Part B: A model for assessing the humaneness of pest animal control

Introduction
Overview of Mellor and Reid's model
Proposed model for the assessment of relative humaneness of pest animal control techniques
Steps in assessing the humaneness of a method
Descriptions and examples of grades on the impact scales
Worksheet for humaneness assessment
Advantages and disadvantages of this model
The humaneness assessment model
References

B1. Introduction

The goal of a humaneness assessment is to evaluate the impact of a pest animal control method on individual animals and to also determine which methods are more or less humane compared to other methods. As described in Part A, some of the current models for assessment of humaneness focus on a specific method of control (e.g. poisoning or trapping) or on a particular impact that a method has on an animal (e.g. scales to assess physical injury from foot-hold traps). A model was needed that incorporated all the major dimensions of welfare (both physical and mental components) and could be applied in a comparative way to a wide range of pest animal control methods.

Three key ethical principles should be adhered to with regard to the assessment of suffering in pest animals. Derived from Stafleu et al. (2000) these are:

• the benefit of the doubt – in cases where there is doubt or lack of knowledge about whether an animal will suffer very severely, one should assume it will do so;
• the worst case – one should assume that the worst case will happen; and
• equal weight of the different dimensions of suffering – suffering due to pain, illness, or stress is equal.

Based on an assessment of the available and relevant literature it is recommended that a model for the relative assessment of humaneness be formulated from Mellor and Reid’s (1994) system for predicting the impact of procedures of experimental animals. Below is a summary of this model followed by an outline of the proposed model for assessing the relative humaneness of pest animal control methods.

B2. Overview of Mellor and Reid’s model

The five freedoms formulated by the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council are often used as a logical and comprehensive framework to assess the welfare of farm animals. The five freedoms define ideal states rather than standards for acceptable welfare. They are:

1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst - by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour.
2. Freedom from Discomfort - by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
3. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease - by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
4. Freedom to Express Normal Behaviour - by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind.
5. Freedom from Fear and Distress - by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.

Mellor and Reid (1994) have subsequently used the five freedoms as the basis for developing a system to assess the impact of experimental, teaching and testing procedures on animals. They transformed the freedoms into ‘domains of potential compromise’ and redefined them to better emphasise the extent of welfare compromise rather than the ideal of absence of compromise. The five domains are (see Figure 1):

• Domain 1: Water deprivation/food deprivation/malnutrition;
• Domain 2: Environmental challenge;
• Domain 3: Disease/injury/functional impairment;
• Domain 4: Behavioural or interactive restriction; and
• Domain 5: Anxiety/fear/pain/distress.

The first four domains represent physical components of welfare compromise and the fifth domain includes mental components such as anxiety, fear, sickness, pain, thirst and hunger. Compromise in the first four domains will be usually registered in welfare terms in the fifth domain, which represents the components of suffering.

Mellor and Reid (1994) have also defined a 5-level, non-numerical severity scale to help assess the degree of compromise in each of the five domains. The scale consists of five grades: O, A, B, C and X, representing increasingly severe compromise. The different grades are linked to the severity of functional disruption caused by each procedure, the duration of the disruption and its reversibility, and whether or not its noxious effects might be mitigated or ended by withdrawal from the study, treatment or euthanasia.

For a detailed description of Mellor and Reid’s model and subsequent revisions please refer to: Mellor and Reid (1994); Mellor and Stafford (2001); Mellor (2004); and Mellor et al. (2005).

_top

B3. Proposed model for the assessment of relative humaneness of pest animal control techniques

Creating a model to assess the humaneness of pest animal control methods proved to be a difficult process due to the variety of control techniques used and the wide range of pest animals targeted. Also, whilst most methods are lethal; some are not (without further intervention), so to produce a list of ‘humaneness criteria’ that would be applicable to every technique and for every species did not seem to be a viable option. The aim was therefore to produce a practical, general model of assessment that can be applied to any pest control method. The model should allow a judgement to be made about the humaneness of a method and then methods can be ranked based on this judgement.

A two-part assessment process is proposed:

• Part A examines the impact of a control method on overall welfare and the duration of this impact; and
• Part B examines the effects of the killing method on welfare by evaluating the intensity of suffering and duration of suffering caused by the technique (for lethal methods).

For lethal methods, both Part A and Part B will be used to assess the overall humaneness of a method. This will take into account how the animal is killed and also the impact on welfare prior to killing. For non-lethal methods, Part A only will be used to examine the impacts on an animal’s welfare.

For Part A, overall welfare impact is assessed using the approach taken by Mellor and Reid described above. For Part B, the effects of the killing method on welfare is assessed using the approach suggested by Broom (1999). The aim of including Part B is to differentiate the lethal methods of control based on how much suffering they cause and the duration of this suffering. Some control methods have two phases, for instance, trapping involves capture of an animal followed by, in most cases, killing the animal. As an example, consider catching a fox in a steel-jawed trap and then killing it with a head shot from a rifle compared to trapping it in a cage followed by drowning. In a one-stage humaneness assessment (i.e. Part A only) these methods may turn out to have the same score, but a two-stage assessment will make it clear that the first method involves a relatively less humane trapping method and a more humane killing method and vice versa for the second method. Therefore, the proposed two stage assessment allows a separate evaluation of both the capturing/trapping and killing, ensuring that both aspects are addressed. Inevitably there will be some overlap between Parts A and B when they are applied to other techniques such as poisons. Part B may also useful to pest animal researchers that need to assess the humaneness of a killing technique that is not part of an actual control method.

