 Hi everyone. Welcome to the day two summary session. A special thanks to those of you who have stuck with us since we kicked off yesterday. I'm Dr. Kate Tebow. I'm a member of the ILR Standing Committee. I'm the science team lead for the National Ecological Observatory Network, or NEON, which is a major facility fully funded by the National Science Foundation and operated by my institution, Battelle. As part of NEON's efforts to deliver 182 freely available data products, NEON is actively sampling wildlife, including ground beetles, small mammals, birds, and fish across 81 field sites in the US, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. And so I'm charged with a lot of issues that we've been talking a lot about over the past couple of days and have been very informative. So thank you all for that. I'm a vertebrate field biologist and macroecologist by training with expertise in bats and small mammals. So for those who may have missed Dr. Bowerman's session yesterday, I'm going to reiterate the purpose of the Standing Committee. So the Standing Committee for the Care and Use of Animals and Research is charged with engaging with stakeholders regarding new processes, formats, and topics for future updates or additions to the guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. The Committee is not an advisory or oversight committee charged with making recommendations for changes. Rather provides a venue for the exchange of ideas and knowledge sharing among those involved in scientific research and animal care and use in the academic, government, private, and nonprofit sectors. So you can imagine that this workshop is extremely relevant for the work of the Standing Committee and very important for informing its work. So I hope you join me today in thanking the Planning Committee once again and the array of speakers for another excellent day. Over the next hour, each of the five moderators for today's sessions will be provided up to about 10 minutes to provide an overview and synthesis of their session and address a subset of questions that were asked by you, the audience throughout the day, that we think are particularly important. If there's time, the final minutes will be used for some additional synergistic discussion and cross-cutting questions. So let's go ahead and turn this over to our moderators. So our first of the day is Dr. Bonnie Beaver, who moderated the session Restraint and Handling of Animals in the Field to include use of compounds for capture and handling. Dr. Beaver. Thanks, Kate. On behalf of the National Academy's Roundtable on Science and Welfare and Laboratory Animal Use that is responsible for this workshop, for which I am now, fortunately, the immediate past-chair, I would also like to extend a big thank you to all speakers, moderators, and workshop committee members for their efforts to make the workshop so successful. I also need to thank and acknowledge the tremendous job done by the ILR and National Academy staff, particularly Teresa, Ella, Karine, and Eric in working behind the scenes to help in the development and logistics of putting on such a workshop. I'll now summarize the presentations from section four. Dr. Lisa Tell's presentation led off section four, dealing with restraint and handling of animals in the field, including the use of compounds for capture and handling. Her informative talk provided insight into the use of rules, regulations, and challenges of administering drugs to free-ranging wildlife, including concerns to animal welfare, human food safety, and public health. This included information about the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act, MDUCA, which includes and doesn't what it includes and what it doesn't, and compounding of drugs, and how MDUCA applies to unlabeled and extra-labeled use of drugs in wildlife. Drug residue is a concern when wildlife are harvested for human consumption, and Dr. Tell discussed the establishment of withdrawal interval recommendations. She was also gracious in providing extra-label drug use information resources. Dr. Mark Drew was the second presenter in the session, providing information about the use of pharmacological agents in carnivores, bears, and ungulates within the activities of a wildlife management agency. Such agencies focus on sustainable management and harvest of wildlife in natural environments. The presentation included a discussion on the breadth of drug types used in restraint and handling, including antibiotics, anti-inflammatory agents, vaccines, and hometics, and a variety of drugs used for chemical immobilization. There are few pharmacological agents approved for use in wildlife species, so most are used in an extra-label manner consistent with MDUCA. Another complicating factor Dr. Drew mentioned was that many chemical immobilization agents used by wildlife management agents are compounded drugs that are available from a very limited number of suppliers. The role of veterinarians is unique in this setting because they are minimally involved in direct supervision of drug use, serving more as the primary drug conduit for those who will be administering them instead. To accomplish this, most wildlife biologists work within a veterinarian-client-patient relationship. Since most animals that are handled by wildlife biologists will be released, consideration must be given to the possibility that the animal might be harvested for human food. This requires that the animal be identified in a way that would make it possible for a person to learn about appropriate drug withdrawal information. The third speaker, Dr. John Bryan, discussed the complexities of dealing with multiple bureaucratic levels relative to the use of pharmacological agents in free-range species. His talk included perspective at several levels of oversight, including state, federal, and international levels. He emphasized that all interactions, whether for research or management purposes, should incorporate best practices based on the highest standards of care. While these applications are generally agreed upon, policies, protocols, laws, and cultures are often disparate and unique in various oversight bodies. Translating these differences into research and management protocols often improves to be a formidable barrier. Navigating law and policy interplay between the various levels is an essential part of conducting wildlife animal use activities and must be considered by IACOCs and researchers alike. Dr. Jean Fair discussed the