Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
5.2
2.7
Journals
Animals
Special Issues
Wild Animal Welfare: Science, Ethics and Law
share announcement

Wild Animal Welfare: Science, Ethics and Law

A special issue of Animals (ISSN 2076-2615). This special issue belongs to the section "Animal Welfare".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 30 September 2026 | Viewed by 3195

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Alexandre Azevedo

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
CIVG—Vasco da Gama Research Centre, Department of Veterinary Sciences, Vasco da Gama University School, Avenida José R. Sousa Fernandes 197, 3020-210 Lordemão, Portugal
Interests: wildlife health; wild animal welfare; conservation; human–animal bond; animal-based indicators
Dr. Manuel Magalhães-Sant'Ana

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
Interests: bioethics; animal ethics; veterinary ethics; human–animal bond; evidence-based veterinary medicine

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The welfare of wild animals is a growing public concern, often leading to polarized views. Those driven by conservation perspectives prioritize ecological processes and populations, while those focused on individual animals tend to approach natural processes, such as premature death or predation, as welfare issues to be addressed. Some believe intervention is necessary only when humans cause harm, while others advocate for minimizing suffering whenever possible, regardless of anthropogenic interference. In turn, conservation policies vary greatly between jurisdictions, reflecting cultural and economic priorities, ethical values, and legal frameworks. These conflicting views create challenges in finding One Health/One Welfare approaches that can balance human interests, ecological sustainability, and animal welfare.

This conundrum raises challenging questions: Should all wild animals be considered equally? And if not, where should we draw a line of moral concern? Can we improve the welfare of some wild animals without harming other related animals? How can regulations shape policy and action to reconcile wild animal welfare against the needs of people?

Robust scientific information is crucial for evidence-based decisions and bridging the gaps that fuel polarization. In this Special Issue, we invite submissions of original research on wild animal welfare science, ethics, and law. We also welcome reviews, reflective papers on ethical views or regulatory frameworks, and social science research focusing on captive and free-ranging wildlife, recognizing the importance of diverse approaches in advancing wild animal welfare.

Dr. Alexandre Azevedo
Dr. Manuel Magalhães-Sant'Ana
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Animals is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • animal welfare
  • wildlife
  • wild animals
  • in situ conservation
  • ex situ conservation
  • wildlife management
  • biodiversity
  • predation

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (3 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

33 pages, 732 KB  
Article
China’s Legal Protection System for Pangolins: Past, Present, and Future
by Da Su, Kai Wu and Anzi Nie
Animals 2025, 15(16), 2422; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15162422 - 18 Aug 2025
Viewed by 584
Abstract
This article examines the historical evolution, contemporary dynamics, and future trajectory of China’s legal and judicial framework for pangolin protection. By reviewing over seventy years of regulatory changes, case law, and policy implementation, it outlines three distinct phases: the early emphasis on pangolins [...] Read more.
This article examines the historical evolution, contemporary dynamics, and future trajectory of China’s legal and judicial framework for pangolin protection. By reviewing over seventy years of regulatory changes, case law, and policy implementation, it outlines three distinct phases: the early emphasis on pangolins as medicinal and export resources (1949–1989); the phase of conflicted protection and utilization under regulatory expansion (1989–2020); and the post-2020 shift toward judicial activism and ecological civil litigation. We then highlight the long-standing contradiction between legislative protection and continued medicinal use, particularly the centuries-old use of pangolins and their derivatives in traditional Chinese medicine, a practice still acknowledged within certain state policies and regulatory frameworks, showing how these inconsistencies enabled persistent illegal exploitation despite regulatory controls. Through systematic analysis of public court records and case databases, the policy historical records reveal a marked increase in environmental public interest litigation since 2020. These lawsuits, often attached to criminal prosecutions, signal a transition from merely punitive approaches to restorative ones—anchored in ecological valuation of species and their services. Case studies illustrate how courts now impose not only wildlife resource loss fees, but also punitive damages and compensation for ecological service function loss. The article will elaborate in detail on the distinctions and interrelations among these types of compensation. The landmark Case No.17 also demonstrates this paradigm shift, wherein courts recognized pangolins’ role in balancing forest ecosystems. However, significant challenges persist. Valuation methodologies lack uniform standards; while the ecological value of pangolins has been recognized, their inherent value as individuals has not been emphasized within the legal system; judicial discretion varies across jurisdictions; and public interest organizations remain underutilized in litigation. Moreover, while the crackdown on organized crime succeeded in curbing mass trafficking, smaller-scale violations tied to cultural consumption for medicine use persist. The article concludes that judicial innovations, such as ecological judicial restoration bases and integration into China’s draft Ecological Environment Code, offer promising pathways forward. To enhance efficacy, it calls for standardization in ecological valuation, strengthened civil society participation, and nuanced differentiation in penal strategies between minor and serious offenses. This study ultimately positions judicial reform as the cornerstone of China’s evolving pangolin conservation strategy. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wild Animal Welfare: Science, Ethics and Law)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research

11 pages, 719 KB  
Review
Killing Neck Snares Are Inhumane and Non-Selective, and Should Be Banned
by Gilbert Proulx
Animals 2025, 15(15), 2220; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15152220 - 28 Jul 2025
Viewed by 419
Abstract
In North America, where fur trapping remains an active practice, killing neck snares continue to be used for capturing canids, particularly red fox (Vulpes vulpes), coyote (Canis latrans), and gray wolf (Canis lupus). However, over the last [...] Read more.
In North America, where fur trapping remains an active practice, killing neck snares continue to be used for capturing canids, particularly red fox (Vulpes vulpes), coyote (Canis latrans), and gray wolf (Canis lupus). However, over the last 50 years, scientific studies have consistently demonstrated that killing neck snares are inhumane—meaning that snared animals do not lose consciousness within five minutes and may remain alive for hours—and non-selective, often capturing a wide range of non-target wild and domestic animals. This non-selectivity can contribute to the local extirpation of certain species. The continued use of killing neck snares reflects a disregard for the welfare of wild mammals and poses risks to the sustainability of their populations. This persistence appears to be driven by misinformation, widespread myths, and inadequately implemented international trapping standards. These issues lead to critical questions about what must be performed to prohibit the use of these devices. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wild Animal Welfare: Science, Ethics and Law)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

23 pages, 331 KB  
Review
Reviving the Dire Wolf? A Case Study in Welfare Ethics, Legal Gaps, and Ontological Ambiguity
by Alexandre Azevedo and Manuel Magalhães-Sant’Ana
Animals 2025, 15(13), 1839; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15131839 - 21 Jun 2025
Viewed by 1481
Abstract
The recent birth of genetically modified canids phenotypically resembling the extinct dire wolf (Aenocyon dirus) was hailed as a landmark in synthetic biology. Using genome editing and cloning, the biotech company Colossal Biosciences created three such animals from gray wolf cells, [...] Read more.
The recent birth of genetically modified canids phenotypically resembling the extinct dire wolf (Aenocyon dirus) was hailed as a landmark in synthetic biology. Using genome editing and cloning, the biotech company Colossal Biosciences created three such animals from gray wolf cells, describing the project as an effort in “functional de-extinction”. This case raises significant questions regarding animal welfare, moral justification, and regulatory governance. We used the five domains model framework to assess the welfare risks for the engineered animals, the surrogate mothers used in reproduction, and other animals potentially affected by future reintroduction or escape scenarios. Ethical implications are examined through utilitarian, deontological, virtue, relational, and environmental ethics. Our analysis suggests that the project suffers from ontological ambiguity: it is unclear whether the animals created are resurrected species, hybrids, or novel organisms. While the current welfare of the engineered animals may be manageable, their long-term well-being, particularly under rewilding scenarios, is likely to be compromised. The moral arguments for reviving long-extinct species are weak, particularly in cases where extinction was not anthropogenic. Legally, the current EU frameworks lack the clarity and scope to classify, regulate, or protect genetically engineered extinct animals. We recommend that functional de-extinction involving sentient beings be approached with caution, supported by revised welfare tools and regulatory mechanisms. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wild Animal Welfare: Science, Ethics and Law)
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-3
Back to TopTop