DOCSLIB.ORG

Read and Download Our New Report Here

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Read and Download Our New Report Here A report to the Labour Animal Welfare Society May 2021 A review of the animal welfare, public health, and environmental, ecological and conservation implications of rearing, releasing and shooting non-native gamebirds in Britain Professor Stephen Harris BSc PhD DSc A REPORT TO THE LABOUR ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY A review of the animal welfare, public health, and environmental, ecological and conservation implications of rearing, releasing and shooting non-native gamebirds in Britain A report to the Labour Animal Welfare Society Professor Stephen Harris BSc PhD DSc May 2021 NON-NATIVE GAMEBIRDS IN BRITAIN - A REVIEW A REPORT TO THE LABOUR ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY Instructions Contents I was asked to review the scientific I was told that:- Summary of the key points 1 evidence on:- l I should identify any animal welfare concerns Sources of information 5 and potential effects on wildlife and public 1. The potential welfare and public health issues Introduction 6 associated with rearing, releasing and shooting health large numbers of non-native gamebirds in l I should identify the actual or potential The legal status of non-native gamebirds in Britain 7 Britain direct and indirect effects of activities Good-practice guidelines for gamebird shooting 10 2. Whether rearing and releasing large numbers associated with rearing, releasing and shooting gamebirds, and the distances of non-native gamebirds in Britain, and How many foxes are there in Britain? 12 associated predator-control activities, have an that may be required for any precautionary actions, prohibitions or mitigation impact on the numbers of different species How much food do foxes require? 16 of avian and mammalian predators, and the l I should consider any potential environmental, character and extent of any possible species ecological and/or conservation impacts of The number of pheasants and red-legged partridges 17 interactions widespread supplementary feeding by the reared, released and shot in Britain 3. Whether rearing and releasing large numbers gamebird-shooting industry The biomass of the surplus non-native gamebirds 20 of non-native gamebirds in Britain affects the • I should evaluate Natural England’s gamebird released each year numbers of foxes and other predatory species release rapid assessment and identify of birds and mammals, and the spatial scale of potential omissions and oversights The impact of predation on gamebirds on fox 23 these influences numbers in Britain l It is of particular importance to consider 4. Whether rearing and releasing large numbers the potential impacts of widespread killing The impact of scavenging on fox numbers 25 of non-native gamebirds in Britain has an of foxes on fox population dynamics, influence on the population dynamics of species interactions and food webs more The impact of carrion on ecosystem functioning 27 foxes and other predators, and the spatial generally scale of these influences l It is my decision as to what evidence The role of scavenging in the spread of disease 28 5. The potential impacts of releasing large I wished to include in my review and, The use of antibiotics by the gamebird industry 29 numbers of non-native gamebirds in Britain while the review relates particularly to on the predation pressure on species of the situation in Britain, I was free to refer The use of other pharmaceuticals by the gamebird industry 32 conservation concern, particularly ground- to any studies from other countries that nesting birds, and the scale of these impacts I considered to be relevant The environmental impact of the lead shot used by 33 6. Other potential environmental, ecological the gamebird-shooting industry and/or conservation impacts of rearing and releasing large numbers of non-native The impact on wildlife posed by the use of dogs on 36 gamebirds in Britain gamebird-shooting estates Dispersal and food requirements of released gamebirds 37 Food availability, red fox population dynamics and the 39 conservation benefits of widespread predator control Conclusions 43 References 48 NON-NATIVE GAMEBIRDS IN BRITAIN - A REVIEW AA REPORT REPORT TO TO THE THE LABOUR LABOUR ANIMAL ANIMAL WELFARE WELFARE SOCIETY SOCIETY Summary of the key points I review the environmental, ecological and no evidence that existing codes of practice are conservation impacts of rearing, releasing and addressing these welfare issues. shooting non-native gamebirds in Britain, and the 4. There are significant welfare issues associated wider impacts of the gamebird-shooting industry with the widespread killing of possibly/probably on animal welfare and public health. I show that:- milions of predominantly native birds and 1. Each year the gamebird-shooting industry mammals each year to protect the commercial releases 47 million ring-necked pheasants and interests of the gamebird-shooting industry. 10 million red-legged partridges (both non- These include the widespread use of poisons, native species) to provide an opportunity for snares, traps and different forms of shooting to participants to pay to kill large numbers of kill native predators and scavengers, all of which gamebirds in a single day. While the number of have significant, and well-established, welfare gamebirds released each year has increased, the concerns. The ecological impacts of killing so proportion that are shot has been declining. The many native predators and scavengers have not density of pheasants reared, released and shot been quantified but are likely to be substantial. in Britain, and in particular in England, greatly 5. It is anomalous that released non-native exceeds that of any other European country. The gamebirds have a close season while a wide quality of the experience when shooting driven range of native predators and scavengers are gamebirds in Britain appears to be equated with routinely killed during their breeding season. the number of birds that are killed. Financial Recognising and respecting animal sentience interests override the environmental, ecological, in Britain is long overdue, whether or not a conservation and animal welfare and public species is a predator and/or scavenger. health impacts of the industry. 