Scientific Assessment of the Welfare of Trapped Mammals—Key Considerations for the Use of the Sharp and Saunders Humaneness Assessment Model
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Scientific Assessment of Animal Welfare Is Important to the Success of Wildlife Management Programs
2. The Sharp and Saunders Humaneness Assessment Model Is Based on the Five Domains Model and Facilitates Systematic, Holistic, Data-Based Assessments of Relative Welfare Impacts of Trapping
2.1. Animal Welfare and the Five Domains Model for Welfare Assessment
2.2. Application of the Sharp and Saunders model to Assess Trap Impacts
Trap | Domain 1 | Domain 2 | Domain 3 | Domain 4 | Domain 5 | Duration | Impact Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Padded foot-hold traps (e.g., Victor Soft Catch #3) | Mild (No food/water for ≤24 h) | Mild (Assumes fair weather and in shade) | Mild–Moderate (Mostly minor skin lacerations; Some leg dislocations, tooth/mouth injuries) | Moderate (Stress hormone levels high, struggling, disruption of natural behaviours) | Moderate (Anxiety, fear, frustration due to restraint, pain from injuries and struggling) | Hours | 5 |
Padded leg-hold traps (e.g., ‘off the shelf’ padded Lanes Dingo trap) | Mild (No food/water for ≤24 h) | Mild (Assumes fair weather and in shade) | Moderate–Severe (Heavy traps tend to catch higher on leg; Leg fractures and amputations, tooth/mouth injuries) | Moderate (Stress hormone levels high, struggling, disruption of natural behaviours) | Moderate–Severe (Anxiety, fear, frustration due to restraint, pain from significant injuries and struggling) | Hours | 5–6 |
Cage trap | Mild (Food bait but no water for ≤24 h) | Mild (Assumes fair weather and in shade) | Mild (Minor injuries; tooth, mouth, nose) | Moderate (Some stress due to restraint, struggling, disruption of natural behaviours) | Mild (Anxiety, distress due to restraint) | Hours | 4 |
Method | Suffering | Duration | Impact Score |
---|---|---|---|
Shooting (head) | Mild (Approach of human will cause some distress) | Immediate—Seconds | B |
Strychnine | Extreme (Nervousness, stiffness, progressively more frequent and intense tetanic seizures, extensor rigidity, hyperthermia, death due to exhaustion or asphyxiation) | Hours | G |
Lethal injection | Mild (Approach of human will cause some distress; some pain associated with intramuscular injection) | Minutes | C |
2.3. Advantages of the Sharp and Saunders Model for Assessing Trap Impacts on Welfare
3. Key Considerations for Applying the Sharp and Saunders Model and Applications of the Outcomes of Such Assessments
3.1. Determining the Right Trapping Scenario for Assessment
3.2. Assessments Should Be Robustly Evidenced, and Panels Include Diverse Expertise
3.3. Inferences of Animals’ Mental Experiences Should Be Based on Appropriate Indicators and an Indication of the Panel’s Confidence in Their Scores Should Be Presented
4. Concluding Remarks
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Iossa, G.; Soulsbury, C.D.; Harris, S. Mammal trapping: A review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining traps. Anim. Welf. 2007, 16, 335–352. [Google Scholar]
- Talling, J.C.; Inglis, I.R. Improvements to Trapping Standards; European Commission Directorate-General for Environment: Brussels, Belgium, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Silva, N.J. The Wildlife Techniques Manual: Management, 7th ed.; The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2012; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Baker, S.E.; Ellwood, S.A.; Tagarielli, V.L.; Macdonald, D.W. Mechanical performance of rat, mouse and mole spring traps, and possible implications for welfare performance. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e39334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mellor, D.J.; Beausoleil, N.J.; Stafford, K.J. Marking Amphibians, Reptiles and Marine Mammals: Animal Welfare, Practicalities and Public Perceptions in New Zealand; Department of Conservation: Wellington, New Zealand, 2004.
