Minimizing animal welfare harms associated with predation management in agro‐ecosystems

Abstract

The impacts of wild predators on livestock are a common source of human-wildlife conflict globally, and predators are subject to population control for this reason in many situations.Animal welfare is one of many important considerations affecting decisions about predation management. Recent studies discussing animal welfare in this context have presented arguments emphasizing the importance of avoiding intentional harm to predators, but they have not usually considered harms imposed by predators on livestock and other animals.

Impacts of exclusion fencing on target and non‐target fauna: a global review

“…Similarly to overpopulation (above), fences as a barrier to migration may cause starvation as the fences restrict the seasonal movement of species to resources (Allen & Hampton, 2020). The literature highlighted VCFs as the most common fence class associated with barriers to migration (Table 1).…”

“…The most direct impact, entanglement, was reported in nearly all fence classes (Table 1). Entanglement was categorized as the snaring (and often death; Allen & Hampton, 2020) of animals in the exclusion fence. Reports of entanglement of non‐target species was far more common than target species and affected a wide variety of species across the world.…”

“…The latter method has been successful in reducing cases of entanglement in several species (Burger & Branch, 1994; Baines & Andrew, 2003; Van Lanen et al ., 2017). While fences may kill some non‐target or target individuals (Allen & Hampton, 2020), populations of the same species may experience a net benefit after threats have been removed by the fence (see Ferronato et al ., 2014).…”

“…For Australian agriculture the use of fences to relieve effects of predation on livestock species and allow land managers to monitor grazing pressure better is undeniable (Yelland, 2001; Clark et al ., 2018). However, as demonstrated, agricultural exclusion fencing has the potential to create a number of negative impacts, particularly on non‐target species (Allen & Hampton, 2020). The most damage to non‐target species takes place when poor fencing alignment occurs because environmental assessments were ignored or not completed at all (Hayward & Kerley, 2009).…”

A Theory of Change for promoting coexistence between dingoes and livestock production

“…Whether cluster fencing can be regarded as a nonlethal management tool is questionable because the practice results in killing of dingoes remaining in or entering the area, along with herbivores that compete with livestock for feed (Clark, Clark, & Allen, 2018). Other wildlife can be injured or killed by the fences through entanglement, and fences have ecological consequences in acting as a barrier to wildlife movements (Allen & Hampton, 2020; Smith, King, & Allen, 2020; Somers & Hayward, 2012). We are not aware of any financial support being available to livestock producers who wish to use nonlethal management methods such as livestock guardian animals or improved animal husbandry to protect livestock from dingoes in Australia, although a small proportion of farmers do use these methods voluntarily (Binks, Kancans, & Stenekes, 2015; van Bommel & Johnson, 2012) and not all livestock producers choose to engage in lethal dingo management (Binks et al, 2015; van Eeden, Dickman, Crowther, & Newsome, 2019).…”