Berg, Lotta

Butterworth, Andrew

Lerner, Henrik

Walzer, Chris

English

Epsilon Open Archive

EDITORIALpublished: 30 September 2020doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.576095Frontiers in Veterinary Science | www.frontiersin.org 1 September 2020 | Volume 7 | Article 576095Edited and reviewed by:Jeremy N. Marchant-Forde,Livestock Behavior Research Unit(USDA-ARS), United States*Correspondence:Charlotte Berglotta.berg@slu.seSpecialty section:This article was submitted toAnimal Behavior and Welfare,a section of the journalFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceReceived: 25 June 2020Accepted: 24 August 2020Published: 30 September 2020Citation:Berg C, Lerner H, Butterworth A andWalzer C (2020) Editorial: WildlifeWelfare. Front. Vet. Sci. 7:576095.doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.576095Editorial: Wildlife WelfareCharlotte Berg 1*, Henrik Lerner 2, Andrew Butterworth 3 and Chris Walzer 4,51Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, and the Swedish Centre forAnimal Welfare (SCAW), Skara, Sweden, 2Department of Health Care Sciences, Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University College,Stockholm, Sweden, 3 Independent Veterinary Consultant, Welfare Max, Bristol, United Kingdom, 4Wildlife ConservationSociety, Bronx, NY, United States, 5 Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna,AustriaKeywords: wildlife, conservation, animal welfare, captive breeding, 3R, wildlife managementEditorial on the Research TopicWildlife WelfareAnimal welfare relates to the feelings, behavior, and the health status of animals. Nevertheless,animal welfare legislation rarely prescribes what animals should feel or experience, but ratherwhat humans should do to protect the animals in their care from unnecessary suffering, and e.g.,specifications to provide them with suitable housing conditions and appropriate feed to ensure areasonably good life. This obviously applies to domesticated animals and wildlife kept in enclosures,but not to free-roaming wildlife. Wildlife welfare has received far less attention than welfare forfarm or companion animals, although attempts have been made (1, 2). In recent years the extent ofinterest in wildlife welfare has grown, as more people have realized that humans have a substantialinfluence on the lives and welfare of wildlife individuals. Humans, as individuals and as a species,intentionally or unintentionally influence the welfare of wildlife in many different ways, some ofwhich are discussed in this special issue.The growing global human population is impacting wildlife habitats, and causing disturbanceor destruction of nature, be it for infrastructure projects such as roads, city expansion or beachresorts, or to gain access to natural resources such as oil, timber or minerals. The expanding humanpopulation requires more food. Livestock and feed production are among the greatest threats tobiodiversity and key drivers in land-use change. Forests and savannahs are being converted intoagricultural land for crop and animal production while oceans are unsustainably trawled for fish.This will inevitably decrease the potential for wildlife to find suitable areas for breeding, foraging,staging during migration or hiding from predators. In this volume, Stephen and Wade presentlamprey on Vancouver Island as an aquatic example of how to work with shared priorities for socialexpectations, conservation obligations and species recovery at the population level of welfare.By introducing domestic livestock to an area, humans will not only compete for space, but mayalso contribute to the spread of various infectious diseases from livestock to wild species (and, ofcourse, also the other way around) or from wildlife to humans (3). There is also the obvious threat,not only to the survival of certain species but also to the welfare of individual animals, causedwhen humans, intentionally or by accident, introduce invasive species to a new region, resultingin predation or inter-species competition for resources such as nesting sites or food. If humansthen decide to eradicate such invasive species, the eradication process may in turn involve negativeeffects on the welfare of the individuals of the invasive species.Unregulated hunting, poaching and unsustainable fishing by humans can, over time, reduce thenumber of wild animal individuals to a level where they can no longer proliferate and will becomeextinct. Such activities can also directly lead to animals being hit or caught, struck and lost, injuredbut not killed—causing considerable suffering if the animal cannot immediately be located andhumanely killed. Furthermore, hunting and fishing activities may impact animals other than theBerg et al. Editorial: Wildlife Welfareintended prey, through disturbance, by-catch or entanglement.The entanglement of cetaceans is addressed by Dolmanand Brakes, where the authors discuss the animal welfareconsequences of incidental capture of marine wildlife incommercial fishing gear.It should be acknowledged that tourism activities, even whencarried out by wildlife enthusiasts, who may aim to supportwildlife in the wild, may have unintended negative side effectson wild animal welfare. Wildlife encounters, such as whale-watching, seal-spotting, bird-watching, or tiger-tracking, mayinvolve elements of disturbance or improper feeding of the targetanimals. The paper by Nunny and Simmonds brings up the needfor strengthened legislation and guidelines to protect wild-livingsolitary sociable dolphins in relation to interactions with people.In the area of wildlife conservation projects, a large range ofactivities from habitat restoration and head-starting programmesto translocation, captive breeding and the keeping of so-called“parallel populations” can be identified. When the focus is onspecies conservation, the welfare of the individual animals hashistorically often been given a lower priority. This has, however,changed during recent years, and scientists and others haveraised questions about ethical aspects of such interventions andthe potential to improve the welfare