评估多种捕捉方法和固定药物对山狮福利的影响

IF 1.5 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 Environmental Science
Justin A. Dellinger, Ana F. Basto, T. Winston Vickers, Christopher C. Wilmers, Jeffrey A. Sikich, Seth P. D. Riley, Daniel Gammons, Quinton E. Martins, Heiko U. Wittmer, David K. Garcelon, Maximilian L. Allen, Bogdan Cristescu, Deana L. Clifford
{"title":"评估多种捕捉方法和固定药物对山狮福利的影响","authors":"Justin A. Dellinger, Ana F. Basto, T. Winston Vickers, Christopher C. Wilmers, Jeffrey A. Sikich, Seth P. D. Riley, Daniel Gammons, Quinton E. Martins, Heiko U. Wittmer, David K. Garcelon, Maximilian L. Allen, Bogdan Cristescu, Deana L. Clifford","doi":"10.1002/wsb.1494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Using a dataset of 591 capture events between 2001–2019 in California, USA, we examined the impact of capture methods and immobilization drugs on mountain lion (<i>Puma concolor</i>) welfare. The 3 methods used to capture mountain lions were cage traps, trained hounds, and cable restraints. The drugs used to immobilize mountain lions were either tiletamine/zolazepam (Telazol®), ketamine/medetomidine, or ketamine/xylazine. Mortality occurred in 1.4% of captures, with only one mortality out of 310 captures occurring since 2012. We used a logistic regression framework to compare morbidity and vital parameters of mountain lions among the different capture methods and immobilization drugs used. Vomiting (a risk factor for developing aspiration pneumonia) was the most common severe risk factor associated with cage trapping and was only seen with the use of ketamine/medetomidine or ketamine/xylazine. Morbidity scores were not well predicted by any of the variables we accounted for. Animals immobilized with Telazol® were more likely to experience abnormal heart and respiratory rates, as well as high body temperatures, than those immobilized with the other two combinations. Although there are risks associated with each of the capture methods and drug combinations commonly used in mountain lion captures in California, our analyses demonstrated they are all relatively safe when following appropriate animal welfare practices. Our analyses suggested that unaccounted for factors are equally or more important in explaining injury and physiological abnormality rates, and we urge that agencies train personnel in best practices and conservative decision-making in order to assure that the welfare of the animal takes precedence over collaring. We suggest training on how to choose between several capture techniques, immobilization drugs and monitoring methods and how to reduce both detrimental effects to mountain lions and danger to humans.","PeriodicalId":23845,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Society Bulletin","volume":"98 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the effects of multiple capture methods and immobilization drugs on mountain lion welfare\",\"authors\":\"Justin A. Dellinger, Ana F. Basto, T. Winston Vickers, Christopher C. Wilmers, Jeffrey A. Sikich, Seth P. D. Riley, Daniel Gammons, Quinton E. Martins, Heiko U. Wittmer, David K. Garcelon, Maximilian L. Allen, Bogdan Cristescu, Deana L. Clifford\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/wsb.1494\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Using a dataset of 591 capture events between 2001–2019 in California, USA, we examined the impact of capture methods and immobilization drugs on mountain lion (<i>Puma concolor</i>) welfare. The 3 methods used to capture mountain lions were cage traps, trained hounds, and cable restraints. The drugs used to immobilize mountain lions were either tiletamine/zolazepam (Telazol®), ketamine/medetomidine, or ketamine/xylazine. Mortality occurred in 1.4% of captures, with only one mortality out of 310 captures occurring since 2012. We used a logistic regression framework to compare morbidity and vital parameters of mountain lions among the different capture methods and immobilization drugs used. Vomiting (a risk factor for developing aspiration pneumonia) was the most common severe risk factor associated with cage trapping and was only seen with the use of ketamine/medetomidine or ketamine/xylazine. Morbidity scores were not well predicted by any of the variables we accounted for. Animals immobilized with Telazol® were more likely to experience abnormal heart and respiratory rates, as well as high body temperatures, than those immobilized with the other two combinations. Although there are risks associated with each of the capture methods and drug combinations commonly used in mountain lion captures in California, our analyses demonstrated they are all relatively safe when following appropriate animal welfare practices. Our analyses suggested that unaccounted for factors are equally or more important in explaining injury and physiological abnormality rates, and we urge that agencies train personnel in best practices and conservative decision-making in order to assure that the welfare of the animal takes precedence over collaring. We suggest training on how to choose between several capture techniques, immobilization drugs and monitoring methods and how to reduce both detrimental effects to mountain lions and danger to humans.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23845,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wildlife Society Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"98 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wildlife Society Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1494\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Environmental Science\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wildlife Society Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1494","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

