Sandra E. Baker

Global trade in exotic pets 2006-2012.

International trade in exotic pets is an important and increasing driver of biodiversity loss and often compromises the standards required for good animal welfare. We systematically reviewed the scientific and gray literature and used the United Nations Environment Programme - World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) trade database to establish temporal and geographical trade patterns of live exotic birds, mammals, and reptiles and to describe trends in research, taxonomic representation, and level of threat and legal protection of species traded. Birds were the most species-rich and abundant class reported in trade; reptiles were second most abundant but unusually the most studied in this context; and mammals were least abundant in trade. Mammalian and reptilian species traded as pets were more likely to be threatened than expected by random. There have been a substantial number of Appendix I listed captive-bred mammals and birds and wild-caught birds and reptiles reported in trade to CITES. We identified the Middle Easts emerging role as a driver of demand for exotic pets of all taxa alongside the well-established and increasing role of South America and Southeast Asia in the market. Europe, North America, and the Middle East featured most heavily in trade reports to CITES, whereas trade involving South America and Southeast Asia were given most emphasis in the literature. For effective monitoring of and appropriate response to the international exotic pet trade, it is imperative that the reliability and detail of CITES trade reports improve and that scientific research be directed toward those taxa and locations that are most vulnerable.

Rough Trade: Animal Welfare in the Global Wildlife Trade

Wildlife trade is a big and burgeoning business, but its welfare impacts have not been studied comprehensively. We review the animal welfare impacts of the wildlife trade as they were reported in the literature between 2006 and 2011. Rarely was the term welfare mentioned, evidence of welfare impact documented, or welfare improvement recommended. Literature focused on mammals and on animals killed on site, for luxury goods or food, and for traditional medicine. Welfare impacts may be underreported, particularly in international, illegal, and wild-caught trade and trade in reptiles. Greater attention should perhaps be paid to the welfare of animals traded alive and in larger numbers (e.g., birds, reptiles, amphibians) and to those—including mammals—potentially subject to greater impacts through live use (e.g., as pets). More evidence-based research is needed. Animal welfare should be integrated with wider issues; collaboration between conservationists and welfarists and the development of health and welfare levers to influence trade offer benefits to both people and wildlife.

The Customer Isn't Always Right—Conservation and Animal Welfare Implications of the Increasing Demand for Wildlife Tourism

Tourism accounts for 9% of global GDP and comprises 1.1 billion tourist arrivals per annum. Visits to wildlife tourist attractions (WTAs) may account for 20–40% of global tourism, but no studies have audited the diversity of WTAs and their impacts on the conservation status and welfare of subject animals. We scored these impacts for 24 types of WTA, visited by 3.6–6 million tourists per year, and compared our scores to tourists’ feedback on TripAdvisor. Six WTA types (impacting 1,500–13,000 individual animals) had net positive conservation/welfare impacts, but 14 (120,000–340,000 individuals) had negative conservation impacts and 18 (230,000–550,000 individuals) had negative welfare impacts. Despite these figures only 7.8% of all tourist feedback on these WTAs was negative due to conservation/welfare concerns. We demonstrate that WTAs have substantial negative effects that are unrecognised by the majority of tourists, suggesting an urgent need for tourist education and regulation of WTAs worldwide.

Assessing Animal Welfare Impacts in the Management of European Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), European Moles (Talpa europaea) and Carrion Crows (Corvus corone)

Human-wildlife conflict is a global issue. Attempts to manage this conflict impact upon wild animal welfare, an issue receiving little attention until relatively recently. Where human activities harm animal welfare these effects should be minimised where possible. However, little is known about the welfare impacts of different wildlife management interventions, and opinions on impacts vary widely. Welfare impacts therefore need to be assessed objectively. Our objectives were to: 1) establish whether an existing welfare assessment model could differentiate and rank the impacts of different wildlife management interventions (for decision-making purposes); 2) identify and evaluate any additional benefits of making formal welfare assessments; and 3) illustrate issues raised by application of the model. We applied the welfare assessment model to interventions commonly used with rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), moles (Talpa europaea) and crows (Corvus corone) in the UK. The model ranked interventions for rabbits (least impact first: fencing, head shot, chest shot) and crows (shooting, scaring, live trapping with cervical dislocation). For moles, managing molehills and tunnels scored least impact. Both spring trapping, and live trapping followed by translocation, scored greater impacts, but these could not be compared directly as they scored on different axes of the model. Some rankings appeared counter-intuitive, highlighting the need for objective formal welfare assessments. As well as ranking the humaneness of interventions, the model highlighted future research needs and how Standard Operating Procedures might be improved. The model is a milestone in assessing wildlife management welfare impacts, but our research revealed some limitations of the model and we discuss likely challenges in resolving these. In future, the model might be developed to improve its utility, e.g. by refining the time-scales. It might also be used to reach consensus among stakeholders about relative welfare impacts or to identify ways of improving wildlife management practice in the field.

Ecology: Hunting and fox numbers in the United Kingdom

The potential impact of fox-hunting ban in Britain is a contentious issue that has been explored by Baker et al.. They conclude that a suspension of lowland fox-hunting for nine months during 2001 made no difference to fox density in certain areas. We are not confident, however, that their analysis supports their conclusions — their study does not consider statistical power or account sufficiently for regional variation, and also uses an inappropriate statistic.

