Scottish Animal Welfare Commission: welfare of isolated populations of feral animals - report

6. Conclusions and recommendations

In our evaluation of the issues with feral small ruminants, it is apparent that the animals were brought to the British Isles by humans and have found themselves in their current locations due to human interventions. Although attitudes and responses to the two species differ, we do not see that there is a distinction in the histories or scale of human interventions that justifies formulating different policies, practices or values for the two species. Each has been part of the development of agricultural practices in Britain until each has been superseded by other livestock that were considered more lucrative (newer sheep breeds or cattle). Goats can be more destructive of the environments in which they now find themselves, but this does not seem sufficient justification for management policies which disregard their welfare. It thus appears that if humans have an ethical duty to one species, then they also do to the other.

Our consideration of these two species reflects that they appear to be functionally wild: they possess adaptations which allows them to exploit the environments in which they live and, despite having once been domestic animals under the care of man, they are capable of living and thriving without human interventions. However, even when adapted to the environment, animals will die, and usually of causes that are unpleasant for the animals to experience and can involve prolonged suffering. In common with wild animals, the most vulnerable members of the population are the very young, juveniles entering their first winters and older animals. These are susceptible to starvation and the effects of cold winters predominantly but may also experience disease challenges and parasitism. Our review of the evidence suggests that feral animals are no more susceptible to these impacts than wild animals. Thus, their previous history of domestication has not left them more vulnerable or less able to cope with challenges experienced in an unmanaged state compared to wild animals. However, animals may have been brought to more remote or isolated locations by humans, and this may constrain their abilities to seek new food sources in times of limited resource availability. This could be considered to place an additional ethical responsibility on humans to respond to their suffering compared to wild animals.

A core component of our investigation has been what might be possible in terms of management or intervention, if there is an ethical responsibility for animals that have been placed in isolated locations by humans, even if this was a long time ago. A clear conclusion from this work has been that there is no simple solution. Each option carries risks:

• it may only be possible to mitigate some but not all of the suffering of these animals;

• it may be impossible to mitigate any suffering of animals in inaccessible locations;

• there are likely to be additional impacts on animal welfare that may negate the attempts to reduce suffering;

• uncertainty about whether the proposed solution may ultimately make welfare for the animals worse;

• some may also carry significant risks for human safety.

With this in mind, we find we are considering which is the least bad of the range of options proposed, rather than being able to advocate strongly for any one solution as a way of unambiguously improving welfare. This emphasises the need for a welfare impact assessment of different management approaches, ideally by an independent body, which can evaluate the potential welfare impacts. For our own assessment, we made use of the Five Domains model³⁷ as one that is gaining traction as the predominant approach to assessing welfare (e.g. as recently adopted by World Organisation for Animal Health, 2025)¹⁰⁹, which allowed us to evaluate both the positive and negative impacts of any management action. In this work we had to rely on assessments and assumptions based on the welfare of domestic animals, and in some places of wild animals, as there are remarkably few studies which consider the welfare of feral animals directly. We consider that further research is needed to understand the welfare of animals that live in a wild state (whether feral or wild) and to develop new metrics and indicators that could make similar assessments more straightforward in future.

The death of animals is a core part of this investigation. That is whether it is acceptable for animals to die of natural causes which involve prolonged suffering, or whether it would be better for animals to be killed by humans to prevent further suffering. Both sheep and goats are already killed by humans, generally for anthropocentric reasons such as consumption or to manage populations, by methods that are better in welfare terms than natural causes, especially starvation. Human values are central to this consideration, but also we recognise that the animals themselves have an interest in this, which is often overlooked. This can be challenging ethically, and we acknowledge that different values and ethical positions may prioritise the avoidance of suffering over the opportunity for animals to live natural or unconstrained lives in the wild. Differing ethical positions may also lead to different conclusions about the acceptability of culling or moving animals from one location to another to meet human goals. The conclusions and recommendations reached in this report reflect the considered views of the SAWC on the basis of the knowledge available to us at the time of preparing the report. It is possible that, over time, different conclusions may be reached as to what is acceptable or not in the treatment of feral animals.

Overall conclusions and recommendations

Ethical status of feral small ruminants: On the basis that sheep and goats have a similar history of arrival in the British Isles and a similar history of domestication, role in British agriculture and abandonment by man, we consider that they deserve equal consideration of their welfare in the formulation of policy. We do not address the legal position of feral animals but note the extent of dissent from the Scottish Government’s current position regarding the St Kilda sheep.

