Human-Wildlife Conflict, Interspecies Disease, and Justice in a Wild-Life Rich Region in Kenya

Central Kenya’s Laikipia district is known for its significant wildlife numbers and biological diversity. This is the result of the commitment of community residents to protect wildlife populations, including those on private land. Despite successes, tensions between humans and wildlife remain. Most research to date has focused on conflict between pastoralist herders, particularly Maasai, and two wildlife species: elephants and lions. It has also focused on conflict resulting from depredation, property damage, and human injury. This study explores another potential contributor to negative attitudes toward wildlife: interspecies disease, and particularly the perception that wildlife can transfer disease to pastoralists’ domestic animals. Formal interviews were conducted with 64 Maasai pastoralists. Questions focused on experiences with disease in domestic animals, perceptions of wildlife contributions to domestic animal disease, and broader attitudes toward wildlife, and these issues are considered against the social, cultural, and historical background of the region. Interviews supported the commonly held belief that livestock disease places severe burdens on East African pastoralists. Different diseases were associated to varying degrees with wildlife; elephants, Cape buffalo, and zebra were most often cited as causing disease in domestic animals. Epidemiological studies confirm several associations that pastoralists made between wildlife and disease in domestic animals, and instances where assumptions and perceptions were not epidemiologically correct were still logically coherent. Persons who took part in this study did not list wildlife disease, or disease threats, as their greatest problem with wild species. However, responses also suggest that it would be a mistake to underestimate the impact that concerns about disease have on pastoralists’ attitudes toward wildlife.  Master of ScienceNatural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of Michiganhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/96190/1/benka thesis final.pd

Effectiveness of GonaCon as an immunocontraceptive in colony-housed cats

Objectives Non-surgical contraceptive management of free-roaming cat populations is a global goal for public health and humane reasons. The objectives of this study were to measure the duration of contraception following a single intramuscular injection of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone-based vaccine (GonaCon) and to confirm its safe use in female cats living in colony conditions. Methods GonaCon (0.5 ml/cat) was administered intramuscularly to 20 intact female cats (queens), and saline was administered to 10 queens serving as sham-treated controls. Beginning in late February, 4 months after injection, all cats were housed with fertile male cats in a simulated colony environment. Time to pregnancy, fetal counts and vaccine-elicited injection-site reactions were evaluated. Results All control cats (n = 10/10) and 60% (n = 12/20) of vaccinated cats became pregnant within 4 months of the introduction of males. Two additional vaccinates became pregnant (70%; n = 14/20) within 1 year of treatment. Average fetal counts were significantly lower in vaccinated cats than in control cats. Vaccinates had a significantly longer (P = 0.0120) median time to conception (212 days) compared with controls (127.5 days). Injection-site reactions ranging from swelling to transient granulomatous masses were observed in 45% (n = 9/20) of vaccinated cats. Conclusions and relevance A single dose of GonaCon provided contraception lasting for a minimum of 1 year in 30% (n = 6/20) of treated cats. The level of contraception induced by this GonaCon dose and vaccine lot was not sufficiently effective to be recommended for use in free-roaming cats

Effectiveness of GonaCon as an immunocontraceptive in colony-housed cats

Objectives Non-surgical contraceptive management of free-roaming cat populations is a global goal for public health and humane reasons. The objectives of this study were to measure the duration of contraception following a single intramuscular injection of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone-based vaccine (GonaCon) and to confirm its safe use in female cats living in colony conditions. Methods GonaCon (0.5 ml/cat) was administered intramuscularly to 20 intact female cats (queens), and saline was administered to 10 queens serving as sham-treated controls. Beginning in late February, 4 months after injection, all cats were housed with fertile male cats in a simulated colony environment. Time to pregnancy, fetal counts and vaccine-elicited injection-site reactions were evaluated. Results All control cats (n = 10/10) and 60% (n = 12/20) of vaccinated cats became pregnant within 4 months of the introduction of males. Two additional vaccinates became pregnant (70%; n = 14/20) within 1 year of treatment. Average fetal counts were significantly lower in vaccinated cats than in control cats. Vaccinates had a significantly longer (P = 0.0120) median time to conception (212 days) compared with controls (127.5 days). Injection-site reactions ranging from swelling to transient granulomatous masses were observed in 45% (n = 9/20) of vaccinated cats. Conclusions and relevance A single dose of GonaCon provided contraception lasting for a minimum of 1 year in 30% (n = 6/20) of treated cats. The level of contraception induced by this GonaCon dose and vaccine lot was not sufficiently effective to be recommended for use in free-roaming cats

The Ethics of Innovation: Ethical Decision-Making and Review for Field Studies and Projects Targeting Dogs and Cats

