> Glossary &
References / Book List
/ B36 Field Manual of Wildlife Diseases / Text Sections:
(LARGE PAGE - wait to load, then scroll down)
Chapter 6 - Guidelines for the Proper Care and Use of Wildlife in Field Research
Authors: Milton Friend, Dale E. Toweill, Robert L. Brownell, Jr., Victor F. Nettles, Donald S. Davis, and William J. Foreyt
Public attitudes towards animals continue to change over time. These changes apply to wildlife along with other species, and in recent years, attitudes have been increasingly oriented toward assuring that all species receive proper care whenever human interactions are involved. Guidance regarding the application of euthanasia is provided in the previous chapter (Chapter 5 - Euthanasia). This chapter provides basic guidelines for the proper use of wildlife in field investigations. We believe this previously published information from The Wildlife Society is sufficiently important to include in this field manual. The Wildlife Society has been kind enough to grant permission for this reproduction. The scope of this chapter extends to all wildlife, and the application of this material extends beyond research to all wildlife investigations. This chapter is reproduced, with the addition of illustrations and minor modifications, as it appeared in Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats (Bookhout, 1994), and, thus, it deviates from the format for the rest of Volume I.
Scientists do not operate in a vacuum, but rather in an arena with responsibilities to the organisms they study and to society. Professional scientists must consider the effects of their activities on the organisms under study, on the validity of study results, and on the use of these organisms by other segments of society. The Wildlife Society recognizes these relationships and supports the sound application of responsible methods for the conduct of animal research in all field and laboratory investigations. This position reflects our ethical and moral concerns regarding human interactions with each other and with other species, and recognizes the scientific benefits of investigations that are not compromised by the manner in which animals are handled or maintained. These concerns are the foundation for our philosophy that responsible methods of animal investigations must include all animal species. Wildlife professionals are urged to apply high standards of animal care and maintenance, and responsible methods of experimental procedures, in conducting each animal investigation.
These guidelines are intended for field research involving wild animals. The variety of wild vertebrates investigated and of conditions encountered precludes provision of specific information applicable to each situation. Lists of useful references for those seeking more specific information are provided in the Appendices.
The Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131, and following) was enacted on 23 December 1985, with amendments including Parts l, 2, and 3 (9CFR); Fed. Register 4(168) 3611236163, effective 30 October 1989. The Act established definitions of terms (Part l) used in the regulations (Part 2) and standards (Part 3) for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of regulated animals used for research or exhibition purposes, sold as pets, or transported in commerce. Excluded from the provisions of the Act are cold-blooded vertebrates, birds, rats (Rattus) and mice (Mus) bred for use in research, horses and other farm animals used or intended for use as food and fiber, and livestock and poultry used or intended for use in improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. Also excluded are field studies as defined by the Act, i.e., "any study conducted on free-living wild animals in their natural habitat, which does not involve an invasive procedure, and which does not harm or materially alter the behavior of the animals under study." Collection of blood samples, ear-notching, branding, and collection of routine weight and measurement data are examples of exempted activities.
Exclusion of animal species under the Act removes reporting requirements and reduces oversight by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but does not negate coverage of these species under guidelines established by other agencies. Thus, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are covered by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines. This coverage is extended to research grants funded by these agencies and to Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that function under the guidelines of the Interagency Research Animal Care Committee.
