 Welcome to our last full session of this workshop and thank you for attending. My name is Anne Maglia and I'm the associate vice chancellor for research and integrity at the University of Massachusetts Lowell here in the United States. And I'm also the co-chair of the planning committee for this workshop and an Ilar council member. For this last regular session of the workshop we'll be doing something slightly different. In lieu of presentations I'll be moderating a panel of some of discussing some of the bigger challenges we've covered in the last two days. Before I introduced our panelists, I'd like to take a moment to say thank you to the workshop panel planning committee, the Ilar council, the Ilar Roundtable, the National Academy staff, and especially to Eric Edkin, our workshop tech guru who has done a great job coordinating and directing our virtual events. And thank you in advance to our panel discussions for this session. We have Michael Stopsko from North Carolina State universities, also a planning committee member. We have Bob Sykes who is from the University of Arkansas Little Rock and the co-chair of the planning committee. And Bill Greer from the University of Michigan and also a member of the planning committee. Thank you all for being here. And for our audience, please feel free to type in questions or comments for our panelists and we'll try to get to as many of them as we can during the broadcast of this presentation. So with that, gentlemen, I think we'll begin and I'm going to start with a question for Bob. So Bob, one of the key issues that's become apparent in this workshop is the inconsistency and the use of key terminology related to wildlife research. And this has led to a misunderstanding and miscommunications in the community. So can you talk a little bit about this and maybe give us a few examples of how this miscommunication and misunderstanding has happened because of this? Sure thing. The first two examples that are the two examples that I mentioned in my opening session really are at the core of this, the term field studies and the term euthanasia. The term field studies has common usage among field biologists to differentiate between studies that are conducted in a controlled laboratory environment versus those that are conducted in nature. But this term has a very specific regulatory definition within the Animal Welfare Act regs as a study that's conducted on animals in their natural environment with the additional requirements that it not be invasive, cause harm, or materially alter the behavior of the animals under study. Studies that do not meet these specific requirements are covered activities by the USDA, which imposes an additional set of requirements for those studies. Examples for the qualifiers of invasive, harm, and material alteration of behavior are provided in the recent USDA tech note, but these examples and these terms still leave much room for interpretation. Now in some respects, this particular term is a non issue, because many, perhaps most institutions conducting these types of research with wild animals would require submission of sufficient information, if not a full protocol, to make an informed decision as to whether or not the study and the activities meet those restrictive terms. In fact, I'll tell you that this is an issue that the American Society of Mammalogists emphasizes in their guidelines for the use of wild mammals in research where they state and they stayed in italics for emphasis that any activity involving the capture of wild mammals should be subject to review by an macro to determine whether the activity meets this regulatory definition of a field study, and if not found to be exempt, then to provide appropriate oversight for the use of wild mammals in that type of research. And the take home here is that it is the oversight body that's making the decision, not the investigator so there's an additional level of review of this. The second term that causes a lot of confusion is term euthanasia, and I think it's actually more problematic in my estimation for many reasons. First, because it's so commonly used in ways that are not consistent with its definition and its use in the AVMA guidelines for euthanasia. And second, because much of the time the taking of animal lives and wildlife research would really be more consistent with examples of lethal take or humane killing than they would euthanasia. And that is not to say that these methods should not be used as in as humane manner as possible, they should, but that because of the numbers of animals involves the mechanisms of capture, or perhaps the conditions under which the animals are collected that that these animals do not permit the investigator to use methods of death that would meet the conditions of euthanasia as prescribed by the AVMA guidelines. But the real challenge and where it hits the road for field researchers comes when the language in these guidance documents and in other guidance documents in policies and in regulations do not recognize these other terms specifically lethal taken humane killing. What is used is euthanasia. And because these other terms are not are not used in those documents. The result is that oversight bodies that are more familiar with captive environments, and where similar limitations simply do not exist for domesticated animals. They feel that they lack the ability to approve these other mechanisms of humane death. And for the investigator in a field situation. This may be the best alternative that they have available to them. Great thank you Bob that was great. Bill do you want to jump in here do you have anything to add to what Bob said. I think that I would add, and we'll get into that a little bit more down the road is the need to provide some clarification at your institutions to your eye cooks, or, and or to work with the field biologists to understand these terms. That's the kind of thing that's going to make it much easier for your eye cook to accept this terminology. I