A Ten-Stage Protocol for Assessing the Welfare of Individual Non-Captive Wild Animals: Free-Roaming Horses (Equus Ferus Caballus) as an Example

Abstract

Knowledge of the welfare status of wild animals is vital for informing debates about the ways in which we interact with wild animals and their habitats. Currently, there is no published information about how to scientifically assess the welfare of free-roaming wild animals during their normal day-to-day lives. Using free-roaming horses as an example, we describe a ten-stage protocol for systematically and scientifically assessing the welfare of individual non-captive wild animals. The protocol starts by emphasising the importance of readers having an understanding of animal welfare in a conservation context and also of the Five Domains Model for assessing welfare. It goes on to detail what species-specific information is required to assess welfare, how to identify measurable and observable indicators of animals’ physical states and how to identify which individuals are being assessed. Further, it addresses how to select appropriate methods for measuring/observing physical indicators of welfare, the scientific validation of these indicators and then the grading of animals’ welfare states, along with assigning a confidence score. Finally, grading future welfare risks and how these can guide management decisions is discussed. Applying this ten-stage protocol will enable biologists to scientifically assess the welfare of wild animals and should lead to significant advances in the field of wild animal welfare.

The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare

“…In addition to these RTT purposes, the Model has also been used to prospectively and/or retrospectively assess negative and/or positive welfare impacts of proposed new or modified approaches to housing, managing and/or interacting with farm [ 4 ], working [ 65 ], livestock guarding [ 66 ], sport [ 67 , 68 , 69 ], zoo [ 4 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 ], wild [ 75 ], free roaming [ 76 ], introduced [ 56 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 ] and other terrestrial animals [ 4 ], as well as cetaceans [ 83 , 84 ]. The Model has also been used forensically in Canadian court cases to assess suffering and animal cruelty [ 55 ].…”

“…Given the diversity of animals and Model applications, there is merit in assembling scientifically informed experts who collectively can provide detailed input on species-specific biology, ethology, ecology, physiology, pathophysiology, health and management (e.g., Reference [ 85 ]), and also, affect-related, neuroscience-supported behavioural expertise, and experience with the operation of the Model [ 6 , 7 , 16 , 32 , 76 , 81 ]. Using widely experienced panels or consultative networks is helpful in such evaluations (e.g., References [ 58 , 66 , 67 , 70 , 78 , 80 , 82 , 84 , 86 ]).…”

“…The summary diagrams of the 2015 Model [ 6 , 7 ], all features of which have been included in the updated 2020 versions presented in Section 4 and Section 5 (see Figure 2 , Figure 3 , Figure 4 and Figure 5 ), have the status of guiding aides-mémoire. Therefore, when applying the Model to new species or contexts, the examples provided should be considered carefully and, only after sufficient justification, be retained, deleted or amended, and/or others added as deemed appropriate for each species (e.g., References [ 65 , 67 , 69 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 80 , 84 ]).…”

“…Finally, inclusion of environmental events or conditions in Domains 1 to 4 that may cause internally or externally derived imbalances or disruptions to the animals represent areas of increased risk , in which particular negative affects and welfare problems may arise [ 72 , 76 ]. However, their mere existence does not necessarily mean that the anticipated welfare problems will arise or have arisen in the particular situation under investigation.…”

“…For example, the presence of potentially damaging structures in an animal’s environment presents a risk of tissue injury but does not indicate that the animal is currently experiencing welfare compromise due to pain. Any assumption of the occurrence of negative affects must be supported by directly observed animal-based physical, physiological, clinical and/or behavioural evidence [ 39 , 76 ]. This is equally the case for the presence of opportunities for animals to engage in rewarding behaviours.…”