challenges in the capture and handling of wild birds being used in research. The diversity of bird species presents significant challenges in how each is captured, handled, and sampled. Dr. Fair discussed some of the associated misconceptions in this process. She pointed out why biosafety and other considerations for field work need to be included in protocols to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to protect both researchers and birds. She emphasized the consideration of the three Rs relative to wild bird studies and the need for training of IACOC members about what is involved with doing field research. Dr. Fair graciously included information about the types of permits needed for working with birds and about resources like the guidelines for the care and use of wild birds in research that can be helpful to both IACOC members and researchers. Lastly, Dr. Fair discussed the need to be prepared for human euthanasia when necessitated by protocol or inadvertent events. The last speaker in section four was Dr. Jim Kanegu who talked about working with wild small mammals. He discussed the various ways small mammals were used that necessitated capture, observation, release, recapture, transfer to laboratories, and or euthanasia for museum specimen preparation. Dr. Kanegu emphasized the ability to recapture many of these animals numerous times even on a regular basis. He also noted that many of the techniques used for the care and handling of hidden bred strains of laboratory rodents are inappropriate and even detrimental for non-domestic small mammal species. With these small wild animals, many of the collection and injection procedures are relatively easy to do, but techniques used for capture and handling can be as numerous as the species involved. As with Dr. Bateman yesterday, Dr. Kanegu showed his passion for students and in his case for the use of small mammals to encourage student interest in biology, research, and nature. The talks over the past two days have generated several interesting questions for standing committee consideration. I would invite any of our speakers to join in answering a few of the additional questions such as, adverse events do happen occasionally? What are the reporting expectations for unexpected problems when dealing with adverse events? We have speakers from section four that would be interested in answering that question. Another consideration that came up for this possible discussion was, is it mentioned, it is mentioned that there can be ethical implications when removing animals from the wild and returning them to their capture location or introducing captive reared animals. What comments would you have about bioethical and or physical issues that might result in more harm than benefit? And again, I would invite section four speakers to address that question. I'd be glad to comment briefly. In the case of the state where I work, Washington, as well as nearby Oregon where I've been working, according to our well permits is simply illegal to do so. And it's based on the wisdom of not wanting to introduce pathogens or problems that may have arisen in the lab back into the field. And furthermore, that the animals certainly have lost a lot of their ability to be oriented and make a living on their own out in the wild. But the bottom line very simply is that it's illegal for us to do so. And that solves the problem. Thanks, Dr. Kaneki. The last one that I will mention is a thought for the group as a whole to take home and to just think through. One thing that hasn't been mentioned much, but maybe something to consider for the standing committee is public engagement and the visibility of wildlife research. This is important not only with research that occurs in urban settings, but also situations where the public will see wildlife being studied and the issues of social media and so on. Once again, the settings aren't as controlled as a laboratory animal facility. So our thoughts need to go toward what is our role relative to education of the public on such concerns. So with that, I will turn it back to you, Kate, and thank you very much. Thanks so much, Dr. Rieger. All right. Next, I'd like to invite Dr. Gayle Golab to provide a summary and synthesis of her session, Role of Veterinary Medicine and Wildlife Research. Dr. Golab? Thanks very much. Session five began with Dr. Margaret Wilde providing an overview of the veterinarians' multiple roles in wildlife research. She spoke from the perspective that while their clinical role is incredibly important, veterinarians' roles in wildlife research are not limited to clinical medicine. Additional roles include as a consulting veterinarian, as an expert on animal laws, in policy development and implementation, and in helping to build relationships. While talking about the consulting role where activities run the gamut from overseeing the administration of drugs to training researchers on how to collect samples to determining if pain mitigation is sufficient, she also reminded us that the veterinarian's role is more than an informal one. Veterinarians are legally bound by their veterinarian-client-patient relationship, which defines the roles and responsibility of the veterinarian and the client, in this case, the wildlife researcher, in providing care for the patient, which in the case of wildlife research is often a population of animals. Dr. Wilde importantly pointed out that meeting these responsibilities is a team effort between the veterinarian and the researcher, and that breakdowns can result in significant consequences for all involved. She also mentioned the broad knowledge that veterinarians have of animal welfare-related and drug-related laws, and how the veterinary old, which specifically mentions the protection of animal health, animal welfare, conservation of animal resources, and public health means there is not only a legal obligation to uphold these laws, but also an ethical one. When it comes to policy, Dr. Wilde suggested that if an agency doesn't have policy in place addressing the Animal Welfare Act, then a veterinarian is an important contributor to encouraging and helping to develop it. And if policy exists, then the veterinarian can contribute to its implementation. With respect to the latter, she describes some common barriers to compliance with the AWA, a significant one of which is lack of clarity regarding which activities require compliance. In mentioning gaps and guidance, she was also careful to indicate that such gaps