Falling through the cracks: shortcomings in the collaboration between biologists and veterinarians and their consequences for wildlife

The cost of research: Lasting effects of capture, surgery and muscle biopsy on brown bear (Ursus arctos) movement and physiology

Animal models are a key component of translational medicine, helping transfer scientific findings into practical applications for human health. A fundamental principle of research ethics involves weighing the benefits of the research to society against the burden imposed on the animals used for scientific purposes. The utilisation of wild animals for research requires evaluation of the effects of capture and invasive sampling. Determining the severity and duration of these interventions on the animal's physiology and behaviour allows for refining study methodology and for excluding or accounting for biased data. In this study, 39 Scandinavian brown bears (Ursus arctos) captured either while hibernating in winter or via helicopter in summer and that underwent surgery as part of a human health project had their movement, body temperature and timing of onset of hibernation compared with those of 14 control bears that had not been captured during the same period. Bears captured in winter and summer showed decreased movement from den exit until late summer, compared to those in the control group. Bears captured in summer showed reduced movement and body temperature for at least, respectively, 14 and 3 days, with an 11% decrease in hourly distance, compared to pre-capture levels, but did not differ in the timing of hibernation onset. We reveal that brown bear behaviour and physiology can be altered in response to capture and surgery for days to months, post-capture. This has broad implications for the conclusions of wildlife studies that rely upon invasive sampling.

Crucial but Neglected: Limited Availability of Animal Welfare Courses in Education of Wildlife Researchers

Animal welfare is a subject of increasing scientific and ethical concern in today's society, crucial for the well-being of animals used in research and the integrity of scientific data. Equipping researchers in the life science disciplines with a science-based knowledge of animal welfare, behaviour, physiology, and health is, therefore, essential. Nevertheless, previous studies evaluating animal welfare education focused on veterinary, laboratory, or farm animal science. Consequently, the aim of this study was, for the very first time, to map the prevalence of animal welfare courses in the university education of ecologists, wildlife biologists, and conservation managers in Europe, Canada, the USA, Australia, and New Zealand. A comprehensive assessment of 1548 universities was conducted, resulting in the identification of 596 relevant programs at the bachelor's and master's levels. Analysis of the curricula revealed that only 1% of the programs offered a formal course on animal welfare, while 65% provided courses on animal behaviour, 59% on animal physiology, and 34% on animal health. However, the majority of these courses were listed as electives rather than mandatory components of the programs. These results underscore the need for universities to incorporate more formal and obligatory education in animal welfare in order to better prepare future ecologists, wildlife biologists, and conservation managers for the challenges of working with wildlife.

Stress responses to repeated captures in a wild ungulate

While capture-mark-recapture studies provide essential individual-level data in ecology, repeated captures and handling may impact animal welfare and cause scientific bias. Evaluating the consequences of invasive methodologies should be an integral part of any study involving capture of live animals. We investigated short- and long-term stress responses to repeated captures within a winter on the physiology, behaviour, and reproductive success of female Svalbard reindeer (Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus). Short-term responses were evaluated using serum concentrations of glucocorticoids and catecholamines during handling, and post-release recovery times in heart rate and activity levels. Repeated captures were associated with an increase in measured catecholamines and glucocorticoids, except cortisone, and delayed recovery in heart rate but not activity. Four months later, in summer, individuals captured repeatedly in winter exhibited a small increase in behavioural response to human disturbance and had a lower probability of being observed with a calf, compared to animals not captured, or captured only once. Our findings imply that single annual capture events have no significant negative consequences for Svalbard reindeer, but repeated captures within a season may impact offspring survival in the same year. Such unanticipated side effects highlight the importance of addressing multiple indicators of animal responses to repeated captures.

Out of the laboratory, into the field: perspectives on social, ethical and regulatory challenges in UK wildlife research

Drawing on insights from qualitative social science research, this paper aims to prompt reflection on social, ethical and regulatory challenges faced by scientists undertaking invasive animal research in the field and propose ways of addressing these challenges to promote good care for animals and environments. In particular, we explore challenges relating to the management of (i) relationships with publics and stakeholders, who may be present at field sites or crucial to research success; (ii) ethical considerations not present in the laboratory, such as the impacts of research on populations and ecosystems; (iii) working under an array of regulations, which may operate in accordance with competing ethical principles or objectives; and (iv) relationships with regulators (especially vets), which may involve disagreements over ethics and expertise, especially because regulators may be more accustomed to overseeing research in the laboratory than the field. We argue that flexibility-at a personal and policy level-and respect for others' expertise emerged as two key ways of negotiating ethical challenges, fostering positive working relationships and promoting good care for individual animals and broader ecosystems. While our analysis focuses on the UK, we propose that many of these lessons are broadly applicable to international contexts. This article is part of the theme issue 'Measuring physiology in free-living animals (Part II)'.

