In the UK and Republic of Ireland, the European badger (Meles meles) is considered the most significant wildlife reservoir of the bacterium Mycobacterium bovis, the cause of bovine tuberculosis (bTB). To expand options for bTB surveillance and disease control, the Animal and Plant Health Agency developed a bespoke physical restraint cage to facilitate collection of a small blood sample from a restrained, conscious badger in the field. A key step, prior to pursuing operational deployment of the novel restraint cage, was an assessment of the relative welfare impacts of the approach. We used an established welfare assessment model to elicit expert opinion during two workshops to compare the impacts of the restraint cage approach with the only current alternative for obtaining blood samples from badgers in the field, which involves administration of a general anaesthetic. Eleven panellists participated in the workshops, comprising experts in the fields of wildlife biology, animal welfare science, badger capture and sampling, and veterinary science. Both approaches were assessed to have negative welfare impacts, although in neither case were overall welfare scores higher than intermediate, never exceeding 5-6 out of a possible 8. Based on our assessments, the restraint cage approach is no worse for welfare compared to using general anaesthesia and possibly has a lower overall negative impact on badger welfare. Our results can be used to integrate consideration of badger welfare alongside other factors, including financial cost and efficiency, when selecting a field method for blood sampling free-living badgers.

Scientific assessment of the impacts of trapping on mammal welfare is necessary to inform cost-benefit analyses of using traps in wildlife management, improve trap performance and trapping processes and develop international trap standards. The Sharp and Saunders humaneness assessment model was developed specifically for assessing welfare impacts in vertebrate wildlife management and has been used to assess the impacts of trapping various mammals. It is a specific version of the more general Five Domains model for welfare assessment which is based on the understanding that welfare state reflects the sum of the animal's mental experiences. Our experience of applying the Sharp and Saunders model allows us to make key recommendations for those wishing to use it. First, the exact parameters of the trapping scenario to be assessed must be decided. Second, assessments should be based on published data, as well as integrating both scientific and practitioner expertise to provide rigorous and relevant outcomes. Third, conclusions about welfare impacts should be based on the appropriate indicators. As far as is possible, mental experiences should be inferred using animal-based indicators, and some representation should be provided of the scorers' confidence in the data on which assessment is based. Careful consideration of these points will help optimize the value of information produced using the model for wildlife management decision-making.

Norway rats ( Rattus norvegicus ) are considered one of the most significant vertebrate pests globally, because of their impacts on human and animal health. There are legal and moral obligations to minimise the impacts of wildlife management on animal welfare, yet there are few data on the relative welfare impacts of rat trapping and baiting methods used in the UK with which to inform management decisions. Two stakeholder workshops were facilitated to assess the relative welfare impacts of six lethal rat management methods using a welfare assessment model. Fifteen stakeholders including experts in wildlife management, rodent management, rodent biology, animal welfare science, and veterinary science and medicine, participated. The greatest welfare impacts were associated with three baiting methods, anticoagulants, cholecalciferol and non-toxic cellulose baits (severe to extreme impact for days), and with capture on a glue trap (extreme for hours) with concussive killing (mild to moderate for seconds to minutes); these methods should be considered last resorts from a welfare perspective. Lower impacts were associated with cage trapping (moderate to severe for hours) with concussive killing (moderate for minutes). The impact of snap trapping was highly variable (no impact to extreme for seconds to minutes). Snap traps should be regulated and tested to identify those that cause rapid unconsciousness; such traps might represent the most welfare-friendly option assessed for killing rats. Our results can be used to integrate consideration of rat welfare alongside other factors, including cost, efficacy, safety, non-target animal welfare and public acceptability when selecting management methods. We also highlight ways of reducing welfare impacts and areas where more data are needed.

