🚀 go-pugleaf

Dear Ethologists & Ecologists,

I would strongly recommend / invite you to join the current discussion on
the subject of "toe-clipping / amputation" as a method to mark small
mammals in CMR studies.

The discussion has been on APPLIED ETHOLOGY since yesterday. If you are not
subscribed to this list: BE QUICK!

To subscribe to this list do the following:

_____________________________________________

To: applied-ethology-request@sask.usask.ca
From: YOUR NAME and EMAIL
Subject:
---------------------
Message body:
---------------------
SUBSCRIBE applied-ethology *YOUR NAME*
_____________________________________________






=============================================
What has happened so far:
_____________________________________________

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:48:34 -0800
From: "v8350@bealenet.com" <v8350@bealenet.com>
Subject: Chopin ?
To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Reply-to: v8350@bealenet.com
MIME-version: 1.0

I have a question concerning the 'March of Technology'.

  As a wildlife rehabilitator, I was a bit shocked to read of the
practice of chopping off toes as an identification method for small
mammals and amphibians in capture-release trapping surveys; usually
refered to as "toe-clipping".

  Perhaps this is no longer the current practice?  (Or legal?)

  What are the current methods in use to mark and identify small
mammals/amphibians in studies?  Do international guidelines on
acceptable methods exist?  Does the "humaneness" of methodology impact
qualifying for funding?


  So where is the current state of the art?

  Oops - lotsa questions!

  Mary

   Mary Smith
   v8350@bealenet.com
   Woodford, Va. U.S.A.
   WRL, RAWRN
   state lic.
   squirrels since '78

_____________________________________________
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:02:34 +0100 (MET)
From: Kabai Peter <pkabai@ns.univet.hu>
Subject: Re: Chopin ?
To: "v8350@bealenet.com" <v8350@bealenet.com>
Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
MIME-version: 1.0

On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, v8350@bealenet.com wrote:
>   As a wildlife rehabilitator, I was a bit shocked to read of the
> practice of chopping off toes as an identification method for small
> mammals and amphibians in capture-release trapping surveys; usually
> refered to as "toe-clipping".
>
>   Perhaps this is no longer the current practice?  (Or legal?)
>
>   Mary

Dear Mary,
A handbook, Research and Management Techiques for Wildlife and Habitats,
ISBN 0-935868-81-x, new edition published in 1996, discusses marking
methods in a special chapters. According to this chapter toe clipping
is still widely used to individually mark small mammals and amphibians.
There are, however, a variety of other techniques also described
in this chapter. Toe clipping is considered a fast, easy and permanent
way of marking, with very few recorded harm to the animals. Seems
that this method is still legal in the US.

Best wishes, Peter
_________________________________________________
from:   Peter Kabai (pkabai@ns.univet.hu)
        Behavioural Biology Research Group
        Institute for Zoology,
        University of Veterinary Science
        H-1400 Budapest, POB 2, HUNGARY
        www.univet.hu
*************************************************

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:36:51 +0000 (GMT)
From: "CM. Sherwin" <Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk>
Subject: toe amputation
To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
MIME-version: 1.0

Dear All,
I am currently a member of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW joint working group
on refinement in rodent husbandry.  This report is now in its last draft,
and in the section on 'Identification', it is recommended 'Toe amputation
should NEVER be used'.  It is also worth considering that some journals,
e.g. Animal Behaviour, would consider this an ethically questionable
method of identification and might refuse publication of articles on these
grounds (though I am not representing the ASSAB Ethics Committee).  It is
also worth considering how our use of language, i.e. 'toe-clipping'
perpetuates the notion this is an innocuous practise, rather like the
phrases 'beak-clipping' and 'beak-trimming', when in reality it is likely
they are  very painful procedures, at least in the short-term.  Are we
refusing to accept this and being self-protectionist by recoiling at
using the word 'amputation'?

