Anticoagulant Rodenticides, Islands, and Animal Welfare Accountancy

Abstract

Simple SummaryAnticoagulant rodenticides are a mainstay of rodent management in many domestic, municipal, agricultural, and conservation settings. Anticoagulant poisoning has poor welfare outcomes for mammals and birds and, worldwide, this means potentially very large numbers of animals are poisoned annually consequent (intended or not) to rodenticide use. Critical differences in use patterns of anticoagulants applied for ongoing rodent control, versus application for rodent eradication especially on islands, have clear implications for animal welfare costs measured as cumulative number of animals affected over time. Here we outline these differences and discuss how animal welfare considerations can be weighed in decisions to use anticoagulant rodenticides for island eradication attempts.AbstractAnticoagulant rodenticides are used to manage rodents in domestic, municipal, agricultural, and conservation settings. In mammals and birds, anticoagulant poisoning causes extensive hemorrhagic disruption, with the primary cause of death being severe internal bleeding occurring over days. The combined severity and duration of these effects represent poor welfare outcomes for poisoned animals. Noting a lack of formal estimates of numbers of rodents and nontarget animals killed by anticoagulant poisoning, the ready availability and worldwide use of anticoagulants suggest that very large numbers of animals are affected globally. Scrutiny of this rodent control method from scientific, public, and regulatory perspectives is being driven largely by mounting evidence of environmental transfer of residual anticoagulants resulting in harmful exposure in wild or domestic animals, but there is also nascent concern for the welfare of targeted rodents. Rodent control incurs a cumulative ledger of animal welfare costs over time as target populations reduced by poisoning eventually recover to an extent requiring another reduction. This ‘rolling toll’ presents a critical contrast to the animal welfare accountancy ledger for eradication scenarios, where rodent populations can be completely removed by methods including anticoagulant use and then kept from coming back (e.g., on islands). Successful eradications remove any future need to control rodents and to incur the associated animal welfare costs.

Effectiviteit en welzijnsaspecten van kastvallen (verdrinkingsvallen) voor de bestrijding van schadelijke wilde knaagdieren

“…Toch blijven fundamentele aspecten van commensale knaagdierethologie en -ecologie ernstig onderbelicht (Parsons et al, 2017). Met een toenemend ecologisch en ethisch bewustzijn gaan innovaties in de bestrijding van knaagdieren gepaard met een toenemende nadruk op de overwegingen met betrekking tot de gevolgen voor het milieu en de impact op het dierenwelzijn (Fisher et al, 2019). Bij het streven naar bestrijdingsmethoden die zowel rekening houden met dierenwelzijn als met de noodzaak om antropogene belangen als volksgezondheid en schadepreventie efficiënt te borgen, blijft de balans tussen deze aspecten sterk naar de laatste twee aspecten doorslaan.…”

Managing macropods without poisoning ecosystems

“…2019), as increasingly occurs for other wildlife management issues, such as use of anticoagulant rodenticides (Fisher et al . 2019).…”

Asymptomatic Anticoagulant Rodenticide Exposure in Dogs and Cats—A French and Belgian Rural and Urban Areas Study

“…Anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) have been used worldwide for pest control since the mid-twentieth century ( Fisher et al, 2019 ). Due to this intensive use, many animal species, whether or not targeted by these treatments, are regularly exposed to these compounds.…”