Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:22:34.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trade-offs between welfare, conservation, utility and economics in wildlife management — a review of conflicts, compromises and regulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

JC Reynolds
JC Reynolds*
Affiliation:
The Game Conservancy Trust, Fordingbridge, Hampshire SP6 IEF, UK
*
[email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In choosing among alternative wildlife management techniques, trade-offs between animal welfare and conservation, utility or economics are often apparent. This paper reviews the roles of science, scientists, regulators and educators in attempts to overcome this inter-dependence and to make simultaneous progress on all fronts. Illustrations are drawn in particular from trapping and pest population control. Against the real progress that can undoubtedly be made through scientific study, there is a regrettable lack of structure because of poor philosophical and logical coherence within the welfare movement.

Keywords

animal welfareethicspest controlregulationtrapswildlife management
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue S1: Science in the Service of Animal Welfare: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium, Edinburgh, 2-4 April 2003 , February 2004 , pp. S133 - S138
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bertolino, S and Genovesi, P 2003 Spread and attempted eradication of the grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) in Italy, and consequences for the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in Eurasia. Biological Conservation 109: 351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M and Johnson, K G 1993 Stress and Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, T, Edwards, V, Marsh, J, Soulsby, L and Winter, M 2000 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales (CM 4763). The Stationery Office: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Dunlap, T R 1988 Saving America's Wildlife. Ecology and the American Mind, 1850-1990. Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Game Conservancy 1994 Predator Control. Game Conservancy: Fordingbridge, Hampshire, UKGoogle Scholar
Hemmer, H 1989 Domestication: the Decline of Environmental Appreciation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Heydon, M J and Reynolds, J C 2000 Fox (Vulpes vulpes) management in three contrasting regions of Britain, in relation to agricultural and sporting interests. Journal of Zoology 251: 237–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IUCN 2000 IUCN Guidelines for the Prevention of Biodiversity Loss caused by Alien Invasive Species. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources: Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
KirkWood, J K 2000 Interventions for the conservation or welfare of wild animals. In: Legood, G (ed) Veterinary Ethics. Continuum: London, UKGoogle Scholar
KirkWood, J K, Sainsbury, A W and Bennett, P M 1994 The welfare of free-living wild animals: methods of assessment. Animal Welfare 3: 257–273Google Scholar
Macdonald, D W, Tattersall, F H, Johnson, P J, Carbone, C, Reynolds, J C, Langbein, J, Rushton, S P and Shirley, M D F 2000 Managing British Mammals: Case Studies from the Hunting Debate. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford (WildCRU): Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Malmkvist, J and Hansen, S W 2002 Generalization of fear in farm mink, Mustela vison, genetically selected for behaviour towards humans. Animal Behaviour 64: 487–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmkvist, J, Hansen, S W and Damgaard, B M 2003 Effect of the serotonin agonist buspirone on behaviour and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in confident and fearful mink. Phlsiology and Behavior 78: 229–240CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, G and Littin, K E 2003 The humaneness of rodent pest control. Animal Welfare 12: 1–37Google Scholar
Newton, I, Shore, R F, Wyllie, I, Birks, J D S and Dale, L 1999 Empirical evidence of side-effects of rodenticides on some predatory birds and mammals. In: Cowan, D P and Feare, C J (eds) Advances in Vertebrate Pest Management pp 347–368. Filander Verlag: Fürth, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Noseworthy, H 1992 Brussels and the 150 standard. The New BC Trapper 3(2): 26Google Scholar
Poole, T 1999 The UFAW Handbook on the care and Management of Laboratory Animals: Terrestrial Vertebrates, Seventh Edition. Blackwell Science: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Proulx, G 1999 Review of current mammal trap technology in North America. In: Proulx, G (ed) Mammal Trapping pp 1–46. Alpha Wildlife Research and Management: Alberta, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Regan, T 1983 The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press: Berkeley, California, USAGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, J C 1991 Hints for Using Larsen Traps. The Game Conservancy Trust: Fordingbridge, Hampshire, UK (Revised in 2000).Google Scholar
Reynolds, J C 1998 Snaring Foxes: Guidance for the Snare User. The Game Conservancy Trust: Fordingbridge, Hampshire, UK (Revised in 2000).Google Scholar
Reynolds, J C 2000 Fox Control in the Country side. Special Report. The Game Conservancy Trust: Fordingbridge, Hampshire, UKGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P, Forkman, B and Christiansen, S B 2004 Scientific uncertainty — how should it be handled in relation to scientific advice regarding animal welfare issues? In: KirkWood, J K, Roberts, E A and Vickery, S (eds) Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Science in the Service of Animal Welfare’, Edinburgh, 2003. Animal Welfare 13: 5121–5126 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Short, M J and Reynolds, J C 2001 Physical exclusion of nontarget species in tunnel-trapping of mammalian pests. Biological Conservation 98(2): 139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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(1): 75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar