A. Overview

Consistent with long standing interests in conservation, education, research, and the well-being of birds, the Ornithological Council endorses the following guidelines and principles for scientists conducting research on wild birds. These Guidelines are formulated with consideration of animal welfare and research needs. Guidelines for the care of laboratory mammals [see I.B] often are not appropriate to wild vertebrates, even those held in captivity. On the other hand, the uses of wild animals have aspects that are not encountered in laboratory situations. The first of these is investigations that may affect populations. Investigations often involve, or necessitate, risk of injury or death of the experimental subject. Risks to individual animals should be minimized, but cannot be entirely eliminated. Risks that threaten the health or existence of populations are far more serious. It is these with which the ornithological and conservation community must be most concerned. Except under extraordinary circumstances, experiments that threaten the stability or existence of populations are proscribed.

A second difference between ornithological practice and biomedical research is that the latter rarely involves amateurs and has no recreational component. In contrast, amateur ornithologists often engage in research, and recreational uses of birds (including aviculture, bird watching, falconry, and hunting) are enjoyed by millions of persons. Such activities are beyond the scope of these Guidelines, but we do include the ABA's Code of Ethics (Appendix B).

Humane treatment of wild vertebrates in field research is essential for ethical, scientific, and legal reasons (Young 1975; ASAB and ABS 1993: Peck and Simmonds 1995). Traumatized animals do not behave normally and are more susceptible to predation or accidental injury than untraumatized conspecifics. Disturbance of animals or microhabitat may compromise observations and survivorship calculations.

Acquisition of new knowledge and understanding constitutes a major justification for any investigation. All effects of possibly valuable new research procedures (or new applications of established procedures) cannot be anticipated. The description and geographic distribution of newly discovered species often justifies studies of organisms that are poorly known. Many better known species of birds are used widely for a variety of studies in basic and applied biology. It is impossible to predict all potential observation or collection opportunities at the initiation of most field work, yet the observation or acquisition of unexpected taxa may be of considerable scientific value. Field studies of birds often involve many species, some of which may be unknown to science before onset of a study. A consequence of these points is that investigators frequently must refer to taxa above the species level, as well as to individual species, in their research protocols.

Researchers studying wild vertebrates generally recognize the necessity for collaboration among biologists, conservationists, veterinarians, and others concerned about the survival and well-being of wildlife. The following guidelines parallel those prepared by the Canadian Council on Animal Care for wild vertebrates (last revised 1991). To those who adhere to the precepts of careful field research, these Guidelines may seem to be simply a formal statement of the obvious.

These Guidelines have been prepared to include current information about techniques relevant to birds; advances in methods will require future amendments. Due to the considerable anatomical, behavioral, and physiological diversity of the many species covered by these Guidelines, and to the fact that usually the investigator will be an authority on the requirements and tolerances of the species under study, ultimate responsibility for certain techniques or procedures may best be left to the investigator.

Back to top

B. Relationships Among Concerned Organizations

Beyond ethical considerations, the proper care and use of animals in research has a more formal framework. Most research on wild birds falls under the aegis of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which is enforced by USFWS, CWS, and state and provincial wildlife agencies. [see 11,A] Much of the legal background for current practices involving laboratory

animals in the United States stems from the Animal Welfare Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-579) and 1976 Amendments to the Animal Welfare Act (P.L. 94-279). Oddly, AWA does not consider rats, mice, or birds to be "animals," and it excludes field studies that "do not materially alter the behavior of the animals under study." However, both U.S. Departments of Agriculture and of the Interior (hence, USFWS and BRD), together with NIH and NSF, are signatories of the Interagency Research Animal Committee's Principles for the Utilization of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research and Training. Hence, all Federal personnel as well as recipients of grant monies from these or other government agencies must conform to established criteria for laboratory animals. The criteria are presented in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (=Guide), of the National Research Council, first published by NIH in 1962 and revised periodically; the latest revision is 1996. This publication is an essential reference for all researchers dealing with live animals.

Several organizations play roles in the implementation of the Guide, but the principle one is the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC), which deals with the use of all vertebrates (except humans) used in research. AAALAC is an oversight group to which virtually all U. S. academic and research institutions voluntarily subscribe. It is responsible for the accreditation of animal research facilities. AWA mandates every institution that performs research with live animals must establish an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) that is responsible for providing institutional oversight and assuring compliance with AWA and any other regulations that may apply.