are not equivalent to an excuse for inappropriate attention to the AWA, and that while they may need to be looked for, there are resources that can help fill these gaps. Finally, Dr. Wilde talked about the tremendous opportunities veterinarians have to serve in relationship-building roles, supporting interactions among wildlife biologists, ethicists, agencies, and themselves. Ensuring good relationships becomes even more critical because many components of wildlife research require that wildlife biologists and veterinarians work together collaboratively. With that in mind, the next two speakers in our session, Dr. Kevin Monteith and Michael Miller, are wildlife biologists and veterinarian respectively, presented their very candid views of some of the challenges faced in those relationships and their thoughts on how to navigate them successfully. Both Dr. Monteith and Dr. Miller addressed the differences in education, authority, responsibilities, and perspectives that can put wildlife biologists and veterinarians at odds. For example, whereas wildlife biologists have in-depth training in biology, ecology, and wildlife management, there is no standardized formal training in veterinary practices such as basic principles of medicine and pain management. On the other hand, depending upon the areas in which they practice, veterinarians may not have the same degree of training in study design, data collection, statistics, and familiarity with the tax on under consideration that are really necessary to ensure the conduct of quality wildlife research. Additionally, while the veterinarian has clear authority on legal grounds, the authority of the wildlife biologist rests in their position as principal investigator and is granted to them through recognition of their expertise and experience. Adding to the complexity is that the overarching focus and interest of wildlife biologists and veterinarians can diverge. Whereas a wildlife biologist is focused on conservation and sometimes the recovery of a population of animals, veterinarians are more often focused on individual animals, their welfare, and preventive medicine. Dr. Miller mentioned that it can sometimes appear to the veterinarian that wildlife biologists aren't all that interested in the veterinarian's involvement in their projects until medications are needed to capture other applications. Dr. Monteith pointed out that veterinarians can sometimes come off as unduly authoritative when operating in an oversight role. Both agreed that mutual understanding of the commonalities and differences in veterinarians and wildlife biologists' roles and perspectives is key to addressing disconnects and making progress. After sharing some things for both wildlife biologists and veterinarians to think about, Dr. Monteith and Miller then provided their list of the five biggest challenges to creating the successful relationship. Dr. Monteith's list included failure to recognize that a degree, whether a DVM or PhD, doesn't make you an expert in everything. The conflict between project ownership by the wildlife biologists and legal authorities expressly granted to the DVM that can have an immediate chilling effect on the project. The wildlife biologists feeling that they have been boxed in is contrasted with the veterinarian's feeling that they are unnecessarily sticking their neck out and differences in focus on the population as compared with the focus on the individual. Dr. Miller's list included understanding and respect for rules, responsibilities, and differences in professional perspectives and standards, consistent application of animal welfare laws to field studies, the availability of wildlife medicine expertise in the field, and oversight settings, navigating the myriad of rules related to veterinary practice, including extra-label drug use, and the inability for the veterinarian to always participate in research activities that fall under their practice authority and responsibility. Dr. Monteith and Miller then posed ideas for how to help move relationships between wildlife biologists and veterinarians in a positive direction. First, mutual respect, including recognition and acceptance of different perspectives. Second, training for wildlife biologists and stress and pain physiology and management, and training for both wildlife biologists and veterinarians and animal welfare laws and ethics with specific application to wildlife studies. Third, more data on the animal welfare impacts of capture and handling so that it would be easier to set and publish standards for acceptable practice. Fourth, informal veterinary consultations early in field study planning and the inclusion of wildlife experts and wildlife medicine experts in institutional review processes for wildlife studies. And finally, and perhaps most important of all, listening skills. Both Dr. Monteith and Miller emphasized that there were multiple examples of great relationships out there from which to draw inspirations. Finally, we were fortunate Dr. Dan McKay he was available to share his expertise with surgeries done on free-ranging animals in the field to conclude our session. He focused on regulations and animal welfare concerns related to surgeries rather than on specific techniques. Dr. McKay reminded us that surgery is second only to capture in its intrusiveness upon wild animals and that surgeries are done for a range of purposes in wildlife research including obtaining tissue samples, implanting electronic devices, manipulating fertility, and marking. As such, field surgeries are a key component of wildlife research. He also pointed out that conducting these surgeries where the animals are captured is both sufficient and best for the welfare of the animal. This requires that the surgeon adapt their training to challenging locations. Dr. McKay he mentioned that questions commonly arise as to who can do surgery on wild animals. The practice of veterinary medicine is largely regulated at the state level. Surgery on animals is generally considered to be the practice of veterinary medicine, but some exceptions and discretion are applied for certain activities including for animal research. Dr. McKay he shared that in his experience most surgeries done on wild birds and mammals are done by veterinarians. However, most surgeries performed on fish are done by biologists. He suggests that this may be in part because of how these species are addressed within the animal welfare act. The goal for field surgeons is always to produce high-quality repeatable results to support the goals of the project. Dr. McKay he stressed that when biologists do surgeries on wild animals they should aspire to the same level of skill and to meet the same standards as veterinarians doing the same surgery. Next Dr. McKay he addressed drug use in field surgery. Drugs are FDA approved for a specific species, purpose, dosage, route of administration, etc. Any use outside the label is placed under the oversight of veterinarians and they are accountable for that use. In addition to considerations around extra label drug use there are considerations around the routine use of antibiotics for field surgery due to concerns about the emergence of drug resistance. Dr. McKay he mentioned the importance of judicious use when using antibiotics in conjunction with wildlife research. Another area of drug use that invokes special responsibility is use of controlled substances which includes many drugs used for capture and anesthesia and it's regulated under the controlled substances act. There is a research and registration available from DEA that allows for legal possessions of drugs under use within research protocols but these are still prescription drugs that are labeled for use under a VCPR. There are also legal requirements for their storage and accounting and enforcement can include unannounced on-site audits by DEA agents. Finally Dr. McKay he addressed the use of guidelines standards of care and best practices recognizing their value but also that they are guidance rather than law or regulation. All right thank you so much Dr. Golab. I think if there are pressing questions we'll get to them at the end and we'll move on to our next moderator who is our favorite Dr. Bob Sykes who will be summarizing his session pain and distress euthanasia and humane killing and lethal take. Dr. Sykes. Okay well first off a sincere thank you to Dave Miller and Anglis Becquareaux and Jeff Buckle for sharing their expertise and their insights from their very diverse perspectives. One key point that came through for me in session six was that the terminology challenges surrounding the humane ending of the lives of wild animals are real especially when it comes to the implementation level. Each of the speakers made explicit points that conditions and circumstances are highly variable when subject animals are wild and free ranging and that the use of the animals must be considered in selecting the methods by which the animal's life is to be ended. They each made up the further point that owing to these considerations options available for ending that animal's life might not meet the criteria for approved forms of euthanasia as defined by the avma guidelines in other words avma approved forms. These these diverse circumstances the diverse circumstances associated with field settings present challenges particularly when oversight when the oversight body is not well versed in wildlife related activities such as when most of the institution's research portfolio is biomedical. Dr. Miller made the point that the avma guidelines cannot be followed as if it were a cookbook suitable for every situation that the context matters. This is a key take on point context matters thus it really seems that a key challenge for us to consider is how to foster broader recognition that oversight bodies do have the latitude to approve these other means for ending the lives of these animals in these circumstances. The terms lethal take and humane killing are probably not found in protocol forms that are not focused on wildlife but as we learned in session six these are probably the most applicable terms for many of the instances involving the death of wild animals. Investigators proposing and oversight bodies reviewing wildlife activities need to be familiar with them and to use them to promote a clear understanding of the nature of the activities involved. Now that is not to say that there's a desire to propose or approve a form of death that is less than humane it is simply to recognize that limitations exist as to what options are possible. In short the primary focus of the oversight body is to identify options identify various options that are humane given the species and the conditions that exist at that time. Because circumstances and species are so variable in field settings a second key takeaway for me from this session is the need for flexibility and adaptability at every level. For the investigator this means that they must consider a wide range of options and establish the need for those options to their oversight body. Importantly given what we've heard throughout the past two days the range of options must be suitable not only for their target animals but also for potential non-target species and this is I think a key point and one that cannot be overemphasized. Non-target species may include ones that you really don't expect. So what if you're you're netting for bats and you know a non-mammal is part of the problem you've got to be able to deal with these very non-typical circumstances this in turn means types of target animals possible must be carefully considered as well. There are some interesting exceptions and some special circumstances that can come into play. A colleague sent me a message just this morning regarding euthanasia that states for those of us working with bald eagles and golden eagles the US Fish and Wildlife Service cannot issue us a permit for field euthanasia due to the no take clause in the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. This exception means that the IACUCs and in this case multiple IACUC committees needed to approve the work with no provisions for euthanasia at all. Take home message from this is that the investigators and oversight bodies must comply with the regulations that are in place. There were some interesting questions and important questions that came up through the course of this session and I want to touch on a couple of these now. One of these is the question or need for voucher specimens. The point was made that hey we've been collecting specimens and putting them in museums for a long time. This is true since the 1700s. Linnaeus started to suck down this path right and even before Linnaeus. So do we still need to collect these voucher specimens given that we can now extract DNA from many of these samples and release them? Well there are really a lot of reasons to continue to collect these voucher specimens. Ella is going to post a series of references regarding the use and value of these voucher specimens for those of you that have access to the chat and that will lead you to some specific literature. But a couple of examples I think are worthwhile. These voucher specimens are a record not only of the species but of that species in that time. So these systematic collections have a temporal aspect that can't be replaced if we don't have those specimens. How can this be used? A great example is documenting the effects of DDT on eggshell thinning. We know this because we looked at eggs that were collected before and after the use of DDT. So having these samples, having physical samples that we can go back to is important. Other examples are using these archive specimens to look back for instances of pathogens and diseases that are just now showing up. So these archival specimens give us information that straight DNA does not, not to mention the fact that one of the key important factors of these specimens is to identify species, to identify different groups of species. How are we to conserve this diversity if we can't identify this diversity? Another question that was posed and that I want to kick back to Dr. Miller certainly right now, that I think provides some important insights. The first of these questions is that in Dr. Miller's talk and throughout this workshop, we've used terms such as euthanasia, depopulation, humane slaughter, humane killing, and lethal take. How does this help when my eye cook expects only the term euthanasia? Dr. Miller, can I put you on the spot? Got it. I think I'm going to repeat a lot of the things that have already been stated and session eight and elsewhere. I think probably the starting point is that we've got a justified reason for ending an animal's life. There's the challenge of taking what are the expectations for veterinarians in the US and then extrapolating it to other settings or whether you should extrapolate them. I think we've talked a number of times about the challenge with how we use words, how we interpret them. For instance, humane is used a lot. It's often a fixed concept in some people's minds, but in least my opinion, it's actually a relative term because it's going to vary depending on the context, depending on the circumstances, because as was said in session eight, which you can do in the lab, may not be applicable to the field. What I probably could have done a better job of explaining is that the panel on euthanasia wrote a section on the process of euthanasia and that is a process from beginning to end. For instance, a lot of times people have IV injection or barbiturate as a gold standard for ending an animal's life, but they don't take into account that the handling before the animal is injected can cause a lot of undue stress. Maybe as Andrew English mentioned earlier and others, maybe firearms are the best way to end that animal's life. Maybe a different tactic clarifies that a method of itself is not humane and it's how it's used and what is the outcome that we're shooting for. We try to recognize a lot of these ambiguities in the panel on euthanasia. We try to build in the flexibility. We try to call it light up front guidelines. There's this understandable frustration of going from what's on paper and has been on paper for quite a while. I know the euthanasia guidelines that were developed back in 2006 talked about humane killing. The 2013 version of the panel on euthanasia distinguished between slaughter, depopulation, euthanasia, and people were using these terms before. There's understandably a lot of frustration with the lay in terms of how can people in the real world use these terms in the here and now. I know I didn't fully and directly address your question, but hopefully some of the concepts will be of some value to people when they're working with their eye cooks or working through the process. And also importantly, remembering when we have to talk to the public that we have to account for, that we also remember some of these concepts and try to set them straight where they have very fixed ideas about one thing or another. Thanks, I really appreciate it. I know that I'm pushing the limits on time here, Kate, so I will hold that next question. And if we have time later, I'll come back to it. Thank you. Thanks, Bob. All right. Next up, Elaine Kim, please give us your take-homes from session seven, transition of wild animals to captive settings and housing challenges. Great. Thank you so much, Kate. So for this session, for the summary time that we have here, I'm actually going to just touch on a couple of the key points that I thought were the same in all three of the presentations. And so let me talk about some of those. So one of the big takeaways in these talks were the need for these folks to put on a multitude of hats, not only were they subject matter experts in the field of research for their species or for their particular focus of their research project, but they also then had to think about all of the logistics of transporting the wild animal from the field setting to the lab setting to establish a captive colony. That also then brings to mind then the IACUC regulations that their institution, state, or federal, if there's also let's include international if they're coming from abroad, outside the U.S., I should say. And what this brought up was just thinking in my mind all the different checklists that they then had to go through, all the permits, not only domestic, federal, state, and maybe even county or city for some people, but then also international and also from what I've heard of other researchers abroad, is you really have to establish a very good rapport and relationship with these agencies abroad as well to help kind of almost because you need them to trust you in the work that you're about to do. And so once you have them back at your institution, there is also the facility needs, the operations there, the training of staff and or students, thinking about veterinary care, animal care, husbandry, social needs, acclimation that was touched on as well, and also the stress response that may never go away. And how does that impact the work being done? There was a very good point made about how this niche of work is different because it's not domesticated species. It's also not true wild animals because if you generate a colony and they start breeding, then you have a captive colony that has never seen the wild. And depending on the work being done, is that one of the goals of the work