Lack of objective data on control methods means that there will need to be some reliance on subjective data. When using the model to evaluate the humaneness of a particular technique, the Assessors will be expected to state what type of evidence was used to assign the degree of welfare compromise in each domain.

For example:

• is it generally known that a method inhibits normal behaviour or deprives an animal of a basic need in a particular domain?
• is there evidence from experimental studies or reviews of effects on target species or related species showing the extent and nature of lesions or pathologies; behavioural responses; and physiological responses?
• are there any reports from human cases?
• if there is no available evidence, will extrapolation be required from the assessors’ subjective experience?

When assessing the impact of a control method in each of the domains we have to assume that the method is being carried out according to ‘best practice’ as set out in relevant codes of practice and standard operating procedures (e.g. Codes of Practice and Standard Operating Procedures for the Humane Control of Pest Animals). This is to ensure we are evaluating the ‘intrinsic humaneness’ of a method rather than technical inadequacies associated with its application. Also, those performing the assessment must have an understanding of the biology and behaviour of the target species as well as knowledge and experience of practical aspects of the control method being assessed.

During the course of the project, the model has been developed with input from a range of stakeholders especially those with expertise in the areas of animal welfare and pest animal control. Over time it is expected that the model will continue to be developed and improved. Therefore, the descriptions and examples of grades on the impact scales given here should be seen as provisional and are likely to be refined further after applying the model to a range of techniques.

_top

B4. Advantages and disadvantages of the humaneness model

Advantages

• when there are no available objective data to categorise the impact in a particular domain, the assessor is required to choose an impact category based on informed judgement rather than abandoning the assessment because there is insufficient information;
• allows the assessment of a wide range of control methods including both lethal and non-lethal methods;
• because each control method is allocated an overall score, different methods can be compared with regard to their humaneness;
• assesses the impact of a method on both physical and mental components of welfare;
• highlights areas where more research is needed; and
• Provides a transparent reasoning process that can be understood by all stakeholders and also helps to generate consensus.

Disadvantages

• because there is a dearth of objective data relating to welfare in this particular field, some judgements will have to be made subjectively;
• the assessment will only provide a grade for humaneness rather than giving an absolute measure;
• individual assessors may be tempted to base their estimations of impact grades purely on their own subjective opinion without first consulting the relevant literature. People may make “In my experience” arguments without first looking for data to support their impact grade. This is a reason why the assessment process should be done by a panel of people with expertise in animal welfare and behaviour, practical pest animal management etc. who have access to relevant literature and can reach consensus on the final humaneness score; and
• the model can’t tell us how the animal actually feels – no matter how good our physiological and behavioural data is, we are only making an ‘educated guess’ as to what the animal is experiencing

B5. The humaneness assessment model

Non-lethal methods

Methods which have an impact on the target animal but do not cause death

For example: exclusion fencing, mustering, cage-trapping and translocation, fertility control

Perform Part A of assessment only (assessment of overall welfare impact based on the five domains)

The humaneness score is a single numerical score that can be compared with other non-lethal or lethal methods. Potentially the most humane method would receive a score of 1 whilst the least humane method would score 8.

Lethal methods

Methods which cause the death of the target animal

For example: 1080 baiting, pindone baiting, strychnine baiting, fumigation of burrows with phosphine, warren blasting, mustering followed by shooting in yards, leg-hold trapping followed by shooting, cage-trapping followed by overdose of barbiturate, aerial shooting, leg-hold trapping with strychnine cloths, infection with calicivirus.

Perform both Part A and Part B of assessment (assessment of overall welfare impact based on the five domains and assessment of killing method based on time to insensibility and level of intensity of suffering)

The humaneness score is obtained by combining the numerical scores from part A and the alphabetical score from Part B. Potentially, the most humane method would receive a score of 1A, whilst the least humane method would score 8H.

Note on assessment of lethal toxins

Part A examines the ‘impact on the animal prior to the action that causes death’. Part B then looks at the ‘actual mode of death’ and the ‘extent and duration of suffering caused’. With methods involving toxic baits it is likely that there will be no welfare impact prior to the animal ingesting the bait, therefore it is not necessary to assess both part A and B. Only Part B is required.

