Welfare and ‘Best Practice’ in Field Studies of Wildlife

Lane, Julie M.; McDonald, Robbie A.

doi:10.1002/9781444318777.ch7

Cited by 16 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has also been proposed that aspects of the 3Rs (the commitment to reduce the number of animals used, refine methods to minimize harm, and replace animal research with alternatives whenever possible) may be more challenging in wildlife studies around the world. For example, it can be challenging to capture and sample sufficient wild animals to make the study viable, and postprocedure welfare monitoring is difficult when working on free-living animals that are subsequently released [ 3 , 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, while the laboratory animal arena features numerous specialized networks intended to share information and provide support for those involved (e.g., in the UK, the Laboratory Animal Science Association (LASA), Laboratory Animals Veterinary Association (LAVA), and Institute of Animal Technology (IAT)), fewer such networks exist for nonlaboratory research at POLEs. Some commentators have also observed that most guidelines apply more appropriately to the laboratory rather than to companion animals [ 28 ] and wildlife [ 9 ], although this may be changing, as heralded, for example, by introduction in 2016 of guidelines under the A(SP)A targeted at researchers working with animals taken from the wild [ 2 ]. Similar issues may arise overseas, with researchers in the USA, for example, describing a perceived lack of attention from Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees to the unique ethics and practical challenges encountered in nonlaboratory research [ 4 , 5 , 8 , 37 , 38 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Animal Research beyond the Laboratory: Report from a Workshop on Places Other than Licensed Establishments (POLEs) in the UK

Palmer

Greenhough

Hobson‐West

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research involving animals that occurs outside the laboratory raises an array of unique challenges. With regard to UK legislation, however, it receives only limited attention in terms of official guidelines, support, and statistics, which are unsurprisingly orientated towards the laboratory environment in which the majority of animal research takes place. In September 2019, four social scientists from the Animal Research Nexus program gathered together a group of 13 experts to discuss nonlaboratory research under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (A(SP)A) of 1986 (mirroring European Union (EU) Directive 2010/63/EU), which is the primary mechanism for regulating animal research in the UK. Such nonlaboratory research under the A(SP)A often occurs at Places Other than Licensed Establishments (POLEs). The primary objective of the workshop was to assemble a diverse group with experience across a variety of POLEs (e.g., wildlife field sites, farms, fisheries, veterinary clinics, zoos) to explore the practical, ethical, and regulatory challenges of conducting research at POLEs. While consensus was not sought, nor reached on every point of discussion, we collectively identified five key areas that we propose require further discussion and attention. These relate to: (1) support and training; (2) ethical review; (3) cultures of care, particularly in nonregulated research outside of the laboratory; (4) the setting of boundaries; and (5) statistics and transparency. The workshop generated robust discussion and thereby highlighted the value of focusing on the unique challenges posed by POLEs, and the need for further opportunities for exchanging experiences and sharing best practice relating to research projects outside of the laboratory in the UK and elsewhere.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal Research beyond the Laboratory: Report from a Workshop on Places Other than Licensed Establishments (POLEs) in the UK

Palmer

Greenhough

Hobson‐West

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For researchers involved in the live-trapping of mammals, there is often tension between the frequent monitoring of traps and the need to minimise disturbance to the trap site. Animals left in traps for long periods may become increasingly stressed, suffer dehydration, hypoor hyperthermia and, for females with dependent young, prolonged separation could increase the risk of offspring starvation or predation (Powell and Proulx 2003;Lane and McDonald 2010). Too frequent visits may scare off target animals near the trap location or along the route used to reach the trap.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such systems furthermore, provide no information on what has triggered the trap or whether a trap has been disturbed without triggering the door (and thus, alarm). The use of 'camera traps' (digital cameras that record photographs or video when triggered by a warm moving object) have become increasingly prevalent in wildlife research (Lane and McDonald 2010). Some recent camera models also allow still images to be sent to a recipient through the GSM/GPRS telecommunications network.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of remote cameras for monitoring cage traps during animal trapping

Campbell

Griffith

2015

Ecological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We demonstrate, over 44.6 trap nights, the application of remote cameras that send MMS images over the GSM/GPRS telecommunications network for the monitoring of cage traps. Cameras were programmed to message regularly but were also triggered by animal movement. Despite inconsistencies in messaging, the cameras were effective: For all five animal-trapping events, images were sent on the animals approach and captures confirmed within the programmed time period. The system allowed researchers to react quickly to the capture of an animal and to respond appropriately to other trigger-events. Network operating costs were EUR 6/trap night. We recommend setting time lapse intervals to half the maximum period over which it is ethically acceptable to hold target, or by-catch, species.

show abstract

“…Even apparently minor interference in the life of a free‐ranging animal can have serious negative effects. Lane and McDonald () pointed out that temporary removal of individuals from a population can cause social disruption and lead to permanent hierarchical changes, particularly in social animals such as wolves. Dehorning black rhinoceroses as an antipoaching deterrent unexpectedly increased juvenile mortality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Monitoring Technique on Quality of Conservation Science

Jewell

2013

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring free-ranging animals in their natural habitat is a keystone of ecosystem conservation and increasingly important in the context of current rates of loss of biological diversity. Data collected from individuals of endangered species inform conservation policies. Conservation professionals assume that these data are reliable-that the animals from whom data are collected are representative of the species in their physiology, ecology, and behavior and of the populations from which they are drawn. In the last few decades, there has been an enthusiastic adoption of invasive techniques for gathering ecological and conservation data. Although these can provide impressive quantities of data, and apparent insights into animal ranges and distributions, there is increasing evidence that these techniques can result in animal welfare problems, through the wide-ranging physiological effects of acute and chronic stress and through direct or indirect injuries or compromised movement. Much less commonly, however, do conservation scientists consider the issue of how these effects may alter the behavior of individuals to the extent that the data they collect could be unreliable. The emerging literature on the immediate and longer-term effects of capture and handling indicate it can no longer be assumed that a wild animal's survival of the process implies the safety of the procedure, that the procedure is ethical, or the scientific validity of the resulting data. I argue that conservation professionals should routinely assess study populations for negative effects of their monitoring techniques and adopt noninvasive approaches for best outcomes not only for the animals, but also for conservation science.

show abstract

Welfare and ‘Best Practice’ in Field Studies of Wildlife

Cited by 16 publications

References 33 publications

Animal Research beyond the Laboratory: Report from a Workshop on Places Other than Licensed Establishments (POLEs) in the UK

Animal Research beyond the Laboratory: Report from a Workshop on Places Other than Licensed Establishments (POLEs) in the UK

The use of remote cameras for monitoring cage traps during animal trapping

Effect of Monitoring Technique on Quality of Conservation Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About