or is the goal to really study what this group does? And as Eileen mentioned, to have it be this iterative process of one informs the other and it continues on and the value that that research can provide. I do want to pause here to include my speakers that are able to join us right now and to just talk about the challenges there in the need for having to wear so many hats because as Eileen mentioned, there are ways to address this. But I also feel like each person in these discussions has a responsibility, not just the PI, the institution, the committee, the administrators to help support them in this effort. And there are ways to programmatically address these things. And I feel I've been lucky to be involved in collaborations and projects where I have seen this partnering. But based on today's talks and yesterday's talks, it is illuminating to see how that is not the norm. And I guess I wanted to give an opportunity for my speakers to kind of speak towards this idea of this is a great burden to ask of our researchers. I can pause here for Eileen and Michael and Michael. I was trying to unmute. I mean, I'm not sure I have a very coherent thought here to offer other than one of the comments or questions that came in via the chat box during this session this morning. I wanted to underscore what you're saying that it really is a two party interaction, right? And I think part of what prompted my comments or the content of my talk is both as a researcher and an IACUC chair, past IACUC chair, all the impasses I have seen between those two entities that arise partly I think due to, well, certainly miscommunication, but also I guess I would say uninformed or unrealistic expectations, expectations, meaning as the researcher, I'm like, I know what these animals need, why are you making me do this? Why are you making, in that frustration, right? Versus on the IACUC side, as someone pointed out in the chat box, there are legitimate standards that have to be met. And there is concern that if you don't do due diligence, the USDA is going to find you. So I think you're absolutely right. Both sides have to kind of adjust their expectations or understand it's going to be a process of a negotiation, right? Yeah, definitely. And I think it's some people ask me at times the things that I start to talk about sound unrelated to these discussions. And my comment is, do you trust the person doing the work to train the students? And then they're bringing the animals back. So you need to also understand they have, you have to trust them to inform the committee, the best way to house these animals, but that is a collaborative relationship and interaction with the committee and the veterinarians, that everyone has something to contribute and learn from. Because once you bring them into this new setting, it's a whole nother ballgame, as you create this kind of research system that has a value. And the other thing this reminds me of is thinking about, you know, just all the different things that I've heard about, oh, this type of arena and work is few and far between. And I acknowledge, yes, it's also then because it doesn't happen very often, then it means that there's fewer people to help inform those issues. And how can we serve this research community best, if we don't have people informed to contribute to that conversation? And so that's been something similar to I want to say human subjects arenas, like they say, oh, it doesn't happen that often. I'm like, correct. And then when it does happen, what are you going to do? Because you have faculty that were hired to do this work at your institution. So is your institution aware of what they promised? And they didn't know it? It just, yeah, it just makes my brain kind of go into these different arenas. And I'm known for kind of making connections where some people think it's not relevant, but I did want to mention that as food for thought. Did Michael or Michael want to add anything? I can add something just quickly, because I agree with you. Nobody in my institution, which is heavily biomedical, I had any of the expertise really needed to even review my own protocols or the three or four others of us on campus. And because of that, I've now spent over 25 years on our IACUC. And the biomedical folks have no concept of what it means to write for the permits. And it could take six months. I only have one permit that we've spent now a year and a half trying to get. And they order a few more animals. And they think that's all that's required for us. In fact, I was told at one time that it was they that were worse because they actually had to buy their animals. Our animals were cheap. We just had to go out and get them. And it wasn't until I pointed out the cost of the salaries of the people who had to go out and get these that our animals were far more expensive than their fairs were. It was just a lack of understanding that has to take and the education just has to take place. Good points. Michael Smotherman, did you want to add anything? Well, yeah, I agree with all that, of course. I think from my experience on the IAC, the most important thing was just learning the lingo. And I feel like I'm a translator that once my colleagues in wildlife and fisheries and conservation biology, once they understand that just about everything we do can be made acceptable to the committee if you just put it in the right words. Yeah, that's a great point. And I wish that we could get more people to participate on the committee. But like many institutions, not just mine, our administration really doesn't value the time that our people put in this. This is a huge service. And the universities are really reticent to recognize or value that service. Consequently, it's really hard to get people to put in the time to do this. Oh, gosh, I could have a whole talk on that because people ask me why what is the importance of resource allocation for animal care and these programs specifically for membership. And I ask them, who do you want serving on that committee? And how do you want to propel this work to inform at a national and international sphere? Because it gets exactly at that. There are so many faculty I know who are burnt out because they served decades and decades. And there's no one left in their department to do that, because the institution chose to go in a different direction, or they just don't invest in that type of faculty mentorship. So one of the things I think that really needs to be addressed is resource allocation for membership and recognition. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you so much, Elaine and speakers. We'll move on now to our final session, which was moderated by our planning committee co-chair, Dr. Ann Maglia, who I invite now to summarize the panel discussion on resources available for IACUC's regulators and personnel concerned with wildlife research. Thanks, Ann. Great. Thank you so much, Kate. So I did have the great privilege of leading this panel discussion with Michael Bob Sykes and Bill Greer. And we really honestly spent most of the time talking about challenges. A lot of these have been identified already in some of the other sessions, but for the purposes of the repertoire and the record, I would like to talk a little bit about these challenges just to make sure that we sort of do the overview. So we talked about some challenges that come from language use and miscommunications among regulators, IACUCs, and wildlife biologists. And the challenges for IACUCs and finding the expertise to help evaluate wildlife protocols, as we've heard quite a bit about already in this session. We discussed current state of various animal welfare guidance and how we should apply it to wildlife. We had a great suggestion to develop local guidance documents and training for how IACUCs should approach wildlife protocols, making sure that the IACUCs know there is some flexibility in guidance, and that the wildlife guidelines from the taxonomic societies exist. We also talked about how the makeup of the institution's research portfolio influences the IACUC's perspective. As we've heard already, for example, a biomedically focused institution, they need more outside expertise to guide their IACUCs on wildlife protocols. We also discussed the need for more research to inform welfare guidance for wildlife investigations, and we talked about the challenges, gaps, and incongruencies that result because wildlife may fall under the pure purview of several different agencies or regulations. We identified additional challenges with welfare of wild animals that weren't necessarily mentioned a lot during this workshop. Some of them included training for field surgery, issues around trapping, anesthesia, and recognizing the wild animal research is highly diverse and ranges all the way from in-lab experiments to observation of free-ranging animals. Finally, we talked about our hopes for the outcomes of this workshop, and I think I can summarize that as we hope that we all better recognize the challenges we've discussed over these last two days and that we can all come together to work collaboratively for the sake of the welfare of the wild animals we study. With that summary, if I have a moment, I'd like to ask a question to Bob Sykes. Bob, you mentioned during your part of the presentation or the panel that we really need a framework for integrating gaps between the guidances that we have and wildlife research, and you did mention the taxonomic guidelines as an attempt to do this, but I just want to hear from you. Do you have some other thoughts of what other steps should we be taking as we move forward beyond this workshop to help integrate the gaps between the guidance and the research wildlife research? I actually do. I think that the taxon guidelines need to be explicitly recognized as go-to resources for institutions that are doing this work and that they need to be referenced the same way other guidance documents such as the AVMA euthanasia guidelines are referenced in the structural framework. By structural framework, I mean policies and what have you from O law, they need to be recognized in the guide for curing use of laboratory animals or whatever product comes out from that, etc., and they need to be recognized from within the USDA regs to the extent that people know that they exist and they are appropriate resources. They were developed to fill that gap. They're not developed, they were never developed to provide guidance on how you operate an IACUC, etc., but they were developed to fit that gap and to fit that need. It needs to be explicit that IACUCs, that oversight bodies, use those as appropriate resources. I think this is a critical step. Great. Thank you so much, Bob. Kate, back to you. Thanks, Ann, and thanks, Bob. I think as a follow on to that question, Bob, how do you provide guidance to folks when the taxon specific guidelines don't necessarily align with other guidelines that IACUCs commonly use, like the AVMA guidelines for euthanasia? When they say something different, what do you advise? Well, that's where we have to come back and recognize that both of these are guidance documents. It's not legislation, they're not laws, and you can never have a guidance document that covers all possibilities. That simply is not going to happen. I think there needs to be increased recognition that the AVMA guidelines for euthanasia don't fit all of those expectations and circumstances surrounding wild animals, and they acknowledge that. Just as the same way the ASM guidelines are flat out will acknowledge that it's not going to be the definitive source that answers every question when it comes to wild mammals or any other wild animal. Each has got to recognize that it's trying to fill this gap. We're never going to be able to cookbook wildlife. There are too many species, there's too much diversity, it's not going to happen. What we do have is a structure that was set up that I think is actually brilliant, where these oversight bodies are charged with evaluating difficult, ethical decisions. You can have different oversight bodies review the same information and come to different decisions. That doesn't mean that either of them is wrong. It means that they have wrestled with a difficult ethical dilemma, and that is what the process is asking for. I think we're playing by the intent when we do that, and we just simply need to apply the most relevant guidance to the situation. Thanks, Bob. One of the many reasons wildlife research is so interesting, and we're so lucky to be able to be involved in it. Bob, you had another question I think you wanted to address. We do have a few minutes, so I invite the other moderators to feel free to pop in and address any questions that we didn't have time for earlier. Okay, this was a second question that relates to euthanasia, and it's actually popped up several times in our chat. I'm going to read this, and then I'm going to put one of our earlier speakers on the spot, and it's