See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233665771

Animal welfare and pest control: Meeting both conservation and

animal welfare goals

Article  in  Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · May 2010

DOI: 10.1017/S0962728600001421

CITATIONS READS
36 278

1 author:

Kate Littin
People-Animals-Nature
28 PUBLICATIONS   967 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kate Littin on 24 May 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 171

© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare Animal Welfare 2010, 19: 171-176
The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, ISSN 0962-7286
Hertfordshire AL4 8AN, UK

Animal welfare and pest control: meeting both conservation and animal
welfare goals
KE Littin
Animal Welfare Directorate, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, PO Box 2526, Wellington 6140,
New Zealand; email: kate.littin@maf.govt.nz

Abstract

Vertebrate pest control is an area where conservation and animal welfare goals can be in direct conflict. Is it possible to meet goals in
both areas in one pest control operation? Vertebrate pests, including unwanted or overabundant wildlife, are controlled for many
reasons related to protecting the health, safety and comfort of humans, animals and the environment. Pests are as capable of suffering
as their domesticated counterparts, and pest control operations have an impact on their welfare, as shown by an increasing amount
of research. This impact has often been neglected or ignored. Taking steps to minimise unnecessary and unintentional negative impacts
on animal welfare, while working towards an ideal of zero suffering, offers a way forward. This can be done by ensuring that only
control tools with an acceptable impact on animal welfare are used and that research is conducted to improve current tools and to
find more acceptable tools. It is also important to ensure that intervention and killing are really necessary, and to use the tools with
the most acceptable animal welfare impact in the way that minimises unwanted impacts. By building these steps into the planning and
operation of pest control programmes conducted in the name of conservation, we can meet conservation and animal welfare goals.

Keywords: animal welfare, conservation, pest control, vertebrate pest, vertebrate pest control, wildlife management

Animal welfare in pest control
Vertebrate pests, and overabundant or unwanted wildlife,
are controlled for many reasons related to the protection of
humans, animals and the environment (see Hone 2007).
Animals are trapped, shot, poisoned, subjected to reproduc-
tive control and the intentional introduction of disease or
predators, repelled and excluded, mustered or captured and
killed or relocated, and otherwise hunted, caught, killed or
kept away (Table 1).
The animal welfare impact of any pest control tool essen-
tially depends on the character, severity and duration of the
impacts and the manner of death (where this occurs), and
the capacity of the species to suffer (Kirkwood et al 1994;
Gregory 1998; and see Littin et al 2004, and Sharp &
Saunders 2008). The impacts are affected by the way that
the tool is designed or manufactured, the way that it works,
and the way that it is used (see below). All aspects are
important, regardless of the emphasis that is often placed on
the time to death being the principal significant feature for
animal welfare. For instance, a long-acting pesticide that
causes death through chronic blood loss is different from a
trap that captures and holds a semi-aquatic animal under-
water until it drowns in a few minutes. A semi-aquatic
animal held underwater might have a different experience
from a terrestrial animal that has fallen into a pitfall trap
filled with water, even though the manner of death is
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
probably drowning in both cases. Both of these would
contrast with a direct gunshot to the head of an animal
unaware it was being stalked.
Understanding the total animal welfare impact of a partic-
ular pest control method or operation means thinking about
all the impacts, both intended and unintended, on all
sentient animals impacted (ie those that are the target of the
control, and those that are ‘non-target’ or ‘off-target’), and
the number of animals affected. This may not be practically
achievable where data are lacking, but should at least be
considered. Sharp and Saunders (2008) have recently
developed a framework which enables a consistent
approach to the assessment of the animal welfare impact
and ‘humaneness’ of pest control tools.
Animal welfare science has not historically focused on
the impacts of pest control, particularly pesticides and
control against rodents, with a few notable exceptions
(Rowsell et al 1979; and see Thompson [1990], espe-
cially regarding the role of the Universities Federation
for Animal Welfare). However, there is a growing body
of research examining the animal welfare impacts of
particular pest control and wildlife management
methods (eg MAFF 1997; Gregory et al 1998; Littin
et al 2002; O’Connor et al 2007; Warburton et al 2008)
and several authors have reviewed or compared the
impacts of various methods (eg Kirkwood et al 1994;
Science in the Service of Animal Welfare
172 Littin

Table 1 Methods used to control animals considered as unwanted or ‘pests’.