Approaches to the management of feral animals vary depending on where they are living, leading to inconsistent welfare outcomes. Thus, this report was triggered by there being no clear legislation to protect welfare that applies to these animals: petitions were raised suggesting that the Soay sheep on St Kilda should be considered as domestic sheep and their care should fall under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, whereas concerns about the welfare of goats of Langholm and Newcastleton focused on the fact that these animals were not considered as protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We believe that a consistent position that allows due regard for the welfare needs of feral animals should be developed to provide clarity and recognise that, as sentient animals, their welfare needs matter.

Recommendation 1: Management of feral animals for their welfare as part of stewardship planning

Wild animals are not owned but they can be – and are, in the case of wild deer – managed for their welfare. Whether there should be a legal requirement applicable to feral animals is for others to decide but if proportionate intervention is possible, SAWC believes that it should take place. As a rule, this responsibility would fall on the owner or steward of the land where the animals live. The role of SAWC is to advise the Scottish Ministers and therefore this recommendation can only take the form of advice that may be passed on to the relevant parties. In the case of the St Kilda sheep, SAWC advises that a management plan for animal welfare should be drawn up by the National Trust for Scotland, owned by that organisation but with input from other relevant bodies such as the Soay Sheep Project, Nature Scot and the Scottish Government. Examples of elements that could potentially be part of the plan include:

• Yearly assessment of the welfare and potential survivability of individuals, which could be carried out at the time of the annual SSP gathering on the island of Hirta (though we note this only considers a sub-set of the population of Soay sheep)

• Providing for monitoring of the welfare of individual sheep as part of visits to or inspections of other parts of Hirta or the wider archipelago, wherever practicable

• Protocols for management of animals found in a poor state of welfare at any time of the year, for example by employing a ranger or experienced stock person with responsibility for monitoring the sheep

• A policy of swift euthanasia (see also Recommendation 2 below) for any animal identified as suffering and unlikely to recover within a reasonable time

• Protocols for dealing with any scenario such as a disease outbreak or mass starvation event that may, in future, require large scale intervention such as culling or translocation

This is a non-exhaustive list of suggestions and SAWC would expect the National Trust for Scotland to consider the options in greater detail and with independent veterinary advice, if this recommendation should be adopted.

Here we have focused on the stewardship of the Soay sheep as an isolated and remote population. However, similar approaches could also be applied to those managing land where there are significant populations of other wild small ruminants, with similar considerations for assessment of welfare and options to intervene to improve welfare or end suffering. Where management plans consider the need to translocate the animals to another location we would also recommend that land managers include elements of welfare assessment and risk management as we have outlined in our report¹⁰⁸ on translocation and reintroduction of wildlife.

Ethical concerns around the welfare of feral animals: SAWC believes the introduction of feral animals by humans onto isolated, island locations from which they cannot escape is a particular case where there is a specific ethical duty for humans to give additional consideration to mitigation of their suffering, compared to wild herbivores which could have arrived there naturally. Our welfare assessment of the different options suggests that this would necessarily be limited but we do suggest that taking steps to euthanise feral animals that are sick, dying or unlikely to be able to recover would be a suitable and humane approach to reduce suffering. We do not suggest guidance on what form this might take, or how suffering animals might be identified, but we would recommend that management plans for locations with feral animals include measures to minimise suffering through appropriate euthanasia.

Recommendation 2: Euthanasia of feral animals for their welfare

In the absence of one coherent, pre-emptive solution to the welfare issues of isolated feral populations (at least without potentially significant negative consequences for welfare in related or unrelated areas), provision to euthanise animals for the timely relief of suffering is essential. The role of SAWC is to advise the Scottish Ministers and therefore this recommendation can only take the form of advice that may be passed on to the relevant parties.

On St Kilda, whether as part of a wider management plan or as a stand-alone intervention, SAWC advises that the National Trust for Scotland should make provision for immediate euthanasia of any individual sheep found to be suffering and unlikely to recover by:

• Ensuring that the necessary equipment and veterinary drugs are available and accessible by appropriately trained personnel at all times, and that these supplies are carried on inspections outwith Village Bay, wherever practicable

• Drawing up a policy for dealing with dependent lambs, if their mother requires to be euthanised

• Drawing up a policy for carcass disposal

SAWC advises that such provision should be made before the onset of the next winter season.

Although this recommendation has focused on Soay sheep on St Kilda we recommend that similar interventions are included in the feral animal management plans for other feral small ruminants and a similar process of actions should be implemented

Ethical concerns around management of feral small ruminants: Whether feral small ruminants are to be managed to mitigate some aspects of poor welfare, or where management is to remove animals from locations where they conflict with human interests, we consider that most options are constrained by the risks of causing greater welfare compromise than is currently experienced. Where animals are found in environments that are more accessible, and where population sizes are relatively small, there may be a greater range of options available to managers to relocate animals to a new location or to carry out sensitive culling of family groups. However, we are concerned about the unintended consequences for welfare of some interventions and recommend that a full welfare impact assessment is considered before any specific interventions are applied.

