Wild animal translocations: animal welfare risk assessment guidance

7. The Five Domains Model

Information about biological function and behaviour of the species concerned is collected to inform the four physical / functional domains. Ideally there will be scientific evidence linking information in these domains to inferred mental experiences in the fifth domain (Mellor et al., 2020). In relation to many translocations, this information may only be partly available or more likely completely unavailable. In this case, evidence from related wildlife species or, less robustly, other similar animals more generally, may be substituted until this evidence gap is rectified. In the absence of any relevant evidence, the advice of species experts could be sought, recognising that this is only a partial solution. As we move away from species-specific data, the decline in the level of confidence in any outcome must be recorded. It is acknowledged that the Five Domains model is a conceptual way to explore possible welfare compromises and enhancements of particular situations rather than being itself an assessment tool (Hampton et al., 2023). However, it does provide a recognised structural framework for bringing evidence together.

In the early 2000s, a panel of officials, scientists and animal welfare experts carried out a project for the Australian Government to devise a model for assessing the relative humaneness of pest animal control methods. The resultant paper (Sharp and Saunders, 2011) remains a model for applying the Five Domains to the welfare of wild animals subject to human control and has been replicated in some settings (e.g., Dolman et al., 2020). However, it would not be realistic to propose that every wild animal translocation be made subject to such a lengthy, detailed and resource-intensive process. Instead, a simplified worked example is provided in the next section as an initial guide.

The information used to populate the domains should include all phases of the translocation process and distinguish between short-term and long-term risks. If relevant, the assessment may need to include evidence of the welfare compromises to an animal in its existing location (which, for example, the translocation may be designed to address).

There would need to be separate welfare assessments for species potentially impacted at the host site (e.g., in the case of proposals to introduce predators).

In the following, some generic potential compromises are shown. Many of the enhancements are particularly relevant if a conservation translocation is involved. (Some adapted from Harvey et al., 2023) In each Domain, species-specific examples would need to be generated. Using this approach to document issues relevant to each domain introduces the necessary degree of transparency which will maximise stakeholder buy-in.

Physical / Functional Domains

Domain 1 - Nutrition / hydration

Examples of Compromises

• Restricted food or water intake
• Low food quality

Examples of Enhancements

• Improved food quality / access to sufficient food/water of a suitable quality (e.g., relative abundance of typical species-specific prey or forage)

Domain 2 - Physical environment

Examples of Compromises

• Inappropriate / restricted habitat in new location (e.g., lack of shelter and safety)

Examples of Enhancements

• Avoidance of habitat loss / disruption in previous location
• Presence of desirable environmental features (e.g., opportunities to explore) Physical environment that allows the species to maintain normal thermal responses through use of species-typical behavioural and physiological strategies

Domain 3 – Health

Examples of Compromises

• Acute or chronic injury
• Exposure to novel diseases and parasites
• Exposure to predators including human hunters
• Weakness due to loss of appropriate nutrition/lack of prey

Examples of Enhancements

• Move away from predators
• Possibility to have good physical fitness Absence/reduction of disease, parasites or injury

Domain 4 - Behavioural interactions

Examples of Compromises

• Social isolation / loss of social/family networks
• Disruption of complex hierarchies
• Loss of positive interactions with conspecifics
• New predators
• Anthropogenic disturbance
• Competing for resources in a novel environment

Examples of Enhancements

• Ability to explore a new environment and participate in new social bonding
• Possible removal from previous predators/social threats
• Physical and social environment allows the animal to engage in species-typical exploratory/navigation/foraging/hunting/
• reproductive and other social interactions
• Animals protected from damaging interactions with people (or species in the environment which would not be native to the normal habitat for the species)
• Reduced competition with conspecifics and other species

Affective Experience Domain

Domain 5 - Mental state

Examples of Compromises

• Presence of negative emotional states: thirst, hunger, pain, anxiety, fear
• Weakness
• Exhaustion
• Thermal discomfort
• Social isolation
• Frustration from inability to perform social behaviours including finding a suitable mate
• Loneliness from loss of conspecifics
• Lack of security/control

Examples of Enhancements

• Opportunities to experience mostly positive emotional states
• Rewarding engagement from environmental exploration and foraging
• Gastrointestinal comfort/satiety
• Vitality of fitness
• New affiliative opportunities
• Social interactions
• Sense of control/security