To date, independent ethical oversight of many companion animal welfare initiatives has been limited and, in some instances, inadequate. Beyond a blurred line between “innovation” and “research,” the nature of the work conducted in animal welfare projects is often poorly aligned with established institutional ethical review structures, which are designed for research involving humans or research involving animals and are also focused on industry and academic institutions. This commentary details the struggle of one United States-based nonprofit organization to find ethical guidelines and support for conducting non-traditional field-based animal welfare studies, and subsequent experience establishing an Ethical Review Board to evaluate organizational initiatives. The commentary discusses member selection, materials and processes, and lessons and learnings from the creation and use of an Ethical Review Board. Sharing content of the ethical review process, as well as challenges and learnings from it, is intended to support other organizations and individuals seeking to ensure that innovation for animal welfare consistently meets high ethical standards

Exploring the Gaps in Practical Ethical Guidance for Animal Welfare Considerations of Field Interventions and Innovations Targeting Dogs and Cats

Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) and cats (Felis silvestris catus) are common species targeted by nongovernmental or intergovernmental organizations, veterinarians and government agencies worldwide, for field interventions (e.g., population management, rabies vaccination programs) or innovations (e.g., development of technologies or pharmaceuticals to improve animal welfare). We have a moral responsibility to ensure that the conduct of this work is humane for dogs or cats, and to consider the human communities in which the animals live. Ethical review is widely accepted as being integral to responsible practice, and it is fundamental to good science that underpins innovation. Despite the necessity of field interventions or innovations to advance the welfare of individuals or populations of animals, we found a lack of specific guidance and review processes to help navigate ethical dilemmas surrounding the conduct of such work. This can be detrimental to the wellbeing of animals and their human communities. Here we identify the gaps in existing ethical frameworks (specifically application of Reduction and Refinement principles, challenges of obtaining meaningful informed consent with variations in the quality of human-animal relationships, and limited resources regarding considerations of local stakeholders), and outline the need for additional tools to promote ethical conduct in the field

Methods of fertility control in cats:Owner, breeder and veterinarian behavior and attitudes

Overview: Fertility control is important for population management of owned and unowned cats, provides health benefits at the individual level and can reduce unwanted sexually dimorphic behaviors such as roaming, aggression, spraying and calling. This article reviews the available evidence regarding European and American veterinarian, owner and pedigree cat breeder attitudes toward both surgical sterilization and non-surgical fertility control. It additionally presents new data on veterinarians’ and pedigree cat breeders’ use of, and attitudes toward, alternative modalities of fertility control. Proportion of cats that are neutered: Within the United States and Europe, the proportion of cats reported to be sterilized varies widely. Published estimates range from 27–93% for owned cats and 2–5% for cats trapped as part of a trap–neuter–return (TNR) program. In some regions and populations of cats, non-surgical fertility control is also used. Social context, cultural norms, individual preferences, economic considerations, legislation and professional organizations may all influence fertility control decisions for cats. Non-surgical methods of fertility control: Particularly in Europe, a limited number of non-surgical temporary contraceptives are available for cats; these include products with regulatory approval for cats as well as some used ‘off label’. Non-surgical methods remove the risk of complications related to surgery and offer potential to treat more animals in less time and at lower cost; they may also appeal to pedigree cat breeders seeking temporary contraception. However, concerns over efficacy, delivery methods, target species safety, duration and side effects exist with current non-surgical options. Research is under way to develop new methods to control fertility in cats without surgery. US and European veterinarians place high value on three perceived benefits of surgical sterilization: permanence, behavioral benefits and health benefits. Non-surgical options will likely need to share these benefits to be widely accepted by the veterinary community. </jats:sec

Effectiveness of GonaCon as an immunocontraceptive in colony-housed cats

Objectives Non-surgical contraceptive management of free-roaming cat populations is a global goal for public health and humane reasons. The objectives of this study were to measure the duration of contraception following a single intramuscular injection of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone-based vaccine (GonaCon) and to confirm its safe use in female cats living in colony conditions. Methods GonaCon (0.5 ml/cat) was administered intramuscularly to 20 intact female cats (queens), and saline was administered to 10 queens serving as sham-treated controls. Beginning in late February, 4 months after injection, all cats were housed with fertile male cats in a simulated colony environment. Time to pregnancy, fetal counts and vaccine-elicited injection-site reactions were evaluated. Results All control cats (n = 10/10) and 60% (n = 12/20) of vaccinated cats became pregnant within 4 months of the introduction of males. Two additional vaccinates became pregnant (70%; n = 14/20) within 1 year of treatment. Average fetal counts were significantly lower in vaccinated cats than in control cats. Vaccinates had a significantly longer (P = 0.0120) median time to conception (212 days) compared with controls (127.5 days). Injection-site reactions ranging from swelling to transient granulomatous masses were observed in 45% (n = 9/20) of vaccinated cats. Conclusions and relevance A single dose of GonaCon provided contraception lasting for a minimum of 1 year in 30% (n = 6/20) of treated cats. The level of contraception induced by this GonaCon dose and vaccine lot was not sufficiently effective to be recommended for use in free-roaming cats