Principles for use

1. There are complex processes involved in developing an invasive animal control strategy. The assessment of humaneness should be considered in context with other factors such as target specificity, efficacy, practicality, cost-effectiveness and operator safety etc.
2. Assessment should be performed assuming that ‘best practice’ or standard operating procedures are applied.
3. Before performing an assessment, it is important to fully understand and state what is being assessed i.e. what is the method, how is it done, where is it done, who is doing it.
4. Where there is doubt or lack of objective knowledge about whether an animal will suffer severely, one should assume it will do so i.e. the ‘benefit of the doubt’ should be given in favour of the animal.
5. When determining welfare impact, it is important to consider what happens in the majority of situations. Although an assessment cannot include all possible scenarios, it is possible to incorporate the likelihood of a negative event happening when this information is known.
6. When determining the impact in Domain 5, it is important to remember that this impact is usually a cumulative effect of the other four domains and is generally, but not always, equivalent to the most extreme potential impact.
7. If a control method is not intially lethal or successful and is applied on multiple occasions to the same individual or population of animals (e.g. trapping, mustering, aerial shooting etc.) the overallstress will be compounded.

Part A: Assessment of overall welfare impact

Instructions

1. Anticipate the likely impact of the control method on the individual target animal. Information on the physiological, behavioural and pathological responses to a particular method should be obtained from the literature (i.e. experimental studies or review of effects on target species or related species). In some cases extrapolations from human cases may be necessary.
   
2. Using the impact scales (Boxes 1-5) as a guide, assign a grade (no impact, mild, moderate, severe or extreme impact) to reflect the level of impact of the control method in each of the five domains. This grade should reflect the state of the animal at the time of maximum impact.
   
3. Determine the overall impact grade (ranging from no impact to extreme impact). The overall grading is usually that assigned to domain 5- mental state. If however, the intensities of anxiety/fear/pain/distress etc. caused by a particular method are not known or cannot be evaluated, the grading of compromise in the known domain(s) would be used to determine the overall impact grade.
   
4. Determine the duration of welfare impact (immediate/seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks).
   
5. Interpret the score for the overall welfare impact from the scoring matrix (Box 6) (scores range from 1 to 8, with 1 being the most humane and 8 the least humane).
   
6. Cite the references/evidence used to conduct the assessment.

Part B: Assessment of mode of death

Instructions

1. Anticipate the likely impact of the killing method on the individual target animal based on knowledge of the mode of action and observations of the physiological, behavioural and pathological responses. This information can be obtained from the literature (i.e. experimental studies or a review of the effects on target species or related species). In some cases extrapolations from human cases may be required. In the absence of objective information (especially with regard to assessment of pain, discomfort, distress etc.) the best interest of the animal should guide the grading of impact.
   Other information to consider includes the age of the animal, how, where and when the technique will be applied, degree of restraint required, technical competence of the operator, suitability of equipment etc.
   
2. Determine the time to insensibility for the action that causes death. For some methods (e.g. poisons such as 1080, anticoagulants) a lag time would be subtracted from the overall time, provided that the animal does not experience any negative welfare impacts during this interval.
   
3. Using the impact scale (Box 7) as a guide, determine the level of suffering experienced by the animal after application of the method that causes death but prior to onset of insensibility. Components of suffering include anxiety, pain, fear, distress, apprehension.
   
4. Interpret the alphabetical score for the action that causes death technique from the scoring matrix (Box 8) (scores range from A to H, with A being the most humane and H being the least humane).
   
5. Cite the references/evidence used to conduct the assessment.

Impact scales for Part A: overall welfare impact

Box 1 

Domain 1: Water deprivation, Food deprivation, Malnutrition

Impact Category	Description of Impact	Examples
No impact	No effect on food/water intake
Mild impact	Short-term water or food restrictions that are within usual tolerance levels for the species.	An animal has a few hours without water, in shade conditions. Short-term deprivation of food.
Moderate impact	Water or food restrictions which cause serious short-term or moderate long-term effects on physiological state or body condition, but such effects remain within the capacity of the body to respond to nutritional variations and allow spontaneous recovery after restoration of a good quality diet.	An animal has a few hours without water, in hot, sunny conditions. Deprivation of food long enough to bring about mobilisation of body fat stores.
Severe impact	Severe restrictions on food/water intake that lead to significant levels of debility.	An animal has many hours without water. Deprivation of food for many days resulting in severe loss of body weight.
Extreme impact	Extreme restrictions on food/water intake that would likely result in the animal dying from dehydration or starvation.	An animal has many days without water and /or food and dies from severe dehydration and/or starvation.

Box 2

Domain 2: Environmental Challenge

Impact Category	Description of Impact	Examples
No impact	Exposure to environmental challenge is not a feature of or consequence of the mode of action.	Exposure to ambient conditions that are within an animals’ thermoneutral range.
Mild impact	Short term exposure to environmental conditions which are outside the normal range encountered by the animal but remain within their physiological adaptive capacity.	Exposure to levels of heat or cold which are outside the thermoneutral range, but which do not lead to debility in the long-term.
Moderate impact	Marked short-term or moderate long-term environmental challenges that elicit body responses beyond the physiological adaptive capacity of the animal, but where the untoward effects are readily reversed by restoration of normal ambient conditions.	Short-term heat stress caused by exposure to high ambient temperatures combined with exercise (e.g. mustering).
Severe impact	Severe environmental challenges that lead to serious physiological compromise or permanent dysfunction, injury or illness.	An animal is exposed to severe heat or cold which could possibly lead to failure of thermoregulation and collapse.
Extreme impact	Long-term exposure to extremes of heat or cold that bring about the death of the animal from hyper- or hypothermia.	Animals that are left in leg-hold traps, cage traps or yards in extremes of heat or cold and subsequently die from hyper- or hypothermia.

