Compassionate versus consequentialist conservation

Ethical treatment of wildlife and consideration of animal welfare have become important themes in conservation, but ethical perspectives on how best to protect wild animals and promote their welfare are diverse. There are advantages to the consequentialist harms ethical framework applied in managing wild herbivores for conservation purposes. To minimize harms while achieving conservation goals, we argue that overabundant wild herbivores should in many cases be managed through consumptive in situ killing. Advantages of this policy are that the negative welfare states imposed on animals last only a short time; remaining animals are not deprived of positive welfare states (e.g., linked to rearing offspring); poor welfare states of animals in overabundant populations are avoided (e.g., starvation); negative welfare impacts on heterospecifics through resource depletion (i.e., competition) are prevented; harvesting meat reduces the number of (agricultural) animals raised to supply meat; and minimal costs maximize funding for other wildlife management and conservation priorities. Alternative ethical approaches to our consequentialist framework include deontology (containing animal rights) and virtue ethics, some of which underpin compassionate conservation. These alternative ethical approaches emphasize the importance of avoiding intentional killing of animals but, if no population reduction occurs, are likely to impose considerable unintentional harms on overabundant wildlife and indirectly harm heterospecifics through ineffective population reduction. If nonlethal control is used, it is likely that overabundant animals would be deprived of positive welfare states and economic costs would be prohibitive. We encourage conservation stakeholders to consider animal-welfare consequentialism as an ethical approach to minimize harms to the animals under their care as well as other animals that policies may affect while at the same time pursuing conservation goals

Assessing the efficacy of medetomidine and tiletamine-zolazepam for remote immobilisation of feral horses (Equus caballus)

Context The study of any wild animal's home range requires the collection of spatiotemporal data, obtained independently of climatic conditions or time of day. This can be achieved by the attachment of global positioning system (GPS) data loggers, which, in large species, is best achieved by remote immobilisation. Feral horses (Equus caballus) usually occupy remote areas of Australia; however, a considerable population increase has been observed in a close proximity to metropolitan areas of the Australian east coast, creating increasing conflict with human interests. Aim The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of remote chemical immobilisation of feral horses with medetomidine combined with tiletamine-zolazepam to facilitate placement of satellite GPS collars. Methods Nine feral horses were darted from the ground with 60mg (i.m.) medetomidine and 1500mg (i.m.) tiletamine-zolazepam. The effects of medetomidine were reversed with 50-100mg (i.m. or i.v.) atipamezole 30-40min after induction (IV/IM). Physiological variables monitored during anaesthesia were heart rate, respiratory rate, temperature and oxygen haemoglobin saturation (Spo2). Key results All horses were successfully immobilised with between one and three darts (n≤9). The mean (± s.e.m.) dose of medetomidine was 0.15±0.01mg kg-1, whereas that of tiletamine-zolazepam was 3.61±0.16mg kg-1. Mean time from darting to lateral recumbency was 13.3±2.7min and mean recumbency time was 54±13min. Vital signs for all anaesthetised animals remained within the normal range during anaesthesia, with the exception of one animal exhibiting a transient drop in Spo2. There were no deaths. Key conclusions The combination of medetomidine and tiletamine-zolazepam provided adequate anaesthesia in feral horses in the field for application of GPS collars. Implications Although a limited number of horses was immobilised, the present study shows that the combination of medetomidine and tiletamine-zolazepam provides effective short-term anaesthesia for feral horses, affording a practical and field-accessible capture technique. This method could also be applied to other management actions requiring the safe and humane capture of feral horses

