“Feelings and Fitness” Not “Feelings or Fitness”–The Raison d'être of Conservation Welfare, Which Aligns Conservation and Animal Welfare Objectives

Abstract

Increasingly, human activities, including those aimed at conserving species and ecosystems (conservation activities) influence not only the survival and fitness but also the welfare of wild animals. Animal welfare relates to how an animal is experiencing its life and encompasses both its physical and mental states. While conservation biology and animal welfare science are both multi-disciplinary fields that use scientific methods to address concerns about animals, their focus and objectives sometimes appear to conflict. However, activities impacting detrimentally on the welfare of individual animals also hamper achievement of some conservation goals, and societal acceptance is imperative to the continuation of conservation activities. Thus, the best outcomes for both disciplines will be achieved through collaboration and knowledge-sharing. Despite this recognition, cross-disciplinary information-sharing and collaborative research and practice in conservation are still rare, with the exception of the zoo context. This paper summarizes key points developed by a group of conservation and animal welfare scientists discussing scientific assessment of wild animal welfare and barriers to progress. The dominant theme emerging was the need for a common language to facilitate cross-disciplinary progress in understanding and safeguarding the welfare of animals of wild species. Current conceptions of welfare implicit in conservation science, based mainly on “fitness” (physical states), need to be aligned with contemporary animal welfare science concepts which emphasize the dynamic integration of “fitness” and “feelings” (mental experiences) to holistically understand animals' welfare states. The way in which animal welfare is characterized influences the way it is evaluated and the emphasis put on different features of welfare, as well as, the importance placed on the outcomes of such evaluations and how that information is used, for example in policy development and decision-making. Salient examples from the New Zealand and Australian context are presented to illustrate. To genuinely progress our understanding and evaluation of wild animal welfare and optimize the aims of both scientific disciplines, conservation and animal welfare scientists should work together to evolve and apply a common understanding of welfare. To facilitate this, we propose the formal development of a new discipline, Conservation Welfare, integrating the expertise of scientists from both fields.

What is the value of wild animal welfare for restoration ecology?

“…Therefore, reducing stress in animals that facilitate ecosystem processes may lead to concurrent improvements to ecosystem functioning and animal welfare. In other contexts, these two targets may be incompatible objectives and their prioritization will vary depending on stakeholders' values (Lorimer et al ; Beausoleil et al ). Even if the conflict between supporting ecosystems or individuals cannot be entirely resolved, the deliberation itself illustrates the ecological and moral consequences of human decisions on the nonhuman members of the biotic community.…”

“…The difference in vulnerability between age cohorts explained the recovery projections for this population (Riotte‐Lambert & Weimerskirch ). Furthermore, foraging and navigating performance depended on early‐life experiences formed through learning, in addition to environmental context (Fay et al ), illustrating how animals' mental, physical, and functional states interrelate (Beausoleil et al ; Cordeiro et al ; Louison et al ). The use of animals' activities and experiences to understand patterns at population, community, or ecosystem levels continues to grow in the context of management, reflecting the benefits of focusing on individuals to reduce mechanistic uncertainty.…”

“…Despite the value placed on animals in the land ethic (as “fellow‐members”), practitioners of environmental management have not resolved how to support the well‐being of individuals while also maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem (Swaisgood ; Lorimer et al ; but see Dubois et al ). Another challenge is the growing call for restoration to integrate with a broader suite of environmental issues and disciplines (Miller & Bestelmeyer ; Beausoleil et al ), while also increasing the effectiveness of the projects under its auspices (Brudvig et al ). To address these problems, we examine theories and case studies which illustrate the value of wild animal welfare for reducing uncertainty during ecological restoration, conceptualizing and restoring biotic integrity, and strengthening human‐nature relationships.…”

Underaddressed animal‐welfare issues in conservation

“…Many recent values‐based ethical critiques have been published that oppose or support conservation practices and that purport to address animal welfare (e.g., Beausoleil et al. ; Hampton et al. ; Wallach et al.…”

“…Over the past 2 decades, the attention devoted to animal welfare in conservation and wildlife management has increased markedly (Kirkwood et al 1994;Dubois et al 2017). Many recent values-based ethical critiques have been published that oppose or support conservation practices and that purport to address animal welfare (e.g., Beausoleil et al 2018;Hampton et al 2018b;), but few present animal-based data and are therefore not instructive for scientific assessment or refinement of practices (Hampton et al 2016a). Other studies have presented empirical animal-welfare data but focused disproportionally on certain practices, notably culling (Bradshaw & Bateson 2000;Hampton & Forsyth 2016).…”