think that that's the critical piece. And as we continue through our session here. We'll get into that a little bit more when, when Michael talks a little bit about protocols, and I'm going to talk a little bit about the regulations and the standards and applying them. So with that, and I'll let us move on to, to Michael if he has any comments and the next set of questions. Thank you I agree wholeheartedly it's an interesting challenge. I guess I use the term harvest sampling sometimes where it really gets interestingly sticky, because in those cases. It's even questionable where the eye cock needs to be involved because the animals are technically being harvested for food, one way or another. And the investigator isn't doing the harvesting necessarily. Maybe sampling as the animals are are going into the process of being dead. In fisheries, for example, collecting samples on large vessels that are essentially doing factory processing at sea so they're individually quick freezing animals rapidly in an automated process and you're sampling there. Is that any different than then taking necropsy samples on already dead animals, or if as often happens in normal hunting harvest animals will be available to researchers to take samples after they've been hunted It's an interesting problem, but possibly one that maybe even the eye doesn't need to worry about. Great, thank you Michael. I'm actually going to stick with you so if we have time at the end we can certainly talk about you know maybe some ways to address some of these and in terms of some you know how to fix it kind of things I think we heard a little bit from two of you but three of you but hopefully we can talk maybe a little bit to you know what we aspire to come out of this workshop and maybe some of these kinds of things could be part of that. But Michael I want to stick with you on top. I want to ask, you know, a significant challenge faced by researchers and I cooks is the difficulties they may have finding and using expertise and information needed to develop and evaluate wildlife research protocols. So could you comment on this a little bit and provide some thoughts about how we might overcome this challenge. That's a good question because they're actually, at least, you know every cook is for a different institution and some institutions have so much biomedical research going on. They don't have time to fit in a wildlife project or something in there. Go, but other places have it more frequently I'd say one thing that could be very valuable is for a cucks to find sort of a consultant that could come in, if they don't see many wildlife or fisheries type studies and they, they have one to look at. So we could possibly identify somebody either in their own institution, or even outside their institution be willing to consult with them about what the people are proposing. I think it's better, whether you have a large biomedical processing going on in your Iacoc or not to actually try to recruit somebody from fisheries wildlife background. There's a bunch of disciplines that all work on wild animals. And if you were able to, as an Iacoc bring somebody on board, who's either been interested enough, had some interactions with the Iacoc before who might join the Iacoc as a member. That person becomes almost instantly a resource for all the rest of the people in the university that are doing that kind of work and they can do quite a bit of outreach in a way and helping people. I, I've spent some time doing this and, and it's often a matter of just calming people down and so they don't mean to make him mad they're, they're asking this because of this and yeah they don't mean to tell you the wrong ways to do it because that sometimes comes about through people's misunderstanding of, of how things are done in the field and how they have to be done in the field. My, my biggest thought here is to try to get somebody in to look at this occasional protocol you might have or if you, if you do have ecology people and people that would be involved in these sorts of studies at your university actually recruiting somebody with that expertise. To come aboard and help ease the pain for those that aren't as familiar with it. Great. Thank you, Michael. Bob, do you want to add anything to this. Well, I will just echo exactly what Michael said, getting people with those types of expertise on the IACUC is a huge, huge advantage. If you're a field researcher and you feel the IACUC is not understanding the field protocols then you need to be on that IACUC or you or a field colleague. The one thing that I would add is another great resource is to reach out to the tax on societies, particularly to their animal care and use committees. For the society, I think for all societies, the individuals that are on those committees or at least a chair is listed on websites. Contact that chair, either via email or phone and ask them. Now, I'm not saying that they're going to be able to answer your question, but these people have their entire professional societies at their fingertips. They're pretty well cognizant of who's doing what and if they can't find someone that has expertise and background with that activity or with that species. I would be really surprised that they can find someone at least closely aligned with that. So I welcome people to contact me as co-chair of the Mammal Society's Animal Care and Use Committee. And realistically, I probably feel somewhere between two and four questions weekly on these types of issues. And I refer them to many other mammalogists as well. It's a really great suggestion. Thanks, Bob. Bill, do you want to add anything? No, I don't think anything specific. I think Michael and Bob are spot on. And one of the things I'll talk about in a little bit is the idea of reaching out to the right resources, especially if you're at an institution that has a very strong biomedical program. So I'll hold some comments till a little bit later in. Okay, thank you. I'm going to stick with