I'm Robert Sykes at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, and it is my privilege to moderate topical session number six on euthanasia, humane killing, and lethal take. Euthanasia of animals entered during capture or handling is always a contingency for which one must be prepared. Additionally, for many species and activities, animals may be captured and then euthanized depending on the nature of data required, but its research target is an armadillo foraging just inside a woodline, a bird waiting on a hammock in the Everglades, or a diverse sample of fish that are collected as part of a commercial harvesting operation meeting the conditions expected of euthanasia might be difficult, if not impossible. As a consequence, suitable methods of humane killing and lethal take represent one of the constant challenges for investigators and oversight bodies alike. The subject matter experts for this session were joined by Dave Miller, who played a key role in crafting the wildlife sections of the AVMA's euthanasia guidelines. Andy Inglis from UC Davis, who is a bird expert and brings additional insights regarding the nature of archival samples needed for systematic collections. Rebecca Roe from the University of New Hampshire, a small mammal specialist in environments where lethal capture is often a necessity. And Jeff Buckle from North Carolina State University, whose insights include collecting fish samples involving large numbers of individuals and species, all in the confines of an offshore fishing vessel. With that, I'd like to turn the podium over to our experts. Hello, my name is Dave Miller and I'm going to be speaking with you today about the AVMA euthanasia guidelines in my role as the lead of the Reptile Zoo and Wildlife Working Group. For some background, the first edition of the AVMA euthanasia guidelines was developed in 1963 and the emphasis was on dogs, cats, and small mammals in general. Now that edition as well as all subsequent ones were all developed for U.S. veterinarians, which ends up creating some challenges when the AVMA euthanasia guidelines are extrapolated to non-veterinarians and also to situations outside of the United States. So as time has gone on, the AVMA has recognized the increasing challenges and the increasing range of information that's available for euthanasia. So in 2020, as an extension of what we did in 2013, we started developing working groups for different areas and there's also an emphasis on the evidence that's available for evaluating different euthanasia methods. So for example, in the Reptile Zoo and Wildlife Group, we had biologists with affiliations with TWS and AFWA as well as various researchers and veterinarians. The one caution that I have about our group is that wildlife and reality also extends to birds, fish, and vertebrates which were covered in other groups. The other thing I want to mention in the 2020 edition is that we recognize that context matters and as occurred back in 2013, we split off the humane slaughter and depopulation guidelines because there are different considerations for those situations. It's also important to recognize what is not covered by the euthanasia guidelines and that includes things such as hunting, fishing, and pest control. So among the challenges that exist for the AVMA euthanasia guidelines is how they're interpreted and applied in the real world, understanding that we're working in a dynamic social environment with people that have very different views on animals, what they should experience, how they should be relating to humans, and human control, positive or negative over these animals. We're working with a wide range of species with different characteristics in settings that range from highly controlled to free range. There's also the definition of euthanasia as opposed to depopulation or humane killing or anything else. And what's good in one person's mind in terms of minimizing pain and distress may not agree with what other people agree with. And even when we try to communicate what we feel is important in the euthanasia guidelines, how that's communicated is a challenge and how that's applied in the real world may vary from situation to situation. And we need to recognize that people approach this with different views of what paths euthanasia guidelines indicated, other biases associated with how they look at animals and humans, and those perceptions are going to shape the lens on how they view the AVMA euthanasia guidelines and how they apply them. So one thing I'd like for you to be aware of is that we do have a new organization for the AVMA euthanasia guidelines that was not present prior to 2013. And the three main sections that currently exist are the introduction with the general comments, the methods, and then how do we apply those methods by species and environment. And I do realize that the document has become very large and extensive and that people will tend to jump straight to the species and the environment in many cases. But it is a searchable PDF, so hopefully that will make it a little bit easier for you to use the guidelines and also emphasize that there is material prior to the third section that you might find the value for a given set of circumstances. So in the introduction to the guidelines, we have a section discussing the ethics of taking an animal's life and how we can justify that, and we also have a list of things for people to consider when they want to decide what's the best method for a given situation. And in terms of the general categories, we suggest that people consider what the