利用 2001-2019 年间在美国加利福尼亚州发生的 591 起捕捉事件的数据集,我们研究了捕捉方法和固定药物对山狮福利的影响。用于捕捉山狮的 3 种方法是笼式陷阱、训练有素的猎犬和缆绳束缚。用于固定山狮的药物是瓦他敏/唑拉西泮(Telazol®)、氯胺酮/美托咪定或氯胺酮/恶嗪。有 1.4% 的捕获发生了死亡,自 2012 年以来,310 次捕获中仅有一次死亡。我们使用逻辑回归框架来比较不同捕获方法和所用固定药物之间山狮的发病率和生命参数。呕吐(吸入性肺炎的风险因素)是笼捕最常见的严重风险因素,只有在使用氯胺酮/美托咪定或氯胺酮/恶嗪时才会出现呕吐。我们所考虑的任何变量都不能很好地预测发病率得分。与使用其他两种组合固定的动物相比,使用泰拉唑®固定的动物更容易出现心率和呼吸频率异常以及体温过高的情况。尽管加利福尼亚捕捉山狮常用的每种捕捉方法和药物组合都存在风险,但我们的分析表明,如果遵循适当的动物福利措施,这些方法和药物组合都是相对安全的。我们的分析表明,在解释受伤和生理异常率方面,未考虑的因素同样重要,甚至更为重要。我们敦促各机构对工作人员进行最佳实践和保守决策方面的培训,以确保动物福利优先于项圈捕捉。我们建议就如何在几种捕捉技术、固定药物和监控方法之间进行选择,以及如何减少对山狮的不利影响和对人类的危险进行培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Evaluation of the effects of multiple capture methods and immobilization drugs on mountain lion welfare

Evaluation of the effects of multiple capture methods and immobilization drugs on mountain lion welfare
Using a dataset of 591 capture events between 2001–2019 in California, USA, we examined the impact of capture methods and immobilization drugs on mountain lion (Puma concolor) welfare. The 3 methods used to capture mountain lions were cage traps, trained hounds, and cable restraints. The drugs used to immobilize mountain lions were either tiletamine/zolazepam (Telazol®), ketamine/medetomidine, or ketamine/xylazine. Mortality occurred in 1.4% of captures, with only one mortality out of 310 captures occurring since 2012. We used a logistic regression framework to compare morbidity and vital parameters of mountain lions among the different capture methods and immobilization drugs used. Vomiting (a risk factor for developing aspiration pneumonia) was the most common severe risk factor associated with cage trapping and was only seen with the use of ketamine/medetomidine or ketamine/xylazine. Morbidity scores were not well predicted by any of the variables we accounted for. Animals immobilized with Telazol® were more likely to experience abnormal heart and respiratory rates, as well as high body temperatures, than those immobilized with the other two combinations. Although there are risks associated with each of the capture methods and drug combinations commonly used in mountain lion captures in California, our analyses demonstrated they are all relatively safe when following appropriate animal welfare practices. Our analyses suggested that unaccounted for factors are equally or more important in explaining injury and physiological abnormality rates, and we urge that agencies train personnel in best practices and conservative decision-making in order to assure that the welfare of the animal takes precedence over collaring. We suggest training on how to choose between several capture techniques, immobilization drugs and monitoring methods and how to reduce both detrimental effects to mountain lions and danger to humans.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Wildlife Society Bulletin BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
13.30%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Wildlife Society Bulletin is a journal for wildlife practitioners that effectively integrates cutting edge science with management and conservation, and also covers important policy issues, particularly those that focus on the integration of science and policy. Wildlife Society Bulletin includes articles on contemporary wildlife management and conservation, education, administration, law enforcement, and review articles on the philosophy and history of wildlife management and conservation. This includes: Reports on practices designed to achieve wildlife management or conservation goals. Presentation of new techniques or evaluation of techniques for studying or managing wildlife. Retrospective analyses of wildlife management and conservation programs, including the reasons for success or failure. Analyses or reports of wildlife policies, regulations, education, administration, law enforcement. Review articles on the philosophy and history of wildlife management and conservation. as well as other pertinent topics that are deemed more appropriate for the Wildlife Society Bulletin than for The Journal of Wildlife Management. Book reviews that focus on applied research, policy or wildlife management and conservation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信