The Dividing Line Between Wildlife Research and Management—Implications for Animal Welfare

Abstract

Wild animals are used for research and management purposes in Sweden and throughout the world. Animals are often subjected to similar procedures and risks of compromised welfare from capture, anesthesia, handling, sampling, marking, and sometimes selective removal. The interpretation of the protection of animals used for scientific purposes in Sweden is based on the EU Directive 2010/63/EU. The purpose of animal use, irrespective if the animal is suffering or not, decides the classification as a research animal, according to Swedish legislation. In Sweden, like in several other European countries, the legislation differs between research and management. Whereas, animal research is generally well-defined and covered in the legislation, wildlife management is not. The protection of wild animals differs depending on the procedure they are subjected to, and how they are classified. In contrast to wildlife management activities, research projects have to implement the 3Rs and must undergo ethical reviews and official animal welfare controls. It is often difficult to define the dividing line between the two categories, e.g., when marking for identification purposes. This gray area creates uncertainty and problems beyond animal welfare, e.g., in Sweden, information that has been collected during management without ethical approval should not be published. The legislation therefore needs to be harmonized. To ensure consistent ethical and welfare assessments for wild animals at the hands of humans, and for the benefit of science and management, we suggest that both research and management procedures are assessed by one single Animal Ethics Committee with expertise in the 3Rs, animal welfare, wildlife population health and One Health. We emphasize the need for increased and improved official animal welfare control, facilitated by compatible legislation and a similar ethical authorization process for all wild animal procedures.

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

“…They worry that even if most citizen scientists undertaking trapping and marking are experienced and take care to attend to animal welfare, if there are no systems in place to check, less careful work could also theoretically occur. Similar concerns have been raised about patchy regulation of wildlife trapping and marking elsewhere in Europe, with some therefore recommending that decisions around all such work, irrespective of purpose, should be made with input from central animal research authorities (see Lindsjö et al., 2019; NORECOPA, 2017 for related discussions in Sweden).…”

“…In addition, the A(SP)A does not cover the capture of wild animals, although guidance indicates that animals must be captured by a 'competent person using a method which does not cause the animal avoidable pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm' (ASRU, 2016, p. 22). Similar purpose-and harm-based criteria restrict the scope of local laws related to animals in science across Europe, following the introduction of EU Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals in science (Lindsjö et al, 2019;NORECOPA, 2017). as well as its mass and size (Vandenabeele et al, 2012(Vandenabeele et al, , 2014.…”

“…various non-avian taxa) require minimal licensing, training, and justification in the UK and elsewhere (e.g. see Lindsjö et al, 2019 ; NORECOPA, 2017 ), there is a worry that even if most citizen scientists are experienced and attend to animal welfare, less careful work could theoretically occur if there are no systems in place to check. However, while some of our research and event participants have argued for increased formal regulation to minimise risks to animal welfare, others have counter-argued that this could make citizen science less accessible and eliminate its benefits.…”

An Ethical Assessment Tool (ETHAS) to Evaluate the Application of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Mammals’ Conservation: The Case of the Northern White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum cottoni)

“…Again, while this is nowadays routine in the ethical assessment of laboratory projects involving animals [36], it is instead underrepresented in wildlife studies. In particular, harm-benefit analysis has been rarely applied to evaluate the impact on the health and welfare of wild animals involved in veterinary procedures aimed at safeguarding their species [37]. Nonetheless, it is progressively used to identify costs and benefits arising from conservation projects in relation to not only their economic impact [38], but also to their positive or negative consequences for the ecosystem and the local wildlife population.…”

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

“…Discussions within the veterinary community have therefore focused on the distinction between Recognised Veterinary Practice (RVP) and research [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. Similar issues may arise overseas, with researchers in Sweden, for example, pointing to the difficulty of determining when nonlaboratory research (e.g., with wildlife) is undertaken for research or management purposes, a decision which has important implications for regulation and oversight [ 17 ].…”