you, Bill. So some of the discussions over the last couple of days have pointed out potential limitations to animal welfare guidance as it relates to wildlife. A good example is the AVMA guidance. Could you discuss a little bit about how this guidance is or should be evolving. And in the meantime, how we might use that guidance in the interim. Sure, happy to and thank you. I think just to give a little background and I know that most of us that are participating in today's workshop are familiar with the animal programs at our own institutions. But if you take a look at the guide and the animal welfare act and the AVMA guidelines, particularly the guide wildlife has only mentioned 23 times. The animal welfare act regulations wildlife has mentioned 19 times. And then when you get to the AVMA guidelines, there is a section on wildlife and it kind of leaves euthanasia humane killing open to the institutions I cook to interpret and figure out what's going to work best for their institution in a particular situation. If you get to the end of that particular session or section on euthanasia. It basically says as long as the method proposed is meeting current advancements, and it minimizes the risk to the animal from a welfare standpoint. Then it's fair game for the I cook to consider and use. And it's obviously something that our wildlife biologists are using. I think one thing that I'll say about the regulations in general is they were developed for institutions to read and interpret every I cook has an interpretation. The theme behind all the regulations are, of course, to minimize the use of animals to what's needed to prove a hypothesis and or ensure the humane care and welfare of those animals. So having said that, when you think about an institution and the things that are going on there, if for example the institution is very heavy in biomedical, then the mindset of that I cook is biomedical. So it's not uncommon for a new protocol to come in from a wildlife biologist and an I cook in general if not given some guidance on wildlife to try to apply the things they've always done. You know, how can you look at cervical dislocation in the field and say that it's 100% acceptable when for a laboratory mouse. It's not necessarily the first method of euthanasia that's preferred. But again, it may be completely opposite to you when you're dealing with a field situation. So one of the things that I think is critical that the both Bob and Michael focused on is that idea of getting the right people on your committee. Maybe not as a permanent member. If you've got field biologists at your institution, certainly get them on as permanent members one or two they can offer a lot of expertise. But resources is critical. You've got to contact folks at the tax on groups Bob is already offered. He's been doing it actively for years I know I had a protocol myself. I'm at University of Michigan, a lot of biomedical stuff. I said hey Bob what do you do when you got this critter or that critter. You surely can capture these the way we capture mice. So one of the things that I want to say is when you're when you're sitting down, especially if you've got minimal wildlife research at your institution, developing some guidance documents for your eye cook is critical it will remind them that what they're working with a mouse or working with a laboratory rat. It will remind them to call Bob it will remind them to call Michael as a field biologist and it will help us to get the right folks in. I think that's critical. So, as we sit down and develop protocols and processes that general guidance could help us tremendously. If you're at a large biomedical institution. Bob has always told me and I live by it is every species of animal in the field every type of research you're doing in the field may offer you a unique challenge. So you're not going to streamline and write everything down and be able to follow these documents, you know, a to z, you're still going to need those field biologists and folks from the other organizations to help. The moral the story with the regulations is there's a lot of flexibility in the things that you use as an institution, religiously the guy the AVMA guidelines and the animal welfare act regulations. You may be at an institution where your primary research portfolio is wildlife and you got this all figured out. Well if you do jump in there and help the biomedical industry to streamline some of the things they're doing as well. It's going to make it a lot easier for your colleagues in the field and a lot easier for those of us that that are working on a regular basis in the biomedical industry. So I think and that hits on the primary points I wanted to hit on. Again, you know always open for specific questions, not going to get too deep into the weeds but it does address some of the points that you've asked about. Great. Thank you, Bill. That was great. Bob, do you want to add anything to this? Well, I think Bill brought up some very key points here. Making sure that your eye cut knows that this flexibility is there is super critical. And if you have an eye cut where the vast majority of your portfolio is in fact biomedical. You want to snap back or to relax back into that familiar territory where everything is euthanasia. So having a committee member that's got that wildlife expertise and reminds people that, okay, what we're looking at with this form of capture is lethal take or humane killing if we're dispatching these animals in the field. That changes the mindset. So and it reminds the eye cut that they do have that flexibility. Similarly, I think that another key point is that when the institution develops its protocol forms that the protocol forms used for wildlife studies solicit these types of information, these types of data points so that the eye cut can review them. So if the protocol form specifically is talking about forms of humane killing or euthanasia that also gets the eye cut to change that mindset and they have to