A major requirement of the Animal Welfare Act and NIH/NSF guidelines is establishment of institutional facility Animal Care and Use Committees (ACUCs). The function of ACUCs is critical to the conduct of scientific investigations. Each ACUC must consist of at least three members, one of whom is the attending veterinarian of the research facility (or another veterinarian with delegated program responsibility) and one of whom is not affiliated in any way with the facility other than as a committee member. The purpose of the ACUC is to evaluate the care, treatment, housing, and use of animals and to certify compliance with the Act. This process involves evaluation of experimental protocols to ensure that animal pain and distress are minimized. ACUC over-sight includes laboratory and field studies. Consensus recommendations on effective ACUCs for laboratory animals were provided by Orlans and others (1987). Differences between laboratory and field studies (Orlans, 1988) do not negate the need for application of responsible methods for care and use of animals during field research activities. ACUCs and field investigators must work together in reaching agreement on appropriate protocols and methods for specific circumstances of the field research to be undertaken. "Standards for humane treatment of wild vertebrates must continue to be constantly developed, applied, and re-examined. Practices that are acceptable today may well prove unacceptable to tomorrows scientific community, and/or to society in general" (Canadian Council on Animal Care, 1984, p. 192). Wildlife professionals are strongly encouraged to serve on ACUCs and contribute their specific knowledge about the needs of free-living wildlife to help guide Committee actions involving protocol reviews for field investigations. Wildlife professionals also are encouraged to publish manuscripts that document the proper care and maintenance of free-living wildlife species during field investigations. Development of this information by knowledgeable field biologists provides specific species information for guiding ACUC decisions involving protocol reviews.
Before initiating field research, investigators must be familiar with the target species and its response to disturbance, sensitivity to capture and restraint, and, if necessary, requirements for captive maintenance to the extent that these factors are known and applicable.
To the extent feasible, animals with dependent young should not be removed from the wild unless the young also are collected or removed alive and provided for in a manner that facilitates their survival beyond the period of dependency. Whenever possible, voucher specimens of animals, their tissues, and parasitic and microbial fauna collected during field investigations should be deposited in catalogued scientific collections available to others within the scientific community, to provide for maximum use of animals collected.
The number of animals required for investigations depends on questions being investigated, but provision of adequate sample size is essential to assure scientific validity of results and avoid unnecessary repetition of studies. Removal of animals from a population (either for translocation or by lethal means) should be restricted to the fewest animals necessary to achieve established goals, but should never jeopardize the populations well-being.
Potential gains in knowledge from field investigations must be balanced against the potential adverse consequences associated with the conduct of the study (Animal Behavior Society/Animal Society for Animal Behavior, 1986). A high level of sensitivity to the potential, indirect effects of investigator presence and study procedures must be maintained, and appropriate steps must be taken to minimize these effects. Examples of secondary impacts associated with field investigations may include nest desertion, abandonment of young, increased vulnerability to predation, traumatic injuries and mortality resulting from panic escape response, cessation of breeding activities, increased energy use by disrupted species, altered feeding behavior, habitat abandonment, long-term marring of fragile habitats, increased vulnerability to hunting, introduction of disease, and spread of disease. These effects may impact either research (target) or other (nontarget) species. Investigators should use available information on secondary impacts as a basis for taking appropriate precautions to minimize known potential impacts.
Such factors as frequency and timing of investigator presence can influence greatly research effects on target and non-target species. When applicable, remote methods of data collection can be used to minimize disturbance. Also, habitat conservation should be practiced rigorously during all field investigations, and every reasonable effort should be made to leave the study area and access to it as undisturbed as possible.
Collection of animals often is an essential component of field investigations. These collections may involve systematic zoology, comparative anatomy, disease assessments, food preference studies, environmental contaminant evaluations, and numerous other justifiable causes and scientific needs.
Assessment of the need should involve appropriate evaluations to determine that the proposed collections will provide scientific data that are not duplicative of information already available in the scientific literature (unless confirmation of these data is needed), or that are presently available in accessible scientific collections and repositories. These evaluations also should assess whether suitable information can be obtained from alternative methods that do not require taking live animals. Methods of collection must be responsible, minimize the potential for the taking of nontarget species, and not compromise the purpose of the study. In some instances it is possible and practical to capture animals and then apply approved euthanasia methods (see Andrews and others, 1993). However, for many field studies the only practical means of animal collection are those involving direct killing as the initial step in the collection process. Under these conditions, methods of vertebrate collection must be as species or age-class specific as possible. Methods must not be employed that compromise data evaluation. Appropriate provisions also must be made for proper collection and preservation of biological materials associated with the purpose of the study. Improperly collected or preserved specimens that fail as useful and valid sources of scientific information negate the purpose of collecting the animals.
When shooting is the collection method, the firearm and ammunition should be appropriate for the species and purpose of the study. The shooter should be sufficiently skilled to be able to kill the animal cleanly. If an animal is wounded, immediate attention must be given to appropriate follow-up actions to kill it quickly. Attention also must be given to the animals location to assure it can be killed cleanly and that it will be readily accessible for retrieval and data collection.
Kill traps, with attendant baits and attractants, are acceptable and effective for animal collection when used in a manner that minimizes the potential for collecting nontarget species. All traps should be checked regularly, at least daily, to prevent specimen loss from scavengers and predators and should be rendered nonfunctional when not in use.
Live traps for nocturnal species should be set before dusk, checked as soon as possible after dawn, and closed during the day to prevent capture of nontarget species. Live traps for diurnal species should be shaded or positioned to avoid full exposure to the sun. Live traps for nonfossorial mammals should enclose a volume of space adequate for movement within the trap; for fossorial mammals, trap diameter should approximate that of the burrow. The live-trap mechanism should not cause serious injury to the animal, and trap doors should be effective in preventing the captive animal from becoming stuck or partially held in the door opening (Ad Hoc Committee on Acceptable Field Methods in Mammalogy, 1987). Pitfalls used as live traps should contain adequate food to last until the next trap check and should be covered to keep out rain or punctured to permit drainage.
Only properly trained individuals proficient in the required techniques should attempt to take tissue samples from live animals. Collection of tissue samples requires proper animal restraint to avoid traumatic injuries to the animal and to the investigator taking the samples. Use of anesthetics is required when the sample procedure will cause more than slight or momentary pain. The institution/facility ACUC is the proper source for evaluating collection methods and use of anesthetics for noninvasive and invasive procedures for tissue collections from live animals.
Blood is the most common tissue sampled from live animals. A conservative rule of thumb is that the amount of blood drawn at one time from a healthy animal that is to be kept alive should be no more than 1 percent of its body weight. However, the amount of blood taken should be limited to actual needs, rather than the maximum amount that can be safely taken, to reduce stress from handling. Appropriate equipment (e.g., needle size) and sample site should be selected to provide the amount of blood needed for the species involved.
The three most common sites for bleeding birds are the jugular vein of the neck, medial-metatarsal vein of the leg, and brachial vein of the wing (Fig. 6.2). The jugular is preferred for bleeding most birds because of its accessibility and size and the relative ease with which large samples can be taken. The medial-metatarsal vein is not recommended for use in raptors, nor is the brachial vein in large birds such as cranes. Feathers should not be plucked to locate these veins. Birds also can be bled from a variety of other sites including the heart and occipital venous sinus. However, there is seldom reason to assume the risk associated with these sites for nonlethal sampling, even though successful application of these techniques has been demonstrated.
Multiple sites also are available for drawing blood samples from mammals (Fig. 6.3 (A)). Venipuncture of the cephalic, femoral, tarsal, or jugular vein, the orbital sinus, or various venous plexuses are common procedures. In some instances cardiac bleeding also is acceptable. Need for anesthesia with any of these procedures depends upon methods of restraint, species being bled, physical condition of the animal, and volume of blood needed. In reptiles, such as turtles, sites for blood collection are more limited (Fig. 6.3 (B)).
Safety of both wild animals and scientists who are studying them should be the primary consideration when physical contact between them is judged to be necessary and unavoidable. Nondomesticated animals almost without exception will try to elude capture, handling, and restraint. The means by which a particular animal may try to prevent capture will vary with the species, sex, physiologic condition, and temperament of the individual. In attempts to elude capture, wild animals are capable of inflicting severe damage to themselves and their potential captors.
