Search

Simple Summary: As in the rest of Europe, the Belgian boar population has been tending to increase even with the African Swine Fever prevalence, posing new challenges in their management by hunting. Indeed, wild boars have been massively culled by hunters and other nature managers, but some stakeholders argued that they are sensitive animals and that their welfare matters. In this article, we explore the management of wild boar hunting through a qualitative sociological survey focusing on damage to the welfare of wild animals and ways of limiting it. By identifying, based on the knowledge of hunting stakeholders, a multitude of issues and avenues for action to limit the harm to the welfare of wild boars, this paper highlights the relevance of an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach to the welfare issues of wild animals. This study advocates including wild animals—wild boars, in this case—as sentient beings whose welfare must be considered and debated in discussions on global health. As in the rest of Europe, the Belgian boar population has been tending to increase, posing new challenges to management by hunting. Moreover, in autumn 2018, the African Swine Fever (ASF) virus penetrated Belgian territory. In response to this so-called overpopulation and to this health crisis, wild boars were massively culled by hunters and other nature managers. The wild boar was then debated by some stakeholders as a sensitive animal and that its welfare mattered even if it must still be killed. In this article, we explore the management of wild boar through a qualitative sociological survey focusing on damage to the welfare of wild animals and ways of limiting it. This survey is part of an innovative process launched by the Walloon Region and the Walloon Council for Animal Welfare (CWBEA). It was conducted in order to qualitatively describe current hunting practices and their impact on animal welfare; it then integrated knowledge from the human sciences into the CWBEA's work; and, finally, those from the hunting world were invited to debate with the usual animal welfare advocates and managers. By identifying, based on the knowledge of hunting stakeholders and wildlife specialists, a multitude of issues and avenues for action to limit the harm to the welfare of wild boars, this paper highlights the relevance of an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach to the welfare issues of wild animals. It supports the hypothesis that animal welfare advocates can work toward establishing new norms in human/nonhuman relationships in collaboration with hunters but also to include wild animals—wild boars in this case—as sentient beings whose welfare must be considered and debated in discussions on global health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Safeguarding animal welfare in research is crucial for ethical and legislative compliance as well as the integrity of scientific data. It is, therefore, essential that researchers working with animals across all fields of life sciences have an understanding of how to assess animal welfare, including their behaviour, health, and physiology. This study looked into the education of ecologists, wildlife biologists, and conservation managers in Europe, Canada, the USA, Australia, and New Zealand and found that very few universities offered specific courses on animal welfare, and these courses were often optional rather than required. These results highlight the need for universities to provide more formal and mandatory education on animal welfare to better prepare future researchers studying and managing wildlife. By improving education in this area, we can ensure that researchers have the necessary knowledge and skills to work with wildlife in a responsible and compassionate way. Animal welfare is a subject of increasing scientific and ethical concern in today's society, crucial for the well-being of animals used in research and the integrity of scientific data. Equipping researchers in the life science disciplines with a science-based knowledge of animal welfare, behaviour, physiology, and health is, therefore, essential. Nevertheless, previous studies evaluating animal welfare education focused on veterinary, laboratory, or farm animal science. Consequently, the aim of this study was, for the very first time, to map the prevalence of animal welfare courses in the university education of ecologists, wildlife biologists, and conservation managers in Europe, Canada, the USA, Australia, and New Zealand. A comprehensive assessment of 1548 universities was conducted, resulting in the identification of 596 relevant programs at the bachelor's and master's levels. Analysis of the curricula revealed that only 1% of the programs offered a formal course on animal welfare, while 65% provided courses on animal behaviour, 59% on animal physiology, and 34% on animal health. However, the majority of these courses were listed as electives rather than mandatory components of the programs. These results underscore the need for universities to incorporate more formal and obligatory education in animal welfare in order to better prepare future ecologists, wildlife biologists, and conservation managers for the challenges of working with wildlife. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: In this review, we make the point that current checking times for killing traps and snares are inadequate or nonexistent in most North American jurisdictions. We use Conibear 120 rotating-jaw traps and killing neck snares as examples of trapping devices that may fail to consistently and humanely kill furbearers. Because these killing devices are not powerful enough for the target species, the trigger systems do not properly position the animals in traps, or trappers are inexperienced and improperly set traps or snares, these killing devices become restraining devices, and animals suffer long and painful deaths. Because trappers use a variety of trigger configurations and trap sets, all killing devices, even those certified by trapper organizations or governments, should be monitored at least once every 24 h on traplines, but preferably every 12 h, because one cannot know a priori whether traps will strike animals in appropriate locations for a quick kill. However, when using trapping devices such as killing neck snares that are legal and allowed by government agencies despite being inhumane, trappers should check them every 12 h. When traplines are situated near urban areas, e.g., within 10 km, checks should be done every 12 h to release pets and non-target animals. In this review, we make the point that current checking times for killing traps and snares are inadequate or nonexistent in most North American jurisdictions. We use Conibear 120 rotating-jaw traps and killing neck snares as examples of trapping devices that may fail to consistently and humanely kill furbearers. Because these killing devices are not powerful enough for the target species, the trigger systems do not properly position the animals in traps, or trappers are inexperienced and improperly set traps or snares, these killing devices become restraining devices, and animals suffer long and painful deaths. Because trappers use a variety of trigger configurations and trap sets, all killing devices, even those certified by trapper organizations or governments, should be monitored at least once every 24 h on traplines, but preferably every 12 h, because one cannot know a priori whether traps will strike animals in appropriate locations for a quick kill. However, when using trapping devices such as killing neck snares that are legal and allowed by government agencies despite being inhumane, trappers should check them every 12 h. When traplines are situated near urban areas, e.g., within 10 km, checks should be done every 12 h to release pets and non-target animals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]