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]

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.

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]

The health and welfare of wild animals are of increasing concern, yet there are very few large-scale data syntheses examining how causes of wildlife morbidity and mortality vary across time, space, and taxa. Records for 18,540 animals submitted to the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative (CWHC) (2009–19) and 144,846 animals admitted to 19 wildlife rehabilitation centers (WRCs) (2015–19) were evaluated to 1) identify the main causes of morbidity and mortality for Canadian wildlife and 2) assess the utility and complementarity of these two data sources to further our understanding of wildlife health. The CWHC cases (mortality) were examined by pathologists and grouped by the presence or absence of five diagnostic categories: trauma, emaciation, infection or inflammation, toxicity, and other. These CWHC animals were also classified as "killed due to real or perceived human-wildlife conflict" based on finder history. The WRC admissions were categorized by health issue (according to intake records) and based on reported or observed situational reasons for admission: parental loss, unsafe or unsuitable location, nest or habitat disturbance, illegal possession, and abnormal behavior. For both datasets, the main reason for submission or admission was trauma (44 and 48%, respectively), especially vehicle collisions (7 and 11%) and window or building strikes (5 and 7%). Many other WRC admissions were due to parental loss (28%), cat attacks (6%), and immature animals being found in unsafe or unsuitable locations (6%). Most other CWHC mortalities were caused by infections (27%) and emaciation (23%). Relatively few birds, amphibians, and reptiles submitted to CWHC were killed due to human-wildlife conflict, but 22% of mammals were killed for this reason, highlighting the taxonomic differences in the perceived threat of wildlife to finders, and therefore their response. Together, these data sources highlight key issues impacting the health and welfare of wild animals in Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Faecal glucocorticoid metabolites (fGCMs) are a relevant means of non-invasively assessing adrenocortical activity and thus, a key physiological stress response in wildlife populations. However, the widespread use of fGCMs as a stress-related biomarker in conservation biology is often hampered by the logistical challenge of storing collected faecal material frozen until it reaches the laboratory for analysis. Although alternative approaches to minimize potential alteration of fGCM composition post-defecation have been recently identified, there is to our knowledge, no satisfactory alternative method established for the preservation of elephant dung. In this study, we validated a field-friendly protocol for dehydrating African elephant faeces samples using a food dehydrator with desiccant and investigated the stability of fGCM concentrations in the dehydrated faeces when stored at ambient temperature. We collected 40 faecal samples from African elephants and compared fGCM concentrations of freeze-dried and dehydrated sample sub-sets. Samples dried in the field showed a slight but significant overall −6% reduction in fGCM concentration compared with frozen control samples. However, fGCM concentrations following field dehydration protocol match those of control samples with high accuracy, as evidenced by the low bias and strong coefficient of determination between the two approaches (R2 = 0.88). In addition, over nearly 2 months, storage time at ambient temperature of the dehydrated samples had no effect on the fGCM concentrations compared with those measured in the control samples (F-statistic = 1.82; P  = 0.18). Dehydrating the samples in the field thus provides an easy and cost-effective alternative to freezing, especially when working in remote areas with unstable electrical supply. Our results encourage the widespread use of fGCMs by conservationists as non-invasive means of steroid monitoring of African elephants in the current context of a general increase in wildlife welfare research. Future studies are needed to extend the use of this protocol to other species and to other steroid classes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Earth’s biodiversity is in crisis. Without radical action to conserve habitats, the current rate of species extinction is predicted to accelerate even further. Efficient species conservation requires planning, management, and continuous biodiversity monitoring through wildlife research. Conservation biology was built on the utilitarian principle, where the well-being of species, populations, and ecosystems is given priority over the well-being of individual animals. However, this tenet has been increasingly under discussion and it has been argued that wildlife researchers need to safeguard the welfare of the individual animals traditionally subjected to invasive or lethal research procedures. The 3Rs principles of animal use (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) have become the cornerstone of ethical scientific conduct that could minimize the potential negative impact of research practices. One of the obvious strategies to implement the 3Rs in wildlife studies is to use non-invasive or non-lethal research methods. However, in contrast to toxicological or pharmacological research on laboratory animal models, up to now no 3Rs databases or online resources designed specifically for wildlife biologists, ecologists, and conservation managers have been available. To aid the implementation of the 3Rs principles into research on wildlife, I developed an online resource whose structure is outlined in this paper. The website contains a curated database of peer-reviewed articles that have implemented non-invasive or non-lethal research methods that could be used as a guideline for future studies.

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.

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]