Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorHampton, Jordan O.
dc.contributor.authorArnemo, Jon Martin
dc.contributor.authorBarnsley, Richard
dc.contributor.authorCattet, Marc
dc.contributor.authorDaoust, Pierre-Yves
dc.contributor.authorDeNicola, Anthony J.
dc.contributor.authorEccles, Grant
dc.contributor.authorFletcher, Don
dc.contributor.authorHinds, Lyn A.
dc.contributor.authorHunt, Rob
dc.contributor.authorPortas, Timothy
dc.contributor.authorStokke, Sigbjørn
dc.contributor.authorWarburton, Bruce
dc.contributor.authorWimpenny, Claire
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-25T11:14:56Z
dc.date.available2021-11-25T11:14:56Z
dc.date.created2021-04-29T15:34:14Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationWildlife research (East Melbourne). 2021, .en_US
dc.identifier.issn1035-3712
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2831464
dc.description.abstractSeveral important techniques for managing wildlife rely on ballistics (the behaviour of projectiles), including killing techniques (shooting) as well as capture and marking methods (darting). Because all ballistic techniques have the capacity to harm animals, animal welfare is an important consideration. Standardised testing approaches that have allowed refinement for other physical killing and capture methods (e.g. traps for mammals) have not been applied broadly to ballistic methods. At the same time, new technology is becoming available for shooting (e.g. subsonic and lead-free ammunition) and darting (e.g. dye-marker darts). We present several case studies demonstrating (a) how basic ballistic testing can be performed for novel firearms and/or projectiles, (b) the benefits of identifying methods producing undesirable results before operational use, and (c) the welfare risks associated with bypassing testing of a technique before broad-scale application. Following the approach that has been used internationally to test kill-traps, we suggest the following four-step testing process: (1) range and field testing to confirm accuracy and precision, the delivery of appropriate kinetic energy levels and projectile behaviour, (2) post-mortem assessment of ballistic injury in cadavers, (3) small-scale live animal pilot studies with predetermined threshold pass/fail levels, and (4) broad-scale use with reporting of the frequency of adverse animal welfare outcomes. We present this as a practical approach for maintaining and improving animal welfare standards when considering the use of ballistic technology for wildlife management. ethics, fertility control, human dimensions, pest control, population control.
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleAnimal welfare testing for shooting and darting free-ranging wildlife: a review and recommendationsen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersion
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Zoology and botany: 480
dc.source.pagenumber13en_US
dc.source.journalWildlife research (East Melbourne)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1071/WR20107
dc.identifier.cristin1907288
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal