Along the West Coast of Barbados a unique relationship has developed between endangered green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) and humans. Fishermen began inadvertently provisioning these foraging turtles with fish offal discarded from their boats. Although initially an indirect supplementation, this activity became a popular attraction for visitors. Subsequently, demand for this activity increased, and direct supplementation or provisioning with food began. Food items offered included raw whole fish (typically a mixture of false herring [Harengula clupeola] and pilchard [Harengula humeralis]), filleted fish, and lesser amounts of processed food such as hot dogs, chicken, bread, or various other leftovers. Alterations in behavior and growth rates as a result of the provisioning have been documented in this population. The purpose of this study was to determine how tourism-based human interactions are affecting the overall health of this foraging population and to determine what potential health risks these interactions may create for sea turtles. Juvenile green sea turtles (n=29) were captured from four sites off the coast of Barbados, West Indies, and categorized into a group that received supplemental feeding as part of a tour (n=11) or an unsupplemented group (n=18) that consisted of individuals that were captured at sites that did not provide supplemental feeding. Following capture, a general health assessment of each animal was conducted. This included weight and morphometric measurements, a systematic physical examination, determination of body condition score and body condition index, epibiota assessment and quantification, and clinical pathology including hematologic and biochemical testing and nutritional assessments. The supplemented group was found to have changes to body condition, vitamin, mineral, hematologic, and biochemical values. Based on these results, recommendations were made to decrease negative behaviors and health impacts for turtles as a result of this provisioning.

Capture and translocation are important tools for managing and studying large ungulates. Although widely used, many established field practices cause fear and stress in subject animals that can hamper overall effectiveness and safety. Over the last 10 years we have been exploring uses of tranquilizer combinations as adjuncts to wild ungulate capture and translocation work in Colorado, USA. Our approaches have been tailored to various field applications to reduce fear and stress, facilitate handling, and improve the overall success of capture and translocation for research or management purposes. For physical capture (drop net or helicopter-net gunning) with local release, combinations of midazolam and azaperone administered immediately upon capture provide transient tranquilization and muscle relaxation during manual restraint and handling to prevent hyperthermia and capture myopathy. For extended tranquilization (during transport and overnight holding), adding a sustained-release haloperidol formulation provides calming effects for at least 24–48 h. In our assessment, appropriate and adaptive use of these tranquilizer combinations benefits captured animals without impeding management or research goals

Field anesthesia is often necessary for both invasive and noninvasive procedures on wild animals. We describe basic principles of safe anesthetic delivery, monitoring, and recovery for application in procedures involving free-ranging wildlife. For invasive procedures, the potential for immediate and lasting pain must be addressed and appropriate analgesia provided. In situations where the minimum standard of safe anesthesia and effective analgesia cannot be provided, the investigator and approving bodies should rigorously evaluate the risk to the patient against the value of the data obtained. This document is intended to serve as a resource for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, biologists, veterinarians, and other researchers planning projects that involve free-ranging wildlife in field conditions.

The principles of surgical asepsis apply to field surgeries with few exceptions. The minimum level for performance of surgeries in the field on free-ranging animals should be the same as for domestic animals undergoing surgery in animal hospitals. Surgeries in the field are typically done as part of research and management projects and usually involve a combination of biologists and veterinarians with the possibility of conflicts in scientific cultures. This article outlines a minimum standard of care for field surgeries and will serve as a resource for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees and biologists and veterinarians planning projects that involve surgeries on free-ranging wildlife in field conditions.

Over several decades, animal welfare has grown into its own free-standing field of scientific study, from its early beginnings in laboratory animal research to eventually include exhibited animals and farm animals. While it has always been present to some degree, consideration of animal welfare for free-ranging animals has lagged behind, developing as a field of study in the last 20 yr or so. Part of that increase was that animal welfare legislation was finally applied to studies being done on free-ranging animals. But it is the appreciation by the biologists and veterinarians working on wild animals, in which the quality of their results is largely controlled by the quality of the animals they use in their studies, which has resulted in increased attention to the well-being or welfare of the animals that they use. Other important influences driving the recognition of wildlife welfare have been changes in the public's expectations of how wild animals are dealt with, a shift in focus of wildlife professionals from managing animals that can be hunted or angled to include nongame species, the decrease in participation in hunting and fishing by members of the public, and the entry of large numbers of women into fish and wildlife agencies and departments and into veterinary medicine. Technical improvements have allowed the safe capture and handling of large or dangerous animals as immobilization drugs and equipment have been developed. The increasing use of sedating drugs allows for handling of animals with reduced stress and other impacts. A number of topics, such as toe-clipping, branding, defining which taxa can or cannot feel pain, catch-and-release fishing, and more, remain controversial within wildlife science. How we treat the wild animals that we deal with defines who we are as wildlife professionals, and animal welfare concerns and techniques for free-ranging animals will continue to develop and evolve.

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.