- Baker, S.E. A voluntary trap approval scheme to end trap welfare inequality in the UK. Anim. Welf. 2017, 26, 131–133. [Google Scholar]
- Proulx, G.; Cattet, M.; Serfass, T.L.; Baker, S.E. Updating the AIHTS trapping standards to improve animal welfare and capture efficiency and selectivity. Animals 2020, 10, 1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Littin, K.E.; Mellor, D.J.; Warburton, B.; Eason, C.T. Animal welfare and ethical issues relevant to the humane control of vertebrate pests. N. Z. Vet. J. 2004, 52, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beausoleil, N.J.; Fisher, P.; Littin, K.E.; Warburton, B.; Mellor, D.J.; Dalefield, R.R.; Cowan, P. A systematic approach to evaluating and ranking the relative animal welfare impacts of wildlife control methods: Poisons used for lethal control of brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) in New Zealand. Wildl. Res. 2016, 43, 553–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beausoleil, N.J.; Mellor, D.J.; Baker, L.; Baker, S.E.; Bellio, M.; Clarke, A.S.; Dale, A.; Garlick, S.; Jones, B.; Harvey, A.; et al. “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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hampton, J.O.; Hyndman, T.H.; Barnes, A.; Collins, T. Is wildlife fertility control always humane? Animals 2015, 5, 1047–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harvey, A.; Beausoleil, N.J.; Ramp, D.; Mellor, D.J. A ten-stage protocol for assessing the welfare of individual non-captive wild animals: Free-roaming horses (Equus ferus caballus) as an example. Animals 2020, 10, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boulet, M.; Borg, K.; Faulkner, N.; Smith, L. Evenly split: Exploring the highly polarized public response to the use of lethal methods to manage overabundant native wildlife in Australia. J. Nat. Conserv. 2021, 61, 125995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Futureye. Commodity or sentient being? Australia’s Shifting Mindset on Farm Animal Welfare; Futureye Pty Ltd.: Canberra, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Manfredo, M.J.; Teel, T.L.; Henry, K.L. Linking society and environment: A multilevel model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the Western United States. Soc. Sci. Q. 2009, 90, 407–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manfredo, M.J.; Teel, T.L.; Berl, R.E.W.; Bruskotter, J.T.; Kitayama, S. Social value shift in favour of biodiversity conservation in the United States. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 4, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharp, T.; Saunders, G. A Model for Assessing the Relative Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods; Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Canberra, Australia, 2008.
- Sharp, T.; Saunders, G. A Model for Assessing the Relative Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods, 2nd ed.; Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Canberra, Australia, 2011.
- Clegg, I.L.K.; Borger-Turner, J.L.; Eskelinen, H.C. C-Well: The development of a welfare assessment index for captive bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Anim. Welf. 2015, 24, 267–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fletcher, K.A.; Cameron, L.J.; Freeman, M. Contemplating the Five Domains model of animal welfare assessment: UK horse owner perceptions of equine well-being. Anim. Welf. 2021, 30, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Littlewood, K.E.; Mellor, D.J. Changes in the welfare of an injured working farm dog assessed using the Five Domains model. Animals 2016, 6, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nicol, C.; Bejder, L.; Green, L.; Johnson, C.; Keeling, L.; Noren, D.; Van der Hoop, J.; Simmonds, M. Anthropogenic threats to wild cetacean welfare and a tool to inform policy in this area. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mellor, D.J.; Beausoleil, N.J.; Littlewood, K.E.; McLean, A.N.; McGreevy, P.D.; Jones, B.; Wilkins, C. The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including human-animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals 2020, 10, 1870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, S.E.; Ayers, M.; Beausoleil, N.J.; Belmain, S.; Berdoy, M.; Buckle, A.; Cagienard, C.; Cowan, D.; Fearn-Daglish, J.; Goddard, P.; et al. An assessment of animal welfare impacts in wild Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) management. Anim. Welf. 2022, 31, 51–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, S.E.; Sharp, T.M.; Macdonald, D.W. Assessing animal welfare impacts in the management of European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), European moles (Talpa europaea) and Carrion crows (Corvus corone). PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0146298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, P.; Campion, M.; Warburton, B.; Booth, L. How Humane Are Our Pest Control Tools? Part. 3. Leg-Hold Traps, Rotenone, Alphachloralose and DRC-1339; Prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries: Wellington, New Zealand, 2010; pp. 1–33.
- Fraser, D.; Duncan, I.J.H. ‘Pleasures’, ‘pains’ and animal welfare: Towards a natural history of affect. Anim. Welf. 1998, 7, 383–396. [Google Scholar]
