Investigator responsibilities and animal welfare issues raised by hot branding of pinnipeds

Beausoleil, NJ

doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.2007.00238.x

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As noted, this may be because of the growing urgency and thus volume and range of conservation research and practices, as well as growing public awareness of conservation activities ( 3 , 12 , 43 ) and, more generally, of animal welfare [e.g., ( 53 – 56 )]. This is exemplified by the moratorium imposed by the Tasmanian state government in 2000 on hot-branding as a method for identifying individual elephant seals ( Mirounga leonina ) for research purposes on Australia's Macquarie Island after media attention and public outcry about perceived animal welfare impacts ( 3 , 57 ). In the scientific arena, growing concerns about the effects of conservation activities on wild animal welfare may also be attributed to our increasingly detailed, robust and evidenced-based understanding of what animal welfare is and how it can be evaluated ( 48 , 58 – 62 ) (see below).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Marking of pups required disturbance of pups and adults in localized areas of rookeries after most pups were born, and potential mortality caused by this disturbance has not yet been rigorously tested. Because of controversy over branding pinnipeds in recent years (McMahon et al 2006, Beausoleil andMellor 2007), more studies are also needed to address potential biases in scientific studies and ethical concerns about branding, historically a common marking technique for pinnipeds (Erickson et al 1993), including Steller sea lions Pitcher 1982, Merrick et al 1996). To assess postbranding mortality potentially attributable to branding at Lowrie Island, Forrester Islands Complex, Alaska, USA, in 2001-2002, we used markrecapture models to estimate weekly survival probabilities of branded pups to 12 weeks postbranding.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Postbranding Survival of Steller Sea Lion Pups at Lowrie Island in Southeast Alaska

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) pups (n = 366) were hot‐branded at Lowrie Island, Southeast Alaska, USA, in June 2001 and 2002 for vital‐rates studies. To assess potential mortality following branding, we estimated weekly survival to 12 weeks postbranding using mark‐recapture models. Survival estimates ranged from 0.984/week to 0.988/week, or 0.868 over the 12‐week period; varied little with sex, year, and capture area; and were higher for larger than smaller male pups and unexpectedly lower for larger than smaller female pups. Inclusion of resights at 1–3 years of age prevented a −4.5% bias in cumulative survival to 12 weeks postbranding by accounting for pups that survived but permanently emigrated from Lowrie Island during the 12‐week survey. Data from double‐marked pups (i.e., branded and flipper‐tagged) indicated the low brand‐misreading probability of 3.1% did not bias survival estimates. Assuming survival differences between the first 2 weeks postbranding and later weeks were due entirely to the branding event, potential postbranding mortality of branded pups attributable to the branding event was 0.5–0.7%, or one pup for every 200 marked. Weekly survival of branded pups was nearly identical to estimates from a control group of undisturbed, unbranded pups born to 10–11‐year‐old branded adult females in 2005 (0.987–0.988/week) and similar to pup survival estimates from other otariid studies. Available data did not indicate substantial mortality to 12 weeks postbranding resulting from the branding disturbance, suggesting branding of Steller sea lion pups can be used effectively for investigations of population declines without significantly affecting population health or study goals.

show abstract

“…This type of research often requires the study of wild animals over long periods of time or for the entire course of their lives. It is a privilege to work 2 on wildlife species, however it comes with great moral responsibilities and obligations 3 and it is these that are of the utmost importance. Surely, if we are to disturb or impact on wildlife then should we learn as much as possible during each event?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Slipstreaming research and future ethical dilemmas for animal researchers in Australia

Field¹

2008

Aust Veterinary J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigator responsibilities and animal welfare issues raised by hot branding of pinnipeds

Cited by 10 publications

References 10 publications

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

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

Postbranding Survival of Steller Sea Lion Pups at Lowrie Island in Southeast Alaska

Slipstreaming research and future ethical dilemmas for animal researchers in Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About