actually not anyone from the euthanasia humane killing session, so be ready. The second question involves a topic that did not come up specifically in today's session six. This question involves the appropriate responses should a field investigator come across an injured or sick animal in the field? We all recognize that animals injured because of our activities are our responsibilities, and that a humane death is very often the most appropriate action, but what about the occasions where a field investigator comes across an injured animal where the injury did not result from the investigator's activities? I've heard from some investigators and from some eye cucks where the expectation is to euthanize these animals. I've heard from others who have argued that this is simply a fact of life for wild animals and that we should let nature take its course. I'll add that many of us who work in the field have probably seen three-legged mammals in the field that appear to be doing quite well, as these are situations that very much are in the realm of possibility for any field scientist. I'd like to toss this out to one of the speakers from today's from an earlier session as a scenario, and I'd like to tweak it a little bit. For the first option, what if the animal is a crippled carnivore or a deer that is hobbling on three legs? The second scenario, what if the animal that is encountered is an emaciated deer in a location where CWD occurs? And I'd like to put John Bryan on the spot, and I select John because he actually responded to this in a chat. Thanks. Can everybody hear me? All right. This is a great question. It's a fantastic question, and just as a little bit of entertainment real quick, all the wildlife veterinarians that are out there, I'm sure you all have been at this cocktail hour when it's revealed begrudgingly sometimes that you are a wildlife vet, and the question comes in, hey, do you airlift an elk with a broken leg down to the hospital and tape it up and put all kinds of hardware in it and get it going? And my stock answer is no. That's what wolves and mountain lions are for. And that usually gets a raised eyebrow or something into that effect. But the point is that as a wildlife vet, in my experience, in my career, we often have a great deal in common with ecologists as opposed to our neighborhood dog and cat doctor colleagues. And so we keep that perspective when we're in the field. So how does that tie to Dr. Sykes's question? Well, it's a little bit more complicated than you might think. So there are a couple of things I want to look at with that. First of all, if you see this animal that's a three-legged animal, whether Dr. Sykes is an example of being a carnivore, a predator, or a prey animal, there are a couple of things you need to weigh. Yes, if you're a veterinarian working in that as a PI, working in that state and you're licensed in that state, that's your call. You can do it. You can euthanize that animal. That's why you're licensed in that state as a veterinarian. But if you're a biologist, if you're a researcher, the rules might be a little bit different. And Dr. Miller brought up a really good point with Colorado in the chat in that the regs, the state regs in Colorado is that, yes, if you are a John Q. public and you come across an animal that's been hit by car or is in what you assume to be a non-survivable to a layman's estimation state, you can put that animal down. You can destroy that animal without fear of repercussion from state regulations or authorities. So that's the law. But what if you're a PI in the field working in an area, you're not a licensed veterinarian in that state, but your AUP and I cook say you can do lethal catcher, but only with the species on your AUP. So what do you do then if the state says, yeah, anybody can put an animal down, but your AUP and approving I cook say no, you can't. What do you do? What do you do? Well, that can be quite a conundrum. And oftentimes it's up to before you get into the field to iron these things out. But my contention, depending on what I've done for experience, and I have come across this at least once, is that depending on the severity of the injury and whatnot, we might want to let, if it's a prey animal, there's an inclination to let it run its course, because there's likely a predator or something out there that's going to take care of this for you in short order. If it's a carnivore, that may be another issue. It's a judgment call from time to time, but that ecologist mentality kicks in. And the default is kind of to let nature run its course. That may not always be the right call. But one of the things I addressed in the chat with Dr. Miller's comments were this is a, if there's a conflict between state regs and your AUP approved by an I cook, this is a this is a conundrum that's 100% avoidable. And the take home here is that I cooks when when reviewing and approving wildlife AUPs need to be aware of the state regs in that state. In other words, an academic I cook, for example, you know, reviewing wildlife animal use activities in that state, they need to be aware. The PI's usually are, but the I cooks need to be aware of the state regs. Dr. Miller gave a great example, you know, if there's an I cook in Colorado and probably, you know, there's several that would be aware of that. And also, another great example to kind of circumvent this issue is to have the state wildlife agency create its own I cook. Therefore, most folks are pretty informed on this issue. And these questions are entertained before anyone hits the field in the AUP. And I think that's where the real shortcoming is, is before the PI gets to the field, there needs to be a set of standards that address these variables. And that is absolutely doable. And it comes back to having an informed wildlife competent I cook. And I think that's probably where I'll show it up. And oh, wait, there was the second example of the deer in the CWD area. As a wildlife vet whose education and training is infectious disease that deer needs to go down. It just needs to go down. In a situation like that, I would ask forgiveness rather than permission. So there you have it. And there was a reason that I posed that question. And that was really the point that John brought back at the end that if you plan ahead, you can have this in place with your I cook with the permitting agency. And there's not an issue. It's the planning ahead bit. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks, everyone.