Capture–mark–recapture methods have been extensively used to estimate abundance, demography, and life history parameters of populations of several taxa. However, the high mobility of many species means that dedicated surveys are logistically complicated and expensive. Use of opportunistic data may be an alternative, if modeling takes into account the inevitable heterogeneity in capture probability from imperfect detection and incomplete sampling, which can produce significant bias in parameter estimates. Here, we compare covariate‐based open Jolly‐Seber models (POPAN) and multi‐state open robust design (MSORD) models to estimate demographic parameters of the sperm whale population summering in the Azores, from photo‐identification data collected opportunistically by whale‐watching operators and researchers. The structure of the MSORD also allows for extra information to be obtained, estimating temporary emigration and improving precision of estimated parameters. Estimates of survival from both POPAN and MSORD were high, constant, and very similar. The POPAN model, which partially accounted for heterogeneity in capture probabilities, estimated an unbiased super‐population of ~1470 whales, with annual abundance showing a positive trend from 351 individuals (95% CI: 234–526) in 2010 to 718 (95% CI: 477–1082) in 2015. In contrast, estimates of abundance from MSORD models that explicitly incorporated imperfect detection due to temporary emigration were less biased, more precise, and showed no trend over years, from 275 individuals (95% CI: 188–404) in 2014 to 367 (95% CI: 248–542) in 2012. The MSORD estimated short residence time and an even‐flow temporary emigration, meaning that the probability of whales emigrating from and immigrating to the area was equal. Our results illustrate how failure to account for transience and temporary emigration can lead to biased estimates and trends in abundance, compromising our ability to detect true population changes. MSORD models should improve inferences of population dynamics, especially when capture probability is low and highly variable, due to wide‐ranging behavior of individuals or to non‐standardized sampling. Therefore, these models should provide less biased estimates and more accurate assessments of uncertainty that can inform management and conservation measures.

Despite the known benefit of considering welfare within wildlife conservation and management, there remains a lack of data to inform such evaluations. To assess animal welfare, relevant information must be captured scientifically and systematically. A key first step is identifying potential indicators of welfare and the practicality of their measurement. We assessed the feasibility of evaluating potential welfare indicators from opportunistically gathered video footage of four stranded odontocete species (n = 53) at 14 stranding events around New Zealand. The first stranded cetacean ethogram was compiled, including 30 different behaviours, 20 of which were observed in all four species. Additionally, thirteen types of human intervention were classified. A subset of 49 live stranded long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas edwardii) were assessed to determine indicator prevalence and to quantify behaviours. Four ‘welfare status’ and six ‘welfare alerting’ non-behavioural indicators could be consistently evaluated from the footage. Additionally, two composite behavioural indicators were feasible. Three human intervention types (present, watering, and touching) and five animal behaviours (tail flutter, dorsal fin flutter, head lift, tail lift, and head side-to-side) were prevalent (>40% of individuals). Our study highlights the potential for non-invasive, remote assessments via video footage and represents an initial step towards developing a systematic, holistic welfare assessment framework for stranded cetaceans.

Integrating welfare principles into conservation strategy is an emerging synthesis that encourages consideration of individual animals’ quality of life in research, policies and law. However, these principles have gained limited traction in marine compared to terrestrial animal conservation. This manuscript investigates several factors that may be contributing to this disparity. In order to gauge current understanding of animal welfare science principles by marine mammal researchers and other stakeholders, a “Welfare in the Wild” workshop was convened at the 32nd European Cetacean Society conference (La Spezia, Italy, April 2018). The workshop was attended by 30 participants who completed pre- and post-workshop surveys on animal welfare principles. The survey results highlight a range of different views about exactly what animal welfare science is and how it can be applied to marine mammals. Specifically, participants’ definitions appeared to vary depending on the type of employment or research they engaged in, indicating a need for an interdisciplinary common language. Secondly, we analysed the peer-reviewed literature in order to ascertain where marine mammal publications exploring welfare were being published. From 1950 to July 2020, a total of 299 articles featured both marine mammal taxa (one or more) and the word welfare in the title, abstract or keywords. This represents just 0.96% of the total peer-reviewed published papers on marine mammal taxa (n = 31,221) during the same period. When examining articles published within “Welfare and Ethics” (n = 6133) and “Aquatic-focused” (n = 139,352) journals, just 1.2% (n = 71) and 0.04% (n = 57) of articles, respectively, featured the word welfare when examining marine mammals. With the aim of exploring how explicitly including welfare evaluations in marine mammal research and management can benefit conservation outcomes, we framed our workshop and quantitative literature review findings to provide practical solutions to the language, translation and reception issues of this burgeoning cross-disciplinary collaboration.