really be thinking about flexibility to match the species and to match the environments. Thank you, Bob. Michael, you want to add anything to this? Just a couple of things. I really liked your use the word evolving understanding and when you introduce this because I think it's important for everybody, the eye cooks and the people applying to the eye cooks to understand that less is known than is unknown, particularly when we get into the broad diversity of species that we're dealing with when we talk about fisheries and wildlife and that sort of thing. And then I think it's important to know that what's known is often found to be wrong later as people do more work. There actually are three documents that the AVMA puts effort into the two that are more recent are about harvest and deal with field issues and those all three documents are constantly under revision. They have periodic complete revisions, but if somebody that's involved with the review of those documents discovers something, something might get changed actively in the middle. And so I think it's important for eye cooks to understand that there can be more to learn, so to speak. One that I just thought I'd kick in here. Well, two of them actually I wanted to bring up the anesthesia of fishes and that's becoming a very complex issue. As we discover that the drugs that everybody considers humane on their own really probably aren't functionally humane for euthanasia, the second method cervical destruction of the brain stem something like that needs to be done secondary so that's coming along. And then one of my favorites was an experience I went through with a field team that was doing opossum. Well among, they were, they were clearing large territories to see how fast predators came back they're just basically what was already known is that only about 25% of young mammals actually survived to the first year. And in that they had asked for what to use an euthanizing of possums and I just looked in the guideline and there it was and I told them and and I got a call rapidly. In the first year they're saying well this isn't work. I started calling everybody we had said before you should call people and everybody told me the same answer, and it was the answer I'd given the team in the field and I began to wonder about that and that was peppered with stories about how interesting it was that occasionally opossums were waking up in the necropsy cooler after they've been euthanized. I went to work with an anesthesiologist friend of mine and we actually did a study. And we discovered that they're really hard to kill, they require a massive dose of pin of orbital IV in order to get them down. So we figured out that opossums were super animals. Everything became calmer in the field and it all got taken care of but what was really important was even internationally I tried to find that out we just didn't know yet. We had to do the work to figure it out. Thank you all that was a really insightful discussion. I appreciate that. So for our next question Bob. The oversight of wildlife research can fall under many different umbrellas levels of government federal agencies other types of organizations. And some of the challenges we have with wildlife animal welfare does relate to jurisdictional limits, which can often result in differences gaps ambiguities even contradictions and regulations and guidance. Talk some about this and maybe provide some suggestions for how we can overcome this. Oh, give it a try. First off, it really is not or at least it should not be surprising that these jurisdictional limits exists. After all, the regulation of wildlife and even exploration of biodiversity originally had economics at its core. First, after that, we see development of a structure that's really designed to protect these natural populations as resources. This is the framework that still exists and requires investigators to obtain permits and to comply with the applicable laws for the use of animals and whatever part state or country they happen to be working in. Environmental agencies and organizations focused on ethical and appropriate use of these animals and research and education came about only after these other components were in place. And they came about as problems were identified, or as particular interest or disciplines developed. In short, the structure that we currently have, particularly as it relates to wildlife, absolutely was not conceived and developed for the purpose of integrating oversight and the use of wildlife into research and education. It came after the fact. Despite that, despite these diverse reasons for which these agency structures and guidance documents were developed. At this point, we really have many of the necessary components in place, I feel, for a giant leap forward. What we're really lacking is a framework that effectively integrates these diverse parts. This frankly is where I think the tax on guidelines came into being these documents were developed to address many of the gaps that exist between the guide for care and use of laboratory animals. This is the reality for wildlife research. In other words, they they focus on aspects like capture and handling options for the most humane death practical under these diverse situations, and with diverse species, and many of the specifics that must be considered if these animals are to be maintained in captivity. These tax on guidelines were never intended to provide information on how oversight committees were to operate and the like like that, but they were instead intended to refine to fine tune the procedures and the oversight expectations of committees for wild vertebrates. These documents that were developed to fill this niche should be explicitly recognized as appropriate references for the investigators for I cucks and for anyone needing specifics about how to fit wild animals into this overarching framework. But that level of recognition also comes with a necessity to ensure that these tax on guidelines are kept