No 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.

Conservation organizations are increasingly aware of the need to motivate pro‐environmental behavior by connecting people with nature. However, to maximize the effectiveness of the limited resources available, there needs to be a better understanding of the variability in people's connection to nature shown at different ages. We examined connection to nature among people aged 5–75 years, using two popular measures, in a cross‐sectional UK sample, based on the hypothesis that there would be clear, age‐related patterns in people's connection to nature, with specific “breakpoints” associated with differences in feelings of connection. Data were collected across a variety of locations. Analysis of generalized additive models revealed similar age‐related patterns for both measures, with connection declining from childhood to an overall low in the mid‐teens, followed by a rise to the early 20s and reaching a plateau that lasts to the end of the lifetime. Both measures also showed that females generally had higher connection scores than males. These findings have implications for conservation action.

No abstract

Distribution data for elusive species are often based on detection of field signs rather than of the animal itself. However, identifying field signs can be problematic. We present here the results of a survey for American mink, Neovison vison, in the northern highlands of Scotland to demonstrate the importance of verifying field sign identification. Three experienced surveyors located scats, which they identified as mink scats, at seven of 147 sites surveyed and "possible" mink scats at a further 50 sites. Mitochondrial DNA was successfully extracted from 45 of 75 (60%) scats, collected from 31 of the 57 "positive" sites; sequencing of amplified DNA fragments showed that none of these scats was actually of mink origin. We consider the implications of erroneous survey data and the potential waste of resources and misdirection of conservation/ management actions. We discuss potential methods that may be useful to verify field sign identification, including the use of DNA analysis, and stress that verification is crucial to ensure rigorous and reliable survey data.