The Impact Of Snares On Animal Welfare Onekind-Books Pdf

The Impact of Snares on Animal Welfare OneKind
06 Jan 2020 | 51 views | 0 downloads | 31 Pages | 1.56 MB

Share Pdf : The Impact Of Snares On Animal Welfare Onekind

Download and Preview : The Impact Of Snares On Animal Welfare Onekind


Report CopyRight/DMCA Form For : The Impact Of Snares On Animal Welfare Onekind



Transcription

Executive summary,Introduction,Evaluation of killing and restraining traps. Killing traps,Restraining traps,Assessment of injuries. Behavioural and physiological responses,Testing of restraining traps. Killing procedure,Background information,How snares work. Exertional myopathy due to snaring,Studies of snares and foxes.
Studies of snares and rabbits,Non target animals, Injuries to non target animals and to animals that escape. Killing of animals caught in snares,Sentience awareness and suffering. Conclusions,Acknowledgments,References, Appendix Assessment of snaring incidents provided by OneKind. Executive Summary and Conclusions, The lack of data on snares makes it difficult accurately to assess their impact on the welfare. of target and non target species Nevertheless having searched the scientific literature and. summarised the main findings this review can make the following statements. Snares do not operate humanely either as restraining or as killing traps. The mortality and morbidity of animals caught in snares is higher than with most other. restraining traps such as box traps, Snares are inherently indiscriminate and commonly catch non target including.
protected species, Snares can cause severe injuries pain suffering and death in trapped animals target. and non target species, Stopping of snares may not prevent injury or death in trapped animals target and non. target species, The free running mechanism of a snare is easily disrupted and likely to fail resulting in. injury pain suffering and death in trapped animals target and non target species. Animals can legally be left in snares for up to 24 hours exposing them to the elements. to thirst hunger further injury and attack by predators. It is difficult to assess the severity of injury in an animal when it is caught in a snare. Animals that escape or that are released may subsequently die from their injuries or. from exertional myopathy over a period of days or weeks. The monitoring of correct snare use is difficult if not impossible. Neck snares are open to abuse because they are cheap and require minimum effort to. set and maintain, Methods used to kill animals caught in snares are not regulated and may not be. The use of neck snares is seen as the least favourable option and the least humane of all. legal trapping methods by the public, It is clear that we should assess the welfare of vertebrate pest animals however undesirable.
their impact on humans in the same way as we assess the welfare of any other vertebrate. animal Vertebrate pest animals have the capacity to feel pain fear and to suffer just like. any other vertebrate animal Whenever control methods are considered their effects on. the welfare of these animals should be taken into account In some cases a cost benefit. analysis is a reasonable approach to take where the real adverse effects of the pests are. compared with the extent of poor welfare of the pest animals that a control method would. cause Broom 1999 However some pest control methods have such extreme effects on an. animal s welfare that regardless of the potential benefits their use is never justified. Sand e et al 1997 Broom 1999 Snaring is such a method. Introduction, Historically concerns for the welfare of animals have focused on the large numbers kept for. food production used in scientific research housed in zoos and more recently kept as. companion animals In contrast the control of wild animals considered as pests or vermin. has focused on methods to kill as many animals as cheaply and as efficiently as possible with. little if any consideration of the negative impacts these control methods may have on their. welfare Recent scientific publications however have drawn attention to this anomaly and. identified the need to consider the welfare of these animals too Kirkwood et al 1994. Broom 1999 Broom 2002 Mason Littin 2003 Littin Mellor 2005 Littin 2010 Yeates. 2010 Societal attitudes towards this killing are also changing While the need to control. pest animals is recognized and generally accepted public concerns require that the control. methods should be humane Broom 1999 Broom 2002 A questionnaire study of the. different methods used to manage foxes red deer brown hares and mink revealed that. practitioners such as farmers and gamekeepers and the public regarded snaring as one of. the least acceptable means of control White et al 2003. Despite a growing body of research aimed at evaluating different methods to control certain. wildlife species the impacts of many of these methods on the welfare of the target and. non target animals remain largely unknown or poorly described Many pest control. methods currently used throughout the world are considered to be inhumane yet are often. used to kill very large numbers of animals Mason Littin 2003 Sharp Saunders 2008 A. number of reasons have been proposed to explain why the suffering of animals subjected to. pest control methods has not received much attention Broom 1999 Mason Littin 2003. Littin 2010 They include, Once the animal has been labelled as vermin or a pest there is less concern for its. Pest species are viewed as a nuisance so there is less regulation of their control. The species is not highly valued or is specifically vilified e g the fox. The trapping and death of the animal is not seen by the general public as it usually. occurs outdoors often at dawn dusk or at night and in relatively remote locations. The fate of target and non target animals that escape from traps or other devices is. usually not known, The harm done to the animals is considered justified on the basis of the harm and. potential harm that they do although the extent of this harm is often exaggerated. not defined or not quantified, The harm done to the animals is considered to be less than that which can occur. naturally in the wild, The term humaneness is described as the quality of compassion or consideration for others.