current and that they're thoroughly peer reviewed. And also remember that these tax on guidelines were were developed by tax on experts. But they were, they were developed also largely without input from other professions, and these other professions have very relevant insights to offer. When you develop ideas in an echo chamber. Your product tends to be one dimensional. And I have found with the mammal society, for instance, that adding wildlife veterinarians to the ASM animal care and use committee has added really valuable information that was lacking from previous versions, because these professionals view the subject animals and the animal activities through different lenses. And I encourage other tax on societies to consider similar additions to their committees. Okay, now let's go up to the next level of integration. What we have there is effectively the guide for caring use of laboratory animals. Oh, law, and the USDA. AFIS now in lumping these together. For the sake of this discussion, I recognize the different scope and the missions of each of these. However, the common theme is that each was built around the focus really on biomedical research conducted in laboratories. And that means that the extension of guidance in these policies and regulations to wildlife was added later. And it was often added awkwardly smoothing the fit of wildlife activities into that language from each of these and simultaneously directing investigators and oversight bodies so while I specific resources would go far in my opinion and mitigating many of the challenges. Now, it's a fair question to ask if, since this was an ad hoc approach, shouldn't we just start over and start from scratch and create a purpose built system. At this point, I think such a proper process would really be like reinventing the wheel. I consider it far more cost effective and direct to modify the components that we already have available, rather than starting over. But using available components means that we have to alter each of those components to join them into a cohesive whole. So, this is going to take a collaborative approach, and it's going to take collaboration across entities and across units that typically haven't collaborated. That sounds like a big job. Michael, you want to add to this thank you Bob. That does sound like a big job and actually I agree with everything Bob was talking about I immediately stepped out of the box which seems to be where I like to be and in some cases, I cuts are trying to be all things to all people. And they're actually trying to enforce and deal with things that are essentially, as I think Bob you call them business things. I actually have nothing to do with animal care and use, as much as they have to do with economics and country relations or anything. And I think it's easy for a wildlife investigator particularly one who's doing international work to find themselves trapped in an incredible problem of an IACUC wanting everything in place first as they create the document that will allow them to submit to when they can't actually get things from agencies until something's going to happen. And to me, a case of IACUCs getting involved with things that are technically outside the purview of the IACUC. They don't have to try to regulate endangered species, for example, there's agencies that do that and there's permits and SITES permits and, and all of those are complex and, and even just moving samples for example. But for me, I think everything that Bob said, yes, and that's enough work to keep everybody busy. And then possibility of making IACUCs aware that they don't have to regulate everything in the world, they should stick with animal care and use. Thank you, Michael. Bill, do you have anything to add here? Yeah, really quick. I think one of the critical things to talk about is the folks that are in the biomedical world may not know where these, I'm going to call them tools are. So Bob has mentioned many, many different things that will serve our community as tools as we figure out some of this wildlife research. I mean, I'm going to pick on a protocol for a minute and say this, you know, if we sit down as an IACUC, and we want you know all the eyes dotted the T's crossed and we're going to put a bow on it when we're done. The thing that we need to think about is some of the things that may happen downstream. So let's use as an example. Somebody that's going to do a fisheries survey, looking at different species in a river. And for the sake of argument say it's NSF funded now it falls under O law. So now all of a sudden we're trying to write a protocol that meets all of the expectations of a biomedical project. Well, if you think about the IACUC if it's just surveys, we may think all right we don't need to euthanize these fish, unless of course there's vouchers let's say there isn't. So now we're doing some electric shocking or we're doing some netting. We're in Florida or South Carolina, we come up with some exotic fish. Snakeheads. So now the PIs are sitting on a boat with an IACUC protocol that says no euthanasia, and they've got a permit in their hand that says if you catch any snake heads, you can't return them to the waterways. So as an institution, we've set up a no wind situation for our PIs. So, remember we talked about flexibility. You know this is where IACUCs can write a line in their protocol that says, you know, we don't expect any euthanasia, unless under certain circumstances of a permit, a state regulation or something like that it's required. So, we can think outside of the box like Michael said, IACUCs can ensure the welfare of animals, IACUCs can ensure, you know the minimum numbers are being met are three R's issues. But in the same breath we can build in the flexibility that the PIs need to do their studies in the field. Michael mentioned that, you know, it may be the best anesthesia for zebrafish, but if you're going to do something with a rainbow trout in the field, you're not going to be able to use