6. The only stratified survey of fox numbers in 2. The legal status of ring-necked pheasants and Britain was undertaken at the turn of the century. Many of the pheasants shot each year are surplus to requirements red-legged partridges in Britain is confused, and Since then, a long-term monitoring scheme run the level of protection they receive is inconsistent by the British Trust for Ornithology has shown with their status as an introduced species. While that the number of foxes in Britain has been red-legged partridges (i.e., gamebirds that are 120,000 foxes for a year, although it is not possible the gamebird-shooting industry portrays declining, possibly because of an even greater reared and released but not shot) enter the to determine the proportion of the available pheasants and red-legged partridges as decrease in the numbers of rabbits due to rabbit ecosystem each year. This has widespread gamebird carrion that is consumed by foxes, naturalised, there is no evidence that either haemorrhagic disease. Rabbits were a major environmental, ecological and conservation how much is consumed by other scavengers, species would survive in Britain without food source for foxes in Britain during the second impacts, and has a substantial impact on the and how much decomposes. The number of extensive releases each year and a variety of half of last century. The spread of sarcoptic numbers of predators and scavengers in Britain. foxes supported by predating and/or scavenging other interventions designed to support released non-native gamebirds has increased 10-fold mange may also have contributed to the decline 8. A number of studies have shown that 40% of gamebirds. Both ring-necked pheasants and since the turn of the century. in fox numbers. The scientific evidence does released pheasants and red-legged partridges red-legged partridges are non-native species, not support claims that fox numbers have been (and possibly more) are predated by foxes, i.e., 9. Gamebird shooting is widespread in Britain and and a review of the legal protection they are increasing or that fox densities in Britain are of the 35.8 million kg total biomass of surplus its environmental, ecological and conservation afforded in Britain is long overdue. higher than the rest of Europe. gamebirds released in Britain each year, around impacts affect much, if not all, of lowland Britain. 3. There are a number of significant welfare issues 7. The gamebird-shooting industry produces 14.3 million kg is predated by foxes. Since an The ‘surplus’ gamebirds (i.e., easy-to-catch prey associated with rearing and shooting gamebirds substantial amounts of surplus food for predators/ adult fox requires 180 kg of meat to support and carrion) reared and released each year by in Britain. These include: high predation rates scavengers in the form of captive-reared birds itself for a year, data from the gamebird-shooting the gamebird-shooting industry are available while poults are in their release pens; high levels that are easy to catch and kill, and carcasses of industry show that predation on pheasants and throughout much of the year. Food availability is of mortality on the roads following release; high gamebirds that die of disease, accidents, or are red-legged partridges provides enough food to a major factor that determines fox numbers, and levels of disease; high levels of wounding; and wounded or killed by shooters but not recovered. support 80,000 foxes for a full year. The availability there would be significantly fewer foxes in Britain the number of wounded gamebirds that are not Industry figures show that 33.2 million kg of of carrion from gamebirds that die of other if the gamebird-shooting industry stopped recovered. Self-regulation by the gamebird- surplus pheasants and 2.6 million kg of surplus causes could support anything up to a further providing the supplementary food that supports shooting industry is ineffective, and there is 1 2 NON-NATIVE GAMEBIRDS IN BRITAIN - A REVIEW A REPORT TO THE LABOUR ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY large numbers of predators and scavengers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • I Am a Compassionate Conservation Welfare Scientist
    Opinion I Am a Compassionate Conservation Welfare Scientist: Considering the Theoretical and Practical Differences Between Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare Ngaio J. Beausoleil Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, School of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand; [email protected] Received: 25 October 2019; Accepted: 28 January 2020; Published: 6 February 2020 Simple Summary: The well-being of individual wild animals is threatened in many ways, including by activities aiming to conserve species, ecosystems and biodiversity, i.e., conservation activities. Scientists working in two related disciplines, Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare, are attentive to the well-being of individual wild animals. The purpose of this essay is to highlight the commonalities between these disciplines and to consider key differences, in order to stimulate discussion among interested parties and use our collective expertise and energy to best effect. An emerging scenario, the use of genetic technologies for control of introduced animals, is used to explore the ways each discipline might respond to novel conservation-related threats to wild animal well-being. Abstract: Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare are two disciplines whose practitioners advocate consideration of individual wild animals within conservation practice and policy. However, they are not, as is sometimes suggested, the same. Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare are based on different underpinning ethics, which sometimes leads to conflicting views about the kinds of conservation activities and decisions that are acceptable. Key differences between the disciplines appear to relate to their views about which wild animals can experience harms, the kinds of harms they can experience and how we can know about and confidently evidence those harms.
