区分野生动物活动福利审查中的研究与管理

IF 1.5 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 Environmental Science Wildlife Society Bulletin Pub Date : 2023-08-02 DOI:10.1002/wsb.1479
Tracy Thompson, Nathan L. Galloway, M. Verant, Philip Cafaro, M. Wild
{"title":"区分野生动物活动福利审查中的研究与管理","authors":"Tracy Thompson, Nathan L. Galloway, M. Verant, Philip Cafaro, M. Wild","doi":"10.1002/wsb.1479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A common understanding and clear process to apply the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to wildlife‐related activities is crucial to promote animal welfare when conducting wildlife research and for streamlining review by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Current interpretation of the AWA and United States government policies advise that wildlife research activities be reviewed for compliance by an IACUC; however, guidance regarding which wildlife activities are categorized as research and therefore subject to review and oversight is limited. In our opinion and experience, this lack of clarity creates a challenge, particularly for natural resource agencies that conduct a range of wildlife activities, to ensure that research is properly identified for IACUC review and differentiated from management activities that are exempt from review. To fill the gap in current guidance, we propose a decision‐making model that clarifies research and management activities. We apply our model to case studies involving wildlife to highlight nuanced differences between the 2 types of activities. Wildlife agencies conducting potentially regulated activities could use this adaptable model, which has been successfully employed by the National Park Service IACUC, to clarify when the AWA might apply, streamline IACUC reviews, and promote welfare of wildlife.","PeriodicalId":23845,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Society Bulletin","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differentiating research from management in welfare review of wildlife activities\",\"authors\":\"Tracy Thompson, Nathan L. Galloway, M. Verant, Philip Cafaro, M. Wild\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/wsb.1479\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A common understanding and clear process to apply the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to wildlife‐related activities is crucial to promote animal welfare when conducting wildlife research and for streamlining review by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Current interpretation of the AWA and United States government policies advise that wildlife research activities be reviewed for compliance by an IACUC; however, guidance regarding which wildlife activities are categorized as research and therefore subject to review and oversight is limited. In our opinion and experience, this lack of clarity creates a challenge, particularly for natural resource agencies that conduct a range of wildlife activities, to ensure that research is properly identified for IACUC review and differentiated from management activities that are exempt from review. To fill the gap in current guidance, we propose a decision‐making model that clarifies research and management activities. We apply our model to case studies involving wildlife to highlight nuanced differences between the 2 types of activities. Wildlife agencies conducting potentially regulated activities could use this adaptable model, which has been successfully employed by the National Park Service IACUC, to clarify when the AWA might apply, streamline IACUC reviews, and promote welfare of wildlife.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23845,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wildlife Society Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wildlife Society Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1479\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Environmental Science\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wildlife Society Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1479","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

将《动物福利法》(AWA)应用于野生动物相关活动的共识和明确的程序对于促进野生动物研究和简化机构动物护理和使用委员会(IACUC)的审查至关重要。目前对《野生动物保护法》和美国政府政策的解释建议,野生动物研究活动应由IACUC审查是否遵守;然而,关于哪些野生动物活动被归类为研究并因此受到审查和监督的指导是有限的。根据我们的观点和经验,这种缺乏明明性带来了挑战,特别是对开展一系列野生动物活动的自然资源机构来说,要确保适当地确定IACUC审查的研究,并将其与免于审查的管理活动区分开来。为了填补当前指南的空白,我们提出了一个明确研究和管理活动的决策模型。我们将我们的模型应用于涉及野生动物的案例研究,以突出两种活动之间的细微差异。野生动物机构进行潜在的监管活动可以使用这种适应性模型,这种模型已经被国家公园管理局IACUC成功地采用,以澄清AWA何时可以适用,简化IACUC的审查,并促进野生动物的福利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Differentiating research from management in welfare review of wildlife activities
A common understanding and clear process to apply the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to wildlife‐related activities is crucial to promote animal welfare when conducting wildlife research and for streamlining review by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Current interpretation of the AWA and United States government policies advise that wildlife research activities be reviewed for compliance by an IACUC; however, guidance regarding which wildlife activities are categorized as research and therefore subject to review and oversight is limited. In our opinion and experience, this lack of clarity creates a challenge, particularly for natural resource agencies that conduct a range of wildlife activities, to ensure that research is properly identified for IACUC review and differentiated from management activities that are exempt from review. To fill the gap in current guidance, we propose a decision‐making model that clarifies research and management activities. We apply our model to case studies involving wildlife to highlight nuanced differences between the 2 types of activities. Wildlife agencies conducting potentially regulated activities could use this adaptable model, which has been successfully employed by the National Park Service IACUC, to clarify when the AWA might apply, streamline IACUC reviews, and promote welfare of wildlife.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Wildlife Society Bulletin BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
13.30%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Wildlife Society Bulletin is a journal for wildlife practitioners that effectively integrates cutting edge science with management and conservation, and also covers important policy issues, particularly those that focus on the integration of science and policy. Wildlife Society Bulletin includes articles on contemporary wildlife management and conservation, education, administration, law enforcement, and review articles on the philosophy and history of wildlife management and conservation. This includes: Reports on practices designed to achieve wildlife management or conservation goals. Presentation of new techniques or evaluation of techniques for studying or managing wildlife. Retrospective analyses of wildlife management and conservation programs, including the reasons for success or failure. Analyses or reports of wildlife policies, regulations, education, administration, law enforcement. Review articles on the philosophy and history of wildlife management and conservation. as well as other pertinent topics that are deemed more appropriate for the Wildlife Society Bulletin than for The Journal of Wildlife Management. Book reviews that focus on applied research, policy or wildlife management and conservation.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the performance of semiautomated photographic identification programs for leopard seals The use of orthoimagery and stereoscopic aerial imagery to identify muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) houses Pesticide-free management of invasive ants impacting ground-nesting wildlife populations Considerations for a threatened seabird: The impact of shoreline avian predators on at-sea marbled murrelets Abundance estimates of Gunnison's prairie dogs compared to the number of active burrows
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1