Box 3

Domain 3: Injury, Disease, Functional Impairment

Impact Category	Description of Impact	Examples
No impact	Disease, injury or functional impairment is not a feature of or consequence of the mode of action.
Mild impact	Body responses remain within the homeostatic capacity of the animal to react with no or only minor debility or incapacity.	Minor injuries (e.g. minor skin laceration, oedematous swelling of foot and/or leg, mild mouth injuries). Minor sickness or functional impairment (e.g. mild vomiting/ retching, diarrhoea, lethargy/ weakness).
Moderate impact	Disease/injury/functional impairment that results in moderately severe debility or incapacity but from which recovery would normally occur spontaneously.	Moderate injuries (e.g. damage to minor tendon or ligament, amputation of a digit, joint haemorrhage, single tooth fracture, major laceration of mouth or tongue, joint dislocation). Moderate sickness or functional impairment (e.g. moderate vomiting/ retching, diarrhoea, lethargy/weakness, slight breathlessness, moderate haemorrhages, convulsions whilst unconscious).
Severe impact	Injury/disease/functional impairment that result in severe debility or incapacity and serious physiological compromise and would normally cause permanent disability. Includes injuries that are likely to reduce survival if the animal were to be released.	Severe injuries (e.g. deep and wide lacerations, severed tendons, broken foot and leg bones below elbow or stifle, joint dislocations, amputations). Severe sickness or functional impairment (e.g. severe vomiting/ retching, diarrhoea, lethargy/weakness, abnormal breathing, severe haemorrhages, intermittent convulsions).
Extreme impact	Injury/disease/functional impairment that result in very severe debility or incapacity due to the effects of traumatic injury, infectious agent or toxin.	Extreme injuries (e.g. death caused by excessive blood loss or shock, spinal chord injury, severe internal bleeding, fractures of more than one limb, severe jaw fracture, fractures of limbs above elbow or stifle). Extreme sickness or functional impairment (e.g. extreme persistent vomiting/retching, diarrhoea, lethargy weakness, laboured breathing, convulsions whilst conscious, blindness, immobility/ prostration, excessive and prolonged haemorrhaging).

Box 4

Domain 4: Behavioural, Interactive Restriction

Impact Category	Description of Impact	Examples
No impact	No interference with the behavioural needs of an animal (an animal’s behavioural needs being those activities which when thwarted produce untoward physiological or psychological effects).
Mild impact	Mild interference with the behavioural needs of an animal.	Mild and short-term physical restraint resulting in minor behavioural or interactive restriction.
Moderate impact	Moderate interference with the behavioural needs of an animal resulting in negative physiological or psychological effects which are readily reversed after restoration of normal conditions.	Restraint that results in agitation from not being able to perform natural behaviour that the animal is highly motivated to perform e.g. feeding, moving, resting, grooming, mating, caring for young.
Severe impact	Marked interference with the behavioural needs of an animal leading to physiological or psychological compromise that may cause long-term or permanent negative effects.	Severe abnormal self-directed behaviour e.g. chewing/biting of feet and limbs when restrained. Normal defensive and/or escape reactions to visibility of or presence of predators are prevented.
Extreme impact	Extreme interference with the behavioural needs of individuals or groups of animals leading to psychotic-like behaviour or to agonistic interactions that result in very severe injury or death.	Restraint that results in extreme abnormal self-directed behaviour, excessive aggression, stereotypy (e.g. severe fighting among incompatible social groups, unfamiliar individuals that are in close proximity). Inability to escape attack by a predator.

Box 5

 

Domain 5: Anxiety, Fear, Pain, Distress

Impact Category	Description of Impact	Examples
No impact	Anxiety, fear, pain, distress, sickness or greater than normal thirst and/or hunger are not a feature of or consequence of the mode of action.
Mild impact	Mild discomfort or pain, low-level anxiety or apprehension or mild unsatisfied thirst and/or hunger.	Limited human contact with no physical handling.
Moderate impact	Moderate anxiety, fear, pain or distress, or moderate unsatisfied thirst and/or hunger.	Moderate level of human contact with minimum of physical handling.
Sever impact	Severe anxiety, fear, pain, distress, thirst and/or hunger.	High level of human contact with a degree of physical handling.
Extreme impact	Extreme inescapable or unrelieved anxiety, fear, pain, distress, thirst and/or hunger which is judged to be at or beyond the limits of reasonable endurance and results in the death of the animal.	Excitement, fear and distress in struggling restrained animals that result in death from capture myopathy.