MS222 and release it back into a trout stream that Bob's going to be fishing in next week. So you've got to be able to think about some of that. And we really need IACUCs to understand they can do their job and they need to do their job, but there are some certain limitations related to wildlife. It's going to be driven by a permit, a state law, a field regulation or something like that. So I think with everything that Michael and Bob said with this particular question, those are some of the critical things that we need to remember from a regulatory standpoint and from an IACUC review and approval standpoint. That's great. Thank you so much. Michael, I've got a question for you. So, you know, we've already discussed several challenges related to animal welfare and wildlife research and education and, you know, there have been many that have been discussed, you know, over the last two days. But which challenges, which additional challenges we haven't covered yet today. Do you think are really important to mention here that we should talk about here. Yeah, that's an interesting and a tough question. It made me think that I tended to think about dealing with wildlife experts all the time when the IACUCs getting a proposal. And that's not necessarily always the case. And then I was trying to think about, there's certainly been, and some of our colleagues that spoke through the meeting talked about there's certainly been a lot of controversy about surgical techniques and what's appropriate to use and there are issues across species and lots of issues. But it's fairly straightforward for most IACUCs to include some sort of, you had to have learned how to do surgery somehow for somebody to be allowed to do surgery on an animal. That's not always from IACUC to IACUC, but it can be quite elaborate, in fact, having them observed in their technique and this sort of thing and I got to thinking about simple things like trapping, which aren't at all simple. And the worst case scenario would be somebody who hasn't really trapped before and an IACUC who has no experience in trapping, advising on trapping. And they're almost inevitably every experience I've had they recommend really bad things, because they think humane traps are humane. They only are named that. They're only good for certain uses. And sometimes, certainly in the veterinary community there's been this constant battle the AVMAs dealt with is leg hold traps. And every once in a while a group of 50 veterinarians somewhere gets together and says they're evil. And the AVMA says, yeah, we won't allow them and then those of us in the AVMA who know better have to kind of wait a minute. Let's talk about this again and over a couple of years it gets straightened out. Well, what that brought me to is maybe there should be some sort of similar requirement as far as trapping skill sets and those things go because they're not trivial. So if you're an expert trapper, you work with an expert trapper in the field, you'll be blown away about how much care they take properly sizing the trap, setting the lines appropriately. And generally when it's done well you have almost never an injury. They occur sometimes but almost never an injury. You may lose some animals out of the trap, but good trappers are amazing. And I was thinking, well, wouldn't it be reasonable for our cooks to consider some sort of similar educational requirement for people are going to go out and trap. And that's where I got kind of stuck mentally I thought that was really the key thing I got hooked on to but when you think about it. It really relates to a lot of areas. When we were first starting to do our sturgeon work. We tried to have the the biologists and stuff trained to use anesthetics and we found that for the simple placement of a tag. That was just a lethal exercise for sturgeon. Very short, put the tag there and let the fish go 100% survival, you know everything fine, no infections. Once we studied it, but try to anesthetize them dead sturgeon. So, I think it's important to understand the need for those skill sets for the people that are doing wildlife work, and not necessarily assume that everybody has them, but also the same time recognize that they're different. Great. Thank you, Michael. That was great. Bill, do you want to add to this? I think there's a lot of different things that that will come up as institutions go along and it's really going to require some conversation. I think Michael's point about educating the field biologists on trapping. You know, I would advocate that we educate the eye cook on trapping. If you've got a lot of that going on at your institution, and not just trapping, but I mean, the other point Michael was spot on was sometimes it's just better off to put the tag in the sturgeon and release it. Then calling and anesthetizing that probably going to cause more problems than the short. A fin snip or, you know, a tag. So I think that a lot of these things that we as institutions create as challenges are simply because we're not willing to think. We are trying to take something that we don't even know if it's painful to put a tag in a sturgeon or not, but call it that and then create even more potential problems for that fish. So I think just being insightful and encouraging eye cooks to to really think about these wildlife protocols and think outside the box and not say, let's put fur and years on this sturgeon and try and figure out what's best for it. So that that would be my, the only thing that I would add to Michael's comments. Good points Michael all the way. Thank you, Bill. Bob challenges you'd like to identify. Well, I gotta say Michael's example sure fit home. He probably doesn't know that I was a trapper long before I became a scientist and ML just so that that is actually where I started. That's one of the things that led me into field biology, but one of the challenges that I see coming down the road actually that's here now is that I cocks investigators oversight bodies need to