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.

Context Destruction of rabbit warrens to prevent re-invasion is an important component of integrated rabbit management. Ripping, and less commonly blasting with explosives, are used to destroy warren systems and to kill any rabbits remaining in warrens, usually after the population has already been reduced. However, the use of these methods can sometimes be constrained by vegetation, topography, presence of culturally significant sites or important habitats, or they may be inefficient or expensive due to the low density of warrens. Gas explosive devices provide an alternative method in these situations; however, little is known about their animal welfare impacts. The R3 Unit is a gas explosive device used in Australia. It pumps a calibrated mixture of propane and oxygen into a warren and then ignites the mixture, causing a blast wave to travel through the warren. Aims To determine the animal welfare impacts of the R3 Unit gas explosive device and to assess its effectiveness at achieving a rapid death in wild rabbits. Methods Trials of the R3 Unit were initially conducted in artificial warrens to determine the relationship between blast pressure, warren size and structure. We then assessed the extent of injury and probability of death of rabbits in both artificial and natural warrens. Key results As blast pressure increases within a warren, probability of death also increases. Blast pressures exceeding 56 psi will render rabbits unconscious, but a blast pressure of at least 67 psi is required to kill rabbits quickly and humanely. Sublethal blasts at lower pressures result in significant injuries that lead to severe suffering. Conclusions The R3 Unit can humanely kill rabbits when the blast pressure is sufficient to cause immediate unconsciousness and death (without regaining consciousness). To achieve adequate blast pressure, warrens must be small, with a diameter no more than 4 m, and all entrances must be sealed. Implications The R3 Unit can provide an effective alternative to warren ripping and blasting in certain situations. However, to ensure the device is used correctly to minimise animal welfare impacts, operators must be trained in its use and follow best practice procedures.

Marsupial research, conservation, and management can benefit greatly from knowledge about glucocorticoid (GC) secretion patterns because GCs influence numerous aspects of physiology and play a crucial role in regulating an animal's response to stressors. Faecal glucocorticoid metabolites (FGM) offer a non-invasive tool for tracking changes in GCs over time. To date, there are relatively few validated assays for marsupials compared with other taxa, and those that have been published generally test only one assay. However, different assays can yield very different signals of adrenal activity. The goal of this study was to compare the performance of five different enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for monitoring adrenocortical activity via FGM in 13 marsupial species. We monitored FGM response to two types of events: biological stressors (e.g., transport, novel environment) and pharmacological stimulation (ACTH injection). For each individual animal and assay, FGM peaks were identified using the iterative baseline approach. Performance of the EIAs for each species was evaluated by determining (1) the percent of individuals with a detectable peak 0.125-4.5days post-event, and (2) the biological sensitivity of the assay as measured by strength of the post-event response relative to baseline variability (Z-score). Assays were defined as successful if they detected a peak in at least 50% of the individuals and the mean species response had a Z⩾2. By this criterion, at least one assay was successful in 10 of the 13 species, but the best-performing assay varied among species, even those species that were closely related. Furthermore, the ability to confidently assess assay performance was influenced by the experimental protocols used. We discuss the implications of our findings for biological validation studies.

31 Context. During commercial harvesting or non-commercial kangaroo culling 32 programs, furred pouch young of shot females are required to be euthanased to 33 prevent suffering and because they would be unlikely to survive independently. 34 However, the current method (a single, forceful blow to the base of the skull) is 35 applied inconsistently by operators and perceived by the public to be inhumane. 36 Aims. To determine if an alternative method for dispatching pouch young— a spring37 operated captive bolt gun—is practical and effective at causing immediate 38 insensibility in kangaroo pouch young. 39 Methods. Trials of the spring-operated captive bolt guns were conducted first on the 40 heads of pouch young cadavers and then on live pouch young, during commercial 41 harvesting. Performance characteristic of the spring-operated guns were also 42 measured and compared with cartridge-powered devices. 43 Key results. The captive bolt guns caused insensibility in only 13 out of 21 trials on 44 live pouch young. This 62% success rate is significantly below the 95% minimum 45 acceptable threshold for captive bolt devices in domestic animal abattoirs. Failure to 46 stun was related to bolt placement, but other factors such as bolt velocity, bolt 47 diameter and skull properties such as density might have also contributed. Spring48 operated captive bolt guns delivered 20 times less kinetic energy when compared with 49 cartridge-powered devices. 50 Conclusions. Spring-operated captive bolt guns cannot be recommended as an 51 acceptable or humane method for dispatching kangaroo pouch young. 52 Implications. Captive bolts guns have potential as a practical alternative to blunt head 53 trauma that may standardise dispatch technique and reduce animal (and observer) 54 distress. However, operators must continue to use the existing prescribed dispatch 55 methods until cartridge-powered captive bolt guns have been trialled as an alternative 56 bolt propelling method. 57 58

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.