Method Description
Shooting Aerial shooting (from planes/helicopters)
Shooting from vehicles, horseback or on foot (including with the aid of dogs)
Hunting with dogs Dogs to stalk, flush, capture, hold or kill
Hunting with other animals Falconry, hunting with ferrets etc
Bow hunting
Mustering or capture and rehoming/killing/relocation
Biological control Cessation of lactation
Introduction or encouragement of parasites
Introduction or encouragement of predators
Introduction or encouragement of disease
Reproductive control (bait-delivered vaccines against sperm proteins; bait-deliv-
ered steroids to prevent ovulation; catch-neuter-release; egg destruction and
oiling; nest destruction)
Exclusion and repellents Visual repellents
Auditory repellents
Physical exclusion from resources or removal of resources (eg fences, anti-
perching spikes and adhesives)
Traps Kill-traps (eg death by crushing, asphyxiation or occlusion of arteries by metal
bar(s) or snare(s); electric shock; gas; drowning)
Burrow destruction Exploding burrows; burrow ‘ripping’ or digging
Toxic agents Pesticides; fumigants
Non-toxic agents Cellulose pellets
Electrocution Electrocution traps; electric fishing; electrified wires for flying animals
Explosives In burrows; control of roosting animals
Angling/fishing Nets; electric fishing; management as ‘game’ or ‘sport’ fishing

Nettles 1997; Broom 1999; Mason & Littin 2003;
Gregory 2004; DEFRA 2005; Iossa et al 2007; Sherley
2007; Marks 2009 and see Sharp & Saunders 2008).
Tools range from those considered to have a minor
impact on target animal welfare, such as pelletised
cyanide for the control of brushtail possums
(Trichosurus vulpecula; Gregory et al 1998), to a
prolonged and/or severe and unacceptable impact. For
instance, Marks (2009), in reviewing available informa-
tion on the behavioural, pathological and physiological
effects of chloropicrin, concludes that it cannot be
considered acceptably humane for the fumigation of
rabbits. Warburton and others (2008) describe the
outcome of trap tests on stoats (Mustela vison), showing
that “Fenn traps performed poorly and adversely affect
the welfare of captured stoats”.
Pest animals are no less capable of experiencing pain and
distress than other animals. Moreover, they may experience
more overall pain or distress than other animals owing to
the types of actions they are subjected to, especially if
features of their natural environment interact with the
effects of the pest control agent. For instance, an electrical
wire arranged around a water trough (the ‘Finlayson
trough’), intended to exclude kangaroos while allowing
sheep to drink, could be expected to have a more severe
impact on animal welfare in particularly arid environments
or dry seasons. It might seem surprising, then, that the
suffering of pest animals has not received more attention.
This might be because:
• Pest control normally happens unseen and it is easy to
ignore it, remain ignorant of it, or convince ourselves that
we are not to blame for it;
• Pests are simply not valued as highly as other animals,
humans or the environment;
• The harm done to them is considered justified on the basis
of the harm (and potential harm) that they do;
• The harm done to them is considered to be less than that
which normally occurs in the wild (which is itself less than
ideal; see Warburton & Choquenot 1999); and
• Cases of domestic animal cruelty or animal treatment,
where the human cause is clearer or mitigation easier to
effect, are more easily tackled.

© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare


The conflicts
Conservation goals in pest control are met when an
operation effectively prevents pests from causing harm,
normally by removing the pests. The ideal in terms of
animal welfare would be a pest control tool that causes
instantaneous unconsciousness followed by death, with no
prior pain or distress. While shooting in the head from a
distance and the operation of some very effective killing
traps might achieve this ideal, in practice, other control
methods could be expected to have an impact on animal
welfare to some degree, with extremes at both ends.
Moreover, tools that are best for animal welfare may not be
the most effective (eg Warburton 1998). It is clear that pest
control conducted in the name of environmental protection
can lead to direct conflict between conservation goals and
animal welfare goals. How might this conflict be resolved?
A resolution?
Ian Swingland (1992), in a paper on the impacts of humans
on wildlife and the environment, noted “It is clear that the
issues of animal welfare and the environment are the issues
of the late twentieth and the twenty-first centuries and that
increasing knowledge and the application of appropriate
methods together with the involvement of all the people
will improve the plight of our beleaguered natural world”.
But just how can we put this into practice?
The ethical justification of pest control and wildlife
management — whether and when it is justified — has
been discussed elsewhere (eg Hickling 1994; Marks 1996,
1999; Morrison 1996; Muschamp 1996; Oojges 1996,
1997, 1999; Singer 1997; Warburton 1998; Warburton &
Choquenot 1999; Eggleston et al 2003; Warburton &
O’Connor 2004; Morris & Thornhill 2006; Meerburg et al
2008; Albrecht et al 2009; Warburton & Norton 2009).
Setting these issues aside, a consideration of Russell and
Burch’s ‘Three Rs’ approach (Russell & Burch 1992) and
of the principles outlined by Banner and others (1995),
together with an understanding of the animal welfare
impacts of the methods and the context in which control
occurs, suggest a conceptual two-stage way forward: the
‘zero suffering’ ideal remains a final goal, while steps are
taken in the meantime to minimise unnecessary and unin-
tentional negative impacts on animal welfare. This
approach recognises that pest control, by intention, causes
harm. However, the harm should be minimised. These
steps are described elsewhere (HVPC 2004; Littin et al
2004), but briefly, the two stages are as follows.
To achieve the ideal goal:
• We should rely only on those methods that have an accept-
able impact on animal welfare (recognising that some harms
are not acceptable, even for pests);
• We should develop ways to mitigate the unwanted effects
of pest control tools that cause harm to animal welfare
(including harm to non-target animals); and
• We should develop more humane alternatives to existing
tools.
Conservation and animal welfare in pest control 173
It has been common in some countries for legislation to be
passed preventing the use of methods considered unaccept-
able for animal welfare. It has not been so common for
research to focus on mitigation and an active search for more
acceptable alternatives, particularly for tools other than
traps, but this seems now to be more of a focus (eg Cook
1998; Marks et al 2000; Marks et al 2004; Fisher et al 2005;
Cowled et al 2008; and see review in Iossa et al 2007).
For immediate animal welfare benefits, in any given pest
control operation:
• Pest control should be conducted only when absolutely
necessary;
• Killing should be done only when absolutely necessary
(provided non-lethal methods are not more harmful to
welfare and are still effective forms of control);
• The methods causing the least harm to animal welfare
should be used; and
• The methods must be used in the best possible way to
ensure that they cause the least harm to animal welfare and
