Wildlife Research
Wildlife includes free ranging and captive wild vertebrates, such as amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish and mammals, all introduced and indigenous species and feral domestic animals. Wildlife research includes studies that focus on different levels of organization from individual animals to ecosystems.
The Three Rs concept, although initially conceived for laboratory-based animal research, is also a part of wildlife research ethics.
Wildlife and Animal Welfare
Wildlife research has unique animal welfare challenges. Therefore applying the Three Rs in wildlife studies of higher levels of organization (such as populations and communities) is challenging because research goals may prioritize the collection of data from many animals over the welfare of individual animals.
- Limited peer-reviewed research on the welfare issues of field studies (e.g. quantifying the stress of capture and handling, the effects of telemetry devices, and recovery from surgical procedures).
- Difficulties assessing the welfare of wild animals in the field (e.g. access to the animals is limited, many species are adapted to conceal signs of suffering or poor health, and knowledge of welfare indicators for many species is inadequate).
- Experimental procedures may require the transportation and/or confinement of wild animals and animals may be injured during capture or handling. Lack of conditioning to handling causes distress in captured wild animals.
- Sample collection and tagging may involve invasive procedures and lack of use of analgesics can result in inadequate pain relief and peri-operative care.
- Assistance from veterinarians is not as readily available as it is in many laboratories.
- Inadvertent capture, injury or disturbance of non-study species.
- Research protocols that may involve the killing of animals.
- The potential for negative impacts on animal welfare from wildlife research methods to bias research results.
Specific Wildlife Three Rs Strategies
Specific Wildlife Three Rs Strategies have been developed by experts.
- Collation and analyses of data already gained (e.g., data-mining, population meta-analyses).
- Computer modeling simulations.
- Collection and analyses of archived tissue samples.
Developed, in part, with information from Norecopa
- Maximize sample use by designing studies so that specimens are used for multiple purposes or combined with samples from additional field seasons - including the collection of biological and genetic samples for archiving.
- Conduct statistical evaluation of sample size prior to conducting the research, even when sources of variation can only be roughly estimated.
- Use species/gender/age-specific experimental designs (e.g., use species-specific baits, or trap at specific times or locations) to minimize capture of non-target animals.
- Share data and resources (e.g., biological and genetic samples) and publish all results.
Developed, in part, with information from Norecopa
- Assess potential sources of harm to study and non-study species and how these will be eliminated or minimized.
- Conduct a retrospective review of all wildlife research studies where animal welfare was an issue (e.g. with unacceptable mortality) to avoid repetition of these events.
- Decrease the frequency and duration of human observation - consider using remote video surveillance.
- Non-invasive sampling by remote methods (e.g. detection and collection of feces, barbwire hair snagging, camera trapping).
- Use analgesics to control pain in invasive procedures (e.g. laparotomy, biopsy and tooth extraction).
- Minimize the capture of non-target animals, but prepare protocols to manage unplanned captures and accidental killing.
- Minimize disturbances that can lead to abandonment of home ranges, pre-emption of feeding, disruption of social structures, and alteration of predator-prey relationships.
- Use minimal restraint without compromising researcher safety for the shortest time possible for the planned procedures.
- Collaborate with manufacturers of research equipment to design and field-test equipment that is less disruptive to animals.
Developed, in part, with information from Norecopa
Other resources are also available, including the Wildlife Research Standards & Best Practices, Three Rs Search Guide and the Animal Index.
Reduction can be achieved with optimal experimental design and consultation with a statistician may be helpful.
Relevant Resources
American Association of Zoo Veterinarians (AAZV) (2006) Guidelines for euthanasia of nondomestic animals. Yulee FL: AAZV.
Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre (CCWHC) (2010) Animal welfare in wildlife management, harvest, and research – survey document. Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre National Workshop for Wildlife Health Professionals, February 23, 2010, Carleton University, Ottawa.
CCAC guidelines on: the care and use of wildlife
Lane J.M. and McDonald R.A. (2010) Welfare and 'best practice' in field studies of wildlife. In: Hubrecht B, Kirkwood J, eds. The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals, 8th Edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. p 92-106.
National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) (n.d.) Wildlife research.
Norwegian Consensus-Platform for Alternatives (Norecopa) Harmonisation of the Care and Use of Animals in Field Research. Gardermoen, Norway, May 21-22, 2008.
Sikes R.S., Gannon W.L. and the Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists (2011) Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. Journal of Mammalogy 92(1):235-253.
Minimize this section
Beaulieu M., Ropert-Coudert Y., Le Maho Y. and Ancel A. (2010) Is abdominal implantation of devices a good alternative to external attachment? A comparative study in Adélie penguins. Journal of Ornithology 151(3):579-586.
Cattet M., Bourque A., Elkin B., Powley K., Dahlstrom D. and Caulkett N. (2006) Evaluation of the potential for injury with remote drug delivery systems. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(3):741-749.
Jones T.T., Van Houtan K.S., Bostrom B.L., Ostafichuk P., Mikkelsen J., Tezcan E., Carey M., Imlach B. and Seminoff J. (2013) Calculating the ecological impacts of animal-borne instruments on aquatic organisms. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4(12)1178-1186.
Léchenne M.S., Arnemo J.M., Bröjer C., Andrén H. and Ågren E.O. (2012) Mortalities due to constipation and dystocia caused by intraperitoneal radio-transmitters in Eurasian lynx <em(Lynx lynx). European Journal of Wildlife Research 58(2):503-506.
McMahon C.R., Collier N., Northfield J.K., and Glen F. (2011) Taking the time to assess the effects of remote sensing and tracking devices on animals. Animal Welfare 20(4):515-521.
Mulcahy D.M.(2013) Legal, ethical, and procedural bases for the use of aseptic techniques to implant electronic devices. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 4(1):211-219.
Wilson R.P. and McMahon C.R. (2006) Measuring devices on wild animals: what constitutes acceptable practice? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4:147-154.
Minimize this section
Cattet M., Boulanger J., Stenhouse G., Powell R.A. and Reynolds-Hogland M.J. (2008) An evaluation of long-term capture effects in ursids: implications for wildlife welfare and research. Journal of Mammalogy 89(4):973-990.
Saraux C., Le Bohec C., Durant J.M., Viblanc V.A., Gauthier-Clerc M., Beaune D., Park Y., Yoccoz N.G., Stenseth N.C. and Le Maho Y. (2011) Reliability of flipper-banded penguins as indicators of climate change. Nature 469(7337)::203-206.
Trefry S.A., Diamond A.W. and Jesson L.K. (2012) Wing marker woes: a case study and meta-analysis of the impacts of wing and patagial tags. Journal of Ornithology 154(1):1-11.
Minimize this section
|
