Animal Welfare Issues Pertaining to the Trapping of Otters for Research, Conservation, and Fur

Serfass, Thomas L.; Wright, Lesley; Pearce, Kelly J.; Duplaix, Nicole

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46994-2_30

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Briefly, there is growing evidence of animal welfare impacts associated with in situ conservation activities, such as habitat management, field research, and management of rare and overabundant native animals, as well as, of invasive species [e.g., ( 9 – 27 )]. Likewise, ex situ conservation activities including captive breeding, holding animals indefinitely in zoos as “insurance populations,” wildlife rescue and rehabilitation, reintroductions and research on captive animals can influence animal welfare [e.g., ( 2 , 13 , 28 – 37 )].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Feelings and Fitness” Not “Feelings or Fitness”–The Raison d'être of Conservation Welfare, Which Aligns Conservation and Animal Welfare Objectives

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Feelings and Fitness” Not “Feelings or Fitness”–The Raison d'être of Conservation Welfare, Which Aligns Conservation and Animal Welfare Objectives

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over the last 20 years, countless datasets have been collected on the impact of trapping on animal welfare [ 10 ], trap selectivity and the impact of trapping on the persistence of animal populations [ 13 , 15 ], and the ethics of wildlife professionals and managers with respect to mammal trapping [ 2 , 9 , 10 , 72 , 97 ]. The development of better trapping standards should not require another 20 years due to a lack of definitions, a poor understanding of trapping research and development technology, or conceptual views about human–wildlife relationships.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is not sufficient to identify restraining traps that can hold animals with little injury or killing traps that can render animals unconscious quickly. Trap assessment must also include trap components and sets, as well as handling methods [ 10 , 97 ]. For example, when assessing the ability of the C120 Magnum rotating-jaw trap to render American martens irreversibly unconscious in ≤3 min, in enclosures and on traplines, researchers used a specific four-prong trigger and a cubby box set [ 34 , 36 ] ( Figure 1 ).…”

Section: Hypothesis 5: the Aihts Protocols For The Use Of Certifiementioning

confidence: 99%

Updating the AIHTS Trapping Standards to Improve Animal Welfare and Capture Efficiency and Selectivity

Proulx¹,

Cattet

Serfass

et al. 2020

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Conservation Status of the North American River Otter in the United States and Canada

Bricker

Serfass

Hanley³

et al. 2022

Small Carnivores

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal Welfare Issues Pertaining to the Trapping of Otters for Research, Conservation, and Fur

Cited by 3 publications

References 28 publications

“Feelings and Fitness” Not “Feelings or Fitness”–The Raison d'être of Conservation Welfare, Which Aligns Conservation and Animal Welfare Objectives

“Feelings and Fitness” Not “Feelings or Fitness”–The Raison d'être of Conservation Welfare, Which Aligns Conservation and Animal Welfare Objectives

Updating the AIHTS Trapping Standards to Improve Animal Welfare and Capture Efficiency and Selectivity

Conservation Status of the North American River Otter in the United States and Canada

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About