The Guide is concerned primarily with laboratory animals and does not specifically address the husbandry and care of wild birds. Areas of the Guide that deal with program and facility-wide issues are intended to be applied with professional judgment, exercised via the IACUC. [see D] The new Guide stresses performance-based standards for all species, i.e., based on professional judgment. In the case of wild birds, such judgment requires familiarity with the needs of the species in question. Deviations from standard procedures may be acceptable if the scientific value of the variant is properly justified. It is the responsibility of the investigator to provide such justification, together with documentation and data as may be applicable. Many sources of information concerning wildlife (e.g., Friend et al. 1994; Orlans et al. 1987; Giron Pendleton et al. 1987; or the detailed and still useful Laboratory Animal Management: Wild Birds, King et al. 1977), are either very general or oriented toward mammals or particular species of birds, or are dated. Hence, these Guidelines for Use of Wild Birds in Research are intended to provide avian-specific, current information to both the IACUC and investigators in order to facilitate their interaction.
Back to top

C. General Considerations

Many applications and proposals for research grants now require that each investigatorprovide written assurance that field research with birds will meet the following requirements:

a. Procedures with animals must avoid or minimize distress and pain to the animals, consistent with sound research design, [see IX]

b. Procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to the animals should be performed with appropriate sedation or analgesia, except when justified for scientific reasons in writing by the investigator in advance, [see IX.C]

c. It is unethical to allow an animal to suffer severe or chronic pain that cannot be relieved. If a procedure is likely to induce such a condition the animal must be euthanized at the end of during the procedure, [see IX.E]

d. Methods of euthanasia will be consistent with recommendations of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia (Andrews et al. 1993) unless deviation is justified for scientific reasons in writing by the investigator, [see IX.E]

e. The living conditions of animals held in captivity at field sites should be appropriate to satisfy the standards of hygiene, nutrition, group composition and numbers, refuge-provision, and protection from environmental stress necessary to maintain that species in a state of health and well-being. The housing, feeding, and non-veterinary care of the animals will be directed by a person (generally the investigator) trained and experienced in the proper care, handling, and use of the species being maintained or studied. Some experiments (e.g., competition studies) will require the housing of multiple species, pos-

-ibly in the same enclosure. Mixed housing is also appropriate for holding or displaying certain species, [see VII]

f. Taxa chosen should be well-suited to answer the question(s) posed.

g. The investigator must have knowledge of all regulations pertaining to the animals under study, and must obtain all permits necessary for carrying out proposed studies. Researchers working outside the U.S. should ensure that they comply with all wildlife regulations of the country in which the research is being performed. Transportation of many species is regulated by the provisions of CITES. Regulations affecting a single species may vary with country. Local regulations at state, county, or city levels may also apply, [see II] Authors should present evidence that research reported in submitted manuscripts or for presentation at meetings was conducted under the auspices of all proper permits, [see II.A]

h. individuals of endangered or threatened taxa should neither be removed from the wild (even in collaboration with conservation efforts), nor imported or exported, except in compliance with applicable regulations, [see II]

i. Before initiating field research, investigators must be familiar with the study species and its response to disturbance, sensitivity to capture and restraint, and, if necessary, requirements for captive maintenance to the extent that these factors are known and applicable to a particular study. Removal from the wild of possibly nest- or young-tending individuals should, as a general principle, be avoided unless justified for scientific reasons, [see III].

j. Every effort should be made prior to any removal of animals to understand the population status (abundant, threatened, rare, etc.) of the taxa to be studied, and the numbers of animals removed from the wild must be kept to the minimum the investigator determines is necessary to accomplish the goals of the study. This statement should not be interpreted as discouraging study or collection of uncommon species. Collection for scientific study can be crucial to understanding why a species is not abundant.

k. Procedures that are likely to have lasting effects on populations should be undertaken with the utmost caution. Except in the most extraordinary circumstances, procedures likely to affect the stability or existence of a population are proscribed. In such instances, the investigator must demonstrate the concurrence of recognized experts that the procedure is necessary.

l. The number of specimens required for an investigation will vary greatly, depending upon the questions being explored. As discussed later [see IV.B], certain kinds of investigations require collection of relatively large numbers of specimens, although the actual percentage of any population taken will generally be very small. In the case of accidental mortality, it is desirable to save specimens for deposit in museums or teaching collections. Studies should use the fewest animals necessary to answer reliably the questions posed. Use of adequate samples at the outset will prevent unnecessary repetition of the study, resulting in waste or increased distress to the birds.

m. The usefulness of specimens should be maximized by preserving not only skins but also carcasses, skeletons, DNA samples, and specific tissues.

n. The principal investigator must ensure that all personnel associated with the project have been properly trained. Students and technicians are obligated to seek advice when in doubt. Anyone wishing to use an unfamiliar technique is obligated to seek advice from an expert, and, if possible, to visit and practice with that expert. Appropriate expertise may exist outside the academic or wildlife communities, e.g., both private (hobby) and professional (zoo) aviculturists possess useful skills and information.

D. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee

Every educational and research facility in the U.S. that has research programs involving animals must have an Institutional (Laboratory) Animal Care and Use Committee. For an extensive discussion of the duties of the lACUCs, see Orlans et al. (1987).

The legal role of IACUCs with regard to field studies is, at the time of this writing, slightly ambiguous, in part because, in some legal contexts, birds are not considered "animals," ¹ and because I(Laboratory)ACUC jurisdiction is supposedly directed toward laboratory animals. Further, "field studies," defined as in the Animal Welfare Act as "any study conducted on free-living wild animals in their natural habitat, which does not involve invasive procedure, and which does not harm or materially alter the behavior of the animals under study," would seem to be excluded from IACUC jurisdiction.²  However, discussions of the legality the definition of "animal" or of IACUC authority over field studies are largely irrelevant. First, the respectful and ethical treatment of animals is not dependent on legality. Second, almost all granting agencies require an IACUC approved protocol as part of the application. We recommend that an IACUC protocol be sought for any experiments in which birds are handled or otherwise manipulated, certainly if invasive procedures are involved.

