This issue of the journal contains, for the first time, a Guest Editorial. This type of contribution, which is to be an occasional feature of the journal, is written at the invitation of the Editor-in-Chief and allows eminent outsiders to pass informed comment on current and controversial animal welfare problems. The first of these Guest Editorials is by David Bowles, the European Officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), and describes the background to and the present situation re the attempt by the European Community to ban the importation of furs obtained by the use of the leghold (gin) trap. He paints a somewhat gloomy picture of what happens when European animal welfare interests fall foul of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) obligations.

If we agree that improvements in animal welfare should be determined primarily through legislation, we would probably also agree that it is important not to disregard an issue merely because laws have been changed and solutions appear to have been found. As in all contracts, it is vital to read the small print and to follow an issue right through to the end. The saga of improving global trapping methods provides a salutary lesson for both.

There are many definitions of animal welfare. These do not only differ in their meaning, but also in their function for making a broad concept accessible for scientific research. Lexical [dictionary] definitions establish what the common meaning is of the concept to be studied, and help to find some concrete phenomena which are related to the often vague and general descriptive terms. Explanatory definitions provide an elementary theoretical background for studying the phenomena. Operational definitions contain the parameters used in concrete measurements. In each step we reduce the concept to more measurable elements but lose other elements of the concept. In the case of animal welfare this results in an evolution of definitions which makes animal welfare more objectively assessable. But it also results in an erosion: development of a confusing diversity in parameters and a loss of the moral aspect of the concept of animal welfare. This erosion has a negative influence on political decisionmaking. It is important to recognize the possibilities and limitations of problem solving, based on ‘animal welfare science’.

There is growing interest in and support for the development of disease prevention measures in free-living wildlife and for the rescue, treatment and rehabilitation of wild animals that are sick and injured. In some cases these endeavours may be of importance to the conservation of populations but frequently they are undertaken for welfare rather than conservation reasons. There are circumstances in which wildlife welfare can be improved by therapeutic intervention but the difficulties, and their potentially harmful consequences, should not be underestimated. Interventions for the welfare of free-living wild animals whose fate we control or influence and which are therefore, to some extent, under our stewardship, are consistent with the tradition of humanity for and stewardship of domesticated or captive animals. However, it is suggested here that the decision to treat sick or injured free-living wild animals should not be based on welfare grounds alone.

Stereotypic behaviour is generally associated with animals maintained in restrictive environments, and has rarely been described in wild or free-ranging animals. The difference between captive and wild populations may be due to their genetic predisposition or to experience of environmental factors. To investigate genetic and environmental factors, we compared the behaviour of 12 wild caught voles and their 9 pups with that of 12 laboratory reared voles and 14 laboratory bred pups. All voles were observed twice. Adults were observed after 10 days housing in a cage, containing food, water, sawdust and hay, and again after 60 days. Pups were observed in the same cages 10 and 60 days after weaning. For each observation, the voles’ behaviour was recorded both undisturbed in this cage, and following introduction to an unfamiliar cage. Locomotor stereotypies were observed in laboratory adults, but not in wild caught voles, which spent less time on all locomotor activities and more time under cover than laboratory voles. There was no difference in mortality or fecundity of laboratory and wild caught voles, so there appeared to be no selective advantage to stereotyping. There was no difference in the behaviour of wild and laboratory pups, so early environmental experience of the cage environment, rather than parental background, was an important factor in the development of locomotor stereotypies in this species. Pups that developed stereotypies by 60 days spent less time under cover and more time walking and climbing after 10 days than voles that did not develop stereotypic behaviour. Stereotypic behaviour may therefore have been derived from persistence of locomotor behaviour. Wild caught voles may have failed to develop locomotor stereotypies, either because they did not perform a locomotor response to captivity or because older voles are less prone to develop novel responses to external cues. It would, therefore, be dangerous to use the absence of stereotypic behaviour as a reliable indicator of welfare without taking into account the animal's prior experience.