realize that there really is accreditation between lab studies and studies of totally free ranging animals. We now have enclosures that are very very large for lots of different species. So, at what point does an animal in a large enclosure become a free ranging animal as opposed to a captive animal. So there are some recommendations that that really take some wrestling with. And the same thing holds with with if the enclosure is with animals that came from that area, or perhaps species that occur there naturally but came from a different area. They're the same species, but you brought them in from a different area. At what point is it a free ranging animal in its natural environment. So, there are challenges interpreting many of these terms and many of these subtleties. Thank you. I'm going to wrap us up here, really talking about opportunities and what might have what we might see come out of this workshop. I think we've, we've identified many challenges over the last couple of days and certainly in this this session. I've identified many opportunities and so I guess I just want to open this up to you and say, you know, what, what would you like to see as the outcome of this, you know, great two days of, of knowledge gathering that we have and so bill I want to start with you and just see what would you like to see come out of this. Yeah, I think, and one of the key things that you said was opportunities. So we've really learned a lot over the last couple of days of things that we can do to help recognize some of the differences between wildlife studies and studies. I think that I cooks can take one of the next steps. I think that's going to be critical. If I just go back to Bob's little session on terminology. You know, we can't write a policy for everything, but we surely can write something that says, and this is referring to what Bob said that the I cook should be aware of all the studies that involve wildlife, and they should make a decision on whether it involves or not. They need to understand some of the terminology and some of the challenges. Otherwise, it's a vertebrate animal. I could policy is, let's do a protocol. You know, maybe a law is going to tie our hands if it's an NSF study, you need a protocol no matter what. So I think one of the things that I would like to see us do as a community is to think outside of the box and start thinking about some of the challenges that are directly related to wildlife studies. If you think about biomedical research, and especially if you're involved in that, you already know that we knocked all the low apples off the tree, and now we're trying to knock the high apples off. So we're trying to find all these things that are unique and may only happen at one institution, or maybe once in a career. We would just spend a little bit of that time focusing as a community and as an I cook on some of the low hanging fruit for wildlife studies. I think it would help us understand the unique challenges, how to write a protocol, you know how to work with a National Agency, or a state US or a state fishing game Commission, and some of the challenges associated that the PIs have to face when I cooks get really, really strict on what a protocol looks like. So I think the I cook needs to learn to burden some of the challenges that our wildlife biologists take on. So I know we're starting to push for time and so kick it back to you to give Bob and Michael a chance to chime into. Great, thank you, Bill. Michael, what would you like to see come out of this workshop. It's fairly redundant, but I do think the issue is working together. And I do think it is flexibility. I think it's taking advantage of the flexibility that actually was provided originally in the laws that allow for exactly what Bill was talking about just now and I'm going to say it also includes the construction of facilities at the university to house animals in house. You probably ought to get somebody knows what they're doing in there before you spend a million dollars building a completely intolerable place for what you're planning to put in there. Just a suggestion. Thank you, Michael. And Bob, you get the last word. What would you like to see out of this? Michael's comments there sound like they're from experience. So, you know, when I look over it from a 30,000 foot perspective, with few exceptions, I believe that the diverse entities we have touched on that we have touched over the last couple days all share a common theme of promoting ethical and appropriate interactions with wild animals that are using research and education. We've heard from diverse speakers who have come at this goal from different perspectives with different backgrounds and with different biases. But we all share that common goal. These different perspectives, backgrounds and biases really are all important because we're talking about animals that belong to the public, not to individuals or to individual institutions. So what this really means is that we've got to get away from this silo approach to oversight and we've got to be more willing to see the challenges from different perspectives. Given the threats facing wild populations globally, because of factors like changing land use patterns, human encroachment and environmental impacts, our time available for addressing these obstacles is running short. Folks, it's time for a collegial and interactive approach to wildlife. That was a great, great parting words, Bob. Thank you very much. Thank you, Bob, Bill, Michael for your insights. This has been a really great discussion and I appreciate you all sharing your expertise. I also want to thank our audience for attending and I do want to remind folks that immediately following this, this session we will have our second wrap up session with the moderators of the day to talk about what the most interesting and interesting questions and topics came out of our day's discussion. So with that, thank you all very much, and I appreciate your attention. Thanks, everybody.