Type 1 and 2 activities present the challenges that are typically addressed in animal ethics and animal
welfare science, whereas Type 3 and 4 activities have been largely ignored. Each type raises different
scientific, ethical and practical challenges.
Type 1 — Keeping animals
In many of the situations where people keep animals, actions that benefit the animals will also, to a
certain degree and within certain limits, benefit the human keepers. For example, certain improvements to
animal housing can increase both animal health and economic productivity (eg Tauson 1998); high-
welfare environments for laboratory animals can reduce chronic stress and may lead to more valid
experimental results (eg Reinhardt & Rossell 2001; Sherwin 2004); owners of working animals can
achieve significant economic benefits by treating animal diseases (eg Samui & Hugh-Jones 1990); and
low-stress handling of food-producing animals can lead to improved growth and reproduction (Hemsworth
& Coleman 1998).
There are, of course, many important exceptions and limitations to the relationship between positive
animal welfare and benefits to human keepers. First, artificial incentives can encourage people to act in
ways that are harmful to animals. For example, high-value animal products are produced by restricting
access to iron and forage in calves raised for ‘white’ veal, and by force-feeding birds to produce foie-gras
from pathologically fat livers (Morisse et al 1994; SCAHAW 1998). The criteria used to judge show dogs,
and commercial incentives for production animals, can encourage genetic selection for extreme traits at
the expense of the health and longevity of the animals (Rauw et al 1998; McGreevy & Nicholas 1999;
Sandøe et al 1999).
Second, economic constraints can discourage or prevent animal-keepers from taking actions that would
benefit animals. As examples, animals may be given very limited living space because farm buildings are
costly to construct and maintain; the income from production animals may be too low for farmers to afford
vaccines and other products that would promote animal health; and attention to sick animals may not be
economical if the cost of farm labour and veterinary assistance is high (Rollin 2004; Fraser 2008b).
The keeping of animals raises a wide range of scientific, practical and ethical challenges. One scientific
and practical challenge is to find better animal-care practices that also benefit animal-keepers and are
therefore likely to be adopted. Another is to identify and eliminate economic and other constraints that
stand in the way of better animal care. Some important ethical issues are: what form and level of care are
ethically appropriate for veterinarians and owners of companion animals (Morgan & McDonald 2007)?;
how should one decide whether to rehabilitate or euthanise injured wild animals (Dubois & Fraser 2003)?;
and can a high level of care justify the use of animals for purposes such as labour or food production?
Type 2 — Causing deliberate harm to animals
Harm to animals is deliberate and inherent in activities such as slaughter and ‘pest’ control, but usually
there are ways of conducting these activities that result in better or worse outcomes for the animals.
In the hunting of wildlife and the slaughter of food animals, although death is caused intentionally, animal
suffering is a common but often unnecessary by-product. Red deer (Cervus elaphus), for instance, can be
killed by expert shooters with much less distress than is caused by hunting with dogs and horses