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?)
What does the term “welfare” mean?
Definitions of welfare:
I. Animal’s awareness of it’s situation
(subjective)
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
…. is this third approach more appropriate to wild animals?
If the second approach is easier to apply …
What does the term “welfare” mean?
Definitions of welfare:
I. Animal’s awareness of it’s situation
(subjective)
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 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 discomfort
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 discomfort
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
Impact on the deer Sever ity Duration Number
affected
Problem Outcome High
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
Impact on the deer Sever ity Duration Number
affected
Problem Outcome High
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.
Photos © Jerry Laker
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
Photo © Jerry Laker
Photo © Jerry Laker
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?
Photo © Jerry Laker
Photo © Jerry Laker
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/
Photos © Jerry Laker
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?