When female kangaroos are shot during commercial harvesting, it is a requirement that dependent young-at-foot are euthanased. However, there are anecdotal reports that harvesters either cannot euthanase young-at-foot (eg they do not see them or they flee) or will not (eg they do not think it is necessary). In this study we used the theory of planned behaviour to understand the beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of kangaroo harvesters with regards to the euthanasia of young-at-foot. We firstly conducted a survey of a small number of kangaroo harvesters (n = 21) to gather information to develop the main questionnaire. Recruitment of participants was conducted using a number of approaches including a mail out of over 600 pen-and-paper questionnaires to harvesters in NSW, QLD and SA, Australia. We received completed questionnaires from 65 harvesters. Behaviour was directly observed in only 14 harvesters. The results indicated that those kangaroo harvesters with a more favourable attitude towards euthanasing young-at-foot and who feel more social pressure to do so are more likely to intend to euthanase young-at-foot. However, intention to euthanase orphaned young-at-foot only rarely translated into actual behaviour. The participating harvesters believe that euthanasing young-at-foot reduces joey suffering; that government kangaroo management agencies and farmers and graziers approve of them doing it (but animal protection groups do not); and that the greatest limiting factor preventing them from euthanasing young at-foot is that they escape. This research revealed deficiencies in knowledge and training of kangaroo harvesters with regard to humane harvesting practices. We conclude that the use of social psychology methodology and frameworks, such as the theory of planned behaviour, can provide a detailed insight into human attitudes and behaviours that affect animal welfare. This approach can reveal the most important specific factors to consider when training and educating personnel who have direct responsibility for the humane treatment of animals.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Context During commercial harvesting or non-commercial kangaroo culling programs, dependent young of shot females are required to be euthanased to prevent suffering and because they would be unlikely to survive. However, the current method for killing pouch young, namely a single, forceful blow to the base of the skull, is applied inconsistently by operators and perceived by the public to be inhumane. Aims To determine whether an alternative method for killing pouch young, namely a spring-operated captive bolt gun, is effective at causing insensibility in kangaroo pouch young. Methods Trials of spring-operated captive bolt guns were conducted first on the heads of 15 dead kangaroo young and then on 21 live pouch young during commercial harvesting. We assessed the effectiveness at causing insensibility in live animals and damage caused to specific brain areas. We also measured depth of bolt penetration and skull thickness. Performance characteristics (e.g. bolt velocity) of two types of spring-operated guns were also measured and compared with cartridge-powered devices. Key results When tested on the heads of dead animals, the spring-operated captive bolt gun consistently produced a large entrance cavity and a well defined wound tract, which extended into the cerebrum, almost extending the full thickness of the brain, including the brainstem. When tested on live pouch young, the captive bolt gun caused immediate insensibility in only 13 of 21 animals. This 62% success rate is significantly below the 95% minimum acceptable threshold for captive bolt devices in domestic animal abattoirs. Failure to stun was related to bolt placement, but other factors such as bolt velocity, bolt diameter and skull properties such as thickness and hardness might have also contributed. Spring-operated captive bolt guns delivered 20 times less kinetic energy than did cartridge-powered devices. Conclusions Spring-operated captive bolt guns cannot be recommended as an acceptable or humane method for stunning or killing kangaroo pouch young. Implications Captive bolt guns have potential as a practical alternative to blunt head trauma for effective euthanasia and reducing animal (and observer) distress. However, operators must continue to use the existing prescribed killing methods until cartridge-powered captive bolt guns have been trialled as an alternative bolt propelling method.

The management of vertebrate pests depends on the use of traps, pesticides, repellents and other methods, each of which can cause varying levels of pain and other negative experiences to animals. Vertebrate pest control is essential for managing the impacts of unwanted or over-abundant animals on human and animal health, ecological balance and economic interests. As the need for this management is unlikely to diminish over time, a framework has been developed for assessing the humaneness of each technique by considering their negative impacts on animal welfare so that these can be included in decision-making about the selection of techniques for a specific control operation. This information can also support evidence-based regulations directed at managing such animal welfare impacts. In this paper, the authors discuss this assessment framework, briefly review two assessments conducted using the framework and discuss ways in which Competent Authorities and others can use it and other means to improve animal welfare in vertebrate pest management.

The Judas technique is a method used for landscape control of feral donkeys (Equus asinus) in northern Australia. Central to the success of any Judas program is the safe, efficient, and humane attachment of the telemetry device. For feral donkeys, this involves the use of field immobilization. We examine the replacement of the current chemical capture agent, succinylcholine, with contemporary immobilization agents to achieve positive animal welfare outcomes. A combination of medetomidine and ketamine delivered by remote injection from a helicopter was used to capture 14 free-ranging feral donkeys for the fitting of telemetry collars in Western Australia in November 2010. Dose rates of 0.14 mg/kg medetomidine and 4.1 mg/kg ketamine were appropriate to immobilize animals in 9 min (±SD=3). Mean recovery time (total time in recumbency) was 21 min (±14). All animals recovered uneventfully after being administered atipamezole, a specific antagonist of medetomidine, intramuscularly at 0.35 mg/kg. Physiologic parameters were recorded during recumbency, with environment-related hyperthermia being the only abnormality recognized. No significant complications were encountered, and this drug combination represents an efficient approach to capturing wild donkeys. This new method allows a rapid, safe, cost-effective approach to the immobilization of feral donkeys for use as Judas animals. This drug combination will replace the relatively inhumane succinylcholine for the field immobilization of feral donkeys.

Australian Veterinary JournalVolume 71, Issue 8 p. 262-263 Isolation of Haemophilus Taxon D from pigs in Australia PJ BLACKALL, PJ BLACKALL Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Animal Research Institute, Yeerongpilly, Queensland 4105Search for more papers by this authorK. McKECHNIE, K. McKECHNIE Victorian Department of Agriculture, Bendigo Regional Veterinary Laboratory, Bendigo, Victoria 3550Search for more papers by this authorT. SHARP, T. SHARP New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Orange Regional Veterinary Laboratory, Orange, New South Wales 2800Search for more papers by this author PJ BLACKALL, PJ BLACKALL Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Animal Research Institute, Yeerongpilly, Queensland 4105Search for more papers by this authorK. McKECHNIE, K. McKECHNIE Victorian Department of Agriculture, Bendigo Regional Veterinary Laboratory, Bendigo, Victoria 3550Search for more papers by this authorT. SHARP, T. SHARP New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Orange Regional Veterinary Laboratory, Orange, New South Wales 2800Search for more papers by this author First published: August 1994 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1994.tb03426.xCitations: 4AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume71, Issue8August 1994Pages 262-263 RelatedInformation