that negative impacts are mitigated as much as possible.
In other words, is intervention required (Gregory 1998;
Marks 1999)? Is killing required (Oogjes 1997)? And is the
most appropriate method being used in the most appropriate
way? These questions have been built into a framework to
allow and encourage conservation managers to conduct
humane pest control (HVPC 2004). They are briefly
expanded upon here.
Is intervention required?
The decision to intervene is made on consideration of the
interests of the animals (including the pests themselves),
people and environment involved. The relative value and
weight given to each party, and the context in which the
decision is made, are clearly central issues for consideration
(Kirkwood 1992; Morrison 1996; Oogjes 1997; Warburton
1998; Marks 1999; Gregory 2001). Even the classification
of particular animals as pests in need of control can pose a
problem (eg Oogjes 1999). For instance, deer seen as a
resource by hunters might be seen as a pest by a conserva-
tion authority (Eggleston et al 2003). And should cats be
considered as companions and pets, useful predators of
unwanted rodents, or unwanted predators of threatened
species (Wilkins 1992)?
Sometimes, the need to intervene might be clear, such as in
the case of mouse plagues causing devastation to animals,
people and the environment (Caughley et al 1994).
Sometimes, it might be considered that we are duty-bound
to rectify problems that we create (eg Kirkwood 1992;
Marks 1996; Spedding 2000) or to protect the health or
safety of humans, other animals or valued features of the
environment (Marks 1996; Muschamp 1996).
In other cases, the decision to intervene might be more
difficult: for instance, is it acceptable to harm sentient
animals to protect non-sentient animals or (threatened)
plants (Marks 1996, 1999; Singer 1997)? What about
Animal Welfare 2010, 19: 171-176
174 Littin
controlling numerous pest animals to protect a few endan-
gered animals (Marks 1996, 1999)?
And, sometimes, inaction might be more appropriate than
intervention, for instance when the potential impacts of
removing a pest are unclear and the unintended conse-
quences might be worse than inaction. Norbury and
Heyward (1996) provide a good example of this: ferrets
(Mustela furo), themselves introduced to control rabbits in
New Zealand, switched to preying upon threatened native
species when rabbits were eradicated as part of a pest
control programme. Additionally, if the goals of a pest
control operation are not clear or are unlikely to be met,
then it can be argued that the operation should not proceed
(see Littin et al 2004) or at least that it is treated as a
learning exercise so that lessons can be applied in the next
control operation (Warburton & Norton 2009).
Is killing necessary?
If intervention is considered necessary, a decision needs to
be made about whether killing is necessary, or whether
alternatives would suffice. Killing, per se, is not strictly an
issue for animal welfare. If it is done in a way that causes no
suffering, then it could be considered an ethical issue but
not an animal welfare issue. However, as noted above, this
is unlikely to be the case in practice.
It has further been argued that non-lethal methods should
be used in addition to lethal methods, if killing is consid-
ered necessary (eg Mason & Littin 2003). A combined
approach can improve effectiveness and minimise animal
welfare impacts (see Hone 2007 for further discussion).
For instance, an ‘integrated pest management’ approach,
which involves removing potential shelter and food and
water sources, can drive more animals to be attracted to
baits, can minimise reproductive success in survivors, and
can reduce the attraction of the area for animals looking to
take over a vacated territory.
Is the most appropriate method being used in the
most appropriate way?
The choice of pest control method for any pest control
