Abstracts » Zoology and wildlife conservation

Assessing animal priorities: future directions

Article Abstract:

The replies by L.R. Matthews and C.M. Sherwin et al. with regards to the use of economic principles to represent animal preferences failed to resolve a number of issues. These include the argument that manipulating access fees for unrestricted periods of interaction is not a proper technique for establishing demand curves. Also, Sherwin and Nichols' claim that they used the word 'luxury' to indicate activities that are abandoned when there is not enough time is a weak argument because they examined used fees that had minimal effect on the animals' time allocations.

---

A demanding task: using economic techniques to assess animal priorities

Article Abstract:

Examination of the articles by L.R. Matthews on the environmental needs of pigs and C.M. Sherwin's study on the access to resources of laboratory mice indicates that their investigations could be improved through the application of economic principles for evaluating animal priorities. The use of the proper demand curves and rankings of priorities that represent animal behavior also increase the possibility for finding results which are of importance in enhancing animal welfare.

---

A demanding task: using economic techniques to assess animal priorities. A reply to Mason et al

Article Abstract:

Georgia Mason et al.'s comments on the use of economic principles such as demand curves to represent animal preferences may be only possible from hindsight. Also, the four alternative solutions which they have suggested for assessing behavioral priorities do not solve all of the problems which they have raised. Three of the four solutions cannot be applied for demand curves. Moreover, some of the criticisms raised are from misinterpretations of terminology.

Some parts © 2013 Advameg, Inc.