Animal welfare and ethical issues relevant to the humane control of vertebrate pests

Extract

The list of introduced vertebrate species now legally considered to be pests in New Zealand numbers nearly 50. Their common and Latin names are given in Table1. These pests, and the methods by which they are controlled, have significant impacts, both intentional and unintentional, on people, animals and the environment. The control of animals that threaten human health, safety or economic well-being, or that have a detrimental impact on the environment and valued animals, is regarded by many as generally acceptable. However, actions must definitely be necessary in every case and undertaken in ways that minimise the negative impacts and maximise the positive impacts on people, animals and the environment. In particular, if the action is likely to result in pain or distress for the animals affected, it is important that we seek ways of avoiding or minimising such suffering. It is generally accepted that all non-human vertebrates and some invertebrates are sentient and, therefore, capable of experiencing pain and distress. For instance, the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act 1999 (Anonymous 1999a) covers all vertebrates as well as any octopus, squid, crab, lobster or crayfish as species believed to be capable of suffering. This is based largely on their neuroanatomical and neurophysiological similarity to humans with respect to pain and other sensory mechanisms, their behavioural responses to pain and distress, and the evolutionary significance of pain and distress in a particular species (e.g. Bateson 1991; Broom 1991; Gregory 1998b; Kirkwood and Hubrecht 2001; Rutherford 2002). We should, therefore, avoid or minimise suffering in pests of any of these species.

KEY WORDS:

• Animal welfare
• ethics
• pest
• vertebrate pest
• vertebrate pest control

Acknowledgements

We thank James Battye, David Bayvel, Ian Inglis, Cheryl O'Connor and Mark Wickstrom for helpful discussions; the late John Holloway for seeing the need for such a review; and Marjorie Orr, Carolyn King, Mark Fisher, Neville Gregory, Clive Marks and Clare Veltman for helpful comments on earlier drafts. The Foundation for Research, Science and Technology and the Agricultural and Marketing Research and Development Trust funded research that contributed information to this review; Kate Littin received a C Alma Baker scholarship while writing it; and the New Zealand Veterinary Association, the Department of Conservation and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry provided other financial support.