Conflicting and complementary ethics of animal welfare considerations in reintroductions.

Conserv Biol

Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, The Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Tubney House, Abingdon Road, Tubney, Oxon, OX13 5QL, United Kingdom.

Published: June 2013

AI Article Synopsis

  • Conservation biology and animal welfare are interconnected, with improving animal welfare potentially enhancing conservation success, though animal welfare is often overlooked in conservation practices.
  • A review of 199 projects involving the reintroduction of various animal species found that 67% reported welfare issues, including high mortality rates, loss of animals, disease, and human conflict.
  • Most projects monitored survival rates and implemented supportive actions, but only 6% explicitly mentioned animal welfare; recommendations include better reporting of welfare issues and evaluating management strategies to promote transparency and improve outcomes.

Article Abstract

Despite differences in focus, goals, and strategies between conservation biology and animal welfare, both are inextricably linked in many ways, and greater consideration of animal welfare, although important in its own right, also has considerable potential to contribute to conservation success. Nevertheless, animal welfare and animal ethics are not always considered explicitly within conservation practice. We systematically reviewed the recent scientific peer-reviewed and online gray literature on reintroductions of captive-bred and wild-caught animals (mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles) to quantify the occurrence of animal welfare issues. We considered monitoring that could be indicative of the animal's welfare status and supportive management actions that could improve animal welfare (regardless of whether the aim was explicitly animal-welfare orientated). Potential welfare issues (of variable nature and extent) were recorded in 67% of 199 projects reviewed; the most common were mortality >50%, dispersal or loss of animals, disease, and human conflict. Most (>70%) projects monitored survival, 18% assessed body condition, and 2% monitored stress levels. Animal welfare, explicitly, was referred to in 6% of projects. Supportive actions, most commonly use of on-site prerelease pens and provision of supplemental food or water, were implemented in 79% of projects, although the extent and duration of support varied. Practitioners can address animal-welfare issues in reintroductions by considering the potential implications for individual animals at all stages of the release process using the decision tree presented. We urge practitioners to report potential animal-welfare issues, describe mitigation actions, and evaluate their efficacy to facilitate transparent evaluation of common moral dilemmas and to advance communal strategies for dealing with them. Currently, comparative mortality rates, health risks, postrelease stress, effectiveness of supportive measures, and behavior of individuals warrant further research to improve animal welfare in reintroductions and to increase success of such projects.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12021DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

animal welfare
32
welfare
10
animal
9
welfare issues
8
improve animal
8
animal-welfare issues
8
projects
5
conflicting complementary
4
complementary ethics
4
ethics animal
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!