Falling Through the Cracks: Shortcomings in the Collaboration Between Biologists and Veterinarians and Their Consequences for Wildlife

Although biologists and veterinarians have shown considerable success in working together to address wildlife-related issues, including disease, chemical immobilization, reproductive biology, and conservation biology, examples of shared efforts to evaluate and ensure the welfare of study animals are mostly absent. I present the case that this deficiency arises primarily from a lack of mutual understanding between fields with respect to the other's training and experience in addressing animal welfare issues. In effect, each assumes that the final word on animal welfare rests with the other. The reality is, however, that neither field contains the knowledge and skills required to address animal welfare concerns alone. Nevertheless, wildlife researchers are increasingly encountering difficulties conducting research on wild animals because of opposition from stakeholders on the basis of animal welfare concerns. Further, a growing number of articles in the peer-reviewed scientific literature are reporting on potential biases in research results developing from the welfare impacts of widely used techniques, including methods of capturing and marking wildlife. By viewing animal welfare as a shared responsibility and combining their knowledge and skills, wildlife biologists and veterinarians have an opportunity to reform "invasive" wildlife research in a manner that is less harmful to the animals being studied, less likely to bias research results, and less objectionable to the stakeholders who ultimately influence or make decisions on how wildlife research is conducted.