New Online Resource on the 3Rs Principles of Animal Research for Wildlife Biologists, Ecologists, and Conservation Managers

The Earth’s biodiversity is in crisis. Without radical action to conserve habitats, the current rate of species extinction is predicted to accelerate even further. Efficient species conservation requires planning, management, and continuous biodiversity monitoring through wildlife research. Conservation biology was built on the utilitarian principle, where the well-being of species, populations, and ecosystems is given priority over the well-being of individual animals. However, this tenet has been increasingly under discussion and it has been argued that wildlife researchers need to safeguard the welfare of the individual animals traditionally subjected to invasive or lethal research procedures. The 3Rs principles of animal use (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) have become the cornerstone of ethical scientific conduct that could minimize the potential negative impact of research practices. One of the obvious strategies to implement the 3Rs in wildlife studies is to use non-invasive or non-lethal research methods. However, in contrast to toxicological or pharmacological research on laboratory animal models, up to now no 3Rs databases or online resources designed specifically for wildlife biologists, ecologists, and conservation managers have been available. To aid the implementation of the 3Rs principles into research on wildlife, I developed an online resource whose structure is outlined in this paper. The website contains a curated database of peer-reviewed articles that have implemented non-invasive or non-lethal research methods that could be used as a guideline for future studies.

VETERINARY STUDENTS' OPINIONS ON THEIR REQUIRED COMPETENCE IN DEALING WITH WELFARE AND ETHICS ISSUES PERTAINING TO WILDLIFE

The aim of this research was to determine what veterinary students in Australia and New Zealand consider important for animal welfare and ethics (AWE) competence when dealing with wildlife, and to determine how these priorities correlate with gender and stage of study. These students were asked to state their gender and stage of veterinary education and to rank the importance of six AWE topics: (1) "disaster preparedness," (2) "veterinarians' duties to wild animals," (3) "methods and justification for wild animal use" (e.g., harvesting/ hunting, wildlife parks), (4) "tensions between animal-welfare concerns and environmental concerns," (5) "the nature and status of semiowned animals," and (6) "euthanasia," pertaining to wildlife for competence on the first day after their graduation. Data were then analyzed. Of 3,320 students invited to participate, 556 responded to questions about animals in the wild. The AWE topic ranked as the most important was "veterinarians' duties to wild animals," followed by "euthanasia." Senior students ranked "euthanasia" as the most important topic. The rankings of "methods and justification for wild animal use" and "tension between animal welfare and environmental concerns" were significantly less important for students in the later years of study than for those in early years. Male respondents ranked "euthanasia" as more important than female respondents did, especially in later years of study. Senior veterinary students ranked "euthanasia" as the most important AWE topic for day one competency.

Getting to grips with wildlife research by citizen scientists: What role for regulation?

Wildlife research by citizen scientists, involving the capture and handling of animals, provides clear scientific benefits, but also potential risks to animal welfare. We explore debates about how best to regulate such work to ensure that it is undertaken in an ethical manner.We focus on the UK as a case study, drawing on qualitative research and stakeholder engagement events. We show that because trapping and marking of certain species requires minimal licensing, training and justification, some argue for increased formal regulation to minimise risks to animal welfare. However, others have reflected on the already complex regulatory landscape affecting wildlife research, and have expressed concern that introducing additional formal regulations could potentially make citizen science working with wildlife more difficult. Informal regulation could therefore offer a preferable alternative.We set out three steps that could be taken to open up conversations about ethics and regulation of wildlife-focussed citizen science, in the UK and elsewhere: (a) take stock of wildlife-focussed citizen science in terms of numbers and harms to animal welfare; (b) assess the state of formal regulations and consider reforms; and (c) consider informal regulations as alternatives or additions to formal regulations.

Updating the AIHTS Trapping Standards to Improve Animal Welfare and Capture Efficiency and Selectivity