Allogrooming can relate to social status in mammalian societies, and thus, be used to infer social structure. This relationship has previously been investigated by examining an individual’s dominance rank and their total amount of allogrooming. This, however, does not account for the identity of allogrooming partners. We applied a novel approach, calculating the linearity and steepness of unreciprocated allogrooming hierarchies using actor–receiver matrices in European badgers (Meles meles) groups. Badgers have relatively unstructured social groups compared to most group-living carnivores and allogrooming in badgers is currently hypothesized to have a hygiene function. We examine whether allogrooming is linked to social status by investigating: 1) the presence, linearity, and steepness of unreciprocated allogrooming hierarchies; 2) the trading of unreciprocated allogrooming for the potential benefit of receiving reduced aggression from dominant individuals; and, 3) whether unreciprocated allogrooming is associated with relatedness. We found weak unreciprocated allogrooming hierarchies, with marginal linearity, steepness overall, and variation between social-group-years. Unreciprocated allogrooming was positively correlated with directed aggression, potentially providing evidence for the trading of allogrooming for reduced aggression. Allogrooming was not correlated with relatedness, possibly due to high relatedness within social groups. Our findings reaffirm that European badgers have a relatively unstructured social system; likely reflecting a relatively simple state of sociality in Carnivores, with little need for hierarchical order. Using actor–receiver unreciprocated allogrooming matrices to test for linearity and steepness of unreciprocated allogrooming hierarchies in other social species will improve knowledge of group social structure.

The authors wish to make the following corrections to their paper [...].

In 1999, after pressure from the European Union, an Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) that would result in the banning of the steel-jawed leghold traps in the European Community, Canada, and Russia was signed. The United States implemented these standards through an Agreed Minute with the European Community. Over the last two decades, scientists have criticized the AIHTS for (1) omitting species that are commonly trapped; (2) threshold levels of trap acceptance that are not representative of state-of-the-art trap technology; (3) excluding popular traps which are commonly used by trappers although they are known to cause prolonged pain and stress to captured animals; (4) inadequate coverage of capture efficiency and species selectivity (i.e., number of captures of target and non-target species) performance. Concerns about the ability of standards and test procedures to ensure animal welfare, and about the implementation of standards, have also been voiced by wildlife biologists, managers, and conservation groups. In this review, we present a synopsis of current trapping standards and test procedures, and we compare the standards to a then contemporary 1985–1993 Canadian trap research and development program. On the basis of the above-noted concerns about AIHTS, and our experience as wildlife professionals involved in the capture of mammals, we formulated the following hypotheses: (1) the list of mammal species included in the AIHTS is incomplete; (2) the AIHTS have relatively low animal welfare performance thresholds of killing trap acceptance and do not reflect state-of-the-art trapping technology; (3) the AIHTS animal welfare indicators and injuries for restraining traps are insufficient; (4) the AIHTS testing procedures are neither thorough nor transparent; (5) the AIHTS protocols for the use of certified traps are inadequate; (6) the AIHTS procedures for the handling and dispatching of animals are nonexistent; (7) the AIHTS criteria to assess trap capture efficiency and species selectivity are inappropriate. We conclude that the AIHTS do not reflect state-of-the-art trapping technology, and assessment protocols need to be updated to include trap components and sets, animal handling and dispatching, and trap visit intervals. The list of traps and species included in the standards should be updated. Finally, the concepts of capture efficiency and trap selectivity should be developed and included in the standards. Based on our review, it is clear that mammal trapping standards need to be revisited to implement state-of-the-art trapping technology and improve capture efficiency and species selectivity. We believe that a committee of international professionals consisting of wildlife biologists and veterinarians with extensive experience in the capture of mammals and animal welfare could produce new standards within 1–2 years. We propose a series of measures to fund trap testing and implement new standards.