Field work, which by its very nature deals with largely uncontrolled environments, is fundamentally different from laboratory work in many respects. Hence, the IACUC must necessarily consider procedures and techniques that are practical for implementation at the site of the research. However, that there is consensus that IACUC approval of invasive procedures in the field does not require inspection of the "surgical" site! Prevailing conditions may prevent investigators from following even these Guidelines to the letter at all times. Investigators must, however, make a good faith effort to follow the spirit of these Guidelines and to justify deviations when they can be foreseen. The omission from these Guidelines of a specific research or husbandry technique (or their application to particular species) must not be interpreted as proscription of the technique. lACUCs must be aware that, although vertebrates typically used in laboratory research represent a small number of species with well understood husbandry requirements, the class Aves contains at least 9,000 species with very diverse and often poorly known behavioral, physiological, and ecological characteristics. This diversity, coupled with the diversity of field research situations, requires that each project be judged on its own merits. Techniques that are useful and fitting for one taxon, experiment, or field situation may be less useful in another time, place, or design. Therefore, in most cases it is impossible to generate specific guidelines for groups larger than a few closely related species. The premature stipulation of specific guidelines could severely inhibit humane care, as well as research. Further, the assessment of stress in field situations is a complex issue. Animals behave in ways that promote their own survival or the survival of their own genes, often in ways that appear "cruel." Furthermore, people of good will may evaluate a situation quite differently (compare Bekoff 1993 with Emlen 1993).

IACUCs must note the frequent use of the word "should", throughout these Guidelines, and be aware that this is in deliberate recognition of the diversity of animals and situations covered by the Guidelines. Investigators, must be aware that use of the word "should" denotes the ethical obligation to follow these Guidelines when realistically possible.

Before approving applications and proposals or proposed significant changes in ongoing activities, the IACUC shall conduct a review of those sections related to the care and use of animals and determine that the proposed activities are in accord with these Guidelines, or that justification for a departure from these Guidelines for scientific reasons is required.

When studies on wild vertebrates are to be reviewed, the IACUC must include personnel who can provide an understanding of the nature and impact of the proposed field investigation, the housing of the species to be studied, and knowledge concerning the risks associated with maintaining certain species of wild birds in captivity. Each IACUC should, therefore, include at least one institution-appointed member who is experienced in zoological field investigations. Such personnel may be appointed to the committee on an ad hoc basis to provide necessary expertise. When sufficient personnel with the necessary expertise in this area are not available within an institution, a consultant qualified to address these issues should be requested by the IACUC. The AWA states that such a consultant may be asked for information, but may not vote.

If manipulation of parameters of the natural environment (e.g., day length) is not part of the research protocol, field housing for wild birds held for an extended period of time should approximate natural conditions as closely as possible while adhering to appropriate standards of care (e.g., Nace 1974). Caging and maintenance should provide for the safety, health, and well-being of the animal, while adequately allowing for the objectives of the study, [see VII]

The role of IACUCs in overseeing classroom uses of animals varies somewhat among institutions (Elliott 1995). Field exercises in which animals are observed but not manipulated should not require an IACUC approved protocol. Ethical behavior for such exercises has been developed by ABA (Appendix B, especially section 4). Most institutions require that any exercise involving manipulation of living vertebrates be cleared with IACUC, and if the manipulation is extensive, an approved protocol may be requested. As the rules or guidelines concerning animal use are under constant refinement, it is the instructor's responsibility to keep abreast. Keeping current may be facilitated by consulting e-mail and web-site sources.
 
 

______________________________________________________________
 ¹ In a Federal Register notice dated 28 January 1998 (64 FR 4356), APHIS announced that a petition had been filed by several private organizations and individuals, seeking to compel APHIS to amend the definition of "animal" in the AWA to eliminate the express exclusion of birds, rats, and mice.  As of 1 March 1999, no final decision had been announced by APHIS.  The Ornithological Council is following this matter and will inform ornithologists of the decision, when made by APHIS, on the BIRDNET website (www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET- refer to the "Ornithology and Society" page or the "All about Permits" page).  Ornithologists are also urged to consult APHIS.

 ² On 31 July 1998 (63 FR 40844) the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) proposed to  amend the Animal Welfare Act regulations by "clarifying the definition of the term field study."  The stated purpose of the definitional change is to make clear that if a study includes any one of the three conditions - harm, invasive procedures, or material alteration of behavior - the study is not considered a "field study" and is therefore subject to IACUC review.  It is not necessary that a study include all three conditions in order to be subject to IACUC review. The definition would also be amended to add the words "potential to" harm or materially alter the behavior of an animal under study.  As of 1 March 1999, no final decision had been announced by APHIS.  The Ornithological Council is following this matter and will inform ornithologists of the decision, when made by APHIS, on the BIRDNET website (www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET - refer to the "Ornithology and Society" page or the "All About Pemits" page.).  Ornithologists are also urged to consult APHIS.

Back to top