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

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.

Introduction

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.

Photo-identification of horseshoe whip snakes (Hemorrhois hippocrepis, Linnaeus, 1758) by a semi-automatic procedure applied to wildlife management

Photo-identification is an increasingly used method for the study of animal populations. Natural marks such as coloration or scale pattern to identify individuals provide an inexpensive and less invasive alternative to conventional tagging methods. Photo-identification has previously been used to distinguish individual snakes, usually by comparing the pileus region. Nevertheless, this method is seldom used in capture-recapture studies. We show the effectiveness of photo-identification in snakes using specific software for individual recognition applied to a wildlife control study of horseshoe whip snakes. Photos were analysed with Automatic Photo Identification Suite (APHIS), which allowed us to compare the variability of head scale patterns surrounding the parietal shields instead of the traditional method of using large scale groups of the pileus. APHIS correctly identified 100 % of recaptures of snakes. Although further studies are needed, the variability of the surrounding scales of the pileus region seems a robust method to identify and differentiate individuals.

Safety

Wildlife damage management (WDM) is an exciting field with many opportunities to provide solutions to the complex issues involved in human-wildlife interactions. In addition, WDM wildlife control operators (WCO) face a variety of threats to their physical well-being. Injuries can result from misused, faulty, or poorly maintained equipment, inexperience, mishandled wildlife, harsh weather, and dangerous situations, such as electrical lines. The goals of this publication are to: Develop an awareness of safety issues and adopt a mindset of “Safety First”, Review the major safety threats that WCOs face, Provide basic information for WCOs to protect themselves, and List resources for further information and training. Work in WDM poses many safety risks to those involved. Awareness, planning, and deliberate action can eliminate or reduce many threats. As the industry continues to develop, WCOs must keep up with new threats and safety practices to maintain their well-being. Following safe work practices helps to ensure WCOs remain on-the-job and injury free.

Wildlife Translocation

Many people enjoy wildlife. Nationwide, Americans spend over $144 billion annually on fishing, hunting, and wildlife-watching activities. However, wildlife is not always welcome in or near homes, buildings, or other property and can cause significant damage or health and safety issues. Many people who experience a wildlife conflict prefer to resolve the issue without harming the offending animal. Of the many options available (i.e., habitat modification, exclusion, repellents) for addressing nuisance wildlife problems, translocation—capturing and moving—of the offending animal is often perceived to be effective. However, trapping and translocating wild animals is rarely legal nor is it considered a viable solution by wildlife professionals for resolving most nuisance wildlife problems. Reasons to avoid translocating nuisance wildlife include legal restrictions, disease concerns, liability issues associated with injuries or damage caused by a translocated animal, stress to the animal, homing behavior, and risk of death to the animal. Translocation is appropriate in some situations such as re-establishing endangered species, enhancing genetic diversity, and stocking species in formerly occupied habitats. The main focus of this publication, however, is to address nuisance wildlife issues that may be commonly encountered by homeowners and nuisance wildlife control professionals.

Exclusions for resolving urban badger damage problems: outcomes and consequences

Increasing urbanisation and growth of many wild animal populations can result in a greater frequency of human-wildlife conflicts. However, traditional lethal methods of wildlife control are becoming less favoured than non-lethal approaches, particularly when problems involve charismatic species in urban areas. Eurasian badgers (Meles meles) excavate subterranean burrow systems (setts), which can become large and complex. Larger setts within which breeding takes place and that are in constant use are known as main setts. Smaller, less frequently occupied setts may also exist within the social group’s range. When setts are excavated in urban environments they can undermine built structures and can limit or prevent safe use of the area by people. The most common approach to resolving these problems in the UK is to exclude badgers from the problem sett, but exclusions suffer a variable success rate. We studied 32 lawful cases of badger exclusions using one-way gates throughout England to evaluate conditions under which attempts to exclude badgers from their setts in urban environments were successful. We aimed to identify ways of modifying practices to improve the chances of success. Twenty of the 32 exclusion attempts were successful, but success was significantly less likely if a main sett was to be excluded in comparison with another type of sett and if vegetation was not completely removed from the sett surface prior to exclusion attempts. We recommend that during exclusions all vegetation is removed from the site, regardless of what type of sett is involved, and that successful exclusion of badgers from a main sett might require substantially more effort than other types of sett.

Raptor’s “Right Hunger” Characterization to Develop Sustainable Exclusion Areas for wildlife at Civil & Military Airports

The bird strike damage on aircrafts is a widely studied matter [1] with a high economic impact on stakeholders finances. Some authors estimate it in about USD1.2 Billion for nowadays commercial worldwide activity [2], and more than USD937 million in direct and other monetary losses per year just for the United States, as an example of civil aviation industry [3]. The present techniques to face this problem have been previously analyzed in order to decrease the wild life hazards at the airport facilities [4] however nowadays there is a new point of view to prevent this risk at airports that requires an interesting approach in relationship with industrial process improvement examples, such approach lies on preserving the natural life at the airport facilities by developing raptor micro-habitats than change into exclusion areas when the risk of being hunted is recognized by the existing wildlife.Therefore, the main goal of this paper is to share several experiences developed at the Spanish dual airport (military & civilian) of San Javier (Spain), as a case of study in where the mathematics and nonlinear sciences provides the foundations of the ontological knowledge for falconry performance as a Wildlife Control Technique for airport facilities.