animal experiences, both in terms of pain, distress, duration of that pain and distress. We ask that people consider what the humans will encounter in terms of a need for training, what the impact on the individual performing euthanasia could be, as well as those that may be watching it. In addition to the social environment, we're also concerned about the natural environment in terms of residues and impacts or potential impacts on other animals and the environment, and of course, what is legal for a given set of situations. In the methods section, we expand a little bit more about what animals experience before they become unconscious. We also discuss the difference between sedation, where the animal's sensations are just dulled versus anesthesia, where pain relief is provided. We emphasize the importance of handling for different species and different environments as a way of mitigating negative experiences for the animals during the euthanasia process. We're also interested in how effective a method is in terms of consistency, whether there are certain details that we need to address, particularly through additional training. Study design is always an issue, but we also are concerned about is it practical in the real world? Some of that can be supported by statistics very often, it's more qualitative descriptions. For non-veterinarians, a particular controlled drugs are an issue because for non-veterinarians, unless they happen to have a DEA license, they have to have a veterinarian involved. We're also concerned about the quality of the drugs, so there's some discussion about pharmaceutical grade drugs and also compounding. Where we are aware of methods that aren't currently available, we try to account for them if they seem to be a viable method for applying in the future. We try to do to boil it all down is between the veterinarians and biologists and our practical experience. We subjectively come up with our best recommendations from that. It is subjective and that's because at this point in time there really isn't a good cookbook method to decide what is best for all different situations. So in the last section, we're largely providing recommendations for birds and mammals, both domestic and wild. I'd also like you to think about the challenges that we had with coming up with recommendations for poichillotherms because data is often limited. There's very often substantive biological and method-based challenges for applying euthanasia methods and even just the termination of death can often be a challenge with many of these species. So before we go further, I'd like to make sure that we talk a little bit about the benefits of words like euthanasia, slaughter, depopulation, humane killing as a way of communicating concepts, but they also limit how we view things based on our biases and preconceptions. And the thing that is often forgotten in a lot of these debates is what is the animal experiencing under a given set of situations or what is our best guess of what that animal is experiencing and if there are negative things going on with a given set of circumstances, what is the best that we can do to mitigate those experiences? So the guidelines were written to try to be adaptable for different species, different situations, but with that adaptability comes ambiguity and that requires thoughtful interpretation and application of the guidelines because there really isn't a way to write a cookbook for every single situation. So for a specific situation, there's a need for knowledge about the species and the methods and all the other circumstances involved in that particular situation. There's a need for communication between the researcher and those that have oversight over them as well as those that are external to the process, recognizing that many of the people involved may be disconnected from basic biological processes. There's also this tension between what has always been done in the past as well as varying expectations from society and new methods that may arise. So the big thing is that when we look at a given situation or recommendations, does it pass the SNF test? Is it reasonable for somebody that's looking at this to think that we use the best methods for the given situation? This is made a little bit more challenging because very often there's limited literature available for different species and for people that are trying to apply the guidelines, the question is how do we balance and evaluate the different information? And then for those that are external to the process, there's this distrust of experts in the polarized environment that we discussed previously. And because of the disinformation that can be spread and the interest in winning versus outcome-based focus on what the animal experience is, litigation will often become a consideration. And the other thing that's important to realize is that very often as scientists, they want more data to try to make a decision. In reality, very often we're dealing with our social situations where the challenge is people with different values. And in particular, people with different values may need to accept that there are trade-offs when we make a decision to use a given method for ending an animal's life. On a more positive note, there have been some creative responses to the new AVMA guidelines format. For instance, Tony de Nicola demonstrated that it can be practical to meet euthanasia criteria using firearms on free-ranging servits that are at a distance. For full disclosure, I did have a minor role in this study. And also Gilbertson and Wyatt had a creative