Wildlife Control | ScienceGate

Context Control of unwanted wildlife (‘pest’ animals) is undertaken for conservation and economic reasons, and when such animals are considered a nuisance. Such control should be undertaken using approaches that minimise, as far as possible, detrimental impacts on the welfare of the animals. Using a scientific framework based on the Five Domains model, the relative welfare impacts of pest control methods can be compared across methods and pest species. Aims We demonstrate the application of a modified version of this framework to evaluate the relative impacts of seven Vertebrate Toxic Agents (VTAs) used to control brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) in New Zealand. The evaluation is used to produce a ranking of the seven VTAs based on their relative impacts on possum welfare. Methods Scientific literature describing mode of toxic action, specific effects in possums or other animals and reports from human poisonings was collated as reference material for a panel of six experts. The panel produced a median welfare impact score (‘none’ to ‘extreme’) for each of the Five Domains. The ‘Overall Grade’ (1 to 8) reflected the intensity and duration of all impacts of a VTA on possums. Key results All VTAs evaluated have at least moderate impacts on possum welfare, lasting for at least minutes. Cyanide was assessed as having the lowest welfare impacts (median grade 4), and cholecalciferol and the anticoagulants the highest impacts (7.5 to 8). Zinc phosphide was assigned an intermediate grade (6) with high confidence. While the overall impacts of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) and phosphorus were also assessed as intermediate (6), the panel’s confidence in these scores was low. Conclusions From an animal welfare perspective, anticoagulant poisons and cholecalciferol should be the least preferred options for controlling possums in New Zealand, as VTAs with less severe welfare impacts are available. Implications The results of such assessments allow animal welfare impacts to be integrated with other factors in wildlife management decision-making and policy development, and are thus useful for managers, researchers, regulators and operators. Evaluation of welfare impacts aligns with the goals and mandates of ethical wildlife control and may also be valuable in wider wildlife research and management activities.

Download Full-text

Possum Magic, Possum Menace: Wildlife Control and the Demonisation of Cuteness

Considering Animals ◽

10.4324/9781315259598-14 ◽

2016 ◽

pp. 83-94

Keyword(s):

Wildlife Control

Download Full-text

Introduction

Our Gigantic Zoo ◽

10.1093/oso/9780199843671.003.0001 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-21

Author(s):

Thomas M. Lekan

Keyword(s):

World War Ii ◽

Young People ◽

Documentary Film ◽

Land Rights ◽

Television Program ◽

World War ◽

The Core ◽

Wildlife Control ◽

Academy Award ◽

Independence Era

This chapter introduces readers to Bernhard Grzimek, the “animal whisperer” who created Germany’s longest-running television program (A Place for Animals, 1956–1987), won an Academy Award for his documentary film Serengeti Shall Not Die, and sensitized a generation of young people to the power of ecological lobbying. Having rebuilt the Frankfurt Zoo and saving its remaining animals from the rubble of World War II, Grzimek transferred the idea of a permanent sanctuary for animals and from human violence to the Serengeti, the site of the earth’s last great animal migrations. It then examines the core chapters’ theme: the mismatch between this conservation quest and land rights struggles during the independence era. Grzimek raised funds, brokered diplomatic favors, and promised thousands of animal-loving tourists to save this “gigantic zoo” from human encroachment. A grand mission to be sure—but one that feared Africans’ own ideas about wildlife control and sidestepped their aspirations for environmental sovereignty.

Download Full-text

Animal Welfare in Predator Control: Lessons from Land and Sea. How the Management of Terrestrial and Marine Mammals Impacts Wild Animal Welfare in Human–Wildlife Conflict Scenarios in Europe

Animals ◽

10.3390/ani10020218 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. 218 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Laetitia Nunny

Keyword(s):

Animal Welfare ◽

Marine Mammals ◽

Control Measures ◽

Future Research ◽

Predator Control ◽

Farmed Fish ◽

Management Planning ◽

Predator Management ◽

Wildlife Control ◽

Human Wildlife Conflict

The control of predators, on land and in the sea, is a complex topic. Both marine and terrestrial mammal predators come into conflict with humans in Europe in many ways and yet their situations are rarely compared. Areas of conflict include the predation of livestock and farmed fish, and the perceived competition for wild prey (for example wolves competing with hunters for deer and seals competing with fishermen for salmon). A lethal method (shooting) and non-lethal methods of conflict reduction (including enclosures, guarding, and aversion) used for terrestrial large carnivores (e.g., bear, wolf, wolverine, lynx) and marine mammals (seals) are discussed. Control measures tend to be species- and habitat-specific, although shooting is a widely used method. Potential impacts on predator welfare are described and welfare assessments which have been developed for other wildlife control scenarios, e.g., control of introduced species, are considered for their potential use in assessing predator control. Such assessments should be applied before control methods are chosen so that decisions prioritizing animal welfare can be made. Further work needs to be carried out to achieve appropriate and widely-accepted animal welfare assessment approaches and these should be included in predator management planning. Future research should include further sharing of approaches and information between terrestrial and marine specialists to help ensure that animal welfare is prioritized.