Behavioral characteristics of wild animals often may be used to assist the potential captor. For instance, animals in a small pen or cage often voluntarily will enter a smaller container to hide and evade capture. If that container provides adequate restraint, the potentially dangerous work of securing the animal can be accomplished more easily. Every effort involving contact between wild animals and humans should be carefully conceived and skillfully executed. Personnel involved must know the habits and behaviors of the animal to be handled; the plan must have suitable alternatives; and a genuine regard for the physical, physiological, and psychological welfare of the animal must be of deep concern to those actually handling the animals. If the planned and alternate procedures do not appear to be satisfactory, the responsible thing to do is cease immediately and return to the planning stage. Trying to enforce unworkable procedures in a particular situation is a virtual guarantee of injury to either the animals or the humans involved.
For many situations physical restraint is the most appropriate method of animal handling, because of risks from chemical immobilization to the animal and humans when potentially toxic drugs are used. When physical restraint is selected, an adequate number of sufficiently trained and equipped personnel must be available to complete the task safely. Location and type of capture, as well as procedures to be performed and time required to accomplish them, will influence the particular type of physical restraint. Gloves, catch poles, ropes, nets, body bags, holding boxes, corrals, squeeze chutes, or more sophisticated mechanical holding devices may be required for specific situations (Fig. 6.4).
For some highly excitable or anatomically fragile species, prolonged physical restraint without some chemical tranquilization may result in self-inflicted trauma, physiological disturbances, or, occasionally, death. Investigators have an obligation to make every effort to avoid physical restraint procedures that result in cardiogenic shock, capture myopathy, and other stress-induced causes of mortality in their animal subjects (Fig. 6.5). Stress-related damage may not be immediately apparent but may lead to debility or death after release.
Use of chemicals or drugs to render a wild and potentially dangerous animal safe to handle has many applications in wildlife research and management (Pond and OGara, 1994). Use of anesthetics, analgesics, and sedatives is mandatory for the control of pain and distress before potentially painful procedures such as surgery are performed on animals. Use of drugs and "tranquilizer guns," however, is not the panacea to wild-animal restraint. Chemicals used for tranquilization and immobilization, if not correctly handled and delivered, may be dangerous to the target animals and humans (Fig. 6.6). In addition, during the drug induction phase or during recovery, an unrestrained animal may be subject to increased potential for accidental injury or death including predation. While under the effects of the drug the animal may become hyper- or hypothermic, depending on chemicals used and ambient temperature, it may vomit and aspirate the vomitus, or pregnant females may abort. A darted animal may be able to elude its captors and hide before being completely anesthetized, a particularly acute hazard when chemicals are employed that require administration of an antidote. All of these circumstances and possibilities must be understood and evaluated by the researcher before a chemical is selected as the best method of restraint in a given instance.
If chemical restraint is selected, it is imperative for all members of the capture team to have a working knowledge of the chemical or drugs being used, even if they are to be handled and delivered by a veterinarian. It also is the responsibility of researchers to know the effects, side effects, advantages, and disadvantages of the drugs being used, and to have knowledge of such factors as the minimum and maximum induction times and potential for adverse drug reactions. This type of information is necessary to evaluate the danger to target animals, and to humans that might be exposed to the drugs. Searchers should be capable of monitoring the condition of anesthetized animals and be able to apply resuscitative routines in a life-threatening emergency. Specific recommendations for drug use and their dosage, drug delivery systems, and physical restraint techniques applicable to the specific species are available in the published literature (Pond and OGara, 1994). Information on use of these methods exists in guidelines on acceptable field techniques by various professional societies (See "Professional society guidelines" at the end of this chapter).
Developing means of reliably identifying individual animals to achieve field research objectives often is necessary. In addition to requiring individual identification, researchers may need information on nonconspicuous aspects of physiology or movements, or other aspects of animal ecology that can be determined directly or indirectly through specially designed markers.
If the marking process causes pain or distress, as defined by the Animal Welfare Act, appropriate analgesics or anesthetics should be used.
