Context Control of unwanted wildlife (‘pest’ animals) is undertaken for conservation and economic reasons, and when such animals are considered a nuisance. Such control should be undertaken using approaches that minimise, as far as possible, detrimental impacts on the welfare of the animals. Using a scientific framework based on the Five Domains model, the relative welfare impacts of pest control methods can be compared across methods and pest species. Aims We demonstrate the application of a modified version of this framework to evaluate the relative impacts of seven Vertebrate Toxic Agents (VTAs) used to control brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) in New Zealand. The evaluation is used to produce a ranking of the seven VTAs based on their relative impacts on possum welfare. Methods Scientific literature describing mode of toxic action, specific effects in possums or other animals and reports from human poisonings was collated as reference material for a panel of six experts. The panel produced a median welfare impact score (‘none’ to ‘extreme’) for each of the Five Domains. The ‘Overall Grade’ (1 to 8) reflected the intensity and duration of all impacts of a VTA on possums. Key results All VTAs evaluated have at least moderate impacts on possum welfare, lasting for at least minutes. Cyanide was assessed as having the lowest welfare impacts (median grade 4), and cholecalciferol and the anticoagulants the highest impacts (7.5 to 8). Zinc phosphide was assigned an intermediate grade (6) with high confidence. While the overall impacts of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) and phosphorus were also assessed as intermediate (6), the panel’s confidence in these scores was low. Conclusions From an animal welfare perspective, anticoagulant poisons and cholecalciferol should be the least preferred options for controlling possums in New Zealand, as VTAs with less severe welfare impacts are available. Implications The results of such assessments allow animal welfare impacts to be integrated with other factors in wildlife management decision-making and policy development, and are thus useful for managers, researchers, regulators and operators. Evaluation of welfare impacts aligns with the goals and mandates of ethical wildlife control and may also be valuable in wider wildlife research and management activities.

The management of vertebrate pests depends on the use of traps, pesticides, repellents and other methods, each of which can cause varying levels of pain and other negative experiences to animals. Vertebrate pest control is essential for managing the impacts of unwanted or over-abundant animals on human and animal health, ecological balance and economic interests. As the need for this management is unlikely to diminish over time, a framework has been developed for assessing the humaneness of each technique by considering their negative impacts on animal welfare so that these can be included in decision-making about the selection of techniques for a specific control operation. This information can also support evidence-based regulations directed at managing such animal welfare impacts. In this paper, the authors discuss this assessment framework, briefly review two assessments conducted using the framework and discuss ways in which Competent Authorities and others can use it and other means to improve animal welfare in vertebrate pest management.

A number of cats in a captive population were fed 50 mg of Rhodamine B in non-toxic kangaroo meat baits. Samples of whiskers (mystacial vibrissae) taken 10 days later were examined for fluorescent marking. Examination of hairs for marking was carried out by means of a ‘single blind’ trial, with the investigator having no prior knowledge of which of 36 cats had received the dye. All of the cats that had ingested baits containing the dye were marked. Examining hair samples under ambient light or under a hand-held ultraviolet (UV) light without magnification was not as reliable as examining hair samples under a fluorescence microscope. These results indicate that Rhodamine B acts as a reliable systemic marker of bait consumption in feral cats and has potential application in field studies to assess bait uptake by feral cats.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Predation by feral cats (Felis catus) is believed to threaten the conservation of a range of terrestrial vertebrates in southeastern Australia, and new baiting techniques are sought for broad‐scale control of feral cats. In southeastern Australia there are 34 native mammals that may consume meat baits, and ways to minimize their exposure to bait toxicants are needed. We determined the potential of cats to ingest larger particles relative to most nontarget species as a mechanism to increase baiting selectivity. Feral cats reliably ingested inert, spherical bearings up to 4.7 mm in diameter when the bearings were implanted within a specialized bait medium. Presence of bearings did not affect bait consumption relative to untreated baits. Repetitive ingestion was highly reliable in the first 9 days of a feeding trial and diminished only marginally in a consecutive trial. We presented captive plains rats (Pseudomys australis), fat‐tailed dunnarts (Sminthopsis crassicaudata), eastern barred‐bandicoots (Perameles gunnii), and northern quolls (Dasyurus hallucatus), with baits containing 4.7‐mm‐diameter coated pellets formulated with the marker dye rhodamine B (RB). Exposure to the marker dye for each species was not biased to individual or day of presentation. Exposure to RB in the pellet occurred in only 3.1–6.5% of presentations for each species, and the mean daily mass of the pellet in gkg−1 day−1 ingested was 0.078–0.01% of the mean bait mass in g kg−1 day−1 consumed. Pellet presentation greatly reduced (P ≤ 0.001) the exposure of wild native rodents to RB relative to directly injected baits. Exploiting differential particle size ingestion between feral cats and nontarget species could potentially reduce exposure of many nontarget mammals to bait toxicants and decrease the risk of baiting to nontarget species.

No abstract