_top

Scoring matrix for Part A: Overall welfare impact 

Box 6

Overall impact on welfare	Duration of impact
	Immediate to Seconds	Minutes	Hours	Days	Weeks
Extreme	5	6	7	8	8
Severe	4	5	6	7	8
Moderate	3	4	5	6	7
Mild	2	3	4	5	6
No impact	1	1	1	1	1

Box 7

Part B: Assessment of mode of death

Impact Category	Description of Impact	Examples
No suffering	No suffering before death. There is immediate death or immediate loss of consciousness lasting until death. Note that components of suffering include (but are not limited to) fear, anxiety, pain, distress, apprehension, sickness, fatigue, thirst, hunger. Aversion refers to the avoidance or attempted avoidance of unpleasant, noxious stimuli and distressing stimuli.	Direct destruction/concussion of brain tissue resulting in rapid unconsciousness e.g. accurate shooting in the head. Inhaled vapour with no irritant effect that induces unconsciousness without pain or discernable discomfort. Does not involve physical handling or restraint
Mild suffering	Loss of consciousness is not immediate and there is no or only minimal aversion and no or only mild suffering before death.	Inhaled vapour causing mild irritancy and mild pain and/or distress. Mild degree of sickness e.g. vomiting/retching, diarrhoea, lethargy/weakness etc. Does not involve physical handling or restraint.
Moderate suffering	Loss of consciousness is not immediate and there is moderate aversion and suffering before death.	Inhaled vapour causing moderate irritancy and moderate pain and/or distress. Moderate degree of sickness e.g. vomiting/retching, diarrhoea, lethargy/weakness etc. May involve physical handling and restraint e.g. to administer an injectable agent via intravenous (IV) or intraperitoneal (IP) route of entry; to apply cervical dislocation; to apply blunt trauma to the head.
Severe suffering	Loss of consciousness is not immediate and there is severe suffering before death.	Inhaled vapour causing severe irritancy and severe pain and/or distress. Convulsions occurring during unconsciousness when animal recovers consciousness prior to death (i.e. muscle spasms with periods of relaxation as in clonic convulsions). Severance of major arteries resulting in rapid blood loss, hypovolaemia and shock. Severe degree of sickness e.g. vomiting/retching, diarrhoea, lethargy/weakness etc. May involve physical handling and restraint e.g. administration of an injectable agent to a non-sedated animal via a difficult-to-access route of entry (e.g. intracardiac, intrahepatic, intrarenal).
Extreme suffering	Loss of consciousness is not immediate and there is extreme suffering before death.	Inhaled vapour causing extreme irritancy and extreme pain and/or distress. Partial or full paralysis whilst conscious. Convulsions whilst conscious (i.e. prolonged muscle spasm without periods of relaxation as in tonic convulsions). Extreme degree of sickness e.g. vomiting/retching, diarrhoea, lethargy/weakness etc. Intense dyspnoea caused by asphyxia (e.g. during strangulation, smothering, chest compression etc.) or hypercapnia (increased CO2 level). Severe internal haemorrhages causing swelling within confined spaces. May involve physical handling and restraint.

_top

Scoring matrix for Part B: Assessment of mode of death

Box 8

Level of suffering	Time of insensibility
	Immediate to Seconds	Minutes	Hours	Days	Weeks
Extreme	E	F	G	H	H
Severe	D	E	F	G	H
Moderate	C	D	E	F	G
Mild	B	C	D	E	F
No impact	A	A	A	A	A

 

References

Australian Veterinary Association (1997). Animal Welfare. In ‘Member’s Directory and Policy Compendium’. (Ed. J. Cornwall). (Veritage Press: Lisarow, NSW.)

Bartussek, H. (1999). A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals’ well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61, 179-192.

Bateson, P., and Harris, R. (2000). ‘The Effects of Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales on the Welfare of Deer, Foxes, Mink and Hare. Contract 7 Report to the Burns Inquiry.’ Home Office, London.

Bayvel, A. C. D. (2000). The New Zealand regulatory approach to the use of live animals in research, testing and teaching. . In ‘Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation. Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, held in Bologna, Italy, from 29 August to 2 September 1999.’ (Eds M. Balls, A.-M. van Zeller and M. Halder) pp. 1023-1031. (Elsevier: Amsterdam.)

Botreau, R., Bonde, M., Butterworth, A., Perny, P., Bracke, M. B. M., Capdeville, J., and Veissier, I. (2007a). Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 1: a review of existing methods. Animal 1, 1179-1187.

Botreau, R., Bracke, M. B. M., Perny, P., Butterworth, A., Capdeville, J., Van Reenen, C. G., and Veissier, I. (2007b). Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: analysis of constraints. Animal 1, 1188-1197.

Bracke, M. B. M. (2006). Providing cross-species comparisons of animal welfare with a scientific basis. Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54, 61-75.

Bracke, M. B. M., Metz, J. H. M., and Spruijt, B. M. (1999b). Overall animal welfare reviewed. Part 2: Assessment tables and schemes. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47, 293-305.

Bracke, M. B. M., Spruijt, B., and Metz, J. (1999a). Overall animal welfare assessment reviewed. Part 1: Is it possible? Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47, 279-291.

Bracke, M. B. M., Spruijt, B. M., Metz, J. H. M., and Schouten, W. G. P. (2002). Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows A: Model structure and weighting procedure. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1819-1834.

Braid, A., and Buller, C. (2007).’Codes of practice for humane vertebrate pest control: finalisation for national adoption by Australian States and Territories (final report to the Vertebrate Pest Committee).’ (Invasive Animal Cooperative Research Centre: Canberra).

