Details

Written by Heather M. Hill, Kelly Jaakkola, Rachel T. Walker, and Kathleen M. Dudzinki

Published: 08 March 2018

Hits: 2097

Document Type: Introduction
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.44.2.2018.115
Page Number: 115

Details

Written by David S. Miller, Raymond Anthony, and Gail Golab

Published: 08 March 2018

Hits: 2024

Abstract: Assessments of animal welfare can be complex and controversial, including where captive and free-ranging aquatic mammal welfare are of concern. An assessor's value preferences, attitudes, personal experience, and societal values are examples of factors that inform how animal welfare is evaluated. While there is not a single measure of animal welfare that is universally accepted, assessments of the welfare of aquatic mammals can be fruitful if informed by tried and true standards and indicators. Animal welfare is best viewed within context and relative to opportunities for improvement, although some animal welfare concerns may clearly be dichotomized as "good" or "bad" via animal welfare assessment tools. Tools used for assessing animal welfare can be grouped into general categories, including behavioral indicators, physiological indicators, engineering standards, and performance standards. Mellor's Five Domains Model provides a framework for integrating multiple indicators and standards; however, while there are generally agreed upon concepts of animal welfare, such as sufficient quality and quantity of food, assessors' values (belief systems) impact their perceptions of animal welfare. This can cause intractable disagreements that can be understood through Fraser's Three Orientations Model in which function-, feeling-, and natural lives-based values of animal welfare are distinguished.
Still, discordance among these values can remain and can be amplified by differences in desired outcomes and how to achieve these outcomes. Tension between values confounds the resolution of tradeoffs that inevitably exist between differing animal management options such as resolution of the tension between captive individual and population-level welfare concerns for social species. Additional contextual challenges for addressing aquatic mammal welfare include assessment of welfare in different captive settings, increased attention to the affective states of animals, and the welfare of free-ranging aquatic mammals. Resolution of aquatic mammal welfare challenges ultimately depends upon stakeholders' personal relationships and a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue. This dialogue must be focused on optimally addressing animal needs for a particular set of circumstances by using animal-based measures based on the animal's perspective rather than the advancement of a set viewpoint.
Key Words: aquatic mammals, animal welfare, behavioral indicators, physiological indicators, engineering standards, performance standards, Five Domains Model, Three Orientations Model, value system
Document Type: Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.44.2.2018.116
Page Numbers: 116-141

Details

Written by Laura van der Meer, Ira Kasdan, and Joan Galvin

Published: 08 March 2018

Hits: 2289

Document Type: Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.44.2.2018.142
Page Numbers: 142-149

Details

Written by Amber J. de Vere, Malin K. Lilley, and Erin E. Frick

Published: 08 March 2018

Hits: 4108

Abstract: Marine mammal welfare has most frequently been a topic of discussion in reference to captive animals. However, humans have altered the marine environment in such dramatic and varied ways that the welfare of wild marine mammals is also important to consider as most current publications regarding anthropogenic impacts focus on population-level effects. While the preservation of the species is extremely important, so too are efforts to mitigate the pain and suffering of marine mammals affected by noise pollution, chemical pollution, marine debris, and ever-increasing numbers of vessels. The aim of this review is to define welfare for wild marine mammals and to discuss a number of key anthropogenic effects that are currently impacting their welfare.
Key Words: marine mammals, welfare, anthropogenic impacts, pollution, entanglement, fishery interactions
Document Type: Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.44.2.2018.150
Page Numbers: 150-180

Details

Written by Isabella L. K. Clegg and Fabienne Delfour

Published: 08 March 2018

Hits: 4699

Abstract: The welfare of a range of terrestrial animals can now be objectively estimated thanks to the well-established, but still expanding, field of welfare science. Despite continuing difficulties regarding definitions, it is generally agreed that welfare is assessed most accurately using multiple "animal-based measures"-that is, those evaluating aspects of the animal itself such as its behaviour. In addition, scientists combining behavioural, physiological, and cognitive animal-based indicators of welfare have found this approach is superior to using one-dimensional measures. But can the same approaches be used for marine mammals, and would assessments of their welfare have the same relevance in captivity as in wild environments? There is no reason why not, and we review the past decades of marine mammal research relevant to welfare, as well as the more recent advances in the field where this topic is starting to be addressed directly. We then use the example of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) to examine what the measures within an all-encompassing (i.e., "comprehensive") welfare assessment might look like. Looking to the future, we suggest directions for developing assessments for captive animals and explore how protocols might differ in wild settings. In conclusion, we find that the first steps are being made towards objectively assessing marine mammal welfare in captivity-through application of terrestrial animal approaches as well as through novel paradigms. Regarding bottlenose dolphins, several welfare measures have been proposed and should now be further validated and applied. It is hoped that this review will encourage continued research in marine mammal welfare assessment given the demonstrated initial achievements of bottlenose dolphin welfare studies and the potential for application to many different captive and wild contexts.
Key Words: animal-based measures, animal welfare, bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, marine mammals, welfare assessment
Document Type: Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.44.2.2018.181
Page Numbers: 181-200