people or animals http www wordreference com definition humaneness and humane. as marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering. http www wordreference com definition humane When used in relation to animals. humane is often taken to mean inflicting the minimum of pain Concise Oxford Dictionary. and this is the normal meaning of the word when humane slaughter of farm animals or. humane killing of companion or laboratory animals is referred to in legislation or codes of. practice A humane control method is best defined as having little or no negative effect on. the animal s welfare and an inhumane method as having a significant negative effect on the. animal s welfare such that it is considered unacceptable and or cruel The term humane. killing means that the welfare of the animal just prior to the initiation of the killing. procedure is good and the procedure itself results in insensibility to pain and distress within. a few seconds Broom 1999 When evaluating the humaneness of a control method its. effects on all animals non target as well as target should be considered Mason Littin. 2003 Iossa et al 2007,Evaluation of killing and restraining traps. Since snares can act as restraining and as killing traps a brief summary of trap. characteristics and assessment is presented below The detailed assessment of mechanical. properties of traps is described in two documents published by the International. Organization for Standardization ISO one for killing traps ISO 1999a and another for. restraining traps ISO 1999b Despite efforts by the ISO no consensus could be reached on. key thresholds for animal welfare standards such as time to unconsciousness for animals. caught in killing traps or levels of injuries for animals in restraining traps Nevertheless the. ISO standards are an important step towards improving the welfare of wild animals. subjected to trapping Iossa et al 2007 Other legislation includes two international. documents signed by the European Union the Agreement on International Humane. Trapping Standards signed between the EU Canada and the Russian Federation. Anonymous 1998 and the Agreed Minute between the EU and the USA on humane. trapping standards see Harrop 2000 Since the initial main aim of these Agreements was to. facilitate the trade of fur among participant countries many commonly trapped European. mammals such as the fox and rabbit are not included Iossa et al 2007 The International. Humane Trapping Standards Agreement lists criteria that killing and restraining traps should. meet for a limited number of species Anon 1998, A review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining traps can be found in Iossa et. al 2007 The review found that few studies have evaluated the humaneness of neck snares. in the same way as has been done for other types of restraining traps When neck snares. are set correctly serious injuries are purported to be relatively uncommon though mortality. of trapped animals is higher than with leg hold snares or with box cage traps Injuries from. snares such as pressure necrosis of tissues can be difficult to detect because they may not. be obvious until several days after an animal is released The authors note that while neck. snares are commonly used in the UK because they are cheap and require minimum effort to. set and maintain reports of misuse are frequent Even when neck snares are set and used. correctly they commonly catch non target species and these can have high morbidity and. The review concludes that the lack of data on the use of snares makes it difficult to assess. their welfare impact A similar review by Harris et al 2006 recommends that the use of. neck snares should be banned,Killing traps, The humaneness of traps that are designed to kill is usually evaluated on the basis of the. time it takes for the trap to render an animal unconscious and insensible to pain most often. measured by the loss of the palpebral blinking reflex A commonly used criterion for a. humane trap is that at least 80 of animals become unconscious and unable to recover. within three minutes e g in the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards. between the EU Canada and the Russian Federation Anon 1998 Another criterion often. used in North America is that a killing trap must render at least 70 of animals unconscious. and unable to recover within three minutes Powell Proulx 2003 Many studies have used. these criteria when assessing killing trap performance However they would not be. considered to indicate a humane slaughter standard for any farm companion laboratory or. zoo animal, The documents that set criteria fail to address what happens to the remaining 20 or. fewer of trapped animals who take longer to die Even if the criterion of 80 is met the. killing method cannot be considered to be humane if the remaining animals experience a. lingering and painful death with very poor welfare Failure to consider what happens to this. group of animals is a serious omission that must be rectified before a killing method can be. considered humane Killing traps should be developed that are able to kill as close to 100. of animals as possible and as there now exist traps that are able to kill some species in. much less time than three minutes this criterion should be changed in accordance with. technological advances Harris et al 2006, No trapping method is completely species specific and certain including endangered.
species may be caught injured and killed in killing traps set for other species Iossa et al. 2007 recommend that the welfare performance of killing traps should include three. additional measures likelihood of escape of injured animals percentage of misstrikes and. trap selectivity This approach is more comprehensive and likely to be a more accurate way. of assessing killing traps,Restraining traps, It has been argued that setting performance criteria for killing traps is easier than setting. performance criteria for restraining traps because time to insensibility and death is. relatively easy to define compared with the injury pain anxiety fear and stress that may be. experienced by animals restrained in a trap over a period of time Powell and Proulx 2003. However the application of animal welfare science allows the comprehensive assessment of. the effects of restraining traps on the welfare of trapped animals. Assessment of injuries, The humaneness of restraining traps is most often assessed by the extent of the physical. trauma caused by the trap to the captured animal and injury level is equated with welfare. severe injury poor welfare Scoring systems for injuries are ubiquitous in the literature. Olsen et al 1986 Onderka et al 1990 Phillips et al 1996 Hubert et al 1997 ISO 1999b. However there is much criticism of such systems because a quantitative injury score is not a. direct measurement of an injury level nor of the level of suffering that is likely to be. associated with such injury The application of a scoring system requires decisions on. several levels of increasing abstraction from the actual physical injuries Engeman et al. 1997 and injury data do not directly inform on the severity of pain or suffering experienced. by the animal Rutherford 2002, The presence of obvious physical tissue damage indicates that pain is likely to be present. and this can provide a starting point for other methods of assessment However there is a. The Impact of Snares on Animal Welfare Author a brief summary of trap snares are commonly used in the UK because they are cheap and require minimum effort to