Lead contamination in Australian game meat

Lead-based ammunition (gunshot and bullets) frequently leaves small lead fragments embedded in the meat of wild-shot game animals. Australia produces several commercial game meat products from wild animals harvested with lead-based ammunition and has a growing population of recreational hunters. However, no studies have previously investigated the frequency of lead fragments or lead concentrations in Australian game meat. We examined 133 Australian minced game meat items of four types for evidence of lead contamination. Samples were meat from kangaroos (Macropus and Osphranter spp.; n=36) and Bennett’s wallabies (Notamacropus rufogriseus; n=28) sold for human consumption, and deer (‘venison’; multiple spp.; n=32) and stubble quail (Coturnix pectoralis; n=37) harvested for private consumption by recreational hunters. All packages were studied by digital radiography to detect the presence of radio-dense fragments, assumed to be lead fragments from ammunition. Visible fragments were absent in commercially available kangaroo products, but were present in 4%, 28% and 35% of wallaby, venison and quail, respectively. Mean meat lead concentrations (mg/kg wet weight) were 0.01 ± 0.01 for kangaroo, 0.02 ± 0.01 for wallaby, 0.12 ± 0.07 for venison, and 1.76 ± 3.76 for quail. The Australian food standards threshold for livestock meat (0.1 mg/kg w.w.) was not exceeded by any kangaroo or wallaby products but was exceeded by 53% and 86% of venison and quail, respectively. Radiography only detected 35% of samples that were above the food safety threshold. While average lead concentrations in commercially available macropod (kangaroo and wallaby) meat were low, those in recreationally harvested game meat may pose health risks for hunters and associated consumers.publishedVersio

Uncontrolled pain: a call for better study design

Studies assessing animal pain in veterinary research are often performed primarily for the benefit of animals. Frequently, the goal of these studies is to determine whether the analgesic effect of a novel treatment is clinically meaningful, and therefore has the capacity to improve the welfare of treated animals. To determine the treatment effect of a potential analgesic, control groups are necessary to allow comparison. There are negative control groups (where pain is unattenuated) and positive control groups (where pain is attenuated). Arising out of animal welfare concerns, there is growing reluctance to use negative control groups in pain studies. But for studies where pain is experimentally induced, the absence of a negative control group removes the opportunity to demonstrate that the study methods could differentiate a positive control intervention from doing nothing at all. For studies that are controlled by a single comparison group, the capacity to distinguish treatment effects from experimental noise is more difficult; especially considering that pain studies often involve small sample sizes, small and variable treatment effects, systematic error and use pain assessment measures that are unreliable. Due to these limitations, and with a focus on farm animals, we argue that many pain studies would be enhanced by the simultaneous inclusion of positive and negative control groups. This would help provide study-specific definitions of pain and pain attenuation, thereby permitting more reliable estimates of treatment effects. Adoption of our suggested refinements could improve animal welfare outcomes for millions of animals globally

Lead contamination in Australian game meat

Lead-based ammunition (gunshot and bullets) frequently leaves small lead fragments embedded in the meat of wild-shot game animals. Australia produces several commercial game meat products from wild animals harvested with lead-based ammunition and has a growing population of recreational hunters. However, no studies have previously investigated the frequency of lead fragments or lead concentrations in Australian game meat. We examined 133 Australian minced game meat items of four types for evidence of lead contamination. Samples were meat from kangaroos (Macropus and Osphranter spp.; n=36) and Bennett's wallabies (Notamacropus rufogriseus; n=28) sold for human consumption, and deer ('venison'; multiple spp.; n=32) and stubble quail (Coturnix pectoralis; n=37) harvested for private consumption by recreational hunters. All packages were studied by digital radiography to detect the presence of radio-dense fragments, assumed to be lead fragments from ammunition. Visible fragments were absent in commercially available kangaroo products, but were present in 4%, 28% and 35% of wallaby, venison and quail, respectively. Mean meat lead concentrations (mg/kg wet weight) were 0.01 +/- 0.01 for kangaroo, 0.02 +/- 0.01 for wallaby, 0.12 +/- 0.07 for venison, and 1.76 +/- 3.76 for quail. The Australian food standards threshold for livestock meat (0.1 mg/kg w.w.) was not exceeded by any kangaroo or wallaby products but was exceeded by 53% and 86% of venison and quail, respectively. Radiography only detected 35% of samples that were above the food safety threshold. While average lead concentrations in commercially available macropod (kangaroo and wallaby) meat were low, those in recreationally harvested game meat may pose health risks for hunters and associated consumers