Regards

Chris Sherwin
University of Bristol
______________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:39:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Terimath@aol.com
Subject: Re:Brief intro./ Chopin?
To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
MIME-version: 1.0

Hello everyone,
     Athough I am not a professional, I subscribed to the list because I have
a great interest in the ethical treatment of animals. I am a mother,
kindergarten teacher's assistant and part-time student. Please forgive my
inexperience with discussion lists. I am taking an online English class and we
will be writing essays on bioethical issues for internet publication by the
end of the semester.
     In my research of "animal rights", I've learned some very shocking things
are happening to our animals. The very idea of chopping off  toes for a survey
is appalling! If there are less invasive methods of tagging an animal, then
the U.S. is uduly abusing the animals. It must be painful, wouldn't it feel so
to us? I do agree that we use certain language to downplay the effects of what
would be considered cruel. I am surprised there aren't better terms commonly
used, such as for the "declawing" of cats!

Thank you,
Teresa Mathena
_______________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:47:36 -0600
From: JANICE SWANSON <jswanson@oz.oznet.ksu.edu>
Subject: Re: Chopin ?
To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Organization: K-State Research and Extension
Priority: normal

Regarding the comments below on toe clipping and acceptability in the
U.S.  Although there has not been a federal legislative mandate
specifically prohibiting toe clipping I do know at the funding and
institutional levels it is discouraged and many times research
protocols are not approved. The animal care committees (mandated by
 federal law) that are in place in U.S. research and teaching
institutions have specific marching orders regarding the
implementation and use of  valid alternatives for painful procedures.
Researchers that propose the use of a painful procedure must
adequately justify its use over the alternatives. Based on these
marching orders, my committee has not approved toe clipping  in
nearly all of the proposals where it has been advocated for
identification because alternatives are available. I have a wildlife
biologist who is now successfuly microchipping mice. So specific toe
clipping law-- no,  instead a law that requires that alternatives be
sought and implemented for painful procedures, like toe clipping.
Frankly I grow tired of the assumption that because no specific law
exists in the U.S. that we are an archaic pack of nimrods. This
message is coming from a very tired animal care and use committee
chairperson  and hopefully speaks for the countless others sitting on
animal care and use committees across the U.S.

Janice Swanson
______________________________________________________

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08:45:00 -0800 (PST)
From: "Joy A. Mench" <jamench@ucdavis.edu>
Subject: FW: toe amputation
To: appl-ethol <applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca>


Chris and other commentators:

I am curious about what methods your committee would recommend in the case
of large-scale, long-term field studies.  We have struggled with this
question several times on our animal care committee.  For very small mammals
(or amphibians), tags are unworkable because of size. For some species,
bands are actually quite dangerous, and can lead to injury.  If the study is
long-term, things like dye marks also will not work because they fade, fur
is lost, etc.  Transponders, of course, are always a possibility.  However,
if the investigator is doing a large scale study, for example looking at
population trends and habitat use over a large area (which can be very
important work if you are trying to figure out factors affecting population
trends in threatened species,for example), then transponders are
prohibitively expensive.  And are we jumping the gun and assuming a practice
has negative welfare implications accross all species without supporting
evidence?  After all, Mike Gentle found that toe-clipping of broiler
breeders apparently does not cause long-term pain (although of course one
also needs to assess impacts on things like longevity and reproductive
success in wild animals). Thoughts?

Joy Mench
jamench@ucdavis.edu
 ----------
____________________________________________________________

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:58:52 +0000 (GMT)
From: "CM. Sherwin" <Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk>
Subject: toe amputation
To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
MIME-version: 1.0

Dear Joy and others,

Joy asks what alternatives would I suggest.  Is refusal to permit the
study an option?  Is this not possibly a case of scientists doing
something because they can, rather than because they should?  As with most
considerations on the ethics of animal use, one really needs to understand
the potential benefits of the study; I am afraid I do not feel adequately
qualified or informed as to what the field study would achieve to decide
whether the study should be conducted.  However, would a study examining
the daily movements of rare Mountain gorillas be approved if the only
method of identification was to partially remove their fingers?  I suspect
not, despite the probability that after a period of time the gorillas
would probably show little sign of pain or distress.  Why then should this
be allowed for another mammal species simply because it is smaller?  Could
not the onus be placed on the experimenters to prove this is not
chronically painful to the animals?

