Jones Bidda, Herbert Catherine, Finnerty Samantha, Kennedy Brooke, Lykins Amy, Martin John M, McManus Phil, Raubenheimer David, Shaw Michelle, McGreevy Paul D
School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Australian Alliance for Animals, 16 Goodhope Street, Paddington, NSW 2021, Australia.
Animals (Basel). 2023 Nov 14;13(22):3518. doi: 10.3390/ani13223518.
Australia's 2019-2020 bushfires had a devastating impact on animals, humans, and ecosystems. They also demonstrated the lack of evidence or guidance for wildlife provisioning in response to severe fire events when volunteers and wildlife organisations rose to respond. In addition, the unprecedented scale and intensity of the fires and an absence of institutional support for wildlife provisioning meant that well-intentioned interventions were largely uncoordinated and lacked clear short-term, mid-term, and long-term objectives. Fundamentally, a lack of consensus was revealed on whether any such interventions are advisable. Given the strong evidence indicating that future bushfire seasons will become longer and more intense in Australia and elsewhere, the welfare and survival of millions of wild animals are at risk every year. Understanding the impacts of supplementary resource interventions and contributing to the development of best practice information is crucial to inform the response to the next major fire event. Here, we contextualize the arguments for and against provisioning within a 'One Welfare' framework that recognizes that animal welfare, biodiversity, and the environment are intertwined with human welfare and community resilience. We propose that the One Welfare approach can facilitate appropriate consideration of the extant scientific and lay literature; local legislation; views of stakeholders; emerging data; and modelling from historic fire events. As a further step, we see merit in engaging with wildlife provisioners and the broader conservation community to build an evidence base for future wildlife provisioning activities. From an informed position, we can encourage beneficial interventions and reduce the risk of negative outcomes. Finally, we propose controlled experiments (e.g., using hazard reduction burns), ongoing data collection using emergent technology, and longitudinal analysis to address shifting research priorities as the climate changes. We conclude that the ordered collection of the necessary evidence relevant to each of the three stakeholder groups in the One Welfare framework has the greatest potential to support an informed policy platform on wildlife provisioning across Australia that is feasible, legal, and sustainable.
澳大利亚2019 - 2020年的丛林大火对动物、人类和生态系统造成了毁灭性影响。这些大火还表明,在志愿者和野生动物组织奋起应对严重火灾事件时,缺乏关于野生动物供给的证据或指导。此外,火灾前所未有的规模和强度以及缺乏对野生动物供给的机构支持,意味着善意的干预措施在很大程度上缺乏协调,并且缺乏明确的短期、中期和长期目标。从根本上说,对于是否应该进行此类干预措施,尚未达成共识。鉴于有力证据表明,澳大利亚及其他地区未来的丛林火灾季节将变得更长、强度更大,每年数百万野生动物的福祉和生存都面临风险。了解补充资源干预措施的影响并促进最佳实践信息的发展,对于应对下一次重大火灾事件至关重要。在此,我们将支持和反对供给的论点置于“同一福祉”框架中进行背景分析,该框架认识到动物福利、生物多样性和环境与人类福利及社区复原力相互交织。我们建议,同一福祉方法能够促进对现有科学文献和大众文献、地方法规、利益相关者观点、新出现的数据以及历史火灾事件模型的适当考量。进一步而言,我们认为与野生动物供给者和更广泛的保护社区合作,为未来的野生动物供给活动建立证据基础具有重要意义。基于充分的信息,我们可以鼓励有益的干预措施并降低负面结果的风险。最后,我们建议进行对照实验(例如使用减少危害的烧荒),利用新兴技术持续收集数据,并进行纵向分析,以应对气候变化导致的研究重点变化。我们得出结论,在同一福祉框架下,有序收集与三个利益相关者群体各自相关的必要证据,最有潜力支持一个关于澳大利亚野生动物供给的明智政策平台,该平台可行、合法且可持续。