    [Show full text]
  • MAC1 Abstracts – Oral Presentations
    Oral Presentation Abstracts OP001 Rights, Interests and Moral Standing: a critical examination of dialogue between Regan and Frey. Rebekah Humphreys Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom This paper aims to assess R. G. Frey’s analysis of Leonard Nelson’s argument (that links interests to rights). Frey argues that claims that animals have rights or interests have not been established. Frey’s contentions that animals have not been shown to have rights nor interests will be discussed in turn, but the main focus will be on Frey’s claim that animals have not been shown to have interests. One way Frey analyses this latter claim is by considering H. J. McCloskey’s denial of the claim and Tom Regan’s criticism of this denial. While Frey’s position on animal interests does not depend on McCloskey’s views, he believes that a consideration of McCloskey’s views will reveal that Nelson’s argument (linking interests to rights) has not been established as sound. My discussion (of Frey’s scrutiny of Nelson’s argument) will centre only on the dialogue between Regan and Frey in respect of McCloskey’s argument. OP002 Can Special Relations Ground the Privileged Moral Status of Humans Over Animals? Robert Jones California State University, Chico, United States Much contemporary philosophical work regarding the moral considerability of nonhuman animals involves the search for some set of characteristics or properties that nonhuman animals possess sufficient for their robust membership in the sphere of things morally considerable. The most common strategy has been to identify some set of properties intrinsic to the animals themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • April Zpm 2011
    Linking Wildlife Conservation and Wildlife Welfare: Educator Training Workshop Report B.A. Daniel1, R. Marimuthu2 and S. Walker3 Universities Federation for Animal educational packet called Conservation Welfare (UFAW) based in Gt. Britain, Consciousness linking wildlife works to promote and develop improvements in animal welfare with scientific research and creating awareness globally. UFAW takes a practical approach knowing that certain types of research are necessary and will be carried out despite any amount of protest. So UFAW devises research Left : The “Old School” based in Great Britain is the Headquarters protocols for urgently required medical of the Universities Federation for and other scientific research which Animal Welfare UFAW cause the least possible discomfort for laboratory animals. UFAW has many programmes; see <www.ufaw.org>. Below: UFAW Council and Founded in 1929 with a tagline of S.Walker at their HQ having a Science in the service of animal discussion over high tea welfare UFAW describes itself as an “internationally recognised, independent, scientific and education animal welfare charity concerned with improving knowledge and understanding of animals' needs in order to promote high standards of welfare for farm, companion, laboratory, captive wild animal and those with which we interact in the wild.” Zoo Outreach Organisation has a very long relationship with UFAW and has been much influenced by their combined philosophy of science and practical approach. With support from UFAW, ZOO organized a two-day educator training programme for selected educators involved in wildlife education and conservation in South India. The training programme was organized at Karunya University Campus during 18-19 February 2011 with the them of making conservation and welfare work together for the benefit of wildlife.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Animal & Natural Resource
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL & NATURAL RESOURCE LAW Michigan State University College of Law MAY 2019 VOLUME XV The Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law is published annually by law students at Michigan State University College of Law. The Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law received generous support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Michigan State University College of Law. Without their generous support, the Journal would not have been able to publish and host its annual symposium. The Journal also is funded by subscription revenues. Subscription requests and article submissions may be sent to: Professor David Favre, Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law, Michigan State University College of Law, 368 Law College Building, East Lansing MI 48824, or by email to msujanrl@ gmail.com. Current yearly subscription rates are $27.00 in the U.S. and current yearly Internet subscription rates are $27.00. Subscriptions are renewed automatically unless a request for discontinuance is received. Back issues may be obtained from: William S. Hein & Co., Inc., 1285 Main Street, Buffalo, NY 14209. The Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law welcomes the submission of articles, book reviews, and notes & comments. Each manuscript must be double spaced, in 12 point, Times New Roman; footnotes must be single spaced, 10 point, Times New Roman. Submissions should be sent to [email protected] using Microsoft Word or PDF format. Submissions should conform closely to the 19th edition of The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. All articles contain a 2019 author copyright unless otherwise noted at beginning of article. Copyright © 2019 by the Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law, Michigan State University College of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Être of Conservation Welfare, Which Aligns Conservation and Animal Welfare Objectives