Mechanical performance of rat, mouse and mole spring traps, and possible implications for welfare performance.

Lethal spring traps are widely used for killing small mammals in the UK. Many require government approval, based primarily on humaneness. However, mole traps and break-back traps for rats and mice are exempt; those available vary widely in price and apparent quality. The EU is considering implementing a Trapping Directive that would alter UK legislation, and a recent report advised the EU that trapping legislation should cover all trapped species and encourage improvement of traps. Mechanical trap performance is often used as an indicator of welfare impact. We examined the mechanical evidence for scope to improve the welfare standards of rat, mouse and mole spring traps. We measured mechanical performance among a range of rat, mouse and mole traps. Impact momentum values varied 6-8 fold, and clamping force values 4-5.5 fold, among traps for killing each species. There was considerable overlap in the performance of rat and mouse traps. Trap-opening angle and spring type were related to impact momentum and clamping force in traps for both species. There was no relationship between price and mechanical performance in traps for any species, except talpa mole traps. We are unable to judge the direct welfare impact of the traps tested, but rather the potential welfare threat associated with their exemption from approval. The wide variation in mechanical performance in traps for each species, overlap in performance between rat and mouse traps and increasing availability of weaker plastic rodent traps indicate considerable scope for improving the humaneness of spring traps for rats, mice and moles. We conclude that all such traps should be subject to the UK approval process. New welfare categories might improve trap standards further. Our results could also help improve rodent trap design and assist consumers in selecting more powerful traps. Many thousands of rats, mice and moles might benefit.

Food Aversion Plus Odor Cue Protects Crop From Wild Mammals

Abstract Wild mammals cause foraging damage to crops worldwide and nonlethal methods are required for controlling such damage. Many wildlife management situations demand protection of untreated foods. We tested learned food aversion plus an odor cue as a paradigm for protecting untreated model crop items from European badgers (Meles meles). Following conditioning with a combination of ziram and clove oil, badgers avoided untreated maize cobs in presence of a clove odor cue. A clove oil control did not condition badgers. This work has been an important step before proceeding to full-scale field trials for protecting growing crops on a wider scale.

A poor international standard for trap selectivity threatens carnivore conservation

Abstract Unintentional mortality of endangered carnivores due to non-selective trapping is important for conservation and warrants urgent attention. Currently, non-selective traps are being approved and used based on trap selectivity tests conducted according to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) guidelines. We review these guidelines and find them inadequate, because: (1) the ISO definition of selectivity does not account for relative abundance of target and non-target species and does not therefore meaningfully reflect selectivity; (2) the guidelines methodology at best quantifies relative selectivity of one trap against another, which is of limited use unless the control trap is known to have an acceptable level of absolute selectivity for the target species; (3) information on relative trap selectivity cannot simply be extrapolated elsewhere, unless species assemblage and relative species abundances are consistent. We demonstrate that the ISO definition of trap selectivity is only a simple capture proportion and therefore does not represent trap selectivity. ISO guidelines on trap selectivity should be reviewed to reflect particular ecological scenarios and we suggest how this might be done. Policy-makers, practitioners and researchers should interpret scientific results more cautiously. Trap approval decisions should be based on scientific evidence to avoid undermining the conservation of biodiversity.

Potential welfare impacts of kill-trapping European moles ( Talpa europaea ) using scissor traps and Duffus traps: a post mortem examination study

Moles are widely trapped as pests on farms and amenity land in Britain. Spring traps for killing mammals generally require welfare approval in the UK, but mole traps are exempt. Previous research demonstrated wide variation in the mechanical performance of mole traps. In this context, we aimed to produce new data on the welfare impact of kill-trapping moles in the field. We collected 50 moles trapped in southern England (November 2008–August 2009). Captures peaked during the peak in male breeding activity, when captures were almost exclusively male. Post mortem and x-ray (radiation) examinations were conducted to determine injuries and likely cause of death. No moles sustained damaged skulls or upper cervical vertebrae (which could cause unconsciousness immediately). The primary identifiable cause of death for all but one mole was acute haemorrhage; this contrasts with the findings of the only previous such study, in which only one mole showed clear evidence of haemorrhaging. Some moles may have asphyxiated although it was not possible to determine this. Moles most likely became unconscious before death, but times to unconsciousness, and death, can be determined only through killing trials and further investigation is urgently needed. This should be done through the spring traps approval process; this could improve the welfare standards of trapping for many thousands of moles each year. Mole trapping for long-term population control might be better targeted after the peak in male breeding activity, when females are more likely to be caught, but this would threaten the welfare of dependent young underground.

Some Animals Are More Equal than Others: Wild Animal Welfare in the Media

The media can reflect social opinion and influence debate and policy. Wild vertebrate welfare issues are regularly reported in the media, but there has been no study of the type and frequency of their coverage. We compiled a list of potential wild vertebrate welfare issues in the United Kingdom, recording how often each issue was mentioned in the media during 2014. Lethal wildlife management issues were most frequently reported, whereas issues that received little coverage included marine debris, commercial fishing, and pollution. Overall, the media tended more frequently to report welfare issues that involved intent to harm an animal, were illegal, or occurred in the terrestrial environment. Insofar as media reporting may lead to improvements in the welfare of wild animals, greater effort may be required to provoke media interest in welfare issues that do not involve intent to harm, are legal, or occur in marine environments.