Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35681870›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

Ethical Treatment of Invasive and Native Fauna in Australia: Perspectives through the One Welfare Lens.

Brooke P A Kennedy, Nick Boyle, Peter J S Fleming, Andrea M Harvey, Bidda Jones, Daniel Ramp, Roselyn Dixon, Paul D McGreevy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. One welfare: bibliometric review of world literature.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Brooke P A KennedySchool of Environment and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1337-9705
Nick BoyleTaronga Conservation Society Australia, Bradleys Head Road, Mosman, NSW 2088, Australia.
Peter J S FlemingVertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Orange Agricultural Institute, 1447 Forest Road, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3490-6148
Andrea M HarveyCentre for Compassionate Conservation, TD School, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia.
Bidda JonesSydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Daniel RampCentre for Compassionate Conservation, TD School, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3202-9898
Roselyn DixonSchool of Education, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
Paul D McGreevySchool of Environment and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
University of New England · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AUNew South Wales Department of Primary Industries · AUTaronga Conservation Society Australia · AUThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Wollongong · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The One Welfare concept is proposed to guide humans in the ethical treatment of non-human animals, each other and the environment. One Welfare was conceptualized for veterinarians but could be a foundational concept through which to promote the ethical treatment of animals that are outside of direct human care and responsibility. However, wild-living animals raise additional ethical conundrums because of their multifarious values and roles, and relationships that humans have with them. At an open facilitated forum, the 2018 Robert Dixon Memorial Animal Welfare Symposium, a panel of five experts from different fields shared their perspectives on "loving and hating animals in the wild" and responded to unscripted questions from the audience. The Symposium's objectives were to elucidate views on the ethical treatment of the native and invasive animals of Australia and to identify some of the resultant dilemmas facing conservationists, educators, veterinarians and society. Here, we document the presented views and case studies and synthesize common themes in a One Welfare framework. Additionally, we identified points of contention that can guide further discourse. With this guide in place, the identification and discussion of those disparate views was a first step toward practical resolutions on how to manage wild-living Australian fauna ethically. We concluded that there was great utility in the One Welfare approach for any discourse about wild animal welfare. It requires attention to each element of the triple bottom line and ensures that advocacy for one party does not vanquish the voices from other sectors. We argue that, by facilitating a focus on the ecology in the context of wild animal issues, One Welfare is more useful in this context than the veterinary context for which it was originally developed.

Indexed as

animal welfare and ethics continuumbiodiversityconservationferal animalsinvasive speciespopulation controlzoos

Identifiers

PMID35681870
PMCPMC9179540
OpenAlexW4281924764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.