    REVIEW published: 27 November 2018 doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00296 “Feelings and Fitness” Not “Feelings or Fitness”–The Raison d’être of Conservation Welfare, Which Aligns Conservation and Animal Welfare Objectives Ngaio J. Beausoleil 1*, David J. Mellor 1, Liv Baker 2, Sandra E. Baker 3, Mariagrazia Bellio 4, Alison S. Clarke 5, Arnja Dale 6, Steve Garlick 2,7, Bidda Jones 8, Andrea Harvey 2, Benjamin J. Pitcher 9, Sally Sherwen 10, Karen A. Stockin 11 and Sarah Zito 6 1 Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, School of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand, 2 Centre for Compassionate Conservation, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 3 Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, Recanati-Kaplan Centre, University of Oxford, Edited by: Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, 4 Institute of Land Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia, Charlotte Lotta Berg, 5 Veterinary Emergency Centre and Hospital, JCU Vet, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia, 6 Royal New Swedish University of Agricultural Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Auckland, New Zealand, 7 Possumwood Wildlife Recovery and Sciences, Sweden Research, Bungendore, NSW, Australia, 8 Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Australia, Canberra, ACT, Reviewed by: Australia, 9 Taronga Conservation Society Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 10 Zoos Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, Elisabetta Canali, 11 Coastal Marine Research Group, Institute of Natural and Mathematical Sciences, Massey University, Auckland, New Università degli Studi di Verona, Italy Zealand Jason V. Watters, San Francisco Zoo, United States Increasingly, human activities, including those aimed at conserving species and Jill D.
    [Show full text]
  • A Ten-Stage Protocol for Assessing the Welfare of Individual Non-Captive Wild Animals: Free-Roaming Horses (Equus Ferus Caballus) As an Example
    animals Review A Ten-Stage Protocol for Assessing the Welfare of Individual Non-Captive Wild Animals: Free-Roaming Horses (Equus Ferus Caballus) as an Example Andrea M. Harvey 1,*, Ngaio J. Beausoleil 2, Daniel Ramp 1 and David J. Mellor 2 1 Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia; [email protected] 2 Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, School of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Palmerston North 4474, New Zealand; [email protected] (N.J.B.); [email protected] (D.J.M.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 27 November 2019; Accepted: 14 January 2020; Published: 16 January 2020 Simple Summary: Vital for informing debates about the ways we interact with wild animals and their associated habitats is knowledge of their welfare status. To date, scientific assessments of the welfare of free-roaming wild animals during their normal day-to-day lives are not available, in part because the required methodology had not been developed. Accordingly, we have devised, and here describe, a ten-stage protocol for systematically and scientifically assessing the welfare of individual non-captive wild animals, using free-roaming horses as an example. Applying this ten-stage protocol will enable biologists to scientifically assess the welfare of wild animals and should lead to significant advances in the field of wild animal welfare. Abstract: Knowledge of the welfare status of wild animals is vital for informing debates about the ways in which we interact with wild animals and their habitats. Currently, there is no published information about how to scientifically assess the welfare of free-roaming wild animals during their normal day-to-day lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Committing to Conservation the World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy Mountain Gorilla Rwanda Mission Statement
    COMMITTING TO CONSERVATION THE WORLD ZOO AND AQUARIUM CONSERVATION STRATEGY MOUNTAIN GORILLA RWANDA MISSION STATEMENT WAZA is the voice of a global community of zoos and aquariums and a catalyst for their joint conservation action GENERAL | Credits | Contributing Authors CREDITS Title Copyright Committing to Conservation: © 2015 World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy Citation Editors Barongi, R., Fisken, F. A., Parker, M. & Gusset, M. (eds) (2015) Rick Barongi, Fiona A. Fisken, Martha Parker & Markus Gusset Committing to Conservation: The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy. Gland: WAZA Executive Office, 69 pp. Publisher World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) Executive Office, Gland, Switzerland WAZA Executive Office IUCN Conservation Centre Layout and Design Megan Farias, Houston Zoo, TX, USA Rue Mauverney 28 CH-1196 Gland Cover Photography Switzerland Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) © idreamphoto Grey-shanked douc langur (Pygathrix cinerea) © Joel Satore, Photo Ark [email protected] www.waza.org Print Chas. P. Young, Houston, TX, USA ISBN 978-2-8399-1694-3 CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS Rick Barongi Lesley Dickie Heribert Hofer Houston Zoo, Houston, TX 77030, USA IUCN Asian Species Action Partnership Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife (ASAP), UK Research (IZW), 10315 Berlin, Germany Jeffrey P. Bonner Saint Louis Zoo, St Louis, MO 63110, USA Fiona A. Fisken Susan Hunt Zoological Society of London, Zoological Parks Authority, Perth Zoo, Paul Boyle London NW1 4RY,
