Do Linh San, Emmanuel

Fredrik Dalerum, Fredrik Dalerum

Hayward, Matt, W.

Hoffman, Louw, C.

Kerley, Graham, I.H.

Marshal, Jason, P.

Marthán N. Bester, Marthán N. Bester

Mills, Michael, G.L.

Nel, Jan, A.J.

Owen-Smith, Norman

Perrin, Mike, R.

Somers, Michael, J.

South African Journal of Wildlife Research

Stellenbosch University SUNScholar Repository

EditorialAnimal Ethics and EcotourismbyMatt W. Hayward, Michael J. Somers, Graham I.H. Kerley, Mike R. Perrin,Marthán N. Bester, Fredrik Dalerum, Emmanuel Do Linh San, Louw C. Hoffman,Jason P. Marshal, Michael G.L. Mills, Jan A.J. Nel & Norman Owen-SmithEditors, South African Journal of Wildlife ResearchThere has recently been a spate of manuscriptssubmitted to South African Journal of WildlifeResearch that have lacked animal ethics approvals.Clearly this is a serious concern – not only fromthe chance that unethical research practices haveoccurred but also that there are no checks andbalances to ensure this is the case. In several ofthose cases, the manuscript has been preparedbased on animals (including threatened or protectedspecies) that were apparently fitted with trackingcollars in order to increase tourist sightings forecotourism ventures, but for which there were notethical and/or permitting approvals. Thus, thereappears to be a lack of regulation or enforcementwithin the ecotourism industry regarding the welfareof the fauna they are reaping profits from.This noteaims to highlight the problem and identify ways toensure animal welfare concerns are addressedprior to a study being undertaken.Animal welfare legislation is designed to mini-mise the impact of invasive practices on animals.For example, in South Africa, this is regulated by anumber of Acts – primarily the Animals ProtectionAct (Act No. 71 of 1962) and the PerformingAnimals Protection Act (Act No. 24 of 1935).A thirdAct, the Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty toAnimals Act (Act No. 169 of 1993) governs theorganization and management of animal welfareassociations. For the use of animals in research,the South African National Standard for the Careand Use of Animals for Scientific Purpose (SANS10386:2008), which is outlined in the StandardsAct, No. 8 2008, sets the national standard for ‘Thecare and use of animals for scientific purposes’.Furthermore, for certain Threatened or ProtectedSpecies (TOPS), the TOPS regulations in termsof the National Environmental Management: Bio-diversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) need to be adheredto if any listed species are captured. The usualprocedure when using wild animals for research isto apply for the relevant ethics clearance throughthe institute that hosts the research and also to getthe relevant permits through the relevant govern-mental bodies.In South Africa, the act of chemically immobiliz-ing and/or anaesthetizing an animal is regardedas restricted to veterinary professionals, which islegislated in the Veterinary and ParaveterinaryProfessions Act (Act No. 19 of 1982) and is re-stricted to recognized veterinarians (under theAct) that are registered with the South AfricanVeterinary Council (SAVC). In addition, immobili-zation and anaesthesia are usually induced usingdrugs regulated as Schedule 5 or Schedule 6 sub-stances. The acquisition and possession of suchsubstances are regulated by the Medicines andRelated Substances Control Act (Act No. 101 of1965).This Act specifies by whom such drugs maybe dispensed, acquired and possessed (e.g. bymedical practitioners, dentists, and veterinarians),and also stipulates that the identified professionalmay only prescribe such Schedule 5 and 6 sub-stances for the purposes for which they are quali-fied. Only a veterinarian may prescribe suchsubstances for use in animals.However, rule 10(1)a of the SAVC professional rules for veterinariansstipulates that the veterinary professional that pre-scribes the administering of a restricted substancemust ‘... satisfy himself [sic] that the administeringthereof is justified with due allowance for the bene-fits and risks which that medicine may hold for: (a)the animal to which it is administered;...’. Thisstatement is typically not met for the capture of wildanimals unless the veterinary professional is phys-ically present at the location of the capture. There-fore, a veterinarian may apply for a qualifiedperson to get a discretionary authorization fromthe SAVC to chemically immobilize or anaesthe-tize animals without him or her being physicallypresent. Such authorizations are given underSouth African Journal of Wildlife Research 42(2): iii–v (October 2012)Section 23(1)(c) of Act No. 19 of 1982, and typi-cally infers that immobilization/anaesthetic eventsmust be carried out under the ‘direction and controlof the applying veterinarian’.Neither Act No. 19 of 1982, Act No. 101 of 1965nor the SAVC professional rules are explicit on theissue of Animal Ethics, with the exception of SAVCRule 2(a): ‘research and academic projects’, forwhich it is stipulated that ‘... a copy of the applica-tion to, and the approval of, the relevant Ethicscommittee...’ is provided. Therefore, any capturewith subsequent immobilization or anaesthesiacan legally be undertaken without formal AnimalEthics approval if there is no research or academicoutcome. Both Act No. 101 of 1965 and Rule 10 ofthe SA Veterinary Council requires that a qualifiedveterinarian has to prescribe drugs for immobiliz-ing and/or anaesthetizing animals, whether thesedrugs are administered by the veterinarian ornot. Therefore, the onus of the ethical approvalappears to rest on the specific veterinarian thatis responsible for the use of drugs to fit radio-trans-mitters to animals for purposes other than research.Yet research is still being undertaken on animalsthat originally were radio collared for other purposes.We recognize that other countries have differ-ent legislation pertaining to animal welfare andresearchers from outside South Africa shouldadhere to the law of the land.We are not deriding the researchers who analyseand publish the information derived from suchpractices because this is probably the most ethicaloption – utilising and broadcasting informationderived from animals that have gone through thetrauma of capture, sedation, handling and wearinga transmitter. Yet, the organizations that performthese operations on wildlife should adhere toanimal welfare and conservation permitting legis-lation and part of this, surely, must (although notincluded in the regulations), include publishing theresults. Consequently, we urge ecotourism opera-tors that seek to fit animals with tracking collarsto ensure they have an affiliation with a researchorganization that obtains animal ethics approvalsand that the ecotourism venture supports researchon the animals and ensures that the information ispublished in the scientific literature. This could applyto animals collared for management purposes,such as monitoring lions, which may pose a threatto people and livestock if they leave a reserve, or toanimals being monitored after translocation orreintroduction. Either way, this should be consid-ered research.There are also research institutions that lackanimal ethics bodies (e.g. University of Swaziland).Non-government conservation organizations thatregularly perform research and management mayalso lack such bodies. Researchers from theseorganizations routinely publish papers withoutanimal ethics approvals by simply stating that theprocedures they used have been accepted byanimal ethics boards elsewhere, follow acceptedpractices (Sikes & Gannon 2011) or, in the case ofconservation organizations, are based on routinemanagement procedures. A better solution wouldbe to establish a relationship between institutionsthat follow the SANS 10386:2008 or implement thesystem themselves so as to allow animal ethicsstandards for research. If the data are used forscience post management, the relevant permitsshould be provided and an ethics clearanceapplied for post-hoc.South African animal ethics approvals are notneeded beyond the country’s borders and ethicsapprovals are left to local regulators, if a permit isrequired (e.g.no ethics approvals are required out-side national parks in Madagascar). Despite this,we stress that animal ethics approvals arerequired for all research published in the SouthAfrican Journal of Wildlife Research.A further benefit to these relationships is thatdata collection protocols may be designed by asuitably qualified ecologist to allow for later analy-sis and publication. Often, when tourism is themain endeavour, data are not collected in a sys-tematic, unbiased and independent way and maybe of little value for science.To conclude, we make the following points:• We reiterate the importance of animal welfare tothe South African Journal of Wildlife Researchand its overarching body SAWMA. We will notaccept manuscripts for consideration for publi-cation that lack the appropriate animal ethicsboard approvals and permits required by law.• Conservation managers should ensure that allnecessary approvals are gained prior toinvasively interfering with wildlife.• Qualified and experienced wildlife researchersshould be involved at the earliest possible stageto ensure approvals are obtained and the moni-toring occurs in a robust, scientific manner.• Veterinarians undertaking collaring for tourismpurposes must take responsibility for the out-comes beyond simply the capture.• For conservation organizations with no connec-tions to tertiary institutions but who are publish-iv South African Journal of Wildlife Research Vol. 42, No. 2, October 2012ing data collected from management, linksshould be sought between institutions to ensureanimal welfare approvals are obtainable wheresuch boards are absent or internal animal ethicsboards should be created. Where data from aspecific project have already been collected,perhaps a period of grace could be given duringwhich manuscripts will be considered for datacollected up until the end of 2013. Data collectedhistorically and archived are obviously not ofconcern here.Research is a fundamental way of ensuringeffective wildlife management, but due processmust be practiced to ensure the animals we seekto manage are not overly impacted by the invasivepractices that are forced upon them. This will alsoensure researchers avert a public relations night-mare that could arise if unethical/unapprovedresearch reaches the public eye. This is particu-larly relevant to non-government organizations orecotourism ventures that rely on public goodwill forfinancial support or customers.ReferenceSIKES, R.S. & GANNON, W.L. 2011. Guidelines of theAmerican Society of Mammalogists for the use of wildmammals in research. J. Mammal. 92: 235–253.Editorial v

Editorial Animal Ethics and Ecotourism

https://scholar.sun.ac.za:443/bitstream/10019.1/113735/3/Hayward%20et%20al%202012%20ecotourism%20editorial.pdf

Editorial Animal Ethics and Ecotourism

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Stellenbosch University SUNScholar Repository