When answers to the four initial questions lead to a decision to initiate an animal-marking program, researchers must search among a wide array of potential techniques with varying strengths and weaknesses to select the method(s) most suited to their particular project (Nietfeld and others, 1994). Technological and methodological constraints and available resources can vary widely from project to project and will require each researcher to examine each potential marking technique in terms of a standard set of criteria. Specific criteria relate to impacts of marking on the organism, validity of the study, and other constraints such as legal requirements.
The first three criteria focus on the well-being of the organism being studied and the potential for marks to influence research results by affecting the fitness or behavior of the organisms. Criteria 4 and 5 may affect the validity of the research design, and criterion 6 reflects other constraints placed upon the researcher. Violation of any of the first five criteria may result in biased research results, so researchers should specifically address these criteria in any evaluation of research resulting from a sample of marked organisms.
Although marks that may be applied to organisms are commonly perceived as passive and visual, markers also exist that are active and visual (lights), that are auditory, that feature radiotelemetry, or that rely on chemical detection. A vast literature exists of techniques and potential concerns regarding the marking of organisms from insects to whales, and it has been summarized in detail elsewhere (see "Professional society guidelines"; Day and others, 1980; Orlans, 1988).
Many organisms of interest to wildlife professionals are free-ranging and may be enjoyed by other segments of society in many ways, from observation or photography to harvest as meat or trophies. Professional ethics dictate that those other potential uses of organisms be considered and accommodated insofar as possible. Wild animals and birds are valued in part because they are wild, and the presence of human-caused marks may detract from that value. Accordingly, short-lived and inconspicuous marks should be selected whenever they can meet the objectives of proposed research. Scientists have an ethical responsibility to attempt to remove collars or other external markers at the conclusion of their research if possible and feasible. Furthermore, professional and ethical considerations dictate that permanent markers that injure or change the appearance of an animal (e.g., toe-clipping, branding, and tattooing) be employed only under the most humane conditions and when alternate methods are not available to achieve desired research objectives.
Proper care and responsible treatment of incarcerated animals must depend on scientific and professional judgement, on concern for the animal, on knowledge of animal behavior and animal husbandry, and on familiarity with the species. Investigators working with species unfamiliar to them should obtain all pertinent information before confining those animals. It also may be necessary to test and compare several methods of housing to determine the most appropriate one for the well-being of the animal and the purpose of the study. Findings should be part of a permanent record system and animal logbook associated with the study and the maintenance facility.
Housing for wild vertebrates should approximate natural conditions as closely as possible. Housing should provide safety and comfort for the animal as well as meet the study objectives. Methods of housing should provide for behavioral needs, safety, adequate exercise and rest, and conditions for the general well-being of the animal. Considerations depend on the animal involved and include isolation or refuge areas, natural materials, dust and water baths, natural foods, sunlight, and fresh air. Housing should incorporate as many aspects of natural living as possible, such as brushy areas for escape, resting cover, shade and protection from environmental elements, a natural stream traversing the pen, rocky areas for hoofed animals that need to wear down their hooves, and social groups of animals kept together. Housing of compatible species in a common pen also will provide for social interaction. Frequency of cleaning should be a compromise between level of cleanliness necessary to prevent disease and amount of stress imposed by cleaning (Fig. 6.8).
In general, housing must be of adequate size to allow for the physical and behavioral needs of the animals, while allowing scientists to collect appropriate data. For many housing situations, the pen can be large and natural, with a smaller internal or attached catch pen to restrain animals for experimental techniques. Pen construction materials must provide for the safety of the animals, as well as prevent the animals from escaping. Materials should be of sufficient durability to last for the intended period of confinement. When long-term confinement (weeks or longer) is necessary, or pens are to be reused, materials with impervious surfaces should be used to facilitate sanitation and minimize the potential for survival of animal pathogens. All animals that are inherently dangerous, are environmentally injurious, or have a propensity for escape require special attention. Double walls or double enclosures, covered tops of enclosures, and construction with metal bars or chain link may be required, depending on the species. Mesh size and spacing between fencing materials must be small enough to prevent the head of an animal from extending through the fence. Smaller fencing mesh also is more visible to animals. Colored flagging material may be necessary for animals to visualize fencing until they become accustomed to it. Animals should be released into the housing in a calm and unstressed manner so that initial mortality and morbidity from fence encounters are minimal. A small dose of tranquilizer often will reduce the immediate flight response when an animal is released into the housing and may help prevent initial injuries. Once animals have investigated the limits of the housing, injury occurrence is minimized if investigators do not cause undo flight reactions.
