Wild animal translocations: animal welfare risk assessment guidance

8. Example: applying the Five Domains Model to a translocated beaver in Scotland

This example refers to direct impacts on an individual being translocated for either conservation or management purposes. Beavers have been translocated in Scotland both as part of a planned reintroduction programme and on a reactive basis to remove them from areas where their activity was considered damaging to agricultural land or riparian structure.

In practice, site-specific and other information would also be incorporated. Indirect welfare issues could also be assessed, such as: risks to the individual(s) in not translocating them; indirect welfare impacts on the donor community (e.g., removing socially important individuals); impacts on animals at the receiving site, such as impacts resulting from habitat modification.

It may also be valuable to consider animals of subsequent generations: translocated parental animals may have previously experienced territorial aggression (possibly injury and potential death) yet if translocated to a new “vacant” catchment this risk may not be so great for them and their offspring until population densities increase.

Physical / Functional Domains

Domain 1 - Nutrition / hydration

Examples of Compromises

• Novelty/availability/reliability of food at new site

Examples of Enhancements

• Improved food quality / access to sufficient food of a suitable quality

Domain 2 - Physical environment

Examples of Compromises

• Inappropriate / restricted habitat in new location (e.g., site may have no existing protective structures)
• Lack of options for future dispersal
• Short-term impacts of cage trapping, holding, transport, release into pens

Examples of Enhancements

• Presence of desirable environmental features (e.g., rich riparian habitat diversity)
• Physical environment that allows the maintenance of normal thermal responses through use of typical behavioural and physiological strategies
• Enclosures at release site to encourage site fidelity and allow post-release monitoring

Domain 3 – Health

Examples of Compromises

• Acute or chronic injury because of translocation (including mortality) or tagging
• Exposure to novel diseases and parasites, depending on other species (including beavers) present
• Exposure to predators including human hunters; exposure to other human-related risks such as road traffic
• Exposure to dogs
• Weakness due to loss of appropriate nutrition/lack of food

Examples of Enhancements

• Possibility to have good physical fitness
• Absence/reduction of disease, parasites or injury (e.g. from fighting as beavers are highly territorial)
• Reduction in territorial conflicts and fight injuries when introduced to “vacant” territories – at least until population densities increase

Domain 4 - Behavioural interactions

Examples of Compromises

• Social isolation / loss of social/family networks
• Disruption of complex hierarchies
• Loss of previous positive interactions with conspecifics
• New predators
• Anthropogenic disturbance
• Competing for resources in a novel environment
• May depend on whether individual animals or family groups moved together

Examples of Enhancements

• Able to explore a new environment and participate in new social bonding
• Possible removal from previous predators and environmental and anthropogenic risks
• Physical and social environment allows beavers to engage in species-typical foraging/hunting/reproductive and other social interactions
• Translocated beavers may be protected from damaging interactions with people or man-made environmental features
• Reduction in territorial conflicts and fight injuries when introduced to “vacant” territories – at least until population densities increase

Affective Experience Domain

Domain 5 - Mental state

Examples of Compromises

• There may be initial/continuing negative emotional states: Thirst, hunger, 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
• Fear of humans during the proximate capture and translocation elements

Examples of Enhancements

• Opportunities will develop to experience positive emotional states
• Rewarding engagement from environmental exploration and foraging Gastrointestinal comfort/satiety
• Vitality of fitness
• New affiliative opportunities, if groups are translocated
• Social interactions
• Sense of control/security in the new environment
• Feeling of safety

Evidence in each of these categories would need to be documented, and the harms weighed against the benefits in each, to develop a matrix of likely impacts in terms of their severity and duration. (See Sharp & Saunders, 2011 for more details). The harms and benefits in each domain may operate over different periods, so the basis for overall judgement would need to be given. In general, a very poor assessment in one domain cannot be offset by better assessments in others. However, a benefit of making this assessment may point to mitigating measures that can be implemented to reduce welfare harm. It is usual for the assessment in domain 5 to reflect the poorest assessment from the other four domains. A more nuanced assessment would include a comment on the degree of certainty attached to each domain’s assessment. This combined information could be presented to the licensing authority.