Braysher, M. (1993).’Managing Vertebrate Pests: Principles and Strategies.’ (Bureau of Resource Sciences: Canberra).

Broom, D. M. (1996). Animal welfare defined in terms of attempts to cope with the environment. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science Supplementum 27, 22-28.

Broom, D. M. (1999). The welfare of vertebrate pests in relation to their management. In ‘Advances in vertebrate pest management’. (Eds. D. P. Cowand, C. J. Feare) pp. 309-329. (Filander Verlag: Fürth.)

Broom, D. M. (2007). Quality of life means welfare: how is it related to other concepts and assessed? Animal Welfare 16, 45-53.

Buchanan-Smith, H. M., Rennie, A. E., Vitale, A., Pollo, S., Prescott, M. J., and Morton, D. B. (2005). Harmonising the definition of refinement. Animal Welfare 14, 379-384.

Cowled, B., and O’Connor, C. (2004). ‘A project that investigates current options for managing feral pigs in Australia and assesses the need for the development of more effective and humane techniques and strategies - Stage 3 Report.’ Canberra, Australia.

Dawkins, M. S. (2004). Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Animal Welfare 13, 3-7.

Dawkins, M. S. (2006). A user’s guide to animal welfare science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21, 77-82.

DEFRA (2005). Review of effectiveness, environmental impact, humaneness and feasibility of lethal methods for badger control. A report to European Wildlife Division, Defra, 20 October, 2005. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK, London, viewed 19th July, 2007.

Eason, C. T., and Wickstrom, M. (2001). ‘Vertebrate pesticide toxicology manual (poisons).’ Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

Engeman, R. M., Krupa, H. W., and Kern, J. (1997). On the use of injury scores for judging the acceptability of restraining traps. Journal of Wildlife Research 2, 124-127.

FAWC (1992). The Five Freedoms. Farm Animal Welfare Council, London, UK, viewed 25th May, 2007.

Fleming, P. J. S., Allen, L. R., Berghout, M. J., Meek, P. D., Pavlov, P. M., Stevens, P., Strong, K., Thompson, J. A., and Thomson, P. C. (1998). The performance of wild-canid traps in Australia: efficiency, selectivity and trap-related injuries. Wildlife Research 25, 327-338.

Fraser, D. (1993). Assessing animal well-being: common sense, uncommon science. In ‘Food Animal Well-Being Conference Proceedings and Deliberations, 13-15 April, 1993, Indianapolis’. pp. 37-54. (Purdue University Office of Agricultural Research Programs: West Lafayette).

Gillespie, A. (2003). Humane killing: a recognition of universal common sense in international law. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 6, 1-29.

Gregory, N. (2003). Assessing the humaneness of pest control methods. In ‘Solutions for achieving humane pest animal control. RSPCA Australia Scientific Seminar’. Australian War Memorial, Canberra. (Ed B. Jones) pp. 66-85. ( RSPCA Australia).

Harris, S., Soulsbury, C., and Iossa, G. (2005). Trapped by bad science - The myths behind the International Humane Trapping Standards: a scientific review. International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Brussels, Belgium, viewed 11th May, 2007

Harrop, S. (1998). The agreements on international trapping standards - background, critique and the texts. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 1, 387-394.

Hawkins, P. (2002). Recognizing and assessing pain, suffering and distress in laboratory animals: a survey of current practice in the UK with recommendations. Laboratory Animals 36, 378-395.

Hawkins, P. (2003). Assessing pain, suffering and distress in laboratory animals: An RSPCA survey of current practice in the UK. Animal Welfare 12, 517-522.

Hubert, G. F., Jr., Hungerford, L. L., Proulx, G., Bluett, R. D., and Bowman, L. (1996). Evaluation of two restraining traps to capture racoons. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24, 699-708.

Humane Vertebrate Pest Control Working Group (2004). ‘A national approach towards humane vertebrate pest control. Discussion Paper arising from the proceedings of an RSPCA Australia/AWC/VPC joint workshop, August 4-5 2003, Melbourne.’ Canberra, ACT.

International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) (1999a).’International Standard ISO 10990-4 - Animal (Mammal) Traps - Part 4: Methods for testing killing-trap systems used on land or underwater ‘ (International Organisation for Standardisation: Geneva, Switzerland).

International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) (1999b).’International Standard ISO 10990-5 - Animal (Mammal) traps - Part 5: Methods for testing restraining traps ‘ (International Organisation for Standardisation Geneva, Switzerland).

Iossa, G., Soulsbury, C. D., and Harris, S. (2007). Mammal trapping: a review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining traps. Animal Welfare 16, 335-352.

IWGS (Independent Working Group on Snares) (2005). ‘Report of the independent working group on snares.’ DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), UK.

Jacobsen, H. A., Kirkpatrick, R. L., Burkhart, H. E., and Davis, J. W. (1978). Hematologic comparisons of shot and live trapped cottontail rabbits. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 14, 82-88.

Jones, B. (2003a). ‘Solutions for achieving humane vertebrate pest control. Proceedings from the RSPCA Australia Scientific Seminar. 25 February, Australian War Memorial, Canberra.’ Canberra, ACT.