Download Full-text

Effects of wildlife grazing on the production, ground cover and plant species composition of an established perennial pasture in the Midlands region, Tasmania

Wildlife Research ◽

10.1071/wr11032 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 39 (2) ◽

pp. 123 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Rowan W. Smith ◽

Mick Statham ◽

Tony W. Norton ◽

Richard P. Rawnsley ◽

Helen L. Statham ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Species Composition ◽

Plant Species ◽

Ground Cover ◽

Faecal Pellet ◽

Individual Plant ◽

Bare Ground ◽

Pasture Production ◽

Wildlife Control ◽

Biomass Loss ◽

The Impact

Context Management of grazing wildlife on private land in Tasmania is a contentious issue for landowners, animal-welfare groups and the Tasmanian Government. Wildlife species known to graze pasture include Tasmanian pademelon (Thylogale billardierii), Bennett’s wallaby (Macropus rufogriseus rufogriseus), forester kangaroo (Macropus giganteus), brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) and fallow deer (Dama dama). Understanding the spatio-temporal patterns of wildlife grazing is important when considering wildlife-control options to mitigate pasture loss; however, limited research has been undertaken. Aims To quantify the impact of wildlife grazing on pasture production and to assess the spatial and temporal pasture biomass loss from an established pasture; to investigate the effect of protecting pastures from wildlife grazing on species composition of an existing perennial pasture; to determine whether wildlife grazing contributes to a decline in the composition of improved pasture species over time and an increase in-ground cover of less desirable grasses and broadleaf weeds; and to examine whether protecting pastures from wildlife grazing could increase ground cover. Methods Pasture biomass loss to wildlife grazing was determined by a paired exclusion-cage method over a 26-month period from February 2008 to April 2010. A quantitative pasture model was used to simulate pasture growth at the study site. Changes in the botanical composition of the sward in response to wildlife grazing were determined by hand-separation, drying and weighing of harvested material, and also by visual estimation of the ground cover of individual plant species. A wildlife faecal-pellet survey was used to develop an index of wildlife feeding activity. Key results Pasture loss to wildlife grazing varied spatially and temporally. Pasture loss decreased with increasing distance from the edge of cover vegetation. The proportion of pasture lost increased during periods of slow pasture growth. Visual estimates of ground cover showed that grazing by wildlife resulted in an increase in bare ground in unprotected swards, whereas protection from grazing resulted in an increase in production of perennial and annual species, as determined by hand-separation of harvested material, and a decrease in bare ground as determined by visual estimate. Faecal-pellet surveys were found to be strongly correlated with pasture biomass losses. Conclusions The proportion of pasture loss to wildlife grazing was found to be influenced by distance from native vegetation and also by pasture availability, which was seasonal. Wildlife can alter the composition of pastures by reducing the ground cover and yield of improved grasses. Continual grazing of pastures by wildlife in addition to rotational sheep grazing may increase the amount of bare ground. Implications Wildlife-control methods need to be carefully chosen if the intended benefits of alleviating pasture biomass losses are to be achieved. Quantifying the loss of pasture is important because it enables the extent and significance of losses to be determined and may inform decisions about the most appropriate wildlife control measures to adopt. Controlling wildlife during periods of slow pasture growth may be important in preventing damage and yield loss of plant species actively growing during these times. Failure to control wildlife may result in a decrease in the composition of desirable plant species.

Download Full-text

License to Kill: Reforming Federal Wildlife Control to Restore Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function

Conservation Letters ◽

10.1111/conl.12045 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

pp. 131-142 ◽

Cited By ~ 42

Author(s):

Bradley J. Bergstrom ◽

Lily C. Arias ◽

Ana D. Davidson ◽

Adam W. Ferguson ◽

Lynda A. Randa ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Ecosystem Function ◽

Wildlife Control ◽

Biodiversity And Ecosystem Function

Download Full-text

International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control

Conservation Biology ◽

10.1111/cobi.12896 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 31 (4) ◽

pp. 753-760 ◽

Cited By ~ 63

Author(s):

Sara Dubois ◽

Nicole Fenwick ◽

Erin A. Ryan ◽

Liv Baker ◽

Sandra E. Baker ◽

...

Keyword(s):

International Consensus ◽

Wildlife Control

Download Full-text

Lichens, wildfire, and caribou on the taiga ecosystem of northcentral Canada

Rangifer ◽

10.7557/2.20.5.1644 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 20 (5) ◽

pp. 195

Author(s):

Don Miller

Keyword(s):

Organic Matter ◽

Driving Force ◽

Management Tool ◽

Heterogeneous Environment ◽

Vascular Flora ◽

Winter Range ◽

Barren Ground ◽

Bare Sand ◽

Wildlife Control ◽

Terricolous Lichen

Terrestrial lichens are unique organisms that are pioneers on bare sand and rock, survive desiccation and reproduce both sexually and asexually. They compete poorly with dense, aggressive vascular flora. Wildfires require organic matter as fuels, are the driving force in perpetuation of the Taiga Ecosystem in a heterogeneous environment and, if left alone, are self controlling. Caribou wintering on the Taiga are dependent on: (1) a terricolous lichen forage supply for most of the winter, (2) a heterogeneous environment to cope with predators and the changing nival environment, and (3) natural wildfires to supply these needs. Wildlife control on the Taiga winter range is not recommended as a management tool for barren-ground caribou.

Download Full-text