Venous blood gas partial pressures, pH, bicarbonate and lactate concentrations, packed cell volume, white blood cell differential counts, and heterophil/lymphocyte ratios were measured from Mourning Doves (Zenaida macroura), Boat-tailed Grackles (Quiscalus major), and House Sparrows (Passer domesticus). Birds were bled promptly after mist-net capture and banding or following a targeted delay of 45–60 min, in order to assess the impacts of a brief holding period commonly practiced in large-scale bird banding operations. Additionally, effects of venipuncture location (basilic [=ulnar] vein versus jugular vein) were evaluated in male Boat-tailed Grackles sampled promptly after capture and banding. All comparisons were with unpaired samples; no birds were subjected to more than one venipuncture. All three species exhibited moderate improvements in blood gas and acid-base status after the delay, with reductions in lactate concentrations with or without concurrent increases in pH and bicarbonate. Boat-tailed Grackles exhibited an increased proportion of heterophils in the differential white blood cell count following a delay in sampling, suggestive of a stress leukogram. There were no significant differences between basilic and jugular venipuncture results from male Boat-tailed Grackles. Most metabolic, respiratory, and acid-base alterations were minor, but a small number of birds exhibited values (e.g., temperature-corrected pH <7.3, lactate >10 mmol/L) that could be of concern if combined with other adverse conditions. For such birds, a short delay between capture and processing could benefit their blood gas and acid-base status, although loss of time foraging or feeding young and greater activation of the hypophyseal-pituitary-adrenal axis are additional considerations.

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.

Ninety-four subadult and adult white rhinoceroses (Ceratotherium simum) were captured between February and October, 2009–11, in Kruger National Park and placed in holding bomas prior to translocation to other locations within South Africa. A simple three-category system was developed based on appetite, fecal consistency/volume, and behavior to assess adaptation to bomas. Individual animal and group daily median scores were used to determine trends and when rhinoceroses had successfully adapted to the boma. Seventeen rhinoceroses did not adapt to boma confinement, and 16 were released (1 mortality). No differences in boma scores were observed between rhinoceroses that adapted and those that did not, until day 8, when the first significant differences were observed (adapted score=13 versus nonadapted score=10). The time to reach a boma score determined as successful adaptation (median 19 d) matched subjective observations, which was approximately 3 wk for most rhinoceroses. Unsuccessful adaptation was indicated by an individual boma score of less than 15, typically during the first 2 wk, or a declining trend in scores within the first 7–14 d. This scoring system can be used for most locations and could also be easily adapted to other areas in which rhinoceroses are held in captivity. This tool also provides important information for assessing welfare in newly captured rhinoceroses.

Swan pipes, duck decoys, cage traps, cannon netting, and roundups are widely used to capture waterfowl in order to monitor populations. These methods are often regulated in countries with national ringing or banding programs and are considered to be safe, and thus justifiable given the benefits to conservation. However, few published studies have addressed how frequently injuries and mortalities occur, or the nature of any injuries. In the present study, rates of mortality and injury during captures with the use of these methods carried out by the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust as part of conservation programs were assessed. The total rate of injury (including mild dermal abrasions) was 0.42% across all species groups, whereas total mortality was 0.1% across all capture methods. Incidence of injury varied among species groups (ducks, geese, swans, and rails), with some, for example, dabbling ducks, at greater risk than others. We also describe techniques used before, during, and after a capture to reduce stress and injury in captured waterfowl. Projects using these or other capture methods should monitor and publish their performance to allow sharing of experience and to reduce risks further.

Immersion anesthetics are used in hatchery settings by veterinarians, field biologists, and laboratory researchers to aid in handling finfish for medical procedures, research purposes, and moderating perceived stress responses. The only Food and Drug Administration– (FDA) approved anesthetic for food fish, tricaine methanesulfonate, requires a 21-d withdrawal period prior to harvest. Ten percent eugenol (AQUI-S® 20E) has been gaining momentum for FDA approval because of its 0-d withdrawal time if fish are not of harvestable size within 72 h of exposure. We performed two trials to determine appropriate anesthetic doses for two cultured marine finfish: Atractoscion nobilis (white seabass, WSB) and Seriola lalandi (California yellowtail, YT). Fish were held in a treated water bath for 10 min or until opercular beat rate slowed to a rate of <2 beats/min. Based on these results, we conducted a field trial with wild Paralabrax maculatofasciatus (spotted bay bass), Paralabrax nebulifer (barred sand bass), Paralichthys californicus (California halibut), Triakis semifasciata (leopard shark), and Mustelus californicus (grey smooth-hound) at a single dosing regime, with animals held 5–10 min in anesthetic baths. Anesthetic dosing of 35–55 mg L⁻¹ provided relatively fast induction and good anesthetic maintenance in cultured and wild finfish. Anesthetic induction times were comparable among S. lalandi and A. nobilis at 35–mg L⁻¹ to 75–mg L⁻¹ doses, but recovery times were variable. Mortality rates of 20-90% were observed at higher doses (75 mg L⁻¹ and 100 mg L⁻¹, A. nobilis; 55 mg L⁻¹ and 75 mg L⁻¹, S. lalandi). The apparent increase in sensitivity of S. lalandi may have been associated with nutritional stress in the fish tested. There were no differences in time to anesthesia or recovery among wild finfish species tested at a single dose. Anesthetic induction, maintenance, and recovery were less predictable in the elasmobranch species tested and additional trials are needed to determine optimal dosing.