Human–wildlife conflict occurs globally. Attempts to control ‘pest’ wildlife involve killing and harming the welfare of animals on a vast scale. We examined public perceptions of 10 wildlife species/groups and wildlife management, in and around UK homes, and public authority ‘pest control’ provision, in an effort to identify ethical, welfare-friendly ways to reduce conflict. Most people reported never having problems with each of the 10 species, and reported problems for some species were largely tolerated. Wasps, mice, and rats were the most frequently problematic species, the least tolerated, and those for which local authorities most often offered pest control services. Do-It-Yourself pest control was preferred over professional control, except for with wasps. People wanted control to be quick, lasting, and safe for people and non-target animals. Where people accepted lethal control, they were nevertheless concerned for animal welfare. Drivers of pest status were complex, while drivers of demand for control were fewer and species-specific. Local authority pest control provision increased over the four years studied, but only half of councils offered advice on preventing/deterring wildlife; this advice was patchy and variable in quality. Greater focus is required on preventing/deterring rather than controlling wildlife problems. Councils should provide standardised, comprehensive advice on prevention/deterrence and prevention/deterrence services.

ABSTRACTGround‐penetrating radar is widely used to provide highly resolved images of subsurface sedimentary structures, with implications for processes active in the vadose zone. Frequently overlooked among these structures are tunnels excavated by fossorial animals (e.g., moles). We present two repeated ground‐penetrating radar surveys performed a year apart in 2016 and 2017. Careful three‐dimensional data processing reveals, in each data set, a pattern of elongated structures that are interpreted as a subsurface mole tunnel network. Our data demonstrate the ability of three‐dimensional ground‐penetrating radar imaging to non‐invasively delineate the small animal tunnels (∼5 cm diameter) at a higher spatial and geolocation resolution than has previously been achieved. In turn, this makes repeated surveys and, therefore, long‐term monitoring possible. Our results offer valuable insight into the understanding of the near‐surface and showcase a potential new application for a geophysical method as well as a non‐invasive method of ecological surveying.

Human activity affecting the welfare of wild vertebrates, widely accepted to be sentient, and therefore deserving of moral concern, is widespread. A variety of motives lead to the killing of individual wild animals. These include to provide food, to protect stock and other human interests, and also for sport. The acceptability of such killing is widely believed to vary with the motive and method. Individual vertebrates are also killed by conservationists. Whether securing conservation goals is an adequate reason for such killing has recently been challenged. Conventional conservation practice has tended to prioritise ecological collectives, such as populations and species, when their interests conflict with those of individuals. Supporters of the 'Compassionate Conservation' movement argue both that conservationists have neglected animal welfare when such conflicts arise and that no killing for conservation is justified. We counter that conservationists increasingly seek to adhere to high standards of welfare, and that the extreme position advocated by some supporters of 'Compassionate Conservation', rooted in virtue ethics, would, if widely accepted, lead to considerable negative effects for conservation. Conservation practice cannot afford to neglect consequences. Moreover, the do-no-harm maxim does not always lead to better outcomes for animal welfare.

Increasingly, human activities, including those aimed at conserving species and ecosystems (conservation activities) influence not only the survival and fitness but also the welfare of wild animals. Animal welfare relates to how an animal is experiencing its life and encompasses both its physical and mental states. While conservation biology and animal welfare science are both multi-disciplinary fields that use scientific methods to address concerns about animals, their focus and objectives sometimes appear to conflict. However, activities impacting detrimentally on the welfare of individual animals also hamper achievement of some conservation goals, and societal acceptance is imperative to the continuation of conservation activities. Thus, the best outcomes for both disciplines will be achieved through collaboration and knowledge-sharing. Despite this recognition, cross-disciplinary information-sharing and collaborative research and practice in conservation are still rare, with the exception of the zoo context. This paper summarizes key points developed by a group of conservation and animal welfare scientists discussing scientific assessment of wild animal welfare and barriers to progress. The dominant theme emerging was the need for a common language to facilitate cross-disciplinary progress in understanding and safeguarding the welfare of animals of wild species. Current conceptions of welfare implicit in conservation science, based mainly on ‘fitness’ (physical states), need to be aligned with contemporary animal welfare science concepts which emphasize the dynamic integration of ‘fitness’ and ‘feelings’ (mental experiences) to holistically understand animals’ welfare states. The way in which animal welfare is characterized influences the way it is evaluated and the emphasis put on different features of welfare as well as the importance placed on the outcomes of such evaluations and how that information is used, for example in policy development and decision-making. Salient examples from the New Zealand and Australian context are presented to illustrate. To genuinely progress our understanding and evaluation of wild animal welfare and optimize the aims of both scientific disciplines, conservation and animal welfare scientists should work together to evolve and apply a common understanding of welfare. To facilitate this, we propose the formal development of a new discipline, Conservation Welfare, integrating the expertise of scientists from both fields.