Regarding sensitivity and pain experienced by animals after amputation.
Joy is correct in stating that amputation does not necessarily cause
long-term pain.  It is a while since I have  looked at MikeUs work on
toe-clipping, but I seem to remember that this practice led to the
development of neuromas.  His other findings on beak-trimming are of
interest (e.g. Turkeys, 43(2) 23-26, 1995).  These results indicate that
beak-trimming does not cause long-term pain, however, it is not quite this
simple.  Beak-trimming at 6-21 days does not appear to result in chronic
pain, but, trimming at 5 weeks of age can result in the development of
neuromas and behavioural evidence of chronic pain.  So, based on this
evidence, in the field-trial Joy mentions, the animals would have to be
toe-clipped at an early age to avoid chronic suffering.

Regards,

Chris Sherwin
____________________________________________________________

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:46:59 -0500
From: Jeff Rushen <rushenj@EM.AGR.CA>
Subject: US vs Europe
To: v8350@bealenet.com, pkabai@ns.univet.hu
Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
MIME-version: 1.0

>>> "v8350@bealenet.com" <v8350@bealenet.com> 13/02/ 12h30 >>>
>   Strange that the US., fairly bristling with technology and humane
ideals, does not mandate less invasive methods.>>>

Some of their humane ideals involve not lumbering up their citizens with
restrictive legislation unless it is necessary, and unless other
approaches cannot be used.

Differences between Europe and the US in attitudes to animal welfare
are interesting. Many Europeans assume that, because there are more
laws on animal welfare in Europe, then animal welfare must be better. Is
it? The attitude of many people on this side of the water (at least in
Agriculture) is that European laws on animal welfare are simply based
on emotions, hysteria or represent disguised protectionism. Laws on
animal welfare are an effective way of getting rid of procedures that
people find objectionable. Do they improve animal welfare? Frankly, many
of the laws are difficult to defend on scientific grounds.  Sure there are
more animal welfare reguilations in Europe. Are the animals, on the
whole, better off?

Jeff Rushen
_____________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:04:29 -0500 (EST)
From: aa266@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (D.B. Cameron)
Subject: Re: FW: toe amputation
To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Reply-to: aa266@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (D.B. Cameron, DVM)


        Get serious people. At the risk of being branded insensitive,
I offer some observations:
        Perspective seems lacking in this and similar discussions.
That is, presumably animal studies have been subjected in advance
to some kind of risk/benefit calculation: Is this project in the
long-term interest of the individual or the species involved. If so,
what is the acceptable level of risk (or discomfort) to be allowed
in order to gain the planned benefits.
        More specifically and subjectively, were an individual
vole to be captured by a fox and then escape with the sacrifice of
a single digit, he would find that to be the luckiest day of his
life. So if a researcher were to do the same thing in the name of
benefitting the vole species, it would seem not to be a real problem.
        Certainly, the risk/benefit ratio must be calculated. Again,
specifically and subjectively, an individual equine might think
differently about the loss of a single digit.
        More generally, in my five-plus decades it has been my
experience that there are exceedingly few absolutes in this world.
Certainly, pain and discomfort are not. This is not meant to be
a vote for pain and discomfort; just a suggestion that the
perspective of a risk/benefit calculation has much to offer to
those who would serve any segment of society.

________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:26:46 -0500
From: Jeff Rushen <rushenj@EM.AGR.CA>
Subject: toe amputation -REPONSE
To: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk, applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
MIME-version: 1.0

>>> "CM. Sherwin" <Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk> 13/02/ 12h58 >>>
However, would a study examining
the daily movements of rare Mountain gorillas be approved if the only
method of identification was to partially remove their fingers?  I suspect
not, >>>

I am not so sure. It might be justified to cut fingers off the wild animals if
this was the only way of ensuring that wild gorrillas weren't being taken
for medical research or as pets etc.. I believe the horns of rhinos and the
tusks of elephants in some parks in Africa are chopped off to make them
less attractive to poachers.

>>>Why then should this
be allowed for another mammal species simply because it is smaller? >>>

This is not really a fair comparison. The smallness of the rodents makes it
more difficult to identify them.