In 1999, after pressure from the European Union, an Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) that would result in the banning of the steel-jawed leghold traps in the European Community, Canada, and Russia was signed. The United States implemented these standards through an Agreed Minute with the European Community. Over the last two decades, scientists have criticized the AIHTS for (1) omitting species that are commonly trapped; (2) threshold levels of trap acceptance that are not representative of state-of-the-art trap technology; (3) excluding popular traps which are commonly used by trappers although they are known to cause prolonged pain and stress to captured animals; (4) inadequate coverage of capture efficiency and species selectivity (i.e., number of captures of target and non-target species) performance. Concerns about the ability of standards and test procedures to ensure animal welfare, and about the implementation of standards, have also been voiced by wildlife biologists, managers, and conservation groups. In this review, we present a synopsis of current trapping standards and test procedures, and we compare the standards to a then contemporary 1985-1993 Canadian trap research and development program. On the basis of the above-noted concerns about AIHTS, and our experience as wildlife professionals involved in the capture of mammals, we formulated the following hypotheses: (1) the list of mammal species included in the AIHTS is incomplete; (2) the AIHTS have relatively low animal welfare performance thresholds of killing trap acceptance and do not reflect state-of-the-art trapping technology; (3) the AIHTS animal welfare indicators and injuries for restraining traps are insufficient; (4) the AIHTS testing procedures are neither thorough nor transparent; (5) the AIHTS protocols for the use of certified traps are inadequate; (6) the AIHTS procedures for the handling and dispatching of animals are nonexistent; (7) the AIHTS criteria to assess trap capture efficiency and species selectivity are inappropriate. We conclude that the AIHTS do not reflect state-of-the-art trapping technology, and assessment protocols need to be updated to include trap components and sets, animal handling and dispatching, and trap visit intervals. The list of traps and species included in the standards should be updated. Finally, the concepts of capture efficiency and trap selectivity should be developed and included in the standards. Based on our review, it is clear that mammal trapping standards need to be revisited to implement state-of-the-art trapping technology and improve capture efficiency and species selectivity. We believe that a committee of international professionals consisting of wildlife biologists and veterinarians with extensive experience in the capture of mammals and animal welfare could produce new standards within 1-2 years. We propose a series of measures to fund trap testing and implement new standards.

Underaddressed animal-welfare issues in conservation

Much progress has been made toward assessing and improving animal welfare in conservation. However, several glaring knowledge gaps remain where animal-welfare concerns exist but animal-welfare studies have not been performed in politically sensitive contexts. Based on contemporary issues in Australia, we identified 4 topics that require more research: animal-welfare oversight for operations designated as management (as opposed to research); animal-welfare impacts of biological agents used to control invasive animals; welfare of animals hunted recreationally; and animal-welfare impacts associated with indigenous wildlife use. Animal-welfare science may be applied to these sensitive topics through simple quantitative studies (e.g., quantifying the frequency of adverse animal-welfare events). Several such studies have effectively addressed animal-welfare concerns in similarly contentious contexts, including feral camel (Camelus dromedarius) culling in Australia, recreational hunting in Scandinavia, and indigenous whale hunting in the United States. For discussions of animal welfare in conservation to be evidence-based, courageous research is required in the 4 key areas we identified.

Leukocyte Coping Capacity: An Integrative Parameter for Wildlife Welfare Within Conservation Interventions

Wildlife management, conservation interventions and wildlife research programs often involve capture, manipulation and transport of wild animals. Widespread empirical evidence across various vertebrate taxa shows that handling wildlife generally induces a severe stress response resulting in increased stress levels. The inability of individuals to appropriately respond to rapidly changing environmental conditions during and after manipulations may have deleterious and long-lasting implications on animal welfare. Therefore, mitigating stress responses in the frame of conservation interventions is a key animal welfare factor. However, we have a poor understanding of the metrics to adequately assess and monitor the dynamic physiological changes that animals undergo when subjected to stressful procedures in wild or captive conditions. A growing number of studies provide good evidence for reciprocal interactions between immune processes and stress. Here, we review the existing literature on a relatively new technique-Leukocyte Coping Capacity (LCC), a proxy for stress quantifying oxygen radical production by leukocytes. We discuss the strength and weaknesses of this immunological approach to evaluate stress, the individual capacity to cope with stress and the resulting potential implications for animal welfare. Additionally we present new data on LCC in captive roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) under long-time anesthesia and free-ranging Asiatic wild asses (Kulan; Equus hemionus kulan) were LCC was used to assess stress levels in animals captured for a reintroduction project.

Ethics of Primate Fieldwork: Toward an Ethically Engaged Primatology

Field primatologists have ethical responsibilities that extend beyond study subjects to the local human communities living near primate populations and their surrounding ecosystems. In this review, we explore the history of ethical discussions within anthropological primatology and examine the best practices for an ethically engaged primatology that should be followed and role-modeled by primatologists. An increasing number of primates are showing reduced population sizes and are in imminent danger of extinction; thus, we need to carefully consider the ethics of intervening to ensure the survival of remaining populations, the impact of anthropogenic factors (e.g., climate change), and whether long-term field research results in conservation outcomes that consider local human communities. Because best practices change over time as theoretical frameworks and methodological tools advance and scientific goals change, field primatologists must continually reflect on what constitutes ethical practice and consider how research influences the overlapping dimensions of fieldwork: primates, people, and ecosystems.