Human–wildlife conflicts are commonly addressed by excluding, relocating, or lethally controlling animals with the goal of preserving public health and safety, protecting property, or conserving other valued wildlife. However, declining wildlife populations, a lack of efficacy of control methods in achieving desired outcomes, and changes in how people value animals have triggered widespread acknowledgment of the need for ethical and evidence‐based approaches to managing such conflicts. We explored international perspectives on and experiences with human–wildlife conflicts to develop principles for ethical wildlife control. A diverse panel of 20 experts convened at a 2‐day workshop and developed the principles through a facilitated engagement process and discussion. They determined that efforts to control wildlife should begin wherever possible by altering the human practices that cause human–wildlife conflict and by developing a culture of coexistence; be justified by evidence that significant harms are being caused to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems, and/or other animals; have measurable outcome‐based objectives that are clear, achievable, monitored, and adaptive; predictably minimize animal welfare harms to the fewest number of animals; be informed by community values as well as scientific, technical, and practical information; be integrated into plans for systematic long‐term management; and be based on the specifics of the situation rather than negative labels (pest, overabundant) applied to the target species. We recommend that these principles guide development of international, national, and local standards and control decisions and implementation.

Behavioural events that are important for understanding sociobiology and movement ecology are often rare, transient and localised, but can occur at spatially distant sites e.g. territorial incursions and co‐locating individuals. Existing animal tracking technologies, capable of detecting such events, are limited by one or more of: battery life; data resolution; location accuracy; data security; ability to co‐locate individuals both spatially and temporally. Technology that at least partly resolves these limitations would be advantageous. European badgers ( Meles meles L.), present a challenging test‐bed, with extra‐group paternity (apparent from genotyping) contradicting established views on rigid group territoriality with little social‐group mixing. In a proof of concept study we assess the utility of a fully automated active‐radio‐frequency‐identification (aRFID) system combining badger‐borne aRFID‐tags with static, wirelessly‐networked, aRFID‐detector base‐stations to record badger co‐locations at setts (burrows) and near notional border latrines. We summarise the time badgers spent co‐locating within and between social‐groups, applying network analysis to provide evidence of co‐location based community structure, at both these scales. The aRFID system co‐located animals within 31.5 m (adjustable) of base‐stations. Efficient radio transmission between aRFIDs and base‐stations enables a 20 g tag to last for 2–5 years (depending on transmission interval). Data security was high (data stored off tag), with remote access capability. Badgers spent most co‐location time with members of their own social‐groups at setts; remaining co‐location time was divided evenly between intra‐ and inter‐social‐group co‐locations near latrines and inter‐social‐group co‐locations at setts. Network analysis showed that 20–100% of tracked badgers engaged in inter‐social‐group mixing per week, with evidence of trans‐border super‐groups, that is, badgers frequently transgressed notional territorial borders. aRFID occupies a distinct niche amongst established tracking technologies. We validated the utility of aRFID to identify co‐locations, social‐structure and inter‐group mixing within a wild badger population, leading us to refute the conventional view that badgers (social‐groups) are territorial and to question management strategies, for controlling bovine TB, based on this model. Ultimately aRFID proved a versatile system capable of identifying social‐structure at the landscape scale, operating for years and suitable for use with a range of species.

