A wide variety of wildlife is used in research (including mammals, birds, reptiles, fishes, amphibians and invertebrates) in studies aimed at -
Wildlife studies vary in their invasiveness and impact on the animals being studied. In all circumstances, researchers should seek to minimise any negative impact on the welfare of animals involved. Good animal welfare practice for wildlife research is characterised by the same features as laboratory-based research, however different approaches and procedures may be needed for wild animals compared with laboratory-bred animals.
Wildlife research is usually conducted with free-living animals in their natural habitat or with wild-caught animals in various captive settings (e.g. laboratory, zoo, aquarium, sanctuary). Rarely, wildlife species are purpose-bred under laboratory conditions similar to those used for animal models. Animals should not be taken from their natural habitat unless animals bred in captivity are unavailable or unsuitable for the scientific purpose. Taking animals from the wild for scientific purposes is regulated by legislation (see Wildlife legislation below).
Many wildlife studies focus on conservation and management, with the aim of learning about the ecology of a population in the field. In such cases, minimising disturbance to the animals is important for the scientific validity of the research as well as for good animal welfare.
Some field studies require altering the animals' habitat or behaviour as a goal of the study, whilst others require monitoring the animals in response to a change in habitat. In such cases, it is important to minimise disturbance both to the animals around the study site, and to the animals under investigation.
Many field studies involve manipulating the study animals involving capture, marking or additional procedures, or a combination of these, which can cause distress. Capture, marking, radio tagging and collecting physiological data (e.g. blood or tissue samples) can also have delayed consequences, such as a reduced probability of survival and reproduction. It is therefore vitally important to carry out such procedures according to 'best practice' and to monitor the animals for potential adverse effects. Pilot studies may be used to assess the potential environmental disruption of fieldwork and follow-up studies may be used to monitor the success of the study and any adverse effects caused to the animals.
Researchers should take into account the social structure and behaviour of the species under investigation. The most obvious example is the dependence of young on maternal care. For species with a complex social organisation, removing a critical member of the social group can impair the well-being of the remaining group members. Such considerations may be pertinent even when the removal of animals is temporary.
Even purely observational studies, where there is no manipulation of the animals, can raise ethical concerns with regard to animal welfare and/or conservation. For example, human observation can disturb normal animal activities such that animals abandon their territories, home ranges or young. Making trails through habitats to access, observe and census animals can also cause disturbance. Researchers should consider such issues when designing their studies. Camera traps can sometimes be used to avoid disturbing the animals either by trapping or direct observation.
In general, wild-caught animals should be kept in captive conditions that conform as closely as possible to their natural habitat (e.g. in such respects as light intensity, food etc.). Length of time in captivity and location of release are important additional considerations for animals being returned to the wild. Prolonged time in captivity may result in the released animal being rejected by its conspecifics and losing access to essential resources (e.g. badger's sett), which may compromise its ability to feed or fend for itself. Animals should always be returned to the exact point of capture.
The 3Rs are an integral part of the UK Animal (Scientific Procedures) 1986 Act (ASPA), which regulates the use of vertebrates, including wildlife species, in procedures with the potential to cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. The ASPA also requires that the likely benefits of the research, to humans, animals or the environment, are weighed against the likely costs to the animals involved.
The 3Rs and cost/benefit assessment are relevant also to wildlife research that is not regulated by the ASPA but which, nonetheless, has the potential to compromise the welfare of the study or non-study species. The 3Rs should always be considered as part of the design and conduct of wildlife studies.
Replacement does not often apply to studies aimed at understanding the behaviour and ecology of wildlife species, because the animals themselves are the objects of study. However, in silico techniques, such as computer modelling, are used for population studies, including those aimed at evaluating methods of lethal/fertility control, investigating animal movements and predicting disease spread.
Many of the principles and techniques used to reduce the numbers of animals used in biomedical research are applicable to wildlife research. These include -
Animal use can also be reduced by -
In contrast to most laboratory studies, sample size is not easy to control in field studies. For example, it may be necessary to trap 100 animals to find 40 that meet the age and sex requirements for a study. In addition, there may be external factors, such as weather conditions, that may affect the data that can be collected. It is important to consider these factors when designing field studies.
Assessing potential sources of harm to study and non-study species and how these will be eliminated or minimised should form part of all wildlife research proposals. In many cases, any negative impact on animal welfare can be reduced by careful experimental design and choosing the least invasive techniques. Issues to consider include -
Wildlife species used in research vary greatly in their body size, physiology and behaviour. The methods and equipment used should be appropriate to the species and cause the least distress. It is therefore recommended to consult species-appropriate literature and to seek the advice of those who are experienced with the particular species of interest and familiar with its response to disturbance, sensitivity to capture and restraint, and, if necessary, requirements for captive maintenance. Anyone capturing animals should be trained and competent in humane methods of capture, handling and release, and in any scientific procedures used, to minimise the impact on animals and their environment.
The ASPA defines a regulated procedure as anything done to a protected animal (vertebrates and Octopus vulgaris) for a scientific purpose that causes pain, suffering, distress and/or lasting harm. This includes any material disturbance to normal physical, mental and social well-being, as well as disease, injury and physiological or psychological discomfort either immediately or in the long-term. It is essential to contact the Home Office Inspectorate where there is any doubt whether a procedure falls within the scope of the ASPA.
Ringing, tagging or marking an animal, or using any other humane procedure for the sole purpose of enabling an animal to be identified, is not a regulated procedure under the ASPA if it causes only momentary pain or distress and no lasting harm. Similarly, blood or DNA sampling solely to establish the identity or provenance of an animal would not be regulated if the intervention caused no more than momentary discomfort or distress. Methods of marking or identification, such as toe clipping, which can cause suffering in excess of this threshold, are regulated when carried out for an experimental or other scientific purpose.
If the identification of an animal is for a scientific purpose, this may require regulation under the ASPA. Always check with the Home Office Inspectorate if intending to carry out any of the techniques listed above. In addition, it may be that, for welfare reasons, anaesthetics should be used in order to minimise distress and injury, which would require regulation under the ASPA.
National laws, e.g. the UK Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, regulate taking of animals from the wild for scientific purposes. Wild mammals are also protected from certain acts of cruelty under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. Badgers, deer and seals have Acts of Parliament dedicated especially to them.
Investigators should ensure that they comply with all relevant regulations and that they possess all the necessary permits and licences. For wildlife management advice and the issue of licences see Natural England, The Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage or The Environment and Heritage Service. Also see the Wildlife and Countryside area of the DEFRA website, the Farming and Countryside area of the Welsh Assembly Government website, the Wildlife and Habitats area of the Scottish Government website, or the Natural Environment area of the Northern Ireland Executive website.
Many wildlife species are threatened or endangered and protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES). The CITES species database and World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species can be used to ascertain the current conservation status of a given species. Endangered or threatened species should not be used in research unless there is special justification, e.g. a direct conservation or welfare application.
CITES Appendices I, II and III stipulate that national Government permits are required for trade in certain species and provide three levels of protection for those species in international commercial trade. The ASPA does not permit research on species listed in CITES Appendix I, unless the purpose of the projects is to preserve that species or the project is essential biomedical research and no other species is suitable. For guidance on implementation of CITES in the UK, see www.UKCITES.gov.uk/
|Return to top|