Adequacy of housing often can be judged on normal behavior patterns, weight gains and growth, survival rates, reproductive success, and physical appearance of the animals involved in the research project. Established guidelines for housing laboratory and farm animals were provided by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (1980, 1984). Additional guidelines for housing requirements of fish, amphibians reptiles, wild birds, and small mammals were reported by the appropriate professional societies and appear in the Animal Welfare Act (see also "Professional society guidelines" at the end of this chapter).
Nutrition must meet the needs of the animal unless deviations are an approved purpose of the investigation. Researchers are responsible for determining the appropriate nutritional needs of study animals prior to placing them in confinement and for obtaining adequate food supplies to sustain the animals during the period of confinement. Feeding and watering should be under the direct supervision of an individual trained and experienced in animal care for the species being maintained. Animal care personnel must be familiar with the animals being studied so abnormalities in appearance and behavior that may be indicative of nutritional deficiencies can be recognized quickly.
A variety of vehicles such as conventional motor vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, snow machines, rotary and fixed-wing aircraft, and boats are used to transport wild animals. The species involved, method of transportation selected, and length of time an animal is to be transported are important factors regarding the type of care and conditions of containment required to maintain the animal in a state of well being (Fig. 6.9). To the extent possible, selection of transportation vehicles should take into account maintenance of the animal in a comfortable environment. Veterinary assistance may be required to prescribe and administer appropriate tranquilizers or other drugs when conditions of transportation are likely to result in a high level of stress to the animal due to its behavioral and physiological characteristics, restrictions of confinement, engine noise, and rigors of the trip. The transportation process should be as brief as possible. This can be expedited by proper and adequate planning to assure that transportation vehicles and housing units in appropriate numbers and size are available and ready for use as needed; that food, water, bedding, and other needs to provide for the animals also are available; that individuals involved in the transportation process are trained in the procedures to be used in containment and transportation of the animals; and that all permits, health certificates, and other paperwork have been completed to the extent possible.
When interstate movement of animals or shipment by commercial carriers is involved, scheduling of transportation segments to minimize the number of transfers and delays between transfers, having someone involved with the project meet the shipment at each transfer point, and, when appropriate, arranging for prompt clearance of animals by veterinary and customs inspectors can result in major reductions in transit time. The receiving party should be on-site when the animals reach their destination.
For some species, periodic rest periods are required to allow the animals to feed undisturbed. Other species are best transported when they are normally inactive and do not feed. Ventilation within the housing unit and transportation vehicle should provide for adequate air movement to keep animals comfortable and avoid buildup of exhaust gases. Subdued lighting and visual barriers between animals and humans and between animals and their transportation environment should be provided to help keep the animals calm. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has published rules for the Humane and Healthful Transport of Wild Animals and Birds to the United States (see Fed Reg. 50 CFR Part 14).
Animal containers should be inspected to assure they have no sharp edges, protrusions, or rough surfaces that could cause injury during transport. When appropriate, containers also should be padded to help prevent injury. The floor of shipping containers should allow reasonable footing to prevent falling due to a slippery surface. Also, containers should not have coatings or be constructed of materials that are toxic and could be consumed by the animal through licking or chewing during transportation. In general, housing units of porous materials, such as cardboard boxes, should not be reused; all other containers used to house animals should be suitably disinfected between uses (Fig. 6.10). That portion of the transportation vehicle used to contain the housing units also should be disinfected.