Spring traps require welfare approval in the UK, but break-back traps, for rats and mice, and mole traps are exempt. Mechanical tests on a wide range of these unregulated traps showed that impact momentum varied 6-8-fold, and clamping force varied 4-5.5-fold, among traps for use with each of rats, mice and moles. There was considerable overlap between the strongest mouse traps and weakest rat traps for each force. A post-mortem and x-ray study of 50 spring-trapped moles revealed that none sustained damaged skulls or cervical vertebrae; they were, therefore, unlikely to have become unconscious immediately. Some moles appeared superficially to have broken spines, but in fact they had incurred only soft tissue damage and no broken vertebrae. The primary identifiable cause of death in trapped moles was acute haemorrhage. A minority of moles may have asphyxiated, but evidence for this was weak. Given the scale of rat, mouse and mole trapping in the UK, the wide range of unregulated traps available, and doubts raised regarding their humaneness, this research suggests an urgent imperative to abandon a puzzling double standard, and thereby to reduce the welfare impact of unregulated spring traps for rats, mice and moles. There is a strong case that all traps should be subjected to comparable approval standards. In the meantime, we propose a Voluntary Trap Approval (VTA) scheme under which manufacturers would submit traps for approval testing in the same way as for regulated traps. All approved traps could be given a certification mark and trap suppliers might choose to sell only approved traps, thus edging non-approved traps out of the market.

Human-wildlife conflict is a global issue. Attempts to manage this conflict impact upon wild animal welfare, an issue receiving little attention until relatively recently. Where human activities harm animal welfare these effects should be minimised where possible. However, little is known about the welfare impacts of different wildlife management interventions, and opinions on impacts vary widely. Welfare impacts therefore need to be assessed objectively. Our objectives were to: 1) establish whether an existing welfare assessment model could differentiate and rank the impacts of different wildlife management interventions (for decision-making purposes); 2) identify and evaluate any additional benefits of making formal welfare assessments; and 3) illustrate issues raised by application of the model. We applied the welfare assessment model to interventions commonly used with rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), moles (Talpa europaea) and crows (Corvus corone) in the UK. The model ranked interventions for rabbits (least impact first: fencing, head shot, chest shot) and crows (shooting, scaring, live trapping with cervical dislocation). For moles, managing molehills and tunnels scored least impact. Both spring trapping, and live trapping followed by translocation, scored greater impacts, but these could not be compared directly as they scored on different axes of the model. Some rankings appeared counter-intuitive, highlighting the need for objective formal welfare assessments. As well as ranking the humaneness of interventions, the model highlighted future research needs and how Standard Operating Procedures might be improved. The model is a milestone in assessing wildlife management welfare impacts, but our research revealed some limitations of the model and we discuss likely challenges in resolving these. In future, the model might be developed to improve its utility, e.g. by refining the time-scales. It might also be used to reach consensus among stakeholders about relative welfare impacts or to identify ways of improving wildlife management practice in the field.

Unintentional mortality of endangered carnivores due to non-selective trapping is important for conservation and warrants urgent attention. Currently, non-selective traps are being approved and used based on trap selectivity tests conducted according to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) guidelines. We review these guidelines and find them inadequate, because: (1) the ISO definition of selectivity does not account for relative abundance of target and non-target species and does not therefore meaningfully reflect selectivity; (2) the guidelines methodology at best quantifies relative selectivity of one trap against another, which is of limited use unless the control trap is known to have an acceptable level of absolute selectivity for the target species; (3) information on relative trap selectivity cannot simply be extrapolated elsewhere, unless species assemblage and relative species abundances are consistent. We demonstrate that the ISO definition of trap selectivity is only a simple capture proportion and therefore does not represent trap selectivity. ISO guidelines on trap selectivity should be reviewed to reflect particular ecological scenarios and we suggest how this might be done. Policy-makers, practitioners and researchers should interpret scientific results more cautiously. Trap approval decisions should be based on scientific evidence to avoid undermining the conservation of biodiversity.

