Animal welfare outcomes of professional vehicle-based shooting of peri-urban rusa deer in Australia

Context: Vehicle-based shooting has been widely used to kill deer, but the animal-welfare outcomes of this technique have not been evaluated in Australasia. Aim: To assess the animal-welfare outcomes of peri-urban deer culling by quantifying the fates of deer seen and shot at, the duration of procedures, and the number and location of bullet wounds in deer. Methods: We assessed vehicle-based night shooting of peri-urban rusa deer (Cervus timorensis) by professional contractors in eastern Australia. Shooters targeted the heads of deer using .223 Remington® rifles and 55 grain bullets. Independent veterinarians conducted ante-mortem (i.e. from the shooting vehicle) and post-mortem (i.e. inspecting the carcass) observations. The ante-mortem data were used to estimate the proportion of deer seen that were shot at, killed, wounded, and escaped. The influence of variables predicted to affect shooting outcomes was assessed. The numbers and locations of bullet wounds were recorded post-mortem. Key results: Of the 269 deer seen in 21 nights, 48% were shot at and 85% of those shot at were killed by either one (87%), two (10%) or three (3%) shots. The frequency of non-fatal wounding (i.e. escaping wounded) was 3.5% for those shot at and hit, and the median time to insensibility for the deer that were shot multiple times was 289 s. There was variation among shooters in their ability to hit a deer, and also to do so with a killing shot. The number of bullet wounds per deer ranged from 1 to 3 (mean = 1.1), with 83% of shots striking the brain and 17% striking the anterior skull, neck and jaw. Conclusions: The animal welfare outcomes we observed were comparable to those reported from other professional ground-based shooting programs for ungulates, but were poorer than those reported for professional ground-based shooting of peri-urban kangaroos. Implications: Our results suggest that one way to improve the animal welfare outcomes of vehicle-based shooting of peri-urban deer is by improving shooter training. Assessment of shooter performance should be a routine part of ground-based shooting programs

Animal harms and food production: Informing ethical choices

Ethical food choices have become an important societal theme in post-industrial countries. Many consumers are particularly interested in the animal welfare implications of the various foods they may choose to consume. However, concepts in animal welfare are rapidly evolving towards consideration of all animals (including wildlife) in contemporary approaches such as “One Welfare”. This approach requires recognition that negative impacts (harms) may be intentional and obvious (e.g., slaughter of livestock) but also include the under-appreciated indirect or unintentional harms that often impact wildlife (e.g., land clearing). This is especially true in the Anthropocene, where impacts on non-human life are almost ubiquitous across all human activities. We applied the “harms” model of animal welfare assessment to several common food production systems and provide a framework for assessing the breadth (not intensity) of harms imposed. We considered all harms caused to wild as well as domestic animals, both direct effects and indirect effects. We described 21 forms of harm and considered how they applied to 16 forms of food production. Our analysis suggests that all food production systems harm animals to some degree and that the majority of these harms affect wildlife, not livestock. We conclude that the food production systems likely to impose the greatest overall breadth of harms to animals are intensive animal agriculture industries (e.g., dairy) that rely on a secondary food production system (e.g., cropping), while harvesting of locally available wild plants, mushrooms or seaweed is likely to impose the least harms. We present this conceptual analysis as a resource for those who want to begin considering the complex animal welfare trade-offs involved in their food choices

How many to sample? Statistical guidelines for monitoring animal welfare outcomes

There is increasing scrutiny of the animal welfare impacts of all animal use activities, including agriculture, the keeping of companion animals, racing and entertainment, research and laboratory use, and wildlife management programs. A common objective of animal welfare monitoring is to quantify the frequency of adverse animal events (e.g., injuries or mortalities). The frequency of such events can be used to provide pass/fail grades for animal use activities relative to a defined threshold and to identify areas for improvement through research. A critical question in these situations is how many animals should be sampled? There are, however, few guidelines available for data collection or analysis, and consequently sample sizes can be highly variable. To address this question, we first evaluated the effect of sample size on precision and statistical power in reporting the frequency of adverse animal welfare outcomes. We next used these findings to assess the precision of published animal welfare investigations for a range of contentious animal use activities, including livestock transport, horse racing, and wildlife harvesting and capture. Finally, we evaluated the sample sizes required for comparing observed outcomes with specified standards through hypothesis testing. Our simulations revealed that the sample sizes required for reasonable levels of precision (i.e., proportional distance to the upper confidence interval limit (delta) of 300). Larger sample sizes are required for adverse events with low frequency (i.e., <5%). For comparison with a required threshold standard, even larger samples sizes are required. We present guidelines, and an online calculator, for minimum sample sizes for use in future animal welfare assessments of animal management and research programs