Grouping or separation of animals being transported at the same time should take into consideration the species, age, and other appropriate factors. Direct contact generally should be maintained between females and their dependent young, particularly if abandonment may result (unless the young are to be maintained by some other means). Birds should be isolated in separate cells within the shipping container; if this cannot be done, each individual should have sufficient space to assume normal postures and engage in comfort and maintenance activities unimpeded by other birds (Ad Hoc Committee on the Use of Wild Birds in Research, 1988).
For short-term transportation (less than 30 min), basic considerations are to prevent pain, injury, and undue stress. Thermoregulation capabilities of the species must be considered when an animal is removed from its existing environment and placed in the transportation environment. Transported animals should be protected from exposure to inclement weather, harsh environmental conditions, and major temperature fluctuations and extremes.
Bedding, feed, and water should be provided, as appropriate, and the animals should be observed periodically to determine their state of well-being during transportation. On-site veterinary assistance may be warranted to monitor animals and to provide life-support assistance should a medical emergency occur during transportation or at the release or field study site. Selection of veterinary assistance should focus on the individuals knowledge and experience with the wildlife species involved. Any animals that die during transit should be removed as soon as practical from the sight and olfactory detection of other animals being transported. These carcasses should be retained for pathological examinations regarding cause of death. Similarly, animals that become severely injured or clinically ill should be removed and responsibly euthanized. Euthanasia should not take place in the presence of other live animals. Sick animals disposed of in this manner also should be retained for pathological assessments. Determinations of cause of death are needed to assess whether the remaining animals are at risk from pathogens associated with the dead animals.
Minor medical procedures such as collection of blood, administration of drugs intravenously or intramuscularly, biopsies of superficial structures such as skin, and sutured attachment of radio transmitters usually can be performed safely and responsibly in the field without complicated equipment. However, it is the researchers responsibility to choose the least invasive and least painful technique, minimize the duration of the procedure, use the most appropriate equipment and aseptic technique, and provide analgesia or sedation when indicated.
As defined by the Animal Welfare Act, major operative procedures are (p. 36,121) "any surgical intervention that penetrates and exposes a body cavity or any procedure which produces permanent impairment of physical or physiological functions." Major surgical procedures, when survival of the animal is intended, should be performed only under proper anesthesia and with sterile technique. Examples of major procedures used in wildlife research include laparotomy, surgical flight restraint, and sterilization. These procedures should be performed only in a clean space set aside for sterile surgery, with surgical instruments and drapes of the proper type, and with anesthesia protocols judged to be safe and responsible for the species involved. Necessary equipment and trained personnel to deal with surgery or anesthesia related emergencies (i.e., severe blood loss, cessation of breathing or cardiac function, severe hypo- or hyperthermia, acid-base imbalances) should be available at all times. This will maximize the success and subsequent scientific return from those often costly procedures and, therefore, minimize the number of animals needed and amount of animal distress (Fig. 6.11).
Wildlife field researchers should have access to veterinary consultation and take responsibility to prepare themselves to deal with any health problems that might arise in their study population. Sometimes intervention and control of a natural disease process may not be advisable and may interfere with the studys goals. However, if the health problem arises due to the researchers work, or if it will interfere with the study, the researcher must be ready to respond. Preparations should include gaining familiarity with the common diseases and health problems of the species under study, establishing a contact with a veterinary consultant, and having appropriate treatment or control equipment and drugs on hand or easily accessible. The researcher also is responsible for evaluating the possible impact of disease in the study animals on the larger population or ecosystem as a whole, and for making the maintenance of their welfare a priority as decisions are made. This is especially true when release or translocation of animals is part of a study; disease must be considered in evaluating the advisability of the program.
Euthanasia is defined under the Animal Welfare Act as (p. 36,121) "the humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that produces rapid unconsciousness and subsequent death without evidence of pain or distress, or a method that utilizes anesthesia produced by an agent that causes painless loss of consciousness and subsequent death." Euthanasia may not be an approved component of a field study, but it may become a necessary health care option in a study involving capture, restraint, or surgical procedures. Therefore, all wildlife researchers involved in invasive studies must be familiar with the approved euthanasia methods for their study species (Andrews and others, 1993) and have the appropriate equipment/drugs on hand so euthanasia can be performed quickly.
