Search

Industry-led culling of badgers has occurred in England to reduce the incidence of bovine tuberculosis in cattle for a number of years. Badger vaccination is also possible, and a move away from culling was "highly desirable" in a recent report to the UK government. Here we used an established simulation model to examine badger control option in a post-cull environment in England. These options included no control, various intermittent culling, badger vaccination and use of a vaccine combined with fertility control. The initial simulated cull led to a dramatic reduction in the number of infected badgers present, which increased slowly if there was no further badger management. All three approaches led to a further reduction in the number of infected badgers, with little to choose between the strategies. We do note that of the management strategies only vaccination on its own leads to a recovery of the badger population, but also an increase in the number of badgers that need to be vaccinated. We conclude that vaccination post-cull, appears to be particularly effective, compared to vaccination when the host population is at carrying capacity., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Wild boar and feral swine number and range are increasing worldwide in parallel with their impact on biodiversity and human activities. The ecological and economic impact of this species include spread of diseases, vehicle collisions, damage to crops, amenities and infrastructures and reduction in plant and animal abundance and richness. As traditional methods such as culling have not contained the growth and spread of wild boar and feral pigs, alternative methods such as fertility control are now advocated. We used empirical data on two isolated wild boar populations to model and compare the effects of different regimes of culling and fertility control on population trends. We built a Bayesian population model and applied it to explore the implications for population control of various management options combining culling and/or contraception. The results showed that, whilst fertility control on its own was not sufficient to achieve the target reduction in wild boar number, adding fertility control to culling was more effective than culling alone. In particular, using contraceptives on 40% of the population to complement the culling of 60% of the animals, halved the time to achieve our target reduction compared with culling only. We conclude that, assuming the effort of adding fertility control to culling was found to be cost-effective in terms of population reduction, these two methods should be used simultaneously if a rapid decrease in wild boar number is required for a closed population., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

In the present study, we assessed the annual screening coverage (i.e., the percentage of dogs that are screened for anti-Leishmania antibodies annually) in the municipality of Sobral, Ceará state, Brazil. Data on the number of dogs screened during 2008-2017 (except 2010) were obtained from the Centre for Zoonoses Control of Sobral. The annual screening coverage during 2012-2017 was calculated. Data on human visceral leishmaniasis (VL) cases during 2008-2017 were compiled from the National Disease Notification System. Correlation analyses were performed to assess the correlation between canine and human data. During 2008-2017, 73,964 dogs (range, 0 to 13,980 dogs/year) were serologically screened and 2,833 (3.8%) were positive. The annual screening coverage during 2012-2017 ranged from 11.1% to 45.7%. There were no significant correlations between the number of dogs culled and the number of human VL cases, canine positivity and human VL incidence, number of dogs culled and human VL incidence, or between canine positivity and number of human VL cases. An inconsistent and relatively low annual screening coverage was found in the study area, with no dog being screened in 2010 due to the lack of serological tests. Our results highlight that many dogs potentially infected with Leishmania infantum have been virtually overlooked by public health workers in the study area, perhaps with a negative, yet underestimated, impact on the control of canine and human VL. Hence, the failure of the dog culling strategy in controlling human VL in Brazil may be due to the low screening coverage and low percentage of culled dogs, rather than the absence of associations between canine and human infections., Competing Interests: FDT has received funding from Bayer Animal Health to conduct a clinical trial to access the efficacy of flumethrin plus imidacloprid collar in preventing vector-borne pathogen infections on dogs in Brazil. He also received honoraria for talks in scientific meetings organized by Bayer Animal Health and Boehringer Ingelheim.

Human-wildlife conflict is a global issue. Attempts to manage this conflict impact upon wild animal welfare, an issue receiving little attention until relatively recently. Where human activities harm animal welfare these effects should be minimised where possible. However, little is known about the welfare impacts of different wildlife management interventions, and opinions on impacts vary widely. Welfare impacts therefore need to be assessed objectively. Our objectives were to: 1) establish whether an existing welfare assessment model could differentiate and rank the impacts of different wildlife management interventions (for decision-making purposes); 2) identify and evaluate any additional benefits of making formal welfare assessments; and 3) illustrate issues raised by application of the model. We applied the welfare assessment model to interventions commonly used with rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), moles (Talpa europaea) and crows (Corvus corone) in the UK. The model ranked interventions for rabbits (least impact first: fencing, head shot, chest shot) and crows (shooting, scaring, live trapping with cervical dislocation). For moles, managing molehills and tunnels scored least impact. Both spring trapping, and live trapping followed by translocation, scored greater impacts, but these could not be compared directly as they scored on different axes of the model. Some rankings appeared counter-intuitive, highlighting the need for objective formal welfare assessments. As well as ranking the humaneness of interventions, the model highlighted future research needs and how Standard Operating Procedures might be improved. The model is a milestone in assessing wildlife management welfare impacts, but our research revealed some limitations of the model and we discuss likely challenges in resolving these. In future, the model might be developed to improve its utility, e.g. by refining the time-scales. It might also be used to reach consensus among stakeholders about relative welfare impacts or to identify ways of improving wildlife management practice in the field.