Heads in the sand: public health and ecological risks of lead-based bullets for wildlife shooting in Australia

publishedVersio

Serosurveillance and Molecular Investigation of Wild Deer in Australia Reveals Seroprevalence of Pestivirus Infection

Since deer were introduced into Australia in the mid-1800s, their wild populations have increased in size and distribution, posing a potential risk to the livestock industry, through their role in pathogen transmission cycles. In comparison to livestock, there are limited data on viral infections in all wildlife, including deer. The aim of this study was to assess blood samples from wild Australian deer for serological evidence of exposure to relevant viral livestock diseases. Blood samples collected across eastern Australia were tested by ELISA to detect antigens and antibodies against Pestivirus and antibodies against bovine herpesvirus 1. A subset of samples was also assessed by RT-PCR for Pestivirus, Simbu serogroup, epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus and bovine ephemeral fever virus. Our findings demonstrated a very low seroprevalence (3%) for ruminant Pestivirus, and none of the other viruses tested were detected. These results suggest that wild deer may currently be an incidental spill-over host (rather than a reservoir host) for Pestivirus. However, deer could be a future source of viral infections for domestic animals in Australia. Further investigations are needed to monitor pathogen activity and quantify possible future infectious disease impacts of wild deer on the Australian livestock industry

Serosurveillance and Molecular Investigation of Wild Deer in Australia Reveals Seroprevalence of Pestivirus Infection

Since deer were introduced into Australia in the mid-1800s, their wild populations have increased in size and distribution, posing a potential risk to the livestock industry, through their role in pathogen transmission cycles. In comparison to livestock, there are limited data on viral infections in all wildlife, including deer. The aim of this study was to assess blood samples from wild Australian deer for serological evidence of exposure to relevant viral livestock diseases. Blood samples collected across eastern Australia were tested by ELISA to detect antigens and antibodies against Pestivirus and antibodies against bovine herpesvirus 1. A subset of samples was also assessed by RT-PCR for Pestivirus, Simbu serogroup, epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus and bovine ephemeral fever virus. Our findings demonstrated a very low seroprevalence (3%) for ruminant Pestivirus, and none of the other viruses tested were detected. These results suggest that wild deer may currently be an incidental spill-over host (rather than a reservoir host) for Pestivirus. However, deer could be a future source of viral infections for domestic animals in Australia. Further investigations are needed to monitor pathogen activity and quantify possible future infectious disease impacts of wild deer on the Australian livestock industry

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

Rethinking the utility of the Five Domains model

The Five Domains model is influential in contemporary studies of animal welfare. It was originally presented as a conceptual model to understand the types of impact that procedures may impose on experimental animals. Its application has since broadened to cover a wide range of animal species and forms of animal use. However, it has also increasingly been applied as an animal welfare assessment tool, which is the focus of this paper. Several critical limitations associated with this approach have not been widely acknowledged, including that: (1) it relies upon expert or stakeholder opinion, with little transparency around the selection of these individuals; (2) quantitative scoring is typically attempted despite the absence of clear principles for aggregation of welfare measures and few attempts to account for uncertainty; (3) there have been few efforts to measure the repeatability of findings; and (4) it does not consider indirect and unintentional impacts such as those imposed on non-target animals. These deficiencies lead to concerns surrounding testability, repeatability and the potential for manipulation. We provide suggestions for refinement of how the Five Domains model is applied to partially address these limitations. We argue that the Five Domains model is useful for systematic consideration of all sources of possible welfare compromise and enhancement, but is not, in its current state, fit-for-purpose as an assessment tool. We argue for wider acknowledgment of the operational limits of using the model as an assessment tool, prioritisation of the studies needed for its validation, and encourage improvements to this approach