Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:02:42.748Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Better rodent control by better regulation: regulatory incentives and regulator support to improve the humaneness of rodent control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

KE Littin
KE Littin*
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, PO Box 2526, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
*
email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Regulation by government can act as a constraint to improving the humaneness of rodent control, or it can be used to support improvements. How do we make sure it does one and not the other? Societal support and understanding, economic impacts and current knowledge can all ‘make or break’ progress towards improved rodent control. This is also true in the development of regulations to support this improvement. Moreover, the development of regulations can itself slow progress towards better rodent control. There are many ways that governments, working in a national co-ordination role and as research funders, animal pest managers and regulators, can support a move towards improved rodent control. Progress will depend on finding ways that meet the need to control the impacts of rodents as pests and that are acceptable to citizens and budgets.

Keywords

animal welfarepest managementpolicyregulationrodenticiderodents
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue S1: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Making animal improvements: Economic and other incentives and constraints’ Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, UK, 2011 , May 2012 , pp. 137 - 140
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anonymous 1999 The Animal Welfare Act. Public Act 1999 No 142. www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0142/latest/DLM49664.htmlGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 2010 Pest Management National Plan of Action. MAF Biosecurity New Zealand: New Zealand. www.biosecurity.govt.nzGoogle Scholar
Buckle, AP and Smith, RH 1994 Rodent Pests and their Control. CAB Publishing: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2012 Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare. EFSA Journal 10: 2513. 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513. www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournalCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humane Vertebrate Pest Control Working Group 2004 A national approach towards humane vertebrate pest control. Discussion paper arising from the proceedings of an RSPCA Australia/AWC/VPC joint workshop. 4-5 August 2003, Melbourne, Australia. RSPCA Australia: Canberra, Australia. http://kb.rspca.org.au/How-can-pest-control-programs-be-made-more-humane_152.htmlGoogle Scholar
Littin, KE, Mellor, DJ, Warburton, B and Eason, CT 2004 Animal welfare and ethical issues relevant to the humane control of vertebrate pests. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 52: 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2004.36384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pest Management Alliance 2010 Code of Best Practice Humane Use of Rodent Glue Boards. www.pmalliance.org.uk/glueboards.htmlGoogle Scholar
Sharp, T and Saunders, G 2005 Humane Pest Animal Control: Codes of Practice and Standard Operating Procedures. NSW Department of Primary Industries: Orange, Australia. www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/vertebrate-pests/codes-of-practice/operating-procedures/humane-pest-animal-controlGoogle Scholar
Sharp, T and Saunders, G 2011 A Model for Assessing the Relative Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods, Second Edition. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Canberra, ACT, Australia. http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/welfare/aaws/humaneness-of-pest-animal-control-methodsGoogle Scholar
Warburton, B, Tompkins, DM, Choquenot, D and Cowan, P 2012 Minimising number killed in long-term vertebrate pest management programmes, and associated economic incentives. Animal Welfare 21(S1): 141–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905674123CrossRefGoogle Scholar