Animal welfare testing for shooting and darting free-ranging wildlife: a review and recommendations

Abstract

Several important techniques for managing wildlife rely on ballistics (the behaviour of projectiles), including killing techniques (shooting) as well as capture and marking methods (darting). Because all ballistic techniques have the capacity to harm animals, animal welfare is an important consideration. Standardised testing approaches that have allowed refinement for other physical killing and capture methods (e.g. traps for mammals) have not been applied broadly to ballistic methods. At the same time, new technology is becoming available for shooting (e.g. subsonic and lead-free ammunition) and darting (e.g. dye-marker darts). We present several case studies demonstrating (a) how basic ballistic testing can be performed for novel firearms and/or projectiles, (b) the benefits of identifying methods producing undesirable results before operational use, and (c) the welfare risks associated with bypassing testing of a technique before broad-scale application. Following the approach that has been used internationally to test kill-traps, we suggest the following four-step testing process: (1) range and field testing to confirm accuracy and precision, the delivery of appropriate kinetic energy levels and projectile behaviour, (2) post-mortem assessment of ballistic injury in cadavers, (3) small-scale live animal pilot studies with predetermined threshold pass/fail levels, and (4) broad-scale use with reporting of the frequency of adverse animal welfare outcomes. We present this as a practical approach for maintaining and improving animal welfare standards when considering the use of ballistic technology for wildlife management.

Exploration of double-dart injection technique as a supplemental application for remote drug delivery system for zoo and wild animals

“…The coefficient of determination (R square; R 2 ) was 0.99. We recommend using the least amount of pressure feasible to minimize the harm caused by kinetic energy and projectiles from darts and gunshots [11,13].…”

“…Hence, the formula for predicting the distance of double dart from the original target point (formula-4) was Y (gun pressure)=0.4X (shot range)+3.33, the coefficient of determination (R square; R2) was 0.92 (Figure -6). While a small distance between two darts is preferable to ensure that both darts strike the target, it demands high pressure, resulting in additional injuries to the animals [11,13].…”

Social licence to cull: Examining scepticism toward lethal wildlife removal in cities

“…Some culls appear to be at odds with growing public sentiment on animal rights and animal welfare (Hampton et al, 2021; Kowalewska, 2019). Critical voices also attribute the cull‐as‐operative‐strategy to a newfound influence over wildlife management by, among other things, veterinary medicine and One Health (Broz et al, 2021).…”

“…In so doing, we respond to Beirne's (2014) call for research to explore "how and why some theoricides [animal killing] are constructed as socially acceptable and others as unacceptable" (p. 61). Some culls appear to be at odds with growing public sentiment on animal rights and animal welfare (Hampton et al, 2021;Kowalewska, 2019). Critical voices also attribute the cull-as-operativestrategy to a newfound influence over wildlife management by, among other things, veterinary medicine and One Health (Broz et al, 2021).…”

Assessing the efficacy of electronic quail callers in attracting stubble quail and non-target predators

“…hunting dogs) [5]. Modern developments have included the utilization of advanced technology such as non-lead firearm ammunition [6], thermal and night vision scopes [7], scent-neutralizing technology [8], trail cameras [9] and drones [10]. There is increasing scrutiny of newly developed technology applied to hunting and a growing societal expectation that empirical testing of outcomes related to sustainability or animal welfare will occur, in order for social license to be maintained [6].…”