Journal Articles

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/7915

Browse

Filters

2022 - 20242

Settings

Has files: YesSubject: search.filters.subject.expert opinion

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Use of an expert elicitation methodology to compare welfare impacts of two approaches for blood sampling European badgers (Meles meles) in the field.
    (Cambridge University Press, 2024-03-15) Colloff A; Baker SE; Beausoleil NJ; Sharp T; Golledge H; Lane J; Cox R; Siwonia M; Delahay R
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Fundamental Concepts, Knowledge Gaps and Key Concerns Relating to Welfare and Survival of Stranded Cetaceans
    (MDPI (Basel, Switzerland), 2022-05) Boys RM; Beausoleil NJ; Pawley MDM; Littlewood KE; Betty EL; Stockin KA; Wink M; Zemanova MA
    Wildlife management can influence animal welfare and survival, although both are often not explicitly integrated into decision making. This study explores fundamental concepts and key concerns relating to the welfare and survival of stranded cetaceans. Using the Delphi method, the opinions of an international, interdisciplinary expert panel were gathered, regarding the character-isation of stranded cetacean welfare and survival likelihood, knowledge gaps and key concerns. Experts suggest that stranded cetacean welfare should be characterised based on interrelated aspects of animals’ biological function, behaviour, and mental state and the impacts of human interventions. The characterisation of survival likelihood should reflect aspects of stranded animals’ biological functioning and behaviour as well as a 6-month post-re-floating survival marker. Post-release monitoring was the major knowledge gap for survival. Welfare knowledge gaps related to diagnosing internal injuries, interpreting behavioural and physiological parameters, and euthanasia decision making. Twelve concerns were highlighted for both welfare and survival likelihood, including difficulty breathing and organ compression, skin damage and physical traumas, separation from conspecifics, and suffering and stress due to stranding and human intervention. These findings indicate inextricable links between perceptions of welfare state and the likely survival of stranded cetaceans and demonstrate a need to integrate welfare science alongside conservation biology to achieve effective, ethical management at strandings.