International mammal trapping standards ̶ Part II: Killing Trap Systems

In this paper, we propose standards for killing trap systems based on Proulx et al.’s (2022) prerequisites, which provide context and explanations for our approach. Our aim is to identify assessment protocols that are based on the scientific method, and that include evaluation parameters and threshold levels of acceptation, and laboratory and field procedures, to recognize mammal trapping systems that are acceptable from an animal welfare, and capture efficiency and selectivity, point of view. The testing of killing trap systems consists of 4 steps: 1) Mechanical evaluation; 2) Approach tests in semi-natural environments; 3) Kill tests in semi-natural environments; and 4) Kill tests on traplines. Based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, acceptable killing trap systems are expected, at a 95% confidence level, to render ≥85% of the animals irreversibly unconscious in ≤ 90 sec for most mammal species, and ≤30 sec for small mammals (mouse, vole, etc.). We recommend that standards be continuously updated based on the development of new designs and technology

International mammal trapping standards ̶ Part I: Prerequisites

In this paper, we set out the prerequisites for the development of killing and restraining trap systems to capture mammals for research, wildlife management and conservation, fur trapping, animal control, and any other activity involving the trapping of a mammal in a mechanical trapping device. We selected them with the main intent of developing new trapping standards that will improve animal welfare as per our current state of knowledge, and with realistic, achievable objectives based on state-of-the-art trapping technology. The proposed new standards should be applicable to all terrestrial and semi-aquatic mammal species. They should be based on animal testing in semi-natural environments and on traplines, with high trap thresholds of acceptance, low times to irreversible unconsciousness for killing trap systems, an understanding of the impacts of trapping on physical form, behaviour and physiological function, adequate trap checking times and handling of the captured animals, and high capture selectivity. Furthermore, the implementation of improved trapping standards would include the mandatory publication of findings for peer-review and public education. We believe that the prerequisites that we lay out for the development of new mammal trapping standards will address many of the welfare concerns voiced by the scientific community and the public in the last two decades. It will lead to improved animal welfare and spur continuous improvement in the efficacy and innovation in trapping technology

International Mammal Trapping Standards ̶- Part I: Prerequisites

In this paper, we set out the prerequisites for the development of killing and restraining trap systems to capture mammals for research, wildlife management and conservation, fur trapping, animal control, and any other activity involving the trapping of a mammal in a mechanical trapping device. We selected them with the main intent of developing new trapping standards that will improve animal welfare as per our current state of knowledge, and with realistic, achievable objectives based on state-of-the-art trapping technology. The proposed new standards should be applicable to all terrestrial and semi-aquatic mammal species. They should be based on animal testing in semi-natural environments and on traplines, with high trap thresholds of acceptance, low times to irreversible unconsciousness for killing trap systems, an understanding of the impacts of trapping on physical form, behaviour and physiological function, adequate trap checking times and handling of the captured animals, and high capture selectivity. Furthermore, the implementation of improved trapping standards would include the mandatory publication of findings for peer-review and public education. We believe that the prerequisites that we lay out for the development of new mammal trapping standards will address many of the welfare concerns voiced by the scientific community and the public in the last two decades. It will lead to improved animal welfare and spur continuous improvement in the efficacy and innovation in trapping technology

International mammal trapping standards - Part III: Restraining trap systems

In this paper, we propose standards for restraining trap systems based on Proulx et al.’s (2022a) prerequisites, which provide context and explanations for our approach. Our aim is to identify assessment protocols that are based on the scientific method, and that include evaluation parameters and threshold levels of acceptation, and laboratory and field procedures, to recognize mammal trapping systems that are acceptable from an animal welfare, and capture efficiency and selectivity, point of view. The testing of restraining trap systems consists of 3 steps: 1) Mechanical evaluation for leghold trapping devices; 2) Restraining tests in semi-natural environments; and 3) Restraining tests on traplines. On the basis of the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, a restraining trap system is acceptable if, at a 95% confidence level, it holds ≥85% of the animals without serious injuries (<50 points), signs of distress or exertion during ≥50% of captivity time, and without significant elevated stress, exertion or dehydration for the duration of the captivity period. We recommend that these standards be implemented and continuously updated as new designs and technology is developed