Details

Written by Yumi Yamanashi

Published: 08 March 2018

Hits: 3074

Abstract: The objective assessment of animal welfare is important for building consensus among people concerned with animals and for advancing our understanding of animals in our care. The analysis of physiological stress response using glucocorticoids is one of the major approaches for animal welfare assessment. Recently, cortisol accumulated in hair or other keratinous materials of animals has been considered as an indicator of the long-term activation of the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. Particularly, there is evidence that hair cortisol (HC) can be used as a measure of the long-term activation of the HPA axis in various mammals. This review discusses the utility and limitations of HC analysis for welfare assessment, mainly based on findings from captive chimpanzees living in a sanctuary in Japan. First, the methodological and physiological perspectives of how to to obtain reliable results from HC analysis will be discussed; and second, the potential of using HC analysis for welfare assessment will be reviewed. A series of studies on captive chimpanzees show that HC is useful for monitoring the effects of social management on the long-term stress levels in captive chimpanzees. Although further studies are needed to clarify the extent to which HC monitoring can help us understand and improve animal welfare, application of HC analysis might be useful in investigating similar issues in marine mammals.
Key Words: chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes, hair cortisol, animal welfare, welfare assessment, social management
Document Type: Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.44.2.2018.201
Page Numbers: 201-210

Details

Written by Lorenzo von Fersen, Dag Encke, Tim Hütner, and Katrin Baumgartner

Published: 08 March 2018

Hits: 4065

Abstract: During the last few decades, zoos and aquaria have made great improvements in their exhibit designs, feeding routines, social housing conditions, mixed species presentations, and environmental enrichment, as well as in the prevention of infectious and parasitic diseases, to enhance animal welfare. To monitor the effectiveness of all these changes, animal welfare science is needed. It is important to evaluate animal response by applying welfare metrics that include behaviour and/or physiology. To get a state-of-the-art overview of animal welfare metrics, Zoo Nuremberg organized a workshop in May 2016, inviting scientists from different disciplines. The workshop dealt with the challenges we face in developing and applying animal welfare indicators for zoo and aquarium animal species and clearly emphasized the need to assess the welfare of these animals. It was shown that animal welfare is science, and many scientific methods are available to assess welfare objectively at the species level, at least for some vertebrate species. However, it remains a challenge to apply different scientific methods for assessment of the broad species collection(s) of zoological parks and the huge number of individuals. The discussion also revealed that the assessment of animal welfare is a topic of much debate due to the complexity and practical implications of the evaluation. As a result, a written report was produced, Assessment of Welfare of Marine Mammal Species in Zoological Parks (Zoo Nuremburg, 2016), and a proposal for an animal welfare Decision Tree was created. The Decision Tree includes four different steps, involving keepers, veterinarians, biologists, and animal welfare inspectors:
1st Step: Survey - including life history, health protocol and nutrition plan, physical environment, animal management, and behavioural support system
2nd Step: Theoretical Analysis - including data analysis, data correlation, data evaluation, and preliminary report
3rd Step: In Situ Inspection - including verification of protocol application, and verification of management, observations, and hormonal analysis
4th Step: Conclusive Report - about the welfare state of the animals
This Decision Tree and its applicability were tested for two species at Zoo Nuremberg:
(1) the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and (2) the Antillean manatee (Trichechus manatus manatus). The results of the practical application of the evaluation are described in this article.
Key Words: animal welfare, animal welfare assessment, aquatic mammals, zoo animals, zoo inspection, Decision Tree, bottlenose dolphin, Antillean manatee
Document Type: Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.44.2.2018.211
Page Numbers: 211-220

Details

Written by Radhika N. Makecha and Lauren E. Highfill

Published: 08 March 2018

Hits: 4530

Abstract: Assessments of animal welfare can be complex and controversial, including where captive and free-ranging aquatic mammal welfare are of concern. An assessor's value preferences, attitudes, personal experience, and societal values are examples of factors that inform how animal welfare is evaluated. While there is not a single measure of animal welfare that is universally accepted, assessments of the welfare of aquatic mammals can be fruitful if informed by tried and true standards and indicators. Animal welfare is best viewed within context and relative to opportunities for improvement, although some animal welfare concerns may clearly be dichotomized as "good" or "bad" via animal welfare assessment tools. Tools used for assessing animal welfare can be grouped into general categories, including behavioral indicators, physiological indicators, engineering standards, and performance standards. Mellor's Five Domains Model provides a framework for integrating multiple indicators and standards; however, while there are generally agreed upon concepts of animal welfare, such as sufficient quality and quantity of food, assessors' values (belief systems) impact their perceptions of animal welfare. This can cause intractable disagreements that can be understood through Fraser's Three Orientations Model in which function-, feeling-, and natural lives-based values of animal welfare are distinguished.
Still, discordance among these values can remain and can be amplified by differences in desired outcomes and how to achieve these outcomes. Tension between values confounds the resolution of tradeoffs that inevitably exist between differing animal management options such as resolution of the tension between captive individual and population-level welfare concerns for social species. Additional contextual challenges for addressing aquatic mammal welfare include assessment of welfare in different captive settings, increased attention to the affective states of animals, and the welfare of free-ranging aquatic mammals. Resolution of aquatic mammal welfare challenges ultimately depends upon stakeholders' personal relationships and a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue. This dialogue must be focused on optimally addressing animal needs for a particular set of circumstances by using animal-based measures based on the animal's perspective rather than the advancement of a set viewpoint.
Key Words: aquatic mammals, animal welfare, behavioral indicators, physiological indicators, engineering standards, performance standards, Five Domains Model, Three Orientations Model, value system
Document: Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.44.2.2018.221
Page Numbers: 221-230