Science and animal welfare
1
406 News Extra Aust Vet J Vol 77, No 4, April 1999 Science and animal welfare T he need for “communication” among people of differing skills and points of view on any sub- ject is often stated but rarely practised. The need for science to underpin ani- mal welfare - while allowing for cultur- al, traditional, legal, economic, politi- cal, practical, ethical and moral factors - was underlined at a recent RSPCA scientific seminar. Entitled: “Scientific evidence and improvements in animal welfare - are we ignoring the obvious?”, the event was staged in Canberra in February. Speakers addressed the con- cept of ‘measurement’ (quantifying) of the welfare of animals, livestock trans- port, exports, teaching of animal wel- fare, research animals, veterinary skills and wildlife and veterinary skills and feral animals. It was suited to a wide range of interests. Of particular inter- est was a paper by Dr Tony Brightling, on livestock exports. This generated active debate but no rancour - despite the actively divided views of those pre- sent. This was, in part, because of the underlying science. Dr Brightling’s presentation was accurate and was actively challenged but appeared to offer a common undertheme which provided a means of resolution of the issues. It was clear that in bringing together industry, research, the profes- sion and welfare activists, much com- mon ground was found. Some other issues are worthy of mention. Peter Brown’s paper addressed the exploita- tion of urban habitats by wildlife and referred to two potentially inappropri- ate responses which may result in seri- ous animal welfare problems - release of rehabilitated wildlife and inappro- priate feeding of wildlife. Bidda Jones’ paper addressed the need for science to be considered along with the other fac- tors mentioned above. She gave three practical examples. Firstly, when an advance in animal welfare (through scientific evidence) was frustrated by political opposition. Secondly, the use of calls for “further research” to frus- trate the process. Thirdly, the fact that science had so far taken years to quan- tify a specific problem, which appeared to have an obvious commonsense solu- tion. Ivan Caple’s paper on the teach- ing of animal welfare in veterinary schools - relating to the roles of laws, ethics and morals impacting upon a young veterinary surgeon was an enlightening presentation. Paul Hensworth gave an excellent definition of animal welfare and as “the welfare of an animal in its state, as regards its attempts to cope with its environment” and pointed out that scientists have studied these risks to animal welfare at two biological levels:1.By measuring the behavioural and physiological stress responses from the animal to the environment and 2.By measuring the consequential biological cost to - or reduced biological fitness of - the ani- mal. Small things are sometimes important and Alana Mitchell covered the benefits of small changes in hous- ing of laboratory animals, eg the inclu- sion of cardboard tubes and shredded paper in cages for the welfare of labo- ratory rodents. Amanda Paul gave an interesting perspective on the applica- tion of science to real-life situations, bringing together a range of such issues in a paper on developing codes of prac- tice for the transport of animals. This suggested that utilisation of measures such as consultation, public percep- tions, compromise and the availability of scientific data were all important in development of animal welfare policy and procedure. A n i m a l W e l f a r e Kevin Doyle AVA National Veterinarian Conference Action! “Tasmania Night” - conga line “Tasmania Night” - Doreen Culliver, Di Sheehan and John Gillham Conference Dinner - Veronica Kells, Dan Hutchison, Margaret McGee
-
Upload
kevin-doyle -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
2
Transcript of Science and animal welfare
406
News Extra
Aust Vet J Vol 77, No 4, April 1999
Science and animal welfare
The need for “c o m m u n i c a t i o n”among people of differing skillsand points of view on any sub-
ject is often stated but rarely practised.The need for science to underpin ani-mal we l f a re - while allowing for cultur-al, traditional, legal, economic, politi-cal, practical, ethical and moral factors- was underlined at a recent RSPCAscientific seminar. Entitled: “ S c i e n t i f i cevidence and improvements in animalwe l f a re - are we ignoring the obv i o u s ? ” ,the event was staged in Canberra inFe b ru a ry. Speakers addressed the con-cept of ‘m e a s u re m e n t’ (quantifying) ofthe we l f a re of animals, livestock trans-p o rt, exports, teaching of animal we l-f a re, re s e a rch animals, ve t e r i n a ry skillsand wildlife and ve t e r i n a ry skills andferal animals. It was suited to a widerange of interests. Of particular inter-est was a paper by Dr Tony Br i g h t l i n g ,on livestock exports. This generateda c t i ve debate but no rancour - despitethe actively divided views of those pre-sent. This was, in part, because of theunderlying science. Dr Br i g h t l i n g’sp resentation was accurate and wasa c t i vely challenged but appeared tooffer a common undertheme whichp rovided a means of resolution of theissues. It was clear that in bringingtogether industry, re s e a rch, the pro f e s-sion and we l f a re activists, much com-mon ground was found. Some otherissues are worthy of mention. Pe t e rBrow n’s paper addressed the exploita-tion of urban habitats by wildlife andre f e r red to two potentially inappro p r i-
ate responses which may result in seri-ous animal we l f a re problems - re l e a s eof rehabilitated wildlife and inappro-priate feeding of wildlife. Bidda Jo n e s’paper addressed the need for science tobe considered along with the other fac-tors mentioned above. She gave thre epractical examples. Fi r s t l y, when ana d vance in animal we l f a re (thro u g hscientific evidence) was frustrated bypolitical opposition. Se c o n d l y, the useof calls for “f u rther re s e a rc h” to fru s-trate the process. T h i rd l y, the fact thatscience had so far taken years to quan-tify a specific problem, which appeare dto have an obvious commonsense solu-tion. Ivan Caple’s paper on the teach-ing of animal we l f a re in ve t e r i n a ryschools - relating to the roles of laws,ethics and morals impacting upon ayoung ve t e r i n a ry surgeon was anenlightening presentation. Pa u lHe n s w o rth gave an excellent definitionof animal we l f a re and as “the we l f a re ofan animal in its state, as re g a rds itsattempts to cope with its enviro n m e n t”and pointed out that scientists havestudied these risks to animal we l f a re attwo biological leve l s : 1 . By measuringthe behavioural and physiologicals t ress responses from the animal to thee n v i ronment and 2.By measuring theconsequential biological cost to - orreduced biological fitness of - the ani-mal. Small things are sometimesi m p o rtant and Alana Mitchell cove re dthe benefits of small changes in hous-ing of laboratory animals, eg the inclu-sion of card b o a rd tubes and shre d d e d
paper in cages for the we l f a re of labo-r a t o ry rodents. Amanda Paul gave ani n t e resting perspective on the applica-tion of science to real-life situations,bringing together a range of such issuesin a paper on developing codes of prac-tice for the transport of animals. T h i ssuggested that utilisation of measure ssuch as consultation, public perc e p-tions, compromise and the ava i l a b i l i t yof scientific data we re all important ind e velopment of animal we l f a re policyand pro c e d u re .
A n i m a l
W e l f a r e
Kevin DoyleAVA National Veterinarian
Conference Action!
“Tasmania Night” - conga line “Tasmania Night” - Doreen Culliver,Di Sheehan and John Gillham
Conference Dinner - Veronica Kells,Dan Hutchison, Margaret McGee