of animals involved insuch projects (4–6). This aspect is highlighted in the paperby Beausoleil et al., which describes how cross-disciplinaryinformation-sharing and collaborative research and practice inconservation can be applied in captive breeding projects, tofacilitate the incorporation of both “fitness” and “feelings” toimprove understanding of the welfare state of the animals.Is there a difference between wildlife research and wildlifemanagement regarding welfare aspects? In many countries, thelegislative requirements differ depending on if the interventionsare classified as research rather than management, although theactual handling of the animals may be identical. Lindsjö et al.argue for a more developed legislation about welfare matters inrelation to these aspects.Whilst aiming to improve conservation and indirectlyimprove the welfare status of animals, wildlife research, aswell as captive breeding programmes for restoration of wildanimal populations, can involve animal welfare risks (Figure 1).An increased interest in animal welfare can relate to variousaspects of capture methods, the design of enclosures for breedinganimals or head-started animals, preparation of captive-bredanimals for a life in the wild, preparation of release-sites toimprove the survival chances of newly-released animals, andproper post-release monitoring. In their paper, Greggor et al.highlight several of these aspects, emphasizing the need for anevidence-based approach to evaluate practices in conservationbreeding facilities from an animal welfare perspective, while stillmeeting conservation goals. Thulin and Röcklinsberg analyseethical considerations for wildlife reintroductions and rewildingprojects, and Robins et al. discuss how telemetry can beused to improve post-release monitoring of apes. Arnemoet al. discusses long-term safety in bears equipped with radiotransmitters, and Robins et al. do so in relation to orang-utans.The paper by de Jong addresses how, in accordance with the3R principles, to avoid redundant handling and interventions.The 3R principles are commonly used when designing studiesFIGURE 1 | Young goshawk at ringing. A short moment of close interactionbetween humans and the bird. Such interactions can still, if not properlycarried out, involve animal welfare risks.involving traditional laboratory animals for research. In wildliferesearch, this approach is yet to be further developed. Huberet al. focus on the possibility of using leukocyte coping capacityto quantify and evaluate stress in wildlife in captivity or whenotherwise being handled by humans, and the strengths andweaknesses of this immunological approach.The ultimate aim of captive breeding programmes is oftento ensure that self-sustaining, free-ranging wildlife populationscan exist, and this requires suitable habitat, sufficiently largeenough areas, with intact ecosystems and sustainable ecosystemservices. Furthermore, the choice of breeding animals interms of health, behavior and temperament can be highlyrelevant for the welfare of their offspring, once released.Should suitable groups be formed before release? This aspectof sociality, and the importance of social networks for wildlifeliving in groups is discussed in the paper by Brakes. Inaddition to the welfare impacts for the translocated animals,the welfare of animals of other species at the releasesite should be considered: is there competition for foodor other resources? Is a novel predator being released inan area?If a wild animal is kept in captivity, for breeding, foreducation or show at a zoological garden, handled in researchor for management purposes, there are both legal and moralobligations related to human responsibility for the well-beingof the individual animal. This special issue highlights that thisresponsibility extends beyond the fence.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSCB and HL have written the draft of the editorial and it wasamended and revised by the other authors. All authors haveserved as editors of the Research Topic.Frontiers in Veterinary Science | www.frontiersin.org 2 September 2020 | Volume 7 | Article 576095Berg et al. Editorial: Wildlife WelfareREFERENCES1. Lerner H. The Concepts of Health, Well-being and Welfare as Applied toAnimals: a Philosophical Analysis of the Concepts with Regard to the DifferencesBetween Animals. Ph. D. thesis, Linköping University. (2008) Available onlineat: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:18162/FULLTEXT01.pdf2. Kirkwood J. Wild animal welfare. Anim Welfare. (2013) 22:147–8. doi: 10.7120/09627286.22.1.1473. Thulin C-G, Malmsten J, Ericsson G. Opportunities and challengeswith growing wildlife population and zoonotic diseases in Sweden.Europ J Wildlife Res. (2015) 61:649–56. doi: 10.1007/s10344-015-0945-14. Harrington LA, Moehrenschlager A, Gelling M, Atkinson RPD, HughesJ, Macdonald DW. Conflicting and complementary ethics of animalwelfare consideration in reintroductions. Conserv Biol. (2013) 27:486–500. doi: 10.1111/cobi.120215. Paquet PC, Darimont CT. Wildlife conservation and animal welfare: two sidesof the same coin? AnimWelfare. (2010) 19:177–90.6. Swaisgood RR. The conservation-welfare nexus in reintroduction programmes:a role for sensory ecology. AnimWelfare. (2010) 19:125–37.Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in theabsence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as apotential conflict of interest.Copyright © 2020 Berg, Lerner, Butterworth and Walzer. This is an open-accessarticle distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCBY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, providedthe original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the originalpublication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with theseterms.Frontiers in Veterinary Science | www.frontiersin.org 3 September 2020 | Volume 7 | Article 576095

Editorial: Wildlife welfare

https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/18077/1/berg_c_et_al_201105.pdf

Editorial: Wildlife welfare

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Epsilon Open Archive