>>> Could
not the onus be placed on the experimenters to prove this is not
chronically painful to the animals?>>>

I have trouble imagining that total or partial digitectomy (if you need a
euphemism) wouldn't be painful. But even if it was chronically painful, if it
was the only way of tracking individuals (assuming for the sake of
arguement) and if this tracking was thought necessary to maintain a
threatened population, wouldn't saving the population justify us causing
chronic pain to some individuals?

Is it worse than tail docking dogs, pigs, cattle, tooth clipping piglets or
even using ear tags for cattle and pigs?

Jeff Rushen
________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:32:21 -0800
From: "Williams, Jennifer" <jennifer.williams@attws.com>
Subject: RE: FW: toe amputation
To: "'applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca'" <applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca>,
 "'aa266@cleveland.Freenet.Edu'" <aa266@cleveland.Freenet.Edu>

Hmmmm......Lets get serious then.  Using your analogy, we could cut off
your finger if it benefited the human race.  Who really is benefitting
from these studies?  Knowledge should not have to come from inflicting
pain and/or discomfort on the species one is studying.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Williams
____________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:53:11 -0600
From: JANICE SWANSON <jswanson@oz.oznet.ksu.edu>
Subject: Re: Nimrod
To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Organization: K-State Research and Extension
Priority: normal

(SNIP)

Nimrods aside. Mench, Cameron and Rushen all make very good points.
There  are viewpoints within the U.S. that would like to see
us take a heavy legislative route to tackle every issue regarding the
welfare of animals. My observations over the years has led me to
believe that laws are only as good as the people you convince to
follow them and the budgets you provide agencies to enforce them.
Also, the struggle of special interest groups in attaining political
clout often clouds the objectives of improving animal welfare. There
have been a number of animal welfare bills in this country that had
good intentions but reflected silly logic in their written content.

Janice Swanson
_____________________________________________________________________

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:12:16 -0700
From: Curt Walker <walker@cc.dixie.edu>
Subject: toe cuttin
X-Sender: walker@cc.dixie.edu
To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
MIME-version: 1.0

Hey ethologists,

This thread on toe clipping is interesting, here's my 2 cents:

We don't and can't know what it feels like to a mouse or vole which has a
toe or 2 chopped off.  Their brains aren't even as big as the tip of my
pinky, and are perfectly smooth, so lil surface area.  No one knows how such
a brain registers pain, all we can do is observe their reactions to
"painful" stimuli.  Presumably a mouse would work to prevent pain (ie, swim
away from a hot platform), but we really have little idea what it FEELS like
to them.  Therefore, there are 2 schools of thought: 1.  We don't know what
it feels like, so don't worry about it, assume their little brains have very
simple pain representations.
2.  We don't know what it feels like, so assume it is just as painful as it
is to human toes, so never harm any other creature with anything that might
cause pain.

In reality, we need perspective, as previously suggested.  Animals will
suffer every day, regardless of what humans do (ask the Thomson's gazelle
how it feels to be suffocated by a cheetah).  We should work to minimize the
suffering which is probably caused by humans doing research, especially when
the research is marginally beneficial to humans and/or the study species.
But if it seems clear that a cure for cancer can be found if 140 baboons
suffer and die from cancer in the next year, let's start collecting baboons!
Curt Walker, PhD
Dixie College
St. George, UT
_____________________________________________________

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:14:39 -0600
From: JANICE SWANSON <jswanson@oz.oznet.ksu.edu>
Subject: Perspective
To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Organization: K-State Research and Extension
Priority: normal

I am glad I 'm not you Curt. I can hardly wait to see the
replies....Are there any ethicists out there??



=====================================================

End of message



=======================================================================
Dr. Werner Haberl
Editor, SHREW TALK (http://members.vienna.at/shrew/shrewtalk.html)
Hamburgerstr. 11, A-1050 Vienna, Austria
Email: shrewbib@sorex.vienna.at
URL: http://members.vienna.at/shrew   (The Shrew (ist's) Site)
The Shrew Bibliography (> 6000 references) (also available on CD ROM)
=======================================================================