Long-Term Safety of Intraperitoneal Radio Transmitter Implants in Brown Bears (Ursus arctos)

Intraperitoneal radio transmitters have been widely used in free-ranging wild mammals, but there are no long-term studies on their biocompatibility or technical stability within the abdominal cavity of animals. Possible negative health effects may bias results from ecological studies on instrumented animals and raise concerns over animal welfare issues. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term technical stability and pathological effects of Telonics intraperitoneal very high frequency (VHF) radio transmitters in brown bears (Ursus arctos). We instrumented 305 individual bears with intraperitoneal VHF radio transmitters during a 19-year period. We surgically removed devices that had been in bears for 1-9 years and collected transmitters from animals that died 1-13 years after implantation. We took biopsies for histopathology from tissue encapsulating implants in live bears. Retrieved transmitters underwent a technical inspection. Of the 125 transmitters removed from live bears, 66 were free-floating in the peritoneal cavity [a mean (SD) of 3.8 (1.5) years after implantation], whereas 59 were encapsulated in the greater omentum [4.0 (1.8) years after implantation]. Histopathology of biopsies of the 1-15 mm thick capsules in 33 individuals showed that it consisted of organized layers of connective tissue. In one third of the bears, the inner part of the capsule was characterized by a foreign body reaction. We inspected 68 implants that had been in bears for 3.9 (2.4) years. The batteries had short-circuited four (5.9%) of these devices. This resulted in the death of two animals 10 and 13 years after implantation. In two other bears that underwent surgery, we found the short-circuited devices to be fully encapsulated within the peritoneal cavity 5 and 6 years after implantation. A significant proportion of the other 64 inspected implants showed serious technical problems, such as corrosion of metal parts or the batteries (50%), detachment of the end cap (11.8%), and erosion (7.4%) or melting (5.9%) of the wax coating. We conclude that the wax coating of the transmitters was not biocompatible, that the technical quality of the devices was poor, and that these implants should not be used in brown bears.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM MOUSE TO MOOSE--IMPLEMENTING THE PRINCIPLES OF THE 3RS IN WILDLIFE RESEARCH

The concept of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement) was originally developed for improving laboratory animal welfare and is well known in biomedical and toxicologic research. The 3Rs have so far gained little attention in wildlife research, and there could be several reasons for this. First, researchers may prioritize the welfare of populations and ecosystems over the welfare of individual animals. The effects of research on individual animals can, however, impact welfare and research quality at group and population levels. Second, researchers may find it difficult to apply the 3Rs to studies of free-living wildlife because of the differences between laboratory and wild animals, species, research environment, and purpose and design of the studies. There are, however, several areas where it is possible to transfer the 3R principles to wildlife research, including replacement with noninvasive research techniques, reduction with optimized experimental design, and refinement with better methods of capture, anesthesia, and handling. Third, researchers may not have been trained in applying the 3Rs in wildlife research. This training is needed since ethics committees, employers, journal publishers, and funding agencies increasingly require researchers to consider the welfare implications of their research. In this paper, we compare the principles of the 3Rs in various research areas to better understand the possibilities and challenges of the 3Rs in wildlife research. We emphasize the importance of applying the 3Rs systematically throughout the research process. Based on experiences from laboratory research, we suggest three key factors to enhance implementation of the 3Rs in wildlife research: 1) organizational structure and management, 2) 3R awareness, and 3) research innovation, validation, and implementation. Finally, we encourage an interdisciplinary approach to incorporate the 3R principles in wildlife research. For improved animal welfare and increased research quality, researchers have moral obligations to include the 3Rs into all research areas, including wildlife research.

LEUKOCYTE COPING CAPACITY AS A TOOL TO ASSESS CAPTURE- AND HANDLING-INDUCED STRESS IN SCANDINAVIAN BROWN BEARS (URSUS ARCTOS)

Brown bears (Ursus arctos) are often captured and handled for research and management purposes. Although the techniques used are potentially stressful for the animals and might have detrimental and long-lasting consequences, it is difficult to assess their physiological impact. Here we report the use of the leukocyte coping capacity (LCC) technique to quantify the acute stress of capture and handling in brown bears in Scandinavia. In April and May 2012 and 2013, we collected venous blood samples and recorded a range of physiological variables to evaluate the effects of capture and the added impact of surgical implantation or removal of transmitters and sensors. We studied 24 brown bears, including 19 that had abdominal surgery. We found 1) LCC values following capture were lower in solitary bears than in bears in family groups suggesting capture caused relatively more stress in solitary bears, 2) ability to cope with handling stress was better (greater LCC values) in bears with good body condition, and 3) LCC values did not appear to be influenced by surgery. Although further evaluation of this technique is required, our preliminary results support the use of the LCC technique as a quantitative measure of stress.