operation, including one for conservation purposes,
depends on several features. These might include effec-
tiveness, comfort and safety for the operator, and minimal
impact on non-target animals. Historically, the impact of
any given method on the welfare of the target animal has
not been part of the selection process. However, to meet
animal welfare goals, the method chosen should also cause
the least harm to animal welfare.
Animal welfare in pest control is also affected by the manu-
facture, operation, placement, maintenance and effective use
of devices, poisons and other components of each control
method. For instance, for pesticides, traps and shooting, the
following features of design and use are important:
• The manufacture of poison baits, including formulation,
attractiveness, size, colour, and concentration of poison;
• The construction and mechanics of traps, including the
clamping force, impact momentum, and the use of
exclusion devices;
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
• The use of poisons, including the density at which baits
and bait stations are laid;
• The use of traps, including position, correct setting and the
use of exclusion devices or methods; and
• The choice of ammunition and calibre of firearm, and
shooter skill and accuracy.
The effectiveness of control is dependent on these
features too. This means that animal welfare and conser-
vation goals can be met in practice, and negative impacts
limited, by careful attention to methodology and good
quality control in the manufacture and use of pest control
tools. There is a lot of practical advice available to help
pest control operators in this action.
Animal welfare implications and conclusion
There will still be areas of immediate conflict in pest control
operations conducted in the name of conservation, when a
particular method or tool is best for achieving control but is
not best for animal welfare. However, working towards an
ideal goal and ensuring that animal welfare impact is
considered in every control operation provide a way to meet
both conservation and animal welfare goals in pest control.
Acknowledgements
The ideas covered in this paper have been developed over a
number of years in discussion with others, particularly
Neville Gregory, David Mellor, Cheryl O’Connor, Bruce
Warburton, Charles Eason and Janet Talling. The paper was
improved by helpful comments from anonymous reviewers.
References
Albrecht G, McMahon CR, Bowman DMJS and Bradshaw
CJA 2009 Convergence of culture, ecology, and ethics: manage-
ment of feral swamp buffalo in Northern Australia. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22: 361-378
Banner M, Bulfield G, Clark S, Gormally L, Hignett P,
Kimball H, Milburn C and Moffitt J 1995 Report of the
Committee to Consider the Ethical Implications of Emerging
Technologies in the Breeding of Farm Animals. Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF): London, UK
Broom DM 1999 The welfare of vertebrate pests in relation
to their management. In: Cowan DP and Feare CJ (eds)
Advances in Vertebrate Pest Management pp 309-329. Filander
Verlag: Fürth, Germany
Caughley J, Monamy V and Heiden K 1994 Impact of the
1993 Mouse Plague. Grains Research and Development
Corporation: Canberra, Australia
Cook CJ 1998 Serotonergic and cholecystokinin antago-
nists change patterns of response in rats (Rattus norvegicus)
to oral sodium monofluoroacetate. New Zealand Veterinary
Journal 46: 76-78
Cowled BD, Elsworth P and Lapidge SJ 2008 Additional tox-
ins for feral pig (Sus scrofa) control: identifying and testing Achilles’
heels. Wildlife Research 35: 651-662
DEFRA 2005 Review of effectiveness, environmental impact,
humaneness and feasibility of lethal methods for badger control. A
report to European Wildlife Division, DEFRA, 20 October, 2005.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA):
London, UK. http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/pdf/review-
201005.pdf