Related Books

supplementary regulations d2cx26qpfwuhvu cloudfront net

supplementary regulations d2cx26qpfwuhvu cloudfront net

1977 Bj rn Waldeg rd Hans Thorszelius Ford Escort RS 1978 Hannu Mikkola Arne Hertz Ford Escort RS 1979 Hannu Mikkola Arne Hertz Ford Escort RS 1980 Henri Toivonen Paul White Talbot Sunbeam Lotus 1981 Hannu Mikkola Arne Hertz Audi Quattro 1982 Hannu Mikkola Arne Hertz Audi Quattro 1983 Stig Blomqvist Bj rn Cederberg Audi Quattro A2 1984 Ari Vatanen Terry Harryman Peugeot 205

UR17 RG1 3 May

UR17 RG1 3 May

Ford Escort RS 1800 FIA App K Rob Smith Alan Cook Ford Sapphire 4x4 1992 Colin McRae Derek Ringer Subaru Legacy RS 1993 Malcolm Wilson Bryan Thomas Ford Escort Cosworth 1994 Malcolm Wilson Bryan Thomas Ford Escort Cosworth 1995 Bertie Fisher Rory Kennedy Subaru Impreza 555 1996 Bertie Fisher Rory Kennedy Subaru Impreza 555 1997 Mark Higgins Phil Mills Nissan Sunny GTi 1998