The handling of cattle during unloading (n = 39) and movement to slaughter (n = 163) was observed at a commercial slaughterhouse. Most potentially traumatic events and handling events occurred while the cattle were in the race. During the initial 3 hours in the lairage pen, cattle from markets (n = 28) spent significantly more time drinking than those sent to slaughter direct from farms (n = 11; P < 0.05). Most cattle had bruises (99%; η = 181), but there was no difference between the occurrence of bruising in cattle direct from farms and those from markets. Bruise score was not affected by the distance transported from farms 18-201km (11-125 miles). However, cattle from markets > 64km (>40 miles) from the slaughterhouse had greater bruise scores than those from nearer markets 0.8-64km (0.5-40 miles) (P <0.01). No correlations were found between potentially traumatic events at the slaughterhouse and the occurrence of bruising. Plasma total protein concentration and plasma creatine kinase activity in blood collected at exsanguination (n = 170) was significantly greater in cattle from markets than in those from farms (P < 0.05), but there was no difference in plasma osmolality and packed cell volume (PCV). Cattle from distant markets > 129km (>80 miles) had higher PCV and plasma total protein concentration than those from markets within 129km (80 miles) (P <0.05). The overall results suggest that cattle from markets, particularly those transported for a distance greater than 64km (40 miles), would benefit from greater access to water at the market and from improved methods of handling and transport prior to arrival at the slaughterhouse.

Members of the cat family are highly motivated to hunt, but in captivity are unable to do so for a variety of reasons. This inability to hunt may reduce their welfare. In this study we used a moving bait to stimulate and release hunting motivation in two captive cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus). Essentially our enrichment device consisted of a dead rabbit, hung from a pulley, just above the ground, moving down a 34 metre length of wire by the force of gravity. We observed the cheetahs for 140 minutes per day over three sequential food presentation periods: Baseline (10 consecutive days), Device (10 consecutive days) and Post-device (5 consecutive days). The moving bait significantly increased the frequency of sprinting (hunting) and time spent performing observations. It significantly decreased time spent in affiliation and feeding. These effects were also observed at times other than when the moving bait was presented. Thus, a moving bait allows captive cheetahs to perform ‘natural-looking’ hunting in captivity.

When designing cages to maximize welfare, we should consider both the physical and psychological needs of the animals for which the cage is intended. Many laboratory species show non-random defecation patterns and therefore might possess a psychological need for soiling sites with preferred characteristics. This study examined whether caged laboratory mice preferred to defecate on a floor with or without sawdust, and whether mice preferentially defecated in clearly partitioned areas of the cage which prevented mixing of soiled and clean sawdust. The mice were recorded as active in each area of the cage at a frequency that would be expected from the floor-area available, ie general activity was randomly distributed, but, the mice were selective in the areas used for defecation. Significantly more faeces were deposited in areas containing sawdust than in areas without (p<0.0001). After corrections for differences in the size of floor-area, significantly fewer faeces were deposited in partitioned areas at the rear of the cage than in the front area of the cage which contained the feeder and drinkers (p <0.001). Overall, these results show that the mice defecated in localized areas and preferred to defecate in areas containing sawdust. These results support other evidence which indicates that conventional cage designs for mice do not provide a sufficiently complex or appropriate environment to allow selective soiling behaviour. Such cages might therefore be inadequate with respect to catering for the psychological needs and overall welfare of laboratory mice.

A social group of six badgers (Meles meles) (four adults and two cubs) was translocated from urban Bexhill, East Sussex, in August 1993 to a 1216m2 electrified enclosure in a part of Suffolk largely unoccupied by badgers. Three adult badgers (SY2, SY5 and SY6) escaped from the release site prior to the removal of the perimeter fence on 10 December and established a sett near a village, 2.9km from the release site. In January 1994, the remaining adult (SY4) left the release site and moved 1.8km to the grounds of a youth detention centre. The cubs did not desert the site as readily as the adults.

Home-range sizes for two adult females, SY4 and SY6, remained relatively constant, while that of adult male SY2 increased from 50ha in February to nearly 400ha in April. The range of SY2 overlapped parts of the ranges of the two females, although SY4 and SY6's ranges never overlapped.

The percentage volume of scavenged food in the diet increased monthly between February and April which corresponded to increased garden activity over this period. Earthworms were the most important item in the diet. The establishment of both main setts near housing and the preference for foraging in gardens suggests that badgers released into novel environments may search for familiar habitats.

It is concluded that translocation can successfully establish badgers at new locations. However, translocation as a solution to problems caused by badgers must only be viewed as a last resort, not least due to the potential for disease spread.