    [Show full text]
  • Saving Animals: Everyday Practices of Care and Rescue in the US Animal Sanctuary Movement
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 6-2016 Saving Animals: Everyday Practices of Care and Rescue in the US Animal Sanctuary Movement Elan L. Abrell Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1345 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] SAVING ANIMALS: EVERYDAY PRACTICES OF CARE AND RESCUE IN THE US ANIMAL SANCTUARY MOVEMENT by ELAN LOUIS ABRELL A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2016 © 2016 ELAN LOUIS ABRELL All Rights Reserved ii Saving Animals: Everyday Practices of Care and Rescue in the US Animal Sanctuary Movement by Elan Louis Abrell This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Anthropology in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. _________________________ _________________________________________ Date Jeff Maskovsky Chair of Examining Committee _________________________ _________________________________________ Date Gerald Creed Executive Officer Supervisory Committee: Katherine Verdery Melissa Checker THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii ABSTRACT Saving Animals: Everyday Practices of Care and Rescue in the US Animal Sanctuary Movement by Elan Louis Abrell Advisor: Jeff Maskovsky This multi-sited ethnography of the US animal sanctuary movement is based on 24 months of research at a range of animal rescue facilities, including a companion animal shelter in Texas, exotic animal sanctuaries in Florida and Hawaii, and a farm animal sanctuary in New York.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Review the Future of Keeping Pet Reptiles and Amphibians
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UCL Discovery Review The future of keeping pet reptiles and amphibians: towards integrating animal welfare, human health and environmental sustainability F. Pasmansa, S. Bogaertsb, J. Braeckmanc, A. A. Cunninghamd, T. Hellebuycka*, R. A. Griffithse, M. Sparreboomf, B. R. Schmidtg,h, A. Martela a Department of Pathology, Bacteriology and Avian Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium b Lupinelaan 25, NL5582CG Waalre, The Netherlands cDepartment of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium dInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London, NW1 4RY, United Kingdom e Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NR, UK fNaturalis Biodiversity Center, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands g Info Fauna KARCH, Passage Maximilien-de-Meuron 6, 2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland h Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zürich, Switzerland *Corresponding author. Tel.: 32 9 264 7441 E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Hellebuyck) 1 Abstract The keeping of exotic pets is currently under debate and governments of several countries are increasingly exploring the regulation, or even the banning, of exotic pet keeping. Major concerns are issues of public health and safety, animal welfare and biodiversity conservation. The keeping of reptiles and amphibians in captivity encompasses all the potential issues identified with keeping exotic pets, and many of those relating to traditional domestic pets.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolutions of the Conference of the Parties
    Resolutions of the Conference of the Parties 32 NOTE FROM THE SECRETARIAT The Resolutions of the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties were prepared after the meeting on the basis of the following documents: Resolutions Sources Conf. 10.1 Document Com. 10.31 adopted after having been amended Conf. 10.2 Documents Com. 10.18, Com. 10.23, Com. 10.24 and Doc. 10.44 Annex 3 adopted without being amended Conf. 10.3 Resolution Conf. 8.6, adopted at the eighth meeting (Kyoto, 1992), and document Doc. 10.76 Annex adopted after having been amended Conf. 10.4 Document Com. 10.25 adopted without being amended Conf. 10.5 Document Com. 10.28 adopted without being amended Conf. 10.6 Resolution Conf. 4.12, adopted at the fourth meeting (Gaborone, 1983), and document Com. 10.14 adopted without being amended Conf. 10.7 Resolution Conf. 9.11, adopted at the ninth meeting (Fort Lauderdale, 1994), and document Doc. 10.54 Annexes 1 to 3 adopted without being amended Conf. 10.8 Document Com. 10.13 adopted without being amended Conf. 10.9 Document Doc. 10.45 Annex 4 adopted after having been amended Conf. 10.10 Documents Doc. 10.44 Annex 2, Doc. 10.44.2 and Doc. 10.44.3 adopted without being amended Conf. 10.11 Document Doc. 10.92 adopted after having been amended Conf. 10.12 Document Com. 10.40 adopted without being amended Conf. 10.13 Document Com. 10.20 adopted without being amended Conf. 10.14 Resolution Conf. 8.10 (Rev.), adopted at the eighth meeting (Kyoto, 1992) and amended at the ninth meeting (Fort Lauderdale, 1994), and document Doc.
    [Show full text]
  • Custodianship of Wildlife on Private Land to Support Conservation – an Australian Model
    CSIRO PUBLISHING The Rangeland Journal, 2020, 42, 309–321 https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ20039 Custodianship of wildlife on private land to support conservation – an Australian model George WilsonA,B,D, Melanie EdwardsB and Neil ByronC AAustralian National University, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. BAustralian Wildlife Services, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia. CUniversity of Canberra, Institute of Applied Ecology, ACT 2617, Australia. DCorresponding author. Email: [email protected] Abstract. A large proportion of the world’s extinctions have occurred in Australia, and threatened species lists continue to grow, notwithstanding government and philanthropic efforts. Most losses have been on private land, so relying on national parks and reserves is not enough to reverse trends and meet Australia’s responsibilities. This paper proposes a model that could increase abundance and distribution of Australia’s biodiversity, while providing financial incentives to private landholders to do so. It addresses the question, can landholder management of wildlife, and a form of private ownership, remedy shortfalls in government funding for biodiversity conservation and the resulting consequences of vast biodiversity losses? Landholders currently invest in propagating introduced livestock species, but they are prevented by current regulations from investing in a similar manner in threatened Australian native species. Market-based incentives could increase the distribution and abundance of species on private land and help protect the habitat of other biodiversity. The enabling changes would be contentious to some people but are consistent with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Sustainable Use policy. Different versions of wildlife privatisation have been successfully applied internationally: there is urgency for Australia to draw on these experiences and develop its own model to encourage and support wildlife on private freehold land.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Protection of Animals in Israel
    ISSN 2462-7518 LEGAL PROTECTION OF ANIMALS IN ISRAEL Marine Lercier1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction to the animal protection dynamics in Israeli society II. Religious and moral fundaments of animal protection in Judaism III. Overview of the legislation on animals in Israel: cruelty, companions, experiments and wildlife IV. Case law on animal cruelty in Israel V. Further welfare concerns in Judaism and in the State of Israel VI. The future of religious and legal consideration of animals: veganism? VII. Conclusion on the current protection of animals in Israel VIII. References I. Introduction to the animal protection dynamics in Israeli society The lawmakers of Israel have been promoting animal welfare and animal rights in an unprecedented way in recent years, irrespective of their political affiliation; they have united to increase the importance of cruelty to animals and animal suffering as a topic at the Knesset2 - where a Subcommittee for cruelty towards animals has been created3, and Animals Rights Day is marked with vegan dishes to be served to the Members of Parliament4 - in light of the Jewish religious and ethical values. Animal defence organisations do not hesitate to use the opportunity laid down in the Animal Protection Law to refer animal abuse cases to the courts, with some even being taken to the Supreme Court of the State. Aside from Egypt, which 1 Master in Animal Law and Society, UAB, 6th edition. Written in Barcelona, reviewed June 12th of 2017. 2 The Israeli Parliament. http://main.knesset.gov.il/Pages/default.aspx 3 http://knesset.gov.il/committees/eng/committee_eng.asp?c_id=577 4 http://knesset.gov.il/spokesman/eng/PR_eng.asp?PRID=11169 derechoanimal.info Octubre 2017 1 ISSN 2462-7518 inserted into its Constitution the principle of humane treatment of animals in 2014 and criminalized their mistreatment since 1937, Israel5 is the only country in the Middle East to even possess animal anti-cruelty legislation and to regulate their welfare, from the early days of the State on.
    [Show full text]