Jones, B. (2003b). Integrating animal welfare into vertebrate pest management. In ‘Solutions for achieving humane vertebrate pest control: Proceedings of the 2003 RSPCA Australia Scientific Seminar held at the Telstra Theatre, Australian War Memorial, 25 February 2003’. Canberra, ACT. (Ed B. Jones) pp. 5-15. (RSPCA Australia).

Jordan, B. (2005). Science-based assessment of animal welfare: wild and captive animals. Revue Scientifique Et Technique-Office International Des Epizooties 24, 515-528.

Kirkwood, J. K. (2007). Quality of life: the heart of the matter. Animal Welfare 16, 3-7.

Kirkwood, J. K., Sainsbury, A. W., and Bennet, P. M. (1994). The welfare of free-living wild animals: methods of assessment. Animal Welfare 3, 257-373.

Kreeger, T. J., White, P. J., Seal, U. S., and Tester, J. R. (1990). Pathological responses of red foxes to foothold traps. Journal of Wildlife Management 54, 147-160.

Littin, K. E., and Mellor, D. J. (2005). Strategic animal welfare issues: ethical and animal welfare issues arising from the killing of wildlife for disease control and environmental reasons. OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) Scientific and Technical Review 24, 767-782.

Littin, K. E., Mellor, D.J., Warburton, B. and Eason, C.T. (2004). Animal welfare and ethical issues relevant to the humane control of vertebrate pests. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 52, 1-10.

Littin, K. E., and O’Connor, C. E. (2002). ‘Guidelines for assessing the welfare impacts of vertebrate poisons. Landcare Research Contract Report: LC0203/006.’ Lincoln, New Zealand.

Marks, C. A. (1998). Review of the humaneness of destruction techniques used on the Common Wombat (Vombatus ursinus) in Victoria. Chapter 28. In ‘Wombats’. (Eds R. T. Wells and P. A. Pridmore). (Surrey Beatty & Sons: Chipping Norton, UK).

Marks, C. A., Allen, L., Gigliotti, F., Busana, F., Gonzalez, T., Lindeman, M., and Fisher, P. M. (2004). Evaluation of the tranquilliser trap device (TTD) for improving the humaneness of dingo trapping. Animal Welfare 13, 393-399.

Mason, G., and Littin, K. E. (2003). The humaneness of rodent pest control. Animal Welfare 12, 1-37.

Mason, G., and Mendl, M. (1993). Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal Welfare 2, 301-319.

Meek, P. D., Jenkins, D. J., Morris, B., Ardler, A. J., and Hawksby, R. J. (1995). Use of two humane leg-hold traps for catching pest species. Wildlife Research 22, 733-739.

Mellor, D. J. (2004). Comprehensive assessment of harms caused by experimental, teaching and testing procedures on live animals. Atla-Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 32, 453-457.

Mellor, D. J., and Littin, K. E. (2004). Using science to support ethical decisions promoting humane livestock slaughter and vertebrate pest control. Animal Welfare 13, S127-132.

Mellor, D. J., and Reid, C. S. W. (1994). Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals. In ‘Improving the Well-Being of Animals in the Research Environment. Proceedings of a conference held at the Marriott Hotel, Sydney, October, 1993’. (Eds R. M. Baker, G. Jenkin and D. J. Mellor) pp, 3-18. (Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART): Glen Osmond, South Australia).

Mellor, D. J., and Stafford, K. J. (2001). Integrating practical, regulatory and ethical strategies for enhancing farm animal welfare. Australian Veterinary Journal 79, 762-768.

Mellor, D. J., Williams, V., M., and Marbrook, J. (2005). ‘Revision of a scale for assessing the severity of live animal manipulations.’ Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, Operational Research Project FRM236, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Mertens, C., and Rulicke, T. (1999). Score Sheets for the Monitoring of Transgenic Mice. Animal Welfare 8, 433-438.

Morris, M. C., Weaver, S. A., , and (2003). Minimizing Harm in Possum Control Operations and Experiments in New Zealand. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16, 367-385.

Morton, D. B. (1998). Implementing assessment techniques for pain management and human endpoints. In: Proceedings for Pain Management and Humane Endpoints. viewed 13th July, 2007.

Morton, D. B., and Griffiths, P. H. (1985). Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress and discomfort in experimental animals and an hypothesis for assessment. Vet Rec. 116, 431-436.

NAWAC (2000). ‘Guidelines for assessing the welfare impacts of mammalian restraining and killing traps. National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee document 95/00.’ Wellington, New Zealand.

O’Connor, C. E., Airey, A. T., and Littin, K. E. (2003). ‘Relative humaneness assessment of possum poisons. Landcare Research Contract Report: LC0203/158. Unpublished Report.’ Lincoln, New Zealand.

Olsen, P. (1998).’Australia’s Pest Animals: New Solutions to Old Problems.’ (Bureau of Resource Sciences: Canberra).

Orlans, F. B. (2000). Public policies on assessing and reporting degrees of animal harm: international perspectives. In ‘Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation. Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, held in Bologna, Italy, from 29 August to 2 September 1999. ‘ (Eds M. Balls, A.-M. van Zeller and M. Halder) pp. 1075-1082. (Elsevier: Amsterdam.)

