Wild animals are captured, handled and housed in a wide variety of contexts, including management, conservation and scientific research. Animals are often subjected to similar procedures and risks of compromised welfare from capture, anesthesia, handling, sampling, marking, and selective removal.Where they exist, guidelines for best practices are not always clearly linked to animal welfare and sometimes have their origins in practicality. This can be complicated by a lack of clarity about indicators of welfare for wild animals, and to what extent personnel handling animals should intervene in cases of compromised welfare.1 An exception to this is the wildlife veterinarian, whose level of training generally encompasses an extensive examination of ethical concepts as they relate to the animals being treated.
As a result of these ambiguities, numerous schools of thought have arisen regarding ethics as they relate to the welfare of wild animals and human interaction therewith.
Two particular schools of thought stand out with regard to ethics and animal handling. These are preservation, and conservation (or responsible consumption by humans). In the first case, people and organizations that champion the preservation of wildlife and ecosystems have the viewpoint of maintaining animal and ecological integrity in their purest forms.2 Adherents of this school of thought often advocate for the complete separation of human and wild animal ecosystems. Proponents for conservation and responsible consumption views humans as a part of the natural world and call for a sustainable mode of interaction and consumption of the natural world. Obviously, competition between these two schools of thought has led to ongoing ethical dilemmas and disagreements. Chief among these have been controversy surrounding laboratory animals and animal experimentation.
Wild animals have always been an important resource for humans. Historically, animal products were key to human survival; today wildlife retains a high economic and cultural significance. Wild animals provide entertainment, form a central attraction in international tourism, and they are key members of ecosystems upon which humans rely for vital services.2 Conversely, wild animals can be seen as threatening to human beings as sources of human (zoonoses), and they can damage or consume crops. This is typically referred to by environmental ethicists as instrumental value.3
Although the concept of wildlife is generally taken to mean animals that are not bred or controlled by humans, in response to increasing human pressures on wild animals and their habitats, concern over wildlife protection and management has grown over the last century. Often this takes the form of active wildlife management, where some species are controlled as part of a policy to promote the success of those or other species.
As concepts of ethics and animal welfare evolved over the last several decades, methods of capture and handling became more closely examined, particularly in cases of scientific research and when wildlife species are first handled and then returned to the wild. The chemical immobilization of wild animals is often used to facilitate relocation, bio-measuring, ear-tagging, microchip implantation, vaccination, radio collaring and medical treatment.
The chemical immobilization of wild animals can be traced back to tribes from South America who used curare-coated arrows in their quest for food. Though this method was effective and curare derivatives were used for many years, an effort began in the late 1950s by wildlife managers in South Africa to develop new and more efficacious methods to immobilize animals for research.4 Since that time, a great deal of progress has been made in developing new drugs and techniques for delivery, and some of this has been the result of ethical concerns over capture and immobilization techniques. Some of the earlier efforts in this regard often led to the death of individual animals; thus, safe and effective drugs and drug formulations became a principal focus of wildlife managers and veterinarians.
Today, veterinarians in wildlife medicine can administer anesthetic drugs far more effectively, using various delivery systems. In the majority of cases, wildlife species can be chemically immobilized without issue or complications. There are different approaches to administering drugs in chemical restraint procedures: oral, hand-held injection, pole syringe and darts. In cooperative animals (such as in some zoo settings), hand-held injections or the pole-syringed administration are usually the delivery routes of choice.
Due to constant changes in restraint techniques, equipment and even immobilization drugs, wildlife veterinary practices have improved dramatically over the past few decades. This progress coupled with the experience of practitioners has contributed towards a safer practice for both the animals and humans involved in procedures.
Interested in learning more about safe capture? The San Diego Zoo now offers courses in safe capture techniques and best practices. Learn reliable, safe, and effective techniques for the species you work with and the scenarios you encounter!