General guidelines for use of wild mammal species are updated from the 1998 version approved by the American Society of Mammalogists (ASM) and expanded to include additional resources. Included are details on marking, housing, trapping, and collecting mammals. These guidelines cover current professional techniques and regulations involving mammals used in research. Institutional animal care and use committees, regulatory agencies, and investigators should review and approve procedures concerning use of vertebrates at any particular institution. These guidelines were prepared and approved by the ASM, whose collective expertise provides a broad and comprehensive understanding of the biology of nondomesticated mammals in their natural environments.

/pdf/guidelines-of-the-american-society-of-mammalogists-for-the-2g7v778e1f.pdf

Guidelines of the american society of mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research

The National Academy of Sciences founded The National Academies Press (NAP) with the goal of publishing reports of all four national academies. Annually, NAP publishes more than 200 books from the fields of science, engineering and medicine and offers more than 4000 titles in PDF on its website (http://www.nap.edu/) free of charge.

/pdf/the-national-academies-press-3oqc1apmt7.pdf

The National Academies Press

1. Clarification: The 2013 Guidelines make a distinction between euthanasia, humane killing, and slaughter, and state that neither slaughter nor humane killing is covered in the document P.68, S6.1.1. Not included among the definitions of these terms are ending the lives of healthy animals or scientific collection of animals. For clarification, whatever the term used, classification of the method, or reason given for killing animals: euthanasia, humane killing, slaughter, harvest, depopulation, scientific collection, or research-related, the Council on Accreditation’s foremost concern, in all situations, is with humane technique. The goal of humane technique is to minimize pain, distress, and the negative effect to the animal. The technique employed should result in rapid loss of consciousness followed by cardiac or respiratory arrest and, ultimately, a loss of brain function. Although complete absence of pain and distress is preferred, it is understood that it cannot always be achieved P7.13.2.

https://works.bepress.com/cheryl_greenacre/14/download/

AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition

Interspecific killing among mammalian carnivores is common in nature and accounts for up to 68% of known mortalities in some species. Interactions may be symmetrical (both species kill each other) or asymmetrical (one species kills the other), and in some interactions adults of one species kill young but not adults of the other. There is a positive significant relationship between the body masses of solitary killer species and body masses of their victim species, and grouping species kill larger victims than solitary species. Interactions and consumption of the victim appear more common when food is scarce or disputed. In response to killers, victim species may alter their use of space, activity patterns, and form groups. Consequences of interspecific killing include population reduction or even extinction, and reduction and enhancement of prey populations, and may therefore have important implications for conservation and management of carnivores and their prey.

/pdf/interspecific-killing-among-mammalian-carnivores-s4vquc7g6w.pdf

Interspecific Killing among Mammalian Carnivores

Apex predators have experienced catastrophic declines throughout the world as a result of human persecution and habitat loss. These collapses in top predator populations are commonly associated with dramatic increases in the abundance of smaller predators. Known as “mesopredator release,” this trophic interaction has been recorded across a range of communities and ecosystems. Mesopredator outbreaks often lead to declining prey populations, sometimes destabilizing communities and driving local extinctions. We present an overview of mesopredator release and illustrate how its underlying concepts can be used to improve predator management in an increasingly fragmented world. We also examine shifts in North American carnivore ranges during the past 200 years and show that 60% of mesopredator ranges have expanded, whereas all apex predator ranges have contracted. The need to understand how best to predict and manage mesopredator release is urgent—mesopredator outbreaks are causing high ecological, economic, an...

/pdf/the-rise-of-the-mesopredator-1jgxr42wx9.pdf

The Rise of the Mesopredator

Report of the AVMA panel on euthanasia

/pdf/2000-report-of-the-avma-panel-on-euthanasia-21go1o6gn7.pdf

2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia

Public Attitudes Toward Wildlife Damage Management and Policy

The objectives of this study were to: (a) determine the acceptability of several methods of lethal and non-lethal wolf control, (b) identify factors that explain acceptability of lethal control, and (c) test a model for predicting acceptability of lethal control. Data were obtained from a mail survey of Utah residents (n = 709). Non-lethal forms of control were more acceptable than lethal forms control. Acceptability of lethal controls varied among stakeholder groups. No such variation existed for non-lethal methods, suggesting these methods are less controversial. Stakeholder group identification (i.e., agricultural, environmental, hunting, wildlife advocacy) impacted acceptability of lethal control. These effects, however, were reduced when beliefs about wolf impacts and attitude toward wolves were controlled. These two factors explained 42% of the variance in the acceptability of lethal wolf control. Path analysis supported the proposed model, suggesting effects of stakeholder identification on accepta...

Social and cognitive correlates of Utah residents' acceptance of the lethal control of wolves.

Financial compensation for damages caused by wildlife is an alternative to lethal wildlife damage management techniques, but little is known about the use of these programs in North America. We conducted surveys requesting information on wildlife species and type of damage covered by compensation programs, annual cost of programs, and the monitoring and assessment of program success to the wildlife agencies of all states and Canadian provinces. We also requested information on programs providing producers with damage-abatement materials instead of or in addition to financial compensation. All states and provinces responded to our survey. Nineteen states and 7 provinces had com- pensation programs, and 34 states and 7 provinces provided damage-abatement materi- als. Most programs were funded by the state, but private and federal organizations also funded some programs. Deer (Odocoileus spp.) were the most common species in com- pensation programs (in 14 states and provinces) followed by bear (Ursus spp.; in 12), elk (Cervus elaphus; in 10), moose (Alces alces; in 7), waterfowl (in 6), pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana; in 6), wolves (Canis spp.; in 5), mountain lions (Puma concolor; in 4), and coyotes (Canis latrans; in 3). Compensation programs involving ungulates in- cluded damage to cultivated crops (in all 1 5 states and provinces), standing hay crops and pastures (in 5), stored hay (in 6), and damage to other property including fencing and irri- gation equipment (in 8). Programs for predators involved livestock losses. Programs for bears involved damage to crops, livestock, and beekeeping equipment. In general, com- pensation programs were established for problems that were recent in origin, exacerbated by governmental actions, or caused by highly valued species. Few states or provinces had formal evaluation procedures for their programs. Given the expense of compensation programs and divided opinions about the programs, we recommend that all states and provinces implement a formal review system.

/pdf/compensation-programs-for-wildlife-damage-in-north-america-33mh8hy4jp.pdf

Robert H. Schmidt

Papers

Report of the AVMA panel on euthanasia

2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia

Public Attitudes Toward Wildlife Damage Management and Policy

Social and cognitive correlates of Utah residents' acceptance of the lethal control of wolves.

Compensation programs for wildlife damage in North America