Jessup David A
California Department of Fish and Game, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.
ILAR J. 2003;44(4):277-85. doi: 10.1093/ilar.44.4.277.
Currently most of the activities of state, federal, first nation, and private conservation agencies, including management of and field research on free-ranging wildlife, are not regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and thus not subject to National Institutes of Health guidelines or routine institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) review. However, every day thousands of fish and wildlife management activities occur across North America that provide an opportunity to take observations, measurements, biological specimens, or samples that may have research value. Most of these opportunities are secondary to ongoing and often mandated wildlife management or conservation actions. Strange as it may seem to the academic and research community, the full research potentials of these opportunities are rarely utilized. IACUCs and research institutions should strive to facilitate such research, which by its very nature is often more opportunistic than designed. They can do this by ensuring that their policies do not unnecessarily impede the rapid research responses needed, or over burden researchers with inappropriate reporting requirements designed for laboratory research. The most prominent reasons for failures to utilize wildlife research opportunities include lack of the following: personnel and expertise to collect and use the information; preparation for inevitable (or predictable) events (e.g., oil spills); resources to preserve and curate specimens; a mandate to conduct research; and recognition of the value in data or sample collection. IACUC support of open protocols and generic sampling plans can go a long way toward improving the development of useful knowledge from animals that will otherwise be lost. Opportunities to sample wildlife are categorized generally as dead sampling (road kill surveys, harvest sampling, lethal collection, and "die-offs"); live sampling (handling for marking, relocation or restocking; and captures for field or biological studies); and crisis response (e.g., population salvage operations or oil spills). Examples of the many unique situations in each category serve to illustrate how valuable research and sampling can be accomplished opportunistically. Several unique limitations of sample collection situation are described. It is recommended that IACUCs have mechanisms in place to facilitate good research in all of these circumstances.
目前,州、联邦、原住民和私人保护机构的大多数活动,包括对自由放养野生动物的管理和实地研究,均不受《动物福利法》(AWA)监管,因此也不受国立卫生研究院指南或常规机构动物护理和使用委员会(IACUC)审查。然而,北美每天都有成千上万的鱼类和野生动物管理活动,这些活动提供了进行观察、测量、采集具有研究价值的生物标本或样本的机会。其中大多数机会是正在进行的、通常是强制性的野生动物管理或保护行动的附带结果。尽管对于学术和研究界来说可能看起来很奇怪,但这些机会的全部研究潜力很少得到利用。IACUC和研究机构应努力促进此类研究,此类研究本质上往往比设计好的研究更具机会性。它们可以通过确保其政策不会不必要地阻碍所需的快速研究反应,或不会因针对实验室研究设计的不适当报告要求而给研究人员造成过重负担来做到这一点。未能利用野生动物研究机会的最主要原因包括缺乏以下方面:收集和使用信息的人员和专业知识;对不可避免(或可预测)事件(如石油泄漏)的准备;保存和管理标本的资源;进行研究的任务授权;以及对数据或样本收集价值的认识。IACUC对开放方案和通用采样计划的支持,对于从否则将会丢失的动物身上获取有用知识的发展大有帮助。对野生动物进行采样的机会一般分为死亡采样(道路死亡调查、收获采样、致命采集和“死亡事件”);活体采样(为标记、重新安置或放流而处理;以及为野外或生物学研究而捕获);以及危机应对(如种群救助行动或石油泄漏)。每个类别中许多独特情况的例子说明了如何能够机会性地完成有价值的研究和采样。文中描述了样本采集情况的几个独特限制。建议IACUC建立机制,以便在所有这些情况下促进良好的研究。