ProStar MPPT 2n1s7w3qw84d2ysnx3ia2bct wpengine netdna

ProStar MPPT 2n1s7w3qw84d2ysnx3ia2bct wpengine netdna

iv ProStar MPPT Operator s Manual ProStar MPPT Operators Manual 1 1 0 IMPORTANT SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS SAVE THESE INSTRUCTIONS This manual contains important safety installation operating and maintenance instructions for the ProStar MPPT solar controller The following symbols are used throughout this manual to indicate potentially dangerous conditions or mark important safety instructions

Programmable Logic Devices Sharif

Programmable Logic Devices Sharif

Programmable Logic Devices The need for getting designs done quickly has led to the creation and evolution of Programmable Logic devices The idea began from Read Only Memories ROM that were just an organized array of gates and has evolved into System On Programmable Chips SOPC that use programmable devices memories and configurable logic all on one chip This chapter shows the evolution

OrCad Express 9 1 Circuits Logiques Programmables

OrCad Express 9 1 Circuits Logiques Programmables

OrCad Express Circuits Logiques Programmables PL2001 3 1 Cr ation d un projet 1 1 D finition du projet Pour pouvoir r aliser la programmation d un circuit logique programmable Programmable Logic Device PLD il est n cessaire de cr er un projet sp cifique A partir d OrCad Capture cr er un nouveau projet en choisissant

Les circuits logiques programmables

Les circuits logiques programmables

Les circuits logiques programmables Document originaux PLD programmable logic device dans les ann es 1970 Ce type de produit peut int grer dans un seul circuit plusieurs fonctions logiques programmables par l utilisateur Sa mise en oeuvre se fait tr s facilement l aide d un programmateur d un micro ordinateur et d un logiciel adapt b Structure de base d un

ProStar TM Morningstar Corporation

ProStar TM Morningstar Corporation

Installation Operation and Maintenance Manual www morningstarcorp com ProStar TM MODELS PS 15 PS 30 PS 15M PS 30M For the most recent manual revision see the version at www morningstarcorp com ProStar Operator s Manual iii DIMENSIONS inches millimeters TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 0 Important Safety Instructions 1 2 0 General Information 6 2 1 Overview 6 2 2 Regulatory

ProStar Navistar Inc Success Leasing

ProStar Navistar Inc Success Leasing

ProStar 0000001301 3933971R5 EP A 10 2013 HD OBD US Canada Mexico August 2014 ProStar OperationandMaintenanceManual Navistar Inc 2701NavistarDrive Lisle IL60532USA

Etude des circuits logiques programmables Les FPGA

Etude des circuits logiques programmables Les FPGA

Les circuits logiques programmables FPGA 5 Quelles diff rences entre un ASIC et un PLD I Les R seaux Logiques Programmables PLD I Les R seaux Logiques Programmables PLD ASIC Application Specific Integrated Circuits PLD Programmable Logic Device Un circuit d di une application Choix de la technologie Maximum de performances

ProStar Brochure 032216 MRC WEB International Trucks

ProStar Brochure 032216 MRC WEB International Trucks

13L engine and a10 0speeed manual transmission The ProStar International ProStar Kenworth T680 Volvo VN780 Freightliner Cascadia Mack Pinnacle 64 15 63 85 67 00 67 75 70 85 60 62 5 65 75 67 5 70 72 5 62 5 70 72 5 62 5 65 75 67 5 70 72 5 62 5 75 70 72 5 60 62 5 65 67 5 70 72 5 DISTANCE TO BUMPER ANCE TO DRIVER 536 cm 442 cm 427 cm 381 cm 368 cm DRIVER SATISFACTION As one of thhe momst

1 Pr sentation

1 Pr sentation

C P L D signifie Complex Programmable Logic Device Ces circuits sont compos s de plusieurs P A L s l mentaires Par exemple l quivalent de P A L s 22V10 reli s entre eux par une zone d interconnexion Gr ce cette architecture ils permettent d atteindre des vitesses de fonctionnement lev es plusieurs centaine de Mhz