English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Author(s): Hadidian, John; Unti, Bernard; Griffin, John | Abstract: Differences over what constitutes humaneness in the control of wildlife have traditionally presented a roadblock to under-standing, not to mention agreement, between animal welfare and wildlife damage management professionals. Complaints that a proposed action or given program is not humane can refer to everything from specific techniques to broader adminis-trative justifications. A number of concepts have been used to describe welfare standards and measurements, and different assessment metrics have been developed in attempts to bring objectivity to what might prove, in the end, to be an intracta-bly subjective domain. Some of the most widely used and serviceable of the concepts intended to operationalize what humaneness is are described and reviewed here. The need for a more accepted and agreeable framework for humaneness is discussed, and designating “humane” as a keyword is proposed as one means by which that framework can better realized.

Measuring Humaneness: Can It Be Done, and What Does It Mean If It Can?