Animal welfare and the use of procedural documents: Limitations and refinement

Increased scrutiny of animal welfare in wildlife management has seen a recent proliferation in the use of procedural documents (standard operating procedures, codes of practice etc.). Some procedural documents are presumed to represent 'best practice' methods, whereby adherence to prescribed inputs is explicitly purported to generate humane outcomes. However, the relationship between what is done to animals (inputs) and what they experience (outputs), as assessed by animal-based measures, has received little attention. Procedural documents are commonly developed in the absence of empirical animal-based measures, creating uncertainty in animal welfare outcomes. Prescribed procedures are valuable as guidelines for standardising methodology, but the development of 'welfare standards' that focus on desired thresholds for animal-based measures offers many advantages for improving animal welfare. Refinement of the use of procedural documents in wildlife management is required to ensure they generate desirable outcomes for animals, and do not preclude the development of improved methods

Bayesian modelling reveals differences in long-term trends in the harvest of native and introduced species by recreational hunters in Australia

Context: Little is known about wildlife harvesting by licensed recreational hunters in Australia, where both native and introduced species are hunted. It is important to understand harvest trends to assess sustainability for native species and implications for population control of introduced species. Aim: The aim of this study was to analyse trends in hunter participation, activity and efficiency, and wildlife harvest, including effects of climate, in Victoria, Australia, for three game species groups: introduced deer, native waterfowl (ducks) and one native grassland species, stubble quail (Coturnix pectoralis). Methods: Telephone surveys of a random sample of licenced Victorian hunters were performed annually from 2009 to 2019. Hunters were asked to quantify their hunting effort and the number of animals harvested. The respondents’ answers were analysed to estimate measures of hunter success, activity and efficiency. Bayesian modelling was applied to these data, accounting for changes over time, differences between survey periods for all licence types, and random effects for over-dispersion. The effect of climate on game bird hunter activity and harvest was estimated, as measured by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Results: Over 11 years, annual deer harvest (all species) increased exponentially, at a mean annual rate of 17% (95% credible interval: 14–21%), and the number of deer hunters increased at 8% (5–11%). In contrast, for ducks and stubble quail, hunter numbers remained relatively unchanged, with no evidence of consistent change to total harvests over time, unrelated to changes in environmental conditions or regulations. The annual duck harvest was influenced by ENSO and hunting regulations. The annual stubble quail harvest exhibited ‘boom-and-bust’ dynamics, with an exceptionally large harvest immediately after a La Niña season. Conclusions: Long-term monitoring of harvest trends in south-eastern Australia revealed stark differences between introduced deer and native birds: harvest of deer increased rapidly whereas equivalent rates for game birds were either stable or declining. Seasonal effects had a strong influence on game bird harvest. Environmental and regulatory conditions were influential for harvest outcomes for ducks and stubble quail. Implications: This study filled a key knowledge gap around managing harvesting of game species, but increased scrutiny is warranted in this field

Detection and characterisation of an Endogenous Betaretrovirus in Australian Wild Deer

Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are the remnants of past retroviral infections that once invaded the host’s germline and were vertically transmitted. ERV sequences have been reported in mammals, but their distribution and diversity in cervids are unclear. Using next-generation sequencing, we identified a nearly complete genome of an endogenous betaretrovirus in fallow deer (Dama dama). Further genomic analysis showed that this provirus, tentatively named cervid endogenous betaretrovirus 1 (CERV β1), has typical betaretroviral genome features (gag-pro-pol-env) and the betaretrovirus-specific dUTPase domain. In addition, CERV β1 pol sequences were detected by PCR in the six non-native deer species with wild populations in Australia. Phylogenetic analyses demonstrated that CERV β1 sequences from subfamily Cervinae clustered as sister taxa to ERV-like sequences in species of subfamily Muntiacinae. These findings, therefore, suggest that CERV β1 endogenisation occurred after the split of these two subfamilies (between 3.3 and 5 million years ago). Our results provide important insights into the evolution of betaretroviruses in cervids

Validation of the use of firearms for euthanising stranded cetaceans

Efforts to euthanise stranded cetaceans remain highly variable in their outcomes, with few field tested operational procedures available. This study sought to validate the efficacy of using modern firearms technology to euthanise small (<6m length) stranded cetaceans. Post-mortem evidence was gathered from the standardised shooting of cetacean cadavers (n = 10), representing six species, using .30 caliber (7.62mm) firearms and blunt solid copper-alloy non-deforming projectiles, in southwestern Australia. The six species studied were Risso's dolphin, common dolphin, bottlenosed dolphin, pygmy sperm whale, Cuvier's beaked whale, and humpback whale. Post-mortem data revealed that 100% of bullet wound tracts fully penetrated the skulls of shot animals, with associated indirect skull fracturing, secondary bone missiles and brain parenchyma laceration. The results suggest that appropriate firearms technology is fully capable of inducing instantaneous fatal pathology to the central nervous system of these species. In comparison to alternative methods for the euthanasia of stranded cetaceans, the use of firearms is associated with superior animal welfare outcomes, public safety levels and accessibility. This paper provides a template for the safe, humane and repeatable use of this technique to euthanise <6m length stranded cetaceans

