Welfare of non-traditional pets

The keeping of non-traditional or ‘exotic’ pets has been growing in popularity worldwide. In addition to the typical welfare challenges of keeping more traditional pet species like dogs and cats, ensuring the welfare of non-traditional pets is complicated by factors such as lack of knowledge, difficulties meeting requirements in the home and where and how animals are obtained. This paper uses examples of different species to highlight three major welfare concerns: ensuring that pets under our care i) function well biologically, ii) are free from negative psychological states and able to experience normal pleasures, and iii) lead reasonably natural lives. The keeping of non-traditional pets also raises ethical concerns about whether the animal poses any danger to others (e.g. transmission of zoonotic diseases) and whether the animal might cause environmental damage (e.g. invading non-native habitats when released). The authors used these considerations to create a checklist, which identifies and organises the various concerns that may arise over keeping non-traditional species as pets. An inability to address these concerns raises questions about how to mitigate them or even whether or not certain species should be kept as pets at all. Thus, the authors propose five categories, which range from relatively unproblematic pet species to species whose keeping poses unacceptable risks to the animals, to humans, or to the environment. This approach to the evaluation and categorisation of species could provide a constructive basis for advocacy and regulatory actions

Attitudes of Canadian Pig Producers Toward Animal Welfare

As part of a larger study eliciting Canadian producer and non-producer views about animal welfare, open-ended, semi-structured interviews were used to explore opinions about animal welfare of 20 Canadian pig producers, most of whom were involved in confinement-based systems. With the exception of the one organic producer, who emphasized the importance of a ‘‘natural’’ life, participants attached overriding importance to biological health and functioning. They saw their efforts as providing pigs with dry, thermally regulated, indoor environments where animals received abundant feed, careful monitoring and where prospective disease outbreaks could be minimized and controlled. Emphasis was also placed on low-stress handling and agreeable working conditions which were believed to promote good animal care. The fact that pigs tend to respond to such conditions with steady growth reinforced the belief that good welfare was provided. Participants supported the use of sow gestation stalls, but with some reservations, and expressed concern about welfare problems that could occur if sows were grouped. Invasive procedures (castration, tail-docking, teeth clipping) were recognized as painful but were accepted because they were seen as: (1) necessary for sales or management; (2) satisfactory trade-offs to prevent worse welfare problems such as injury or infection; or (3) sufficiently short-term to be relatively unimportant. Participants were adamantly opposed to animal neglect and some welcomed actions of animal protectionists that expose poor care. Producers also welcomed natural-science-based approaches to improving animal welfare. The findings contribute to a broader effort to identify overlapping values among different stakeholder groups as a basis for formulating mutually agreeable, farm animal care and handling polices

“Everyday” Knowledge and a New Paradigm of Animal Research

Commentary on Marino and Allen (2017) The Psychology of Cow

Attitudes of Canadian Citizens Toward Farm Animal Welfare: A Qualitative Study

As part of a larger project to determine if there are animal-welfare-related values shared by some commercial food–animal producers and non-producers in Canada, open-ended, semi-structured interviews were conducted to elicit opinions about animal welfare among 24 urban and rural residents not involved in commercial animal production. All participants possessed a self-described interest in food animal well-being and were therefore assumed to represent the views of Canadian non-producers most apt to engage in efforts to shape the animal welfare policies of governments and businesses. Participants described animal welfare in moral or ethical terms, expressed virtually unanimous support for animals having access to “natural” living conditions, and (somewhat less often) linked animal welfare to positive affective states. Maintaining reasonable health and biological functioning was seen as important but was not to take precedence over the benefits of natural living. Participants favoured small family farms and unanimously objected to confinement housing. Participants did, however, offer qualified support for intensive practices and were unanimous in not assigning blame to producers, whom they regarded sympathetically. Predictably perhaps, given our sample, most were critical of industries preoccupied with profits and of consumers who unthinkingly seek cheap food. Recommended ways of improving welfare included instilling in consumers a greater appreciation for the intrinsic value of humanely reared animals, and better education of children regarding the connection between animals and food. Disagreements arose over the welfare implications of organic production and approaches to animal advocacy. Differing demographic backgrounds, experiential involvement with food animals and knowledge of food animal production practices may have influenced the nature or specificity of welfare concerns. Many participants admitted a lack of knowledge about contemporary production practices and some expressed an interest in obtaining additional knowledge. These findings contribute to a broader effort to identify shared values among different stakeholder groups as a basis for formulating widely acceptable, farm animal care and handling polices

"Everyday" Knowledge and a New Paradigm of Animal Research

Commentary on Marino and Allen (2017) The Psychology of Cow

Public Attitudes toward Animal Research: A Review

The exploration of public attitudes toward animal research is important given recent developments in animal research (e.g., increasing creation and use of genetically modified animals, and plans for progress in areas such as personalized medicine), and the shifting relationship between science and society (i.e., a move toward the democratization of science). As such, public engagement on issues related to animal research, including exploration of public attitudes, provides a means of achieving socially acceptable scientific practice and oversight through an understanding of societal values and concerns. Numerous studies have been conducted to explore public attitudes toward animal use, and more specifically the use of animals in research. This paper reviews relevant literature using three categories of influential factors: personal and cultural characteristics, animal characteristics, and research characteristics. A critique is given of survey style methods used to collect data on public attitudes, and recommendations are given on how best to address current gaps in public attitudes literature.Other UBCReviewedFacult

Expanding the Three Rs to Meet New Challenges in Humane Animal Experimentation

The Three Rs are the main principles used by Animal Ethics Committees in the governance of animal experimentation, but they appear not to cover some ethical issues that arise today. These include: a) claims that certain species should be exempted on principle from harmful research; b) increased emphasis on enhancing quality of life of research animals; c) research involving genetically modified (GM) animals; and d) animals bred as models of disease. In some cases, the Three Rs can be extended to cover these developments. The burgeoning use of GM animals in science calls for new forms of reduction through improved genetic modification technology, plus continued attention to alternative approaches and cost–benefit analyses that include the large numbers of animals involved indirectly. The adoption of more expanded definitions of refinement that go beyond minimising distress will capture concerns for enhancing the quality of life of animals through improved husbandry and handling. Targeting refinement to the unpredictable effects of gene modification may be difficult; in these cases, careful attention to monitoring and endpoints are the obvious options. Refinement can also include sharing data about the welfare impacts of gene modifications, and modelling earlier stages of disease, in order to reduce the potential suffering caused to disease models. Other issues may require a move beyond the Three Rs. Certain levels of harm, or numbers and use of certain species, may be unacceptable, regardless of potential benefits. This can be addressed by supplementing the utilitarian basis of the Three Rs with principles based on deontological and relational ethics. The Three Rs remain very useful, but they require thoughtful interpretation and expansion in order for Animal Ethics Committees to address the full range of issues in animal-based research