International Mammal Trapping Standards ̶- Part II: Killing Trap Systems

In this paper, we propose standards for killing trap systems based on Proulx et al.’s (2022) prerequisites, which provide context and explanations for our approach. Our aim is to identify assessment protocols that are based on the scientific method, and that include evaluation parameters and threshold levels of acceptation, and laboratory and field procedures, to recognize mammal trapping systems that are acceptable from an animal welfare, and capture efficiency and selectivity, point of view. The testing of killing trap systems consists of 4 steps: 1) Mechanical evaluation; 2) Approach tests in semi-natural environments; 3) Kill tests in semi-natural environments; and 4) Kill tests on traplines. Based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, acceptable killing trap systems are expected, at a 95% confidence level, to render ≥85% of the animals irreversibly unconscious in ≤ 90 sec for most mammal species, and ≤30 sec for small mammals (mouse, vole, etc.). We recommend that standards be continuously updated based on the development of new designs and technology

International mammal trapping standards, Part III: Restraining trap systems

In this paper, we propose standards for restraining trap systems based on Proulx et al.’s (2022a) prerequisites, which provide context and explanations for our approach. Our aim is to identify assessment protocols that are based on the scientific method, and that include evaluation parameters and threshold levels of acceptation, and laboratory and field procedures, to recognize mammal trapping systems that are acceptable from an animal welfare, and capture efficiency and selectivity, point of view. The testing of restraining trap systems consists of 3 steps: 1) Mechanical evaluation for leghold trapping devices; 2) Restraining tests in semi-natural environments; and 3) Restraining tests on traplines. On the basis of the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, a restraining trap system is acceptable if, at a 95% confidence level, it holds ≥85% of the animals without serious injuries (<50 points), signs of distress or exertion during ≥50% of captivity time, and without significant elevated stress, exertion or dehydration for the duration of the captivity period. We recommend that these standards be implemented and continuously updated as new designs and technology is developed

High Dose Chemoradiotherapy and ASCT Can Overcome the Prognostic Importance of Bcl-2, Bim, and p53 in Relapsed/Refractory Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Abstract Introduction: Approximately twenty percent of patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) relapse or have primary refractory disease. About 50% of these patients achieve long-term remissions after high-dose chemoradiotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT). At MSKCC, ICE (ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide) was incorporated as second-line chemotherapy prior to HDT/ASCT in a comprehensive treatment program. In addition to chemosensitive disease, a clinical prognostic model that emerged from this study identified 3 risk factors - B symptoms at relapse, extranodal disease, and complete remission duration of less than 1 year (Blood. 2001 Feb 1;97(3):616–23). This model was used to intensify treatment according to the number of risk factors, with stratification overcoming the significance of poor prognostic features (Blood. 2003 Nov 16;102(11), abstract #403). Methods: To further identify important prognostic factors, we evaluated pre-ICE biopsy specimens of patients enrolled on one of 3 IRB-approved clinical trials of HDT/ASCT. Prior studies showed that overexpression of bcl-2 and p53 have negative impact on outcome with primary therapy. We sought to determine if our comprehensive second-line program could overcome these poor prognostic features. We performed immunohistochemistry staining for bcl-2, bim (a bcl-2 family marker), and p53; samples were considered positive if any Reed-Sternberg (RS) cells stained for bcl-2 or bim, and if more than 50% stained for p53, at any staining intensity. Results: Seventy one patients had sufficient tissue available. Thirty five patients (49%) had disease progression and 28 (39%) died. Median PFS was 4.8 years, median OS was not reached, and median follow-up was 5.7 years. Bcl-2 was overexpressed in 19(27%), bim in 22 (32%), and p53 in 20 (29%) patients. Expression of bcl-2, bim, or p53 had no significant association with PFS or OS. Five-year PFS rates for positive vs. negative cases were 52.6% vs 50% for bcl-2, 54.5% vs 50% for bim, and 50% vs 51% for p53 (all p=NS). The 3 factor clinical model (B symptoms at relapse, extranodal disease and complete remission duration of less than 1 year) remained highly significant (0/1 vs 2/3 factors) for PFS and OS (p=0.002 and p=0.0003, respectively). Conclusion: Despite the evidence that p53 and bcl-2 overexpression may predict a worse prognosis with initial treatment, it appears that the approach of incorporating ICE and HDT/ASCT may overcome the significance of these biological markers at relapse. Further studies will focus on other pathways that are thought to play a role in relapsed/refractory HL outcomes. Bim is a novel pro-apoptotic marker from the bcl-2 family that is expressed on RS cells and suggests a role in the pathogenesis of HL. Future studies will focus on its role in both initial and relapsed/refractory setting