Wildlife management can influence animal welfare and survival, although both are often not explicitly integrated into decision making. This study explores fundamental concepts and key concerns relating to the welfare and survival of stranded cetaceans. Using the Delphi method, the opinions of an international, interdisciplinary expert panel were gathered, regarding the characterisation of stranded cetacean welfare and survival likelihood, knowledge gaps and key concerns. Experts suggest that stranded cetacean welfare should be characterised based on interrelated aspects of animals’ biological function, behaviour, and mental state and the impacts of human interventions. The characterisation of survival likelihood should reflect aspects of stranded animals’ biological functioning and behaviour as well as a 6-month post-re-floating survival marker. Post-release monitoring was the major knowledge gap for survival. Welfare knowledge gaps related to diagnosing internal injuries, interpreting behavioural and physiological parameters, and euthanasia decision making. Twelve concerns were highlighted for both welfare and survival likelihood, including difficulty breathing and organ compression, skin damage and physical traumas, separation from conspecifics, and suffering and stress due to stranding and human intervention. These findings indicate inextricable links between perceptions of welfare state and the likely survival of stranded cetaceans and demonstrate a need to integrate welfare science alongside conservation biology to achieve effective, ethical management at strandings.

Management of live cetacean strandings generally focuses on refloating animals, yet there is a lack of scientific data to inform decision-making. Valid indicators that are practical to measure are needed to assess welfare status and survival likelihood for stranded cetaceans. The Delphi method was applied to gather international and interdisciplinary expert opinion to provide face validity to potential indicators of stranded cetacean welfare and survival likelihood. Two online questionnaires were conducted. In the first questionnaire these experts identified potential indicators of stranded cetacean welfare and survival likelihood. These indicators were subsequently scored by the same experts in questionnaire two, based on their value for assessing welfare/survival likelihood and being practical to measure. Indicators considered valuable and practical for assessing welfare and survival likelihood at strandings included animal-based indices of body and skin condition, signs of physical trauma, respiration rate and various behaviours. Resource-/management-based indicators related mainly to human intervention and should be correlated with animal-based indices to provide relevant evaluations. Importantly, inextricable links between welfare and survival for stranded cetaceans are emphasized, with 90% of indicators being similar for both. Investigations into these indicators should be conducted to develop a practical, science-based assessment framework to inform decision-making during stranding events.

Empirical assessment of cetacean welfare to inform stranding interventions is lacking. Here, potential welfare indicators are described for two stranded pygmy killer whales (Feresa attenuata), along with euthanasia procedures and pathology of potential relevance. The animals were filmed for 3.5 and 1.5 hr, respectively, allowing assessment of 19 indicators, including animal behaviors and human interventions. Eight interventions and 19 animal behaviors were identified; 17 and 11 behaviors were displayed by animal 1 and 2, respectively. Examination of ballistics euthanasia revealed atypical projectile placement and characterized animal behavioral responses, but welfare implications could not be assessed as insensibility was not verified in‐field. Pulmonary edema and renal degeneration were documented in both animals; differential etiologies include ischemia–reperfusion, shock, and/or myopathy. Potential relationships among histopathology and welfare indicators are explored to infer affective experiences. For example, simultaneous head‐lifting with respiration increased over time which, alongside pulmonary edema, suggests these animals experienced breathlessness. Other likely affective states include fatigue and discomfort; there are insufficient data to estimate the intensity or duration of these experiences or to provide an overall welfare grade/score. Further data are required to validate the proposed welfare indicators and to progress development of holistic approaches to welfare assessment at cetacean strandings.