A Universal Animal Welfare Framework for Zoos

Kagan, Ron; Carter, Scott L.; Allard, Stephanie

doi:10.1080/10888705.2015.1075830

Cited by 91 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This emphasis is intended to motivate those responsible for animal care to focus both on minimising the negative subjective experiences and on promoting the positive experiences animals may have. In other words, the overall objective is to provide opportunities for animals to “thrive”, not simply “survive” [1,44], by applying practical measures that do much more than merely meet their basic needs for water, food, shelter and disease reduction [1,7,17,18,19,29,32,33,45]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” by Updating the “Five Provisions” and Introducing Aligned “Animal Welfare Aims”

Mellor

2016

Animals

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple SummaryA Five Provisions/Welfare Aims paradigm has been formulated as a coherent alternative to the Five Freedoms. It retains the memorable simplicity of the original paradigm and is linked to it, but avoids the acknowledged complications that arise by using the term “freedoms”. Also, it accommodates current scientific understanding of animal welfare, is easily understood and provides guidance on beneficial objectives for animal welfare management. It is an evocative and engaging paradigm anticipated to be of particular interest to non-specialist members of the lay public who are concerned about animal welfare.AbstractAlthough the Five Freedoms paradigm has been very influential in shaping animal welfare thinking for the last two decades, it has two key disadvantages. First, the focus on “freedom” from a range of negative experiences and states has been misunderstood in a number of quarters to mean that complete freedom from these experiences and states is possible, when in fact the best that can be achieved is for them to be minimised. Second, the major focus of the Freedoms on negative experiences and states is now seen to be a disadvantage in view of current understanding that animal welfare management should also include the promotion of positive experiences and states. The challenge therefore was to formulate a paradigm that overcame these two main problems and yet was straightforward enough to be accessible to non-specialists, including members of the lay public who are interested in animal welfare. This was achieved by highlighting the Five Provisions, originally aligned with the Five Freedoms, but now updated to direct welfare management towards activities that both minimise negative experiences or states and promote positive experiences or states as specified by particular Animal Welfare Aims assigned to each Provision. Aspects of the four welfare principles from the European Welfare Quality assessment system (WQ®) and elements of all domains of the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment have been incorporated into the new Five Provisions/Welfare Aims paradigm. Thus, the paradigm is easily understood and provides clear guidance on beneficial objectives for animal welfare management. It is anticipated that the paradigm will have application to many species found in a wide range of circumstances.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” by Updating the “Five Provisions” and Introducing Aligned “Animal Welfare Aims”

Mellor

2016

Animals

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Methods for assessing welfare have been well developed for a range of captive animals [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23], including for wild species [24][25][26][27][28]. Although a need to develop methodologies for assessing the welfare of free-roaming wildlife has been highlighted [1], to date, such assessments have been largely restricted to impacts of non-lethal or lethal control of unwanted species, such as rodents, possums, rabbits, kangaroos, camels, badgers, and horses [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Ten-Stage Protocol for Assessing the Welfare of Individual Non-Captive Wild Animals: Free-Roaming Horses (Equus Ferus Caballus) as an Example

Harvey

Beausoleil

Ramp

et al. 2020

Animals

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge of the welfare status of wild animals is vital for informing debates about the ways in which we interact with wild animals and their habitats. Currently, there is no published information about how to scientifically assess the welfare of free-roaming wild animals during their normal day-to-day lives. Using free-roaming horses as an example, we describe a ten-stage protocol for systematically and scientifically assessing the welfare of individual non-captive wild animals. The protocol starts by emphasising the importance of readers having an understanding of animal welfare in a conservation context and also of the Five Domains Model for assessing welfare. It goes on to detail what species-specific information is required to assess welfare, how to identify measurable and observable indicators of animals’ physical states and how to identify which individuals are being assessed. Further, it addresses how to select appropriate methods for measuring/observing physical indicators of welfare, the scientific validation of these indicators and then the grading of animals’ welfare states, along with assigning a confidence score. Finally, grading future welfare risks and how these can guide management decisions is discussed. Applying this ten-stage protocol will enable biologists to scientifically assess the welfare of wild animals and should lead to significant advances in the field of wild animal welfare.

show abstract

“…Even though several empirical studies have been carried out on individuals' use of SNS (such as Chen (2013), Chang and Zhu (2011), Kim et al (2010), and Ridings and Gefen (2004)), very limited research has been conducted oin its use by non-profit organizations, such as professional societies. Knowledge sharing is a core process for professional societies' development (Gerken Golay et al, 2014;Kagan et al, 2015;Kind and Evans, 2015), and the use of SNS and social media is becoming very popular in these organizations (Thompson et al, 2008;Rutter and Duncan, 2011). Thus, the results of this study add value to researchers and practitioners using social networking sites in professional societies and group collaboration.…”

Section: Authormentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Knowledge sharing is a core process in professional society as the aim of any professional society is to share knowledge among professionals in a specific domain to benefit the domain and the society (Gerken Golay et al, 2014;Kagan et al, 2015;Kind and Evans, 2015). One of the popular traditional mechanisms for sharing knowledge is a face-to-face meeting.…”

Section: Research Objectives and Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers and benefits of using social networking sites versus face-to-face meetings for sharing knowledge in professional societies

Busaidi

Ragsdell

Dawson

2017

IJBIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Universal Animal Welfare Framework for Zoos

Cited by 91 publications

References 5 publications

Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” by Updating the “Five Provisions” and Introducing Aligned “Animal Welfare Aims”

Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” by Updating the “Five Provisions” and Introducing Aligned “Animal Welfare Aims”

A Ten-Stage Protocol for Assessing the Welfare of Individual Non-Captive Wild Animals: Free-Roaming Horses (Equus Ferus Caballus) as an Example

Barriers and benefits of using social networking sites versus face-to-face meetings for sharing knowledge in professional societies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About