This series of publications is made up of: a six-page coloured leaflet-card on ‘Environmental Weeds in Australia’; a four-page coloured leaflet-card on ‘Feral Animals in Australia’ in general; and five, two-page coloured leaflet-cards on ‘The Feral Cat (Felis catus)’, ‘The Feral Goat (Capra hircus)’, the ‘European Wild Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)’, ‘The Feral Pig (Sus scrofa)’ and the ‘European Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes)’.

This publication grew out of a side-meeting at the 1st World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences: Education, Research and Testing, held in Baltimore, Maryland in November 1993. It was felt there was a need for a directory of resources addressing various aspects of the alternatives issue. Four people volunteered to develop such a resource and in the Spring of 1994 a questionnaire was developed and sent to all interested parties. The Directory grew out of the responses to the questionnaire. It gives information on newsletters, databases, publications and computer models. Each entry comprises the resource developer's name, address, telephone/fax, descriptive information, costs, availability, audience, language and a contact person's name.

Builders and property developers sometimes carry out construction work which may interfere with the lives of badgers resident and living adjacent to the development site. This booklet is intended as a basic guide for developers, so that they can understand the basic problems and the possible methods that can be used to overcome or limit the damage which may be done to the badgers.

This booklet, which is actually a special one-time-only edition of PAWS NEWS, is labelled on its front cover as ‘Everything you should know to make the world a better place for dogs and cats’. It is designed to be customized, ie have individual organizations place their name and address etc on it, for distribution by other shelters and animal groups in the United States.

In May/June 1995 the European Centre for Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) held a workshop on the role of replacement, refinement and reduction, ie the Three Rs, in biomedical research and testing. A report and the recommendations of this workshop were published in the journal ATLA and have now been reprinted with minor amendments. This 29-page document is a most valuable resource of the current situation re the Three Rs. It covers the origins and the evolution of the three Rs concept, the reduction alternatives, the refinement alternatives and the replacement alternatives. Interwoven with these main themes there are a number of more general items on such matters as: considerations of the scientific and ethical justification of using animals for research purposes; on the validations and scientific barriers to the adoption of alternative methods; and on educating, training and informing scientists and the general public about the use of limitation of the Three Rs approach. The whole is finished with some 58 Conclusions and Recommendations and a 112 item list of references.

Whose Eden? is a report to the Overseas Development Administration of the British Government. It presents an overview and analysis of literature on community approaches to wildlife management, with the majority of the information gained from schemes in Africa. The analyses are split into top-down approaches (ownership of wildlife by the state, traditional protected areas, wildlife legislation enforcement) and participatory approaches (involvement of local people and their needs in wildlife management). This latter category is also further broken down into a range from passive participation (donor-funded and compensation schemes) to active participation (community-led generation and distribution of benefits from wildlife utilization). The report also identifies conditions under which uses of wildlife are likely to be sustainable.

In August 1995 the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Training (ANZCCART) held a two-day conference in Wellington, New Zealand on Farm Animals in Biomedical and Agricultural Research. The 14 papers together with their edited discussions - see advertisement on page 338 for details - have now been published. The material ranges from a keynote address on farm animals in biomedical and agricultural research, through to an ANZCCART student award paper on in vitro fertilization technologies in animals and humans, to discussions on consciousness and awareness in farm animals and on human accountability regarding animal use.

Considerable interest is currently being taken in the treatment of injured or diseased wildlife. The general public feels that something ought to be done to relieve the suffering. As a consequence various voluntary wildlife rehabilitation and treatment centres have been set up, veterinary surgeons have become skilled in treating wild animals and a substantial number of both serious and semi-popular publications on the subject have come on to the market.

Each year the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) holds an Animal Welfare Forum. The subject of the 1995 meeting was the cat, and the full text of the eight papers presented at the Forum have now been published as part of Volume 208, Issue 4 (15 February 1996) of the Journal of the AVMA. The themes ranged from the origin and nature of the domestic cat (Joan Miller) to feral cats in the United Kingdom (Jenny Remfry). There were also contributions on feline behaviour and welfare (Gary Landsberg), new developments in feline vaccines (James Richards), population medicine and infectious diseases (Johnny Hoskins), cats and their people (R Lee Zasloff), surgical neutering and nonsurgical alternatives (Mark Bloomberg) and animal shelter issues (Carter Luke).