Preface to the second edition final

Preface to the Second Edition

This second edition has been updated and revised to include minor modifications and improvements to the model for assessing the relative humaneness of pest animal control methods. Some of the examples in the impact scales have been modified and notes have been added to the worksheet to clarify some aspects of the assessment process.

This edition also contains a summary of the project which applied the model to commonly used control methods. Completed assessments for a range of species and techniques are included as well as ‘humaneness matrices’ which provide a simplified overview of the relative humaneness of all the methods for each species.

Thus, Section 1 contains a review of humaneness assessment and a summary of the project to develop the model whilst Section 2 describes the process undertaken to assess the humaneness of commonly used invasive animal techniques.

Information in this publication has been summarised below to provide a quick overview of the process to develop and apply the model and we have also addressed some of the issues encountered along the way:

Background to the Assessment model

A workshop hosted by RSPCA Australia, the Animal Welfare Science Centre and the Vertebrate Pests Committee (VPC) was held in 2003 in Melbourne. It was attended by representatives from government (State and Commonwealth), animal welfare and veterinary organisations e.g. Australian Veterinary Association (AVA), RSPCA and pest animal control organisations e.g. Livestock Health and Pest Authorities as well as producer bodies e.g. Cattle Council, Australian Wool Innovation, Victorian Farmers Federation.

The workshop examined solutions for achieving humane pest animal control and identified a major weakness in the consideration of animal welfare. While the workshop participants indicated there was a will to include consideration of animal welfare in control strategies and in the registration of new control products, a process to do this in an objective, science based way was lacking. This lack of animal welfare consideration was viewed as posing a general threat to ongoing pest animal control operations.
 
With the financial support of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry under the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (AAWS), a project to develop a process for assessing the relative humaneness of pest animal control methods was offered to tender in 2007. Under the management of a steering group formed from members of the AAWS Wild Animals Working Group, the NSW (I&I) Vertebrate Pest Research Unit was commissioned to develop a suitable model for humaneness assessment.

Development of an Assessment Model

Creating a suitable, workable model proved to be difficult due to the variety of control techniques used, the wide range of pest animals targeted, and the inclusion of both lethal and non-lethal methods. The final aim therefore became to produce a practical, general model of humaneness assessment that can be applied to any pest control method.

The assessment of overall welfare impact is based on five domains:

1: Thirst/hunger/malnutrition
2: Environmental challenge
3: Injury/disease/functional impairment
4: Behavioural/interactive restriction
5: Anxiety/fear/pain/distress

The model was not designed to provide an absolute measure of humaneness but will allow a judgement to be made about the impact of a specific control method on the target animal. When the model is applied to a range of different methods, these can be compared and a decision can be made on the choice of method that is informed by an understanding of the relative humaneness of each method being considered.

It was clear from the initial tender that the development of an assessment process would require significant stakeholder input and agreement for it to have a wide uptake and ultimate impact. As part of the consultation process a workshop to consider a first draft of the humaneness model was held in April 2008 and was again attended by representatives from various State/Territory and Commonwealth governments (including the CSIRO and APVMA), and non-governmental organizations such as RSPCA, Animals Australia, NSW Farmers and AVA. At the workshop it was agreed that the model was acceptable and would be workable with some minor modifications. The modified model was published in 2008.

Discussions on how the model should be used were also undertaken at the workshop with the majority of stakeholders expressing their support for its application to currently used control methods (those for which Standard Operating Procedures had been written). There was general agreement that a panel of experts with knowledge and experience in animal welfare and invasive animal management should determine the priority methods for assessment, complete the assessments using the humaneness model and then disseminate the results to a wider audience. It is anticipated that the information gained will improve best practice management of invasive animal species by enabling humaneness to be considered alongside efficacy, cost-effectiveness, practicality, target specificity, operator safety etc. when determining the most appropriate method for managing the impact of an invasive animal.

The Assessment Process

In 2009, a project was funded by the Australian Pest Animal Management Program (APAMP) and the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (AAWS) through the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) to identify and coordinate a suitable panel, who would then apply the model to a selection of currently used invasive animal methods.

The objectives of the Humaneness Assessment Panel were to:

• Produce a priority list of methods to be assessed.
• Identify other suitable advisors with expertise and experience in particular invasive animal species and their management. These ‘species experts’ will be invited to attend meetings of the panel and participate in the humaneness assessments for their species of interest.
• Review current information and perform humaneness assessments using the model as a framework.
• Identify where there is a need to develop more humane methods or to expedite the introduction of more humane methods.
• Identify areas where there are gaps in knowledge regarding the welfare impact of control methods.  These gaps will be discussed in the final project report and also reported to the AAWS research group and the VPC Animal Welfare technical group.
• Report any problems, suggested changes or other issues with the current Standard Operating Procedures for the Humane Control of Pest Animals to the Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Dept. Industry and Investment so that modifications can be made when the SOPs are reviewed.
• Provide suggestions, where appropriate, for improving the assessment model.
• Release the results of the humaneness assessments so they can be placed on a suitable website e.g.  feral.org.au or DAFF AAWS (website yet to be established).
• Seek endorsement of the assessments by the National Vertebrate Pest Committee.
• At the end of the project’s tenure, make recommendations on the requirement for, and composition of future panels to conduct further assessments and/or to periodically review completed assessments to take into account new research.

The Humaneness Assessment Panel was based on expertise and independence and comprised of:

• Dr Glen Saunders
  Research Leader
  Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, Industry and Investment NSW
  
• Dr Bidda Jones
  Chief Scientist
  RSPCA Australia
  
• Mr Chris Lane
  Program Coordinator, Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre
  Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, Industry and Investment NSW
  
• Mr Jason Neville
  Senior Ranger, Pest Management, Western Rivers Region
  DECC - Parks and Wildlife Group
  
• Ms Trudy Sharp
  Project Officer
  Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, Industry and Investment NSW
  
• Dr Andrew Fisher
  Associate Professor in Production Animal Management and Welfare
  Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Melbourne
  
• Dr Frank Keenan
  A/Manager, Land Protection Policy
  Biosecurity Queensland
  
• Dr Andrew Braid
  Veterinarian
  CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Agricultural Landscapes Program
  
• Additional members were co-opted for their specific species or technique expertise. No techniques were assessed without this additional expertise being available.

Further information on the panel members and invited species experts are included in Section 2. The Assessment Panel’s proceedings were recorded and reported to AAWS and APAMP in the project’s final reports.

Issues

Some concerns were expressed over the implementation of the process for assessing the relative humaneness of pest animal control methods, under what circumstances it might be applied and how it might threaten the use of existing pest animal control strategies. In relation to some of these concerns the following points are relevant:

• There is a worldwide trend towards ethical and moral concern for welfare of animals regardless of their status. This trend cannot be ignored.
• There is a propensity for animal activist groups to target pest animal control and challenge management practices with threats of legal action.
• The ranking process is an enabler not an inhibitor; it provides support to control techniques through evidence based, objective assessment.
• When selecting the most appropriate pest control techniques to apply in the field, welfare is just one of the issues to be considered. This is made clear in the documentation around the model.
• Control techniques are relatively easy to assess on the basis of efficacy, cost/benefit, target specificity etc. but nothing was previously in place to assess humaneness.
• The development of a humaneness assessment for a particular control technique is not linked to a decision on the need to implement control; this is a given.
• Application of the model provides transparency to the community and is independent of the end-users which is to their advantage.
• The use of the model and the assessment results provides a means of encouraging development of more humane techniques.
• The consultation process involved in this process was extensive. No groups were deliberately excluded.

Glen Saunders and Trudy Sharp
June 2011