Field investigators need to be fully aware of disease concepts so they may avoid introduction of new disease problems into animal populations or the spread of disease to other populations and locations as a result of their studies. Disease introductions and spread occur as a result of animals brought to the field research site to serve as biological sentinels, as decoys to lure and capture other animals, for species introductions or releases to supplement existing populations, for behavioral studies, for assistance in tracking or retrieving animals, and for other purposes. All of these uses of animals involve acceptable methods for scientific research and wildlife management. However, under no circumstances should the well-being of free-ranging wildlife populations be unduly jeopardized by disease risks associated with animal use in field research. Field investigators have ethical and professional obligations to take appropriate actions for minimizing the introduction of the following: (a) new disease agents, (b) vectors (e.g., ticks and internal parasites) capable of efficiently transmitting indigenous, dormant diseases or those not currently being effectively transmitted, and (c) species that can serve as amplification hosts for transmitting indigenous diseases to other species (Fig. 6.12).
In addition, animals that are highly susceptible to diseases indigenous to the study location should not be released into the wild without using applicable prophylactic measures, unless these animals are to serve as biological sentinels for disease investigations. Biological sentinels should be monitored closely and euthanized by approved, responsible methods as soon as is practical after study objectives have been met.
Disease introduction and spread can result from mechanical means such as contaminated personnel, supplies, and equipment in addition to the biological processes identified above. Steps taken to address disease prevention are far more cost effective than disease control activities initiated after a problem has developed.
When live animals are in the possession of investigators or under their control at the time of study completion, an evaluation must be made as to whether these animals can be released to a free-ranging existence, should be maintained under controlled conditions, or should be euthanized.
The decision of whether to release captive-reared animals into the wild after completion of a field research project demands more rigorous evaluation than for field-captured animals. In addition to evaluating the future well-being of the animal being released, impacts on other animals of the same species and competition and risks for other species sharing that environment also must be considered. Rarely, if ever, will releases of captive-reared animals at the completion of research studies be justified on the basis of animal welfare considerations.
When animals are to be released, efforts should be made to enhance their chances of survival. Animals should be in good physical condition and released when weather conditions are favorable, at a time of day when they are able to locate food and cover that meet survival needs.
Animals that cannot be released should be considered for distribution to other scientists for further study. However, if the animal was subject to a major invasive procedure, it may not be appropriate for additional experimentation. Animals not suitable for research may be suitable display animals that can be donated to a zoo or other type of educational institution.
When animals must be euthanized, responsible methods appropriate for the species and circumstances must be used. Care must be taken to assure that the animal is dead before disposal of the carcass. Also, disposal procedures must prevent carcasses containing toxic substances or drugs from the research investigations or euthanasia procedures to enter the food web of other animals. To the extent feasible, euthanized animals should be properly preserved and used as voucher specimens or for teaching purposes.
Researchers working with free-ranging wildlife are subject to enhanced levels of exposure to wildlife diseases transmissible to humans. Disease transmission may involve direct contact with infected animals such as those with rabies, contact with disease vectors such as ticks transmitting Lyme disease, or contact with contaminated environments such as bird roosts harboring histoplasmosis. Field investigators should become familiar with the common diseases of wildlife species they are working with and the relative prevalence of those diseases in the populations they are studying. Consultation with a physician regarding immunization or other preventative treatment is advised when serious diseases for humans commonly occur in the populations being studied. Investigators who become ill should seek medical assistance and advise their physicians of their exposure to potentially hazardous animals, diseases, and environmental conditions.
These guidelines were prepared by a committee of The Wildlife Society appointed by J. G. Teer during his Presidency. The committee acknowledges the contributions of F. J. Dein for his review of these guidelines and valuable input provided in enhancing the final content.
Sources of assistance for technical information, implementation, and interpretation of the Animal Welfare Act
Return to top of page