Moles are considered pests in Britain, but this issue has been little studied. Lower welfare standards have been tolerated for moles than for most other managed wild mammal species, as use of both the controversial poison, strychnine, and unregulated traps have been permitted. Strychnine was withdrawn in 2006 and there were fears that mole populations would increase as a result. In 2007, we conducted a comprehensive, nationwide survey of land manager perceptions, opinions and behaviour regarding moles and mole control on farms, amenities and domestic gardens in Britain. We surveyed 2150 land managers (achieving a 59% response rate) and ground-truthed 29 responses. Moles were reported to be present on most farms and amenities, and 13% of gardens, and were more common in lighter soils. Where present, moles were usually considered pests, this being more likely in Wales, Scotland and northern England, on livestock and mixed farms, and on large, high-value amenities, e.g., racecourses and golf courses. Mole control followed similar patterns to mole presence. More control may occur than is economically, and therefore potentially ethically, justified. Control should be more carefully considered and, where necessary, more effectively targeted. Kill-trapping was the favoured recent and future method on farms and amenities, even if strychnine was to be reintroduced; however, because mole traps are currently unregulated, some might not meet current welfare standards if tested. We found no evidence for an increase in moles since a farm questionnaire survey conducted in 1992; this could have wider implications for future wildlife management policy changes.

The media can reflect social opinion and influence debate and policy. Wild vertebrate welfare issues are regularly reported in the media, but there has been no study of the type and frequency of their coverage. We compiled a list of potential wild vertebrate welfare issues in the United Kingdom, recording how often each issue was mentioned in the media during 2014. Lethal wildlife management issues were most frequently reported, whereas issues that received little coverage included marine debris, commercial fishing, and pollution. Overall, the media tended more frequently to report welfare issues that involved intent to harm an animal, were illegal, or occurred in the terrestrial environment. Insofar as media reporting may lead to improvements in the welfare of wild animals, greater effort may be required to provoke media interest in welfare issues that do not involve intent to harm, are legal, or occur in marine environments.

Tourism accounts for 9% of global GDP and comprises 1.1 billion tourist arrivals per annum. Visits to wildlife tourist attractions (WTAs) may account for 20-40% of global tourism, but no studies have audited the diversity of WTAs and their impacts on the conservation status and welfare of subject animals. We scored these impacts for 24 types of WTA, visited by 3.6-6 million tourists per year, and compared our scores to tourists' feedback on TripAdvisor. Six WTA types (impacting 1,500-13,000 individual animals) had net positive conservation/welfare impacts, but 14 (120,000-340,000 individuals) had negative conservation impacts and 18 (230,000-550,000 individuals) had negative welfare impacts. Despite these figures only 7.8% of all tourist feedback on these WTAs was negative due to conservation/welfare concerns. We demonstrate that WTAs have substantial negative effects that are unrecognised by the majority of tourists, suggesting an urgent need for tourist education and regulation of WTAs worldwide.

Managing wildlife humanely with learned food aversions describes experiments investigating the potential of learned food aversions for managing human–wildlife conflict without culling. First the chapter demonstrates that Conditioned Taste Aversion (CTA) using a colour cue can manipulate food preferences for untreated eggs among captive magpies and crows. However, captivity may influence animals' motivation to feed, so, having demonstrated the principle, the chapter examines with free-ranging badgers protection of untreated maize cobs, this time using CTA and an odour cue. Despite promising findings, there are numerous practical difficulties with extrapolating CTA to full-scale applications, including identification of an aversive agent that is suitable for use in the environment. Finally, the chapter describes using a bitter taste to develop Generalised Aversions (GA) among foxes towards untreated food. While GA might avoid the difficulties of identifying a CTA agent, GAs are likely to provide only short-term protection of untreated foods. Learned food aversions merit further investigation.