- Mellor, D.J.; Beausoleil, N.J. Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Anim. Welf. 2015, 24, 241–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denton, D.A.; McKinley, M.J.; Farrell, M.; Egan, G.F. The role of primordial emotions in the evolutionary origin of consciousness. Conscious. Cogn. 2009, 18, 500–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mellor, D.J. Welfare-aligned sentience: Enhanced capacities to experience, interact, anticipate, choose and survive. Animals 2019, 9, 440–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mendl, M.; Burman, O.H.P.; Paul, E.S. An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 277, 2895–2904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paul, E.S.; Edgar, J.L.; Caplen, G.; Nicol, C.J. Examining affective structure in chickens: Valence, intensity, persistence and generalization measured using a Conditioned Place Preference test. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018, 207, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beausoleil, N.J.; Fisher, P.; Warburton, B.; Mellor, D.J. Vertebrate toxic agents and kill traps in mammal species. In How Humane Are Our Pest Control Tools? MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Technical Paper No: 2011/01; MAF Biosecurity: Wellington, New Zealand, 2010; pp. 1–102. [Google Scholar]
- Beausoleil, N.J.; Mellor, D.J. Advantages and limitations of the Five Domains model for assessing welfare impacts associated with vertebrate pest control. N. Z. Vet. J. 2015, 63, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beausoleil, N.J. Beyond the obvious: How can we better see the welfare impacts that might be there? In Proceedings of the Zoo and Aquarium Association Australasia Animal Welfare Workshop, Wellington, New Zealand, 26–27 May 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Harrington, L.A.; Moehrenschlager, A.; Gelling, M.; Atkinson, R.P.D.; Hughes, J.; Macdonald, D.W. Conflicting and complementary ethics of animal welfare considerations in reintroductions. Conserv. Biol. 2013, 27, 486–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McMahon, C.R.; Harcourt, R.; Bateson, P.P.; Hindell, M. Animal welfare and decision making in wildlife research. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 153, 254–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubois, S.; Fenwick, N.; Ryan, E.A.; Baker, L.; Baker, S.E.; Beausoleil, N.J.; Carter, S.; Cartwright, B.; Costa, F.; Draper, C.; et al. International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 31, 753–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dizney, L.; Jones, P.D.; Ruedas, L.A. Efficacy of three types of live traps used for surveying small mammals in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest. Nat. 2008, 89, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, G.; Littin, K.E. The humaneness of rodent pest control. Anim. Welf. 2003, 12, 1–37. [Google Scholar]
- Proulx, G.; Rodtka, D. Killing traps and snares in North America: The need for stricter checking time periods. Animals 2019, 9, 570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Parrott, D.; Quy, R.; Van Driel, K.; Lurz, P.; Rushton, S.; Gurnell, J.; Aebischer, N.; Reynolds, J. Review of Red Squirrel Conservation Activity in Northern England. A Report by Fera to Natural England (NECR019); Natural England: Sheffield, UK, 2009.
- Beausoleil, N.J.; Mellor, D.J. Validating indicators of sheep welfare. In Achieving Sustainable Production of Sheep; Greyling, J., Ed.; Burleigh Dodds Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 327–343. [Google Scholar]
- Littin, K.E.; Fisher, P.; Beausoleil, N.J.; Sharp, T. Welfare aspects of vertebrate pest control and culling: Ranking vertebrate control techniques for humaneness. Sci. Tech. Rev. Off. Int. Des. Epizoot. 2014, 33, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Species/Taxon | Trap Type | Country | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) | Cage (live) | United Kingdom | [24] |
Snap (break-back/neck) | United Kingdom | [24] | |
Glue board (live) | United Kingdom | [24] | |
Rodents | Cage (live) | Australia | [18] * |
Snap (break-back/neck) | Australia | [18] | |
Glue board (live) | Australia | [18] | |
European mole (Talpa europaea) | Spring | United Kingdom | [25] |
Box (live) | United Kingdom | [25] | |
Feral cat | Cage (live) | Australia | [18] |
Foot-hold | Australia | [18] | |
Feral goat | Pen/Yard-type | Australia | [18] |
Feral horse | Pen/Yard-type | Australia | [18] |
Feral pig | Pen/Yard-type | Australia | [18] |
European fox (Vulpes vulpes) | Cage (live) | Australia | [18] |
Padded foot-hold | Australia | [18] | |
Padded leg-hold | Australia | [18] | |
Rabbit | Padded foot-hold | Australia | [18] |
Feral/Wild deer | Single pen/yard-type | Australia | [18] |
Group pen/yard-type | Australia | [18] | |
Wild dog (Canis familiaris) | Cage (live) | Australia | [18] |
Padded foot-hold | Australia | [18] | |
Padded leg-hold | Australia | [18] | |
Brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) | Padded and unpadded leg-hold | New Zealand | [26] |
Confidence Score | Level of Confidence |
---|---|
0 | No animal data available, possible negative affective experiences inferred from human reports |
1 | Low confidence, more specific/detailed animal data required |
2 | Moderate confidence, more specific/detailed animal data would clarify |
3 | High confidence |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Beausoleil, N.J.; Baker, S.E.; Sharp, T. Scientific Assessment of the Welfare of Trapped Mammals—Key Considerations for the Use of the Sharp and Saunders Humaneness Assessment Model. Animals 2022, 12, 402. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030402
Beausoleil NJ, Baker SE, Sharp T. Scientific Assessment of the Welfare of Trapped Mammals—Key Considerations for the Use of the Sharp and Saunders Humaneness Assessment Model. Animals. 2022; 12(3):402. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030402
Chicago/Turabian StyleBeausoleil, Ngaio J., Sandra E. Baker, and Trudy Sharp. 2022. "Scientific Assessment of the Welfare of Trapped Mammals—Key Considerations for the Use of the Sharp and Saunders Humaneness Assessment Model" Animals 12, no. 3: 402. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030402
APA StyleBeausoleil, N. J., Baker, S. E., & Sharp, T. (2022). Scientific Assessment of the Welfare of Trapped Mammals—Key Considerations for the Use of the Sharp and Saunders Humaneness Assessment Model. Animals, 12(3), 402. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030402