The Dividing Line Between Wildlife Research and Management-Implications for Animal Welfare.

Wild animals are used for research and management purposes in Sweden and throughout the world. Animals are often subjected to similar procedures and risks of compromised welfare from capture, anesthesia, handling, sampling, marking, and sometimes selective removal. The interpretation of the protection of animals used for scientific purposes in Sweden is based on the EU Directive 2010/63/EU. The purpose of animal use, irrespective if the animal is suffering or not, decides the classification as a research animal, according to Swedish legislation. In Sweden, like in several other European countries, the legislation differs between research and management. Whereas, animal research is generally well-defined and covered in the legislation, wildlife management is not. The protection of wild animals differs depending on the procedure they are subjected to, and how they are classified. In contrast to wildlife management activities, research projects have to implement the 3Rs and must undergo ethical reviews and official animal welfare controls. It is often difficult to define the dividing line between the two categories, e.g., when marking for identification purposes. This gray area creates uncertainty and problems beyond animal welfare, e.g., in Sweden, information that has been collected during management without ethical approval should not be published. The legislation therefore needs to be harmonized. To ensure consistent ethical and welfare assessments for wild animals at the hands of humans, and for the benefit of science and management, we suggest that both research and management procedures are assessed by one single Animal Ethics Committee with expertise in the 3Rs, animal welfare, wildlife population health and One Health. We emphasize the need for increased and improved official animal welfare control, facilitated by compatible legislation and a similar ethical authorization process for all wild animal procedures.

Methods for Investigating the Motivation of Mice to Explore and Access Food Rewards.

The emotional state of domestic animals is an essential component of the assessment of their welfare. In addition, sensitivity to various rewards can be a valuable indicator when investigating these states. We aimed to design an exploration test and a contrast test that did not evoke fear and anxiety in C57BL/6N mice but that instead were perceived as positive experiences and that might be used to assess sensitivity to various rewards. The exploratory arena had a larger central area and 8 smaller sections containing various objects. Motivation (measured as latency to enter the arena under conditions of increasing weight of the entrance door), anticipation (measured as latency to enter the arena under conditions of increasing delay in opening the entrance door), and the numbers of visits to the different sections were evaluated during a 5-min session in the arena. In the contrast test, after traversing a runway, half of the mice received a tasty reward (hazelnut cream), whereas the others received a neutral reward (food pellet) at the far end. Latency to reach the reward was recorded. After baseline training, rewards were swapped for half of the mice from each category for 3 d, to establish a negative and positive contrast. Mice were both motivated and showed anticipation to enter the exploration arena; after entering, they were active and visited many sections. In the contrast test, latency during the baseline period was longer for mice given the neutral reward compared with the tasty reward. Compared with baseline, latency during the postshift phase decreased for the positive-contrast group (neutral-tasty reward pattern) but did not differ for the negative-contrast group (tasty-neutral reward pattern). Overall, both tests seemed to be positive experiences for the mice and showed potential for use to investigate reward sensitivity.

Assessing the welfare of laboratory mice in their home environment using animal-based measures--a benchmarking tool.

Welfare problems in laboratory mice can be a consequence of an ongoing experiment, or a characteristic of a particular genetic line, but in some cases, such as breeding animals, they are most likely to be a result of the design and management of the home cage. Assessment of the home cage environment is commonly performed using resource-based measures, like access to nesting material. However, animal-based measures (related to the health status and behaviour of the animals) can be used to assess the current welfare of animals regardless of the inputs applied (i.e. the resources or management). The aim of this study was to design a protocol for assessing the welfare of laboratory mice using only animal-based measures. The protocol, to be used as a benchmarking tool, assesses mouse welfare in the home cage and does not contain parameters related to experimental situations. It is based on parameters corresponding to the 12 welfare criteria established by the Welfare Quality® project. Selection of animal-based measures was performed by scanning existing published, web-based and informal protocols, and by choosing parameters that matched these criteria, were feasible in practice and, if possible, were already validated indicators of mouse welfare. The parameters should identify possible animal welfare problems and enable assessment directly in an animal room during cage cleaning procedures, without the need for extra equipment. Thermal comfort behaviours and positive emotional states are areas where more research is needed to find valid, reliable and feasible animal-based measures.