Pesticide Safety Directorate (1997). ‘Assessment of humaneness of vertebrate control agents – evaluation of fully approved or provisionally approved products, No. 171 (December 1997).’

Pesticide Safety Directorate (2001). Humaneness for vertebrate control agents (Chapter 9)  PDF [80kb] updated 23/05/01. In: Data requirements handbook (for pesticide registration). viewed 11th July, 2007. 

Poutu, N., and Warburton, B. (2003). ‘Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Waddington backcracker trap for killing stoats. DOC Science Internal Series 132.’ Wellington, New Zealand.

Powell, R. A., and Proulx, G. (2003). Trapping and marking terrestrial mammals for research: integrating ethics, performance criteria, techniques and common sense. ILAR Journal 44, 259-276.

Rousing, T., Jakobsen, I. A., Hindhede, J., Klaas, I. C., Bonde, M., and Rensen, J. T. (2007). Evaluation of a welfare indicator protocol for assessing animal welfare in AMS herds: researcher, production advisor and veterinary practitioner opinion. Animal Welfare 16, 213-216.

Sainsbury, A. W., Bennet, P. M., and Kirkwood, J. K. (1995). The welfare of free-living wild animals in Europe: harm caused by human activities. Animal Welfare 4, 183-206.

Schutz, K. E., Agren, E., Amundin, M., Roken, B., Palme, R., and Morner, T. (2006). Behavioural and physiological responses of trap-induced stress in European badgers. Journal of Wildlife Management 70, 884-891.

Scott, E. M., Fitzpatrickt, J. L., Nolan, A. M., Reid, J., and Wiseman, M. L. (2003). Evaluation of welfare state based on interpretation of multiple indices. Animal Welfare 12, 457-468.

Scott, E. M., Nolan, A. M., and Fitzpatrick, J. L. (2001). Conceptual and methodological issues related to welfare assessment: a framework for measurement. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, A 51, 5-10.

Scott, E. M., Nolan, A. M., Reid, J., and Wiseman-Orr, M. L. (2007). Can we really measure animal quality of life? Methodologies for measuring quality of life in people and other animals. Animal Welfare 16, 17-24.

Sharp, T., and Saunders, G. (2004). ‘Development of a model code of practice and standard operating procedures for the humane capture, handling or destruction of feral animals in Australia. Final Report to the Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage.’ Canberra, ACT.

Sharp, T., and Saunders, G. (2005). ’Humane pest animal control: codes of practice and standard operating procedures.’ (New South Wales Department of Primary Industries: Orange).

Smith, J. A., and Jennings, M. (2004). Categorising the severity of scientific procedures on animals: summary and reports form three round table discussions   PDF [380kb]. The Boyd Group and RSPCA Research Animals Department, viewed 13th July, 2007.

Stafleu, F., Vorstenbosch, J., Tramper, R., de Jong, M., Eckelboom, E., and Krijger, F. (2000). The concepts of “severe suffering” of experimental animals and “essential needs of man and animal” as used in cost-benefit analyses. In ‘Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation. Proccedings of the 3rd World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, held in Bologna, Italy, from 29 August to 2 September 1999.’ (Eds M. Balls, A.-M. van Zeller and M. Halder) pp. 835-839. (Elsevier: Amsterdam.)

van der Meer, M., Rolls, A., Baumans, V., Olivier, B., and van Zutphen, L. F. M. (2001). Use of score sheets for welfare assessment of transgenic mice. Laboratory Animals 35, 379-389.

Warburton, B. (1995). Setting standards for trapping wildlife. In ‘Proceedings of the 10th Australian Vertebrate Pest Control Conference’. Hobart, Australia pp. 283-287.

Warburton, B., Gregory, N. G., and Morriss, G. (2000). Effect of jaw shape in kill-traps on time to loss of palpebral reflexes in brushtail possums Journal of Wildlife Diseases 36, 92-96.

Warburton, B., and Hall, J. V. (1995). Impact momentum and clamping force thresholds for developing standards for possum kill traps. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 22, 39-44.

Warburton, B., and Orchard, I. (1996). Evaluation of five kill traps for effective capture and killing of Australian brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecular). New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 23.

Warburton, B., and Poutu, N. (2002). ‘Effectiveness of three trapping systems for killing feral cats. DOC Science Internal Series 50’ . Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

Whay, H. R., Main, D. C. J., Green, L. E., and Webster, A. J. F. (2003). Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: Consensus of expert opinion. Animal Welfare 12, 205-217.

White, P. J., Kreeger, T. J., Seal, U. S., and Tester, J. R. (1991). Pathological responses of red foxes to capture in box traps. Journal of Wildlife Management 55, 75-80.

Woodroffe, R., Bourne, F. J., Cox, D. R., Donnelly, C. A., Gettinby, G., McInerney, J. P., and Morrison, W. I. (2005). Welfare of badgers (Meles meles) subjected to culling: patterns of trap-related injury. Animal Welfare 14, 11-17.

Previous page | Contents |  

 

Previous page | Contents