Eggleston JE, Rixecker SS and Hickling GJ 2003 The role of
ethics in the management of New Zealand’s wild mammals. New
Zealand Journal of Zoology 30: 361-376
Fisher PM, O’Connor CE and Murphy EC 2005 Acute oral
toxicity of p-aminopropiophenone to stoats (Mustela erminea).
New Zealand Journal of Zoology 32: 163-169
Gregory NG 1998 Rationale for controlling vertebrate pests.
In: Mellor DJ, Fisher M and Sutherland G (eds) Ethical
Approaches to Animal-Based Science pp 121-124. ANZCCART:
Wellington, New Zealand
Gregory NG 2001 Attitudes to animal welfare and the envi-
ronment. In: Baker RM, Fisher M and Hemsworth P (eds) Farm
Animals in Research: Can we Meet the Demands of Ethics,
Welfare, Science and Industry pp 1-10. ANZCCART: Glen
Osmond, Australia
Gregory NG 2004 Physiology and Behaviour of Animal Suffering.
Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK
Gregory NG, Milne LM, Rhodes AT, Wickstrom M and
Eason CT 1998 Effect of potassium cyanide on behaviour and time
to death in possums. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 46: 60-64
Hickling GJ 1994 Animal welfare and vertebrate pest manage-
ment: compromise or conflict? In: Baker RM, Mellor DJ and Nicol
AM (eds) Animal Welfare in the Twenty-First Century: Ethical,
Educational and Scientific Challenges pp 119-124. ANZCCART:
Glen Osmond, Australia
Hone J 2007 Wildlife Damage Control. CSIRO Publishing:
Collingwood, Australia
HVPC (Humane Vertebrate Pest Control Working
Group) 2004 A National Approach Towards Humane Vertebrate Pest
Control. RSPCA: Canberra, Australia
Iossa G, Soulsbury CD and Harris S 2007 Mammal trapping:
a review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining
traps. Animal Welfare 16: 335-352
Kirkwood JK 1992 Wild animal welfare. In: Ryder R (ed) Animal
Welfare and the Environment pp 139-154. Gerald Duckworth and
Co: London, UK
Kirkwood JK, Sainsbury AW and Bennett I 1994 The wel-
fare of free-living wild animals: methods of assessment. Animal
Welfare 3: 257-273
Littin KE, Mellor DJ, Warburton B and Eason CT
2004 Ethical and animal welfare principles for humane vertebrate
pest control; a review. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 52: 1-10
Littin KE, O’Connor CE, Gregory NG, Mellor DJ and
Eason CT 2002 Behaviour, coagulopathy and pathology of brush-
tail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) poisoned with brodifacoum.
Wildlife Research 29: 259-267
MAFF 1997 Evaluation of Fully Approved or Provisionally Approved
Products: Evaluation on Assessment of Humaneness of Vertebrate
Control Agents (Issue No 74). MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Food
and Fisheries): York, UK
Marks CA 1996 Do we need a new vertebrate pest control
ethic? In: Fisher PM and Marks CA (eds) Humaneness and
Vertebrate Pest Control: Proceedings of Seminar Held 27th March
1996. Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, Report Series No 2 pp 16-19.
Agriculture Victoria: Tynong North, Australia
Marks CA 1999 Ethical issues in vertebrate pest control: can we
balance the welfare of individuals and ecosystems? In: Mellor DJ
and Monamy V (eds) The Use of Wildlife in Research pp 79-89.
ANZCCART: Glen Osmond, Australia
Marks CA 2009 Fumigation of rabbit warrens with chloropi-
crin produces poor welfare outcomes: a review. Wildlife
Research 36: 342-352
Conservation and animal welfare in pest control 175
Marks CA, Allen L, Gigliotti F, Busana F, Gonzalez T,
Lindeman M and Fisher PM 2004 Evaluation of the tranquillis-
er trap device (TTD) for improving the humaneness of dingo trap-
ping. Animal Welfare 13: 393-399
Marks CA, Hackman C, Busana F and Gigliotti F 2000
Assuring that 1080 toxicosis in the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is
humane: fluoroacetic acid (1080) and drug combinations. Wildlife
Research 27: 483-494
Mason GJ and Littin KE 2003 The humaneness of rodent pest
control. Animal Welfare 12: 1-37
Meerburg BG, Brom FWA and Kijlstra A 2008 Perspective:
the ethics of rodent control. Pest Management Science 64: 1205-1211
Morris MC and Thornhill RH 2006 Animal liberationist respons-
es to non-anthropogenic animal suffering. Worldviews 10: 355-379
Morrison R 1996 Rabbit control, does the end justify any means?
In: Fisher PM and Marks CA (eds) Humaneness and Vertebrate Pest
Control: Proceedings of Seminar Held 27th March 1996. Vertebrate