A systematic review of the impacts and management of introduced deer (family Cervidae) in Australia

Deer are among the world's most successful invasive mammals and can have substantial deleterious impacts on natural and agricultural ecosystems. Six species have established wild populations in Australia, and the distributions and abundances of some species are increasing. Approaches to managing wild deer in Australia are diverse and complex, with some populations managed as 'game' and others as 'pests'. Implementation of cost-effective management strategies that account for this complexity is hindered by a lack of knowledge of the nature, extent and severity of deer impacts. To clarify the knowledge base and identify research needs, we conducted a systematic review of the impacts and management of wild deer in Australia. Most wild deer are in south-eastern Australia, but bioclimatic analysis suggested that four species are well suited to the tropical and subtropical climates of northern Australia. Deer could potentially occupy most of the continent, including parts of the arid interior. The most significant impacts are likely to occur through direct effects of herbivory, with potentially cascading indirect effects on fauna and ecosystem processes. However, evidence of impacts in Australia is largely observational, and few studies have experimentally partitioned the impacts of deer from those of sympatric native and other introduced herbivores. Furthermore, there has been little rigorous testing of the efficacy of deer management in Australia, and our understanding of the deer ecology required to guide deer management is limited. We identified the following six priority research areas: (i) identifying long-term changes in plant communities caused by deer; (ii) understanding interactions with other fauna; (iii) measuring impacts on water quality; (iv) assessing economic impacts on agriculture (including as disease vectors); (v) evaluating efficacy of management for mitigating deer impacts; and (vi) quantifying changes in distribution and abundance. Addressing these knowledge gaps will assist the development and prioritisation of cost-effective management strategies and help increase stakeholder support for managing the impacts of deer on Australian ecosystems

A comparison of fragmenting lead-based and lead-free bullets for aerial shooting of wild pigs

In response to the health threats posed by toxic lead to humans, scavenging wildlife and the environment, there is currently a focus on transitioning from lead-based to lead-free bullets for shooting of wild animals. We compared efficiency metrics and terminal ballistic performance for lead-based and lead-free (non-lead) bullets for aerial shooting of wild pigs (Sus scrofa) in eastern Australia. Ballistic testing revealed that lead-based and lead-free bullets achieved similar performance in precision and muzzle kinetic energy (E-0) levels (3337.2 J and 3345.7 J, respectively). An aerial shooting trial was conducted with wild pigs shot with one type of lead-based and one type of lead-free bullets under identical conditions. Observations were made from 859 shooting events (n = 430 and 429 respectively), with a sub-set of pigs examined via gross post-mortem (n = 100 and 108 respectively), and a further sub-set examined via radiography (n = 94 and 101 respectively). The mean number of bullets fired per pig killed did not differ greatly between lead-based and lead-free bullets respectively (4.09 vs 3.91), nor did the mean number of bullet wound tracts in each animal via post-mortem inspection (3.29 vs 2.98). However, radiography revealed a higher average number of fragments per animal (median >300 vs median = 55) and a broader distribution of fragments with lead-based bullets. Our results suggest that lead-based and lead-free bullets are similarly effective for aerial shooting of wild pigs, but that the bullet types behave differently, with lead-based bullets displaying a higher degree of fragmentation. These results suggest that aerial shooting may be a particularly important contributor to scavenging wildlife being exposed to lead and that investigation of lead-free bullets for this use should continue

Animal welfare considerations for using large carnivores and guardian dogs as vertebrate biocontrol tools against other animals

Introducing consumptive and non-consumptive effects into food webs can have profound effects on individuals, populations and communities. This knowledge has led to the deliberate use of predation and/or fear of predation as an emerging technique for controlling wildlife. Many now advocate for the intentional use of large carnivores and livestock guardian dogs as more desirable alternatives to traditional wildlife control approaches like fencing, shooting, trapping, or poisoning. However, there has been very little consideration of the animal welfare implications of deliberately using predation as a wildlife management tool. We assess the animal welfare impacts of using dingoes, leopards and guardian dogs as biocontrol tools against wildlife in Australia and South Africa following the ‘Five Domains’ model commonly used to assess other wildlife management tools. Application of this model indicates that large carnivores and guardian dogs cause considerable lethal and non-lethal animal welfare impacts to the individual animals they are intended to control. These impacts are likely similar across different predator-prey systems, but are dependent on specific predator-prey combinations; combinations that result in short chases and quick kills will be rated as less harmful than those that result in long chases and protracted kills. Moreover, these impacts are typically rated greater than those caused by traditional wildlife control techniques. The intentional lethal and non-lethal harms caused by large carnivores and guardian dogs should not be ignored or dismissively assumed to be negligible. A greater understanding of the impacts they impose would benefit from empirical studies of the animal welfare outcomes arising from their use in different contexts