Where management is considered, the International Consensus Principles for Ethical Wildlife Control should be applied, and the welfare of the animals to be relocated or culled should be given full consideration. Functionally-wild herbivores should be protected by closed seasons in the same way as those that are truly wild.

Recommendation 3: Culling or translocation of feral small ruminants

Any management of feral sheep or goats, in any location, that involves culling or translocation should be preceded by an animal welfare impact assessment. The Scottish Ministers could provide for this on a statutory basis or advise land managers how to carry out impact assessments on a voluntary basis. Although there are several welfare instruments for assessing the welfare of domestic sheep and goats these are likely to need further adaptation to suit a feral environment. However, we recommend the use of a framework, such as the widely accepted Five Domains approach, which has been used for assessing welfare of wild animals and considers both positive and negative impacts of intervention across a range of measures (incorporating consideration of nutrition, health, environment and behavioural interactions, integrated by their impact on mental state).

Recommendation 4: Closed season for feral small ruminants

This recommendation is primarily relevant to the situation of feral goats in Scotland when they are subject to culling operations. As noted above, SAWC recommends that any such operations are carried out in line with the International Consensus Principles for Ethical Wildlife Control. However, these are open to a degree of interpretation depending on circumstances. One area which should not be discretionary is the period permitted for such operations. SAWC recommends that the Scottish Ministers should introduce a statutory closed season for feral small ruminants in order to protect dependent young, as is currently the case for wild deer.

Need for future research: There were several places in this investigation where there was insufficient evidence for us to make scientifically informed recommendations. In particular, we considered that the option to manage population size of large herbivores through control of female fertility held promise and could reduce the welfare impacts of culling, or effects of large population densities. However, further research is needed to ensure that there are suitable welfare-friendly methods for this, that are sufficiently long lasting to reduce the need for multiple capture events, are reversible and do not cause pathogenic outcomes for treated females or their subsequent offspring. In addition, some pharmaceutical products used in other countries may not be licensed for use in the UK.

We also consider that further consideration of suitable welfare metrics for wild and feral mammals should be developed as this would greatly aid welfare impact assessments. Although mortalities are important information, this is a very blunt tool to assess the full impact of the lives of animals living outside human intervention. However, these have often been the only direct evidence available in assessing welfare of feral small ruminants. New welfare thinking argues for the consideration of allowing animals to live purposeful and meaningful lives, that allow the development of competency and agency, in a wider concept of animal welfare that goes beyond a focus on avoidance of suffering^6,110. Further research into the meaning of welfare for all sentient animals, including feral and wild animals, and ethical considerations of our responsibilities to these animals, would be valuable for future considerations of welfare issues facing feral animals.

In our discussions about Soay sheep, there was limited and largely anecdotal evidence that some animals continue to be reproductively active into old age, certainly ages that are far beyond those to which sheep are kept on commercial farms. In addition, these animals appear to be less likely to suffer from conditions, such as tooth loss, chronic mastitis or lameness that is often seen in older commercially farmed ewes. This is of interest in terms of population biology but also suggests that research on functionally-wild populations may bring welfare benefits to commercially owned sheep and goats by a deeper understanding of which animals may be more resilient to environmental challenge. These populations may hold as yet unexploited potential to improve the welfare of domestic small ruminants.

Recommendation 5: Need for further research into the welfare of feral animals

We recommend that Scottish Government considers opportunities to promote or prioritise research that could directly benefit the welfare of feral small ruminants. Although not an exhaustive list, we have identified two areas of future research need that would be beneficial in future management or welfare interventions for feral animals, some of which may also have wider value in the welfare of free-living wild animals. In the basis of this work we highlight two specific areas:

• Research on practical, feasible and welfare-friendly methods to manage females fertility through immunological or pharmaceutical means that can be readily administered in a free-living population. Assessments of any welfare related issues (such as requirements for repeated capture or longer term negative effects) and the efficacy of such products for limiting population size is required.

• Methods for assessing the welfare of free-living and feral animals that take into account current thinking on animal welfare and can allow welfare impact assessments to take place in determining interventions to wild or feral populations. Such impact assessments are likely to have a range of impacts and uses, not just for isolated feral populations, and would allow the type of welfare considerations undertaken in this report to by supported by stronger scientific evidence.