Pest Research Unit, Report Series No 2 pp 46–49. Victorian Institute
of Animal Science: Frankston, Australia
Muschamp D 1996 The control of vertebrate pests: ethical
decision making. In: Fisher PM and Marks CA (eds)
Humaneness and Vertebrate Pest Control: Proceedings of Seminar Held
27th March 1996. Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, Report Series No 2
pp 6–8. Victorian Institute of Animal Science: Frankston,
Australia
Nettles VF 1997 Potential consequences and problems with wildlife
contraceptives. Reproduction, Fertility and Development 9: 137-143
Norbury G and Heyward R 1996 The response of ferrets
to rabbit control. Ferrets as Vectors of Tuberculosis and Threats
to Conservation. The Royal Society of New Zealand Miscellaneous
Series 36 pp 30-33. The Royal Society of New Zealand:
Wellington, New Zealand
O’Connor CE, Littin KE, Milne LM, Airey AT, Webster R,
Arthur DG, Eason CT and Gregory NG 2007 Behavioural,
biochemical, and pathological responses of possums (Trichosurus
vulpecula) poisoned with phosphorus paste. New Zealand
Veterinary Journal 55: 109-112
Oogjes G 1996 The ANZFAS view of vertebrate pest control
using chloropicrin fumigation and 1080 poisoning. In: Fisher PM
and Marks CA (eds) Humaneness and Vertebrate Pest Control:
Proceedings of Seminar Held 27th March 1996. Vertebrate Pest
Research Unit, Report Series No 2 pp 9-12. 27th. Victorian Institute
of Animal Science: Frankston, Australia
Oogjes G 1997 Ethical aspects and dilemmas of fertility control
of unwanted wildlife: an animal welfarist’s perspective.
Reproduction, Fertility and Development 9: 163-167
Oogjes G 1999 Our ethical obligation to ‘mislocated’ animals:
the Animals Australia approach. In: Mellor DJ and Monamy V (eds)
The Use of Wildlife for Research pp 100-107. ANZCCART: Glen
Osmond, Australia
Rowsell HC, Ritcey J and Cox F 1979 Assessment of
humaneness of vertebrate pesticides. Proceedings of the
Canadian Association for Laboratory Animal Science 1978-
1979: 236-249
Russell WMS and Burch RL 1992 The Principles of Humane
Experimental Technique, Special Edition. Universities Federation for
Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, UK
Sharp T and Saunders G 2008 A Model for Assessing the relative
Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods. Australian
Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry:
Canberra, Australia
Sherley M 2007 Is sodium fluoroacetate (1080) a humane poi-
son? Animal Welfare 16: 449-458
Animal Welfare 2010, 19: 171-176
176 Littin
Singer P 1997 Neither human nor natural: ethics and feral ani-
mals. Reproduction, Fertility and Development 9: 157-162
Spedding C 2000 Animal Welfare. Earthscan Publications:
London, UK
Swingland I 1992 The human impact on wildlife and the environ-
ment In: Ryder R (ed) Animal Welfare and the Environment pp 17-
26. Gerald Duckworth and Co: London, UK
Thompson HV 1990 Animal welfare and the control of verte-
brates. In: Davis LR and Marsh RE (eds) Proceedings of the 14th
Vertebrate Pest Conference pp 5-7. University of California at Davis:
Davis, CA, USA. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1075&context=vpc14
Warburton B 1998 The ‘humane’ trap saga: a tale of competing
ethical ideologies. In: Mellor DJ, Fisher M and Sutherland G (eds)
Ethical Approaches to Animal-Based Science pp 131–137. ANZC-
CART: Glen Osmond, Australia
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
View publication stats
Warburton B and Choquenot D 1999 Animal welfare and
pest control: the context is important. In: Mellor DJ and Monamy
V (eds) The Use of Wildlife for Research pp 90-99. ANZCCART:
Glen Osmond, Australia
Warburton B and Norton BG 2009 Towards a knowledge-
based ethic for lethal control of nuisance wildlife. Journal of Wildlife
Management 73: 158-164
Warburton B and O’Connor CE 2004 Research on verte-
brate pesticides and traps: do wild animals benefit? Proceedings of
the 4th World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life
Sciences, Supplement 1 ATLA 32: 229-234
Warburton B, Poutu N, Peters D and Waddington P 2008
Traps for killing stoats (Mustela erminea): improving welfare per-
formance. Animal Welfare 17: 111-116
Wilkins D 1992 Animal welfare and the environment: are they
always compatible? In: Ryder R (ed) Animal Welfare and the
Environment pp 73-80. Gerald Duckworth and Co Ltd: London, UK