z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Animal welfare and the use of procedural documents: limitations and refinement
Author(s) -
Jordan O. Hampton,
Timothy H. Hyndman,
M. Laurence,
Andrew L. Perry,
Peter J. Adams,
Teresa Collins
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
wildlife research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.81
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1448-5494
pISSN - 1035-3712
DOI - 10.1071/wr16153
Subject(s) - animal welfare , scrutiny , wildlife , welfare , computer science , empirical research , business , risk analysis (engineering) , public economics , political science , economics , biology , ecology , mathematics , statistics , law
. Increased scrutiny of animal welfare in wildlife management has seen a recent proliferation in the use of procedural documents (standard operating procedures, codes of practice etc.). Some procedural documents are presumed to represent ‘best practice’ methods, whereby adherence to prescribed inputs is explicitly purported to generate humane outcomes. However, the relationship between what is done to animals (inputs) and what they experience (outputs), as assessed by animal-based measures, has received little attention. Procedural documents are commonly developed in the absence of empirical animal-based measures, creating uncertainty in animal welfare outcomes. Prescribed procedures are valuable as guidelines for standardising methodology, but the development of ‘welfare standards’ that focus on desired thresholds for animal-based measures offers many advantages for improving animal welfare. Refinement of the use of procedural documents in wildlife management is required to ensure they generate desirable outcomes for animals, and do not preclude the development of improved methods.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom