not worth living A life worth living A good life

Who should be the guardian of animals in the wild?

© Pete Goddard

Can welfare values inform decisions about sustainable use and conservation?

Third main area

Sustainable use

Socioeconomic benefits

Population conservation

Habitat conservation

Interactions between conservation and welfare objectives in sustainable use

Modified from Bonacic et al., 2009

Sustainable use

Animal welfare

Socioeconomic benefits

Population conservation

Habitat conservation

Modified from Bonacic et al., 2009

Interactions between conservation and welfare objectives in sustainable use

What types of situation give rise to welfare concerns?

Harvesting – such as hunting (consumptive use)

Human “invasion” into wildlife territory

Animals in reserves

Translocation (assisted colonisation)

Captivity of range animals – reindeer example

Ecotourism and disturbance

Welfare and nuisance / pest control

Protection of vulnerable habitats (animal impacts)

Indirect effects (e.g. climate change)

….Many others you can all think of

As an example: The ethical cost:benefit review of translocation and reintroduction Need to capture all of the “costs”

Many of the welfare costs of working with wild animals also map on to the “cost” considerations for treating wildlife casualties:

Capture and captivity Impacts on dependant young Close handling / treatment

Welfare risks after release through

Release into unfamiliar territory Competition for resources Post-release survival Introduction of infection Predator: prey imbalance

Benefits may be easier to ascribe to conspecifics / other species so this justification may be more acceptable to some people

Populations on the welfare balance: an example of potential conflict for an individual

Increasing numbers

High population density

Welfare

Do population dynamics change as we manage animals?

Higher welfare

Lower welfare

A “Best Practice” example - Welfare: definition & assessment

Impact on the deer Sever ity Duration Number

affected

Problem Outcome High

Moderate

Low

Minutes

Days

Life

Stags

Hinds

Calves

© DCS

Welfare: definition & assessment


affected


Moderate

Low

Minutes

Days

Life

Stags

Hinds

Calves

Removal of

feeding

ground

W inter

mor tality

Moderate Months High

X hinds

Y calves

© DCS

Welfare: definition & assessment


affected


Moderate

Low

Minutes

Days

Life

Stags

Hinds

Calves

Removal of

feeding

ground

W inter

mor tality

Moderate Months High

X hinds

Y calves

© DCS

An aside: Dealing with casualties

Casualties may arise as a direct result of conservation measures

You may come across casualty and diseased animals during the course of your work

What will you do?

What responsibilities do you have?

Should you intervene?

Generally accepted that anthropogenic injuries should be treated

(See BSAVA manual of wildlife casualties)

Vertebrate pest control has welfare implications to evaluate

Trapping – (and evaluation of humaneness and effectiveness of new

traps)

Poisons / pesticides

May be more difficult to develop test standards but objective end points are valuable (e.g. looking at a range of behavioural and physiological responses)

Scope for reducing uptake by non-target species

Fertility control

Deterrents

A specific ethical perspective for “compassionate conservation” (not my descriptor!)

The (UK) public view of wildlife conservation

An alternative view of wildlife as pests

The likelihood of benefit to the wildlife

species themselves

Impact on the ecosystem of removing /

reintroducing individuals

Potential disease aspects following

reintroduction

Can we develop a cost:benefit approach to

inform our actions?

Cost:benefit of welfare for farm animals:Can this approach be used for wild animals?

FARM - Level of production / output / value

After McInerney, 1991

A C

D

Leve

l of

anim

al w

elfa

re

B

Economic approach to resolve conflicts

Cost:benefit of welfare for farm animals:Can this approach be used for wild animals?

WILD – Anthropogenic impact

After McInerney, 1991

A C

D

Leve

l of

anim

al w

elfa

re

B

Ethical approach to resolve conflicts

Welfare aspects of shearing the Andean vicuña: sustainable use within an ethical framework

Do individual wild animals benefit from conservation actions? A possible “yes” and a possible “no”

Photos © Jerry Laker

Fourth main area

Opportunities for community engagement in conservation and management

Involving communities in wildlife management and welfare in the Andean altiplano through sustainable use of vicuña.


Management systems developed based on animal welfare

Investigate the effects of capture, shearing and release on:• disturbance• reproduction• longevity• post-management losses• subsequent feeding behaviour

Audit of welfare and behaviour:• guidelines on best management practice

• improved handling andshearing techniques

Taking a balanced or holistic view using a range of information

Combining field study data with animals held in temporary captivity and treated in the same way

Using data from a range of variables

Post-capture behaviour

Reproductive success

Social groupings

? Life expectancy

Faecal steroid concentrations



Back to your ethical perspective: When should you

intervene to resolve a wild animal problem?

Normal homeostasis

Behavioural and physiological responses to stress

Pre-pathological stage

Reproductive problems

Pathological stage & population problems Conservation

problem

Welfare problem

Modified from Bonacic personal comm., 2007

Do individual animals always benefit from conservation actions? A wildlife catastrophe -

RSPB estimated that 10,000 seabirds along over 100 miles of coastline in SW England were affected by oil pollution caused by the deliberate grounding of MSC Napoli on 20 January, 2007.

Guillemots were the most affected (18 species significantly affected overall)

Your challenge: Should seabirds have been treated or euthanased?

Is this a conservation or a welfare issue? Where does the balance lie?

Another wildlife catastrophe – with both welfare and conservation impacts

Is this a conservation / aesthetic issue or one to do with animal welfare?

At the 2010 ISAE conference we asked workshop attendees if they believed animal conservation raises any important welfare challenges. VAS : never to always 81 / 110

The welfare vs conservation balance

Species of high conservation status

Common species, not listed in any SAP etc.

Acceptable compromise to welfare

One viewpoint: do you agree?

Can compromise individual welfare

Can’t compromise individual welfare

The welfare vs conservation balance

Species of high public affection – iconic; aesthetic value; …

Species not held in high public regard

Acceptable compromise to welfare

Another viewpoint: do you agree?

Welfare aspects of shearing the Andean vicuña: how do the ultimate consumers value conservation / sustainable use / animal welfare of the animal in its environment?

An international perspective – are there common standards?



At the same conference we asked workshop attendees if they considered animal welfare concerns were used to guide field conservation practice. VAS : never to always 42 / 110

Conservation:welfare approach for the future

An ethical review of all conservation

interventions: look at the system

overall - working through trade-offs

Assessment of “lifetime” welfare

account - for individual or

population subject to conservation

measures

Identification of specific welfare

weaknesses in conservation actions

The conservation manager to be

more focused on welfare

Legislators or independent groups to lead ?

Is there a need for legislation to prevent or reduce wildlife welfare problems during conservation?

Legislation aimed at / restricted to:

game parks / reserves, transport, hunting, other proactive management

Consumer / visitor pressure through choice

positive or negative

There is great scope for positive interaction between those concerned with both wildlife welfare and conservation

The Vicuña

The Theory and Practice of Community-Based Wildlife Management

http://springer.com/978-0-387-09475-5

http://compassionateconservation.org/


Questions to take away:

As wild animals become more

“managed” does our

responsibility for their welfare

increase?

What measures are meaningful?

How do we reconcile the

conservation of populations with

the welfare of individual wild

animals?

How do we trade off different

welfare compromises for wildlife?Would this red deer hind prefer to be in the wild or on our deer farm?

Education

The Wildlife Welfare/Conservation Interface: ACES seminar by Pete Goddard