approach to assessing different methods of euthanasia in snails. So the TECO message is to thoughtfully consider the information that's available in the different sections of the AVMA euthanasia guidelines and the context matters when we're trying to pick the best euthanasia method for a given situation. Thanks for your interest. My name is Andy Inglis Jr. And I am curator of the UC Davis Museum of Wildlife and Fish Biology. Over the past 40 years, I have worked on five continents, often in remote regions of our planet, to collect birds for specimen-based research. I have been asked to share my observations as to the challenges facing field collecting of birds with this panel. Although field collecting is considered controversial by some, it remains an essential tool to characterize and define the world's biodiversity. Historic specimens are now being used in many ways that we're undrained of by those who collected them a hundred years ago. Traditional use, such as vouchers to document diversity and taxonomic studies and or document new species, remains. But today's specimens, their tissues and feathers are used to address environmental questions, reconstruct ancient food webs, address questions through space and time, and most recently in disease studies. Likewise, the specimens collected in this era will have even more relevance for researchers 50 to 100 years from now to assess distributional, environmental, evolutionary, and ecological patterns. There is strong evidence that passing specimens forward to future researchers is one of the most effective ways to contribute to the accomplishments of future science and conservation biology. Ornithologists working in the field are faced with many challenges in ensuring that their research is conducted both safely and ethically. We are often faced by working in remote areas and in situations that limit euthanasia choices. Some of these challenges are difficult to articulate and the animal care and use process and for IACUC proposals. The PI must clearly define the conditions of their field research and address challenges and available methods of euthanasia. Researcher safety is the pedestal of the balance between bird welfare and specimen quality. These three elements properly planned will ensure safe and humane collecting of birds. It starts with proper planning, first successfully obtaining IACUC approval for the research. This then allows researchers to obtain permits and in some cases visas to work internationally. It is also important to develop a field plan and disaster planning. These steps are challenging and at times onerous but are necessary for safety, humane killing, and ultimately for the care of the specimens obtained. Many researchers find the IACUC process both challenging and at times confusing. Fortunately, many institutions have outstanding staff to help guide the IACUC process. The PI must impart a clear understanding of the field work challenges and conditions to the IACUC members and vice versa. It is important to develop contingencies when things go wrong. If needed, the PI must clearly define the need for alternate euthanasia methods when conditions warrant. Frustrating to the PI and perhaps IACUC members is the fact that several methods of euthanasia remain poorly understood and AVMA guidelines at times have not yet incorporated recent research findings. Training of all field personnel is required and will ensure safety for the researchers and proper handling and humane killing of birds. This will yield the highest quality specimens for research purposes. Most institutions have a required animal care and use training module but this is just a start. For each project, there's a need for an illness and injury prevention plan, IIPP, and documented training for all involved personnel. If firearms are used, the researchers must successfully complete firearms or hunter safety training. Also, there is training for all primary and secondary euthanasia methods whether it is chemical or manual based. Methods that minimize or alleviate potential pain and distress and that enhance animal well-being are always goals of the researcher when studying wildlife. This remains true when death is the endpoint. The optimal situation is when all euthanasia methods are available which ensures that the animal can be humanely killed within specified guidelines. The goal of every field collecting effort prioritizes these best conditions. However, field work can create challenges where methods and conditions are changing rapidly. Thus, having a field plan and proper training is needed to meet these unpredictable conditions. Firearms remain an effective way to collect birds. Euthanasia killing by firearms can be quick and efficient. However, not every bird dies from the impact of the shot fired. What are our choices to quickly dispatch an injured bird? In these cases, rules to safely operate a firearm may be in conflict with chemical based methods of euthanasia. This presents challenges to the safety of the user and humane killing of the bird. Not all IACUC members have experience in the use of firearms in field work and can find review of this method difficult. It is the job of the PI to clearly articulate these challenges to gain a mutual understanding of the process. Let's take a look at the challenges when using a firearm and a bird is injured. Primary considerations remain the safety of the researcher. Operating a firearm is not safe in the presence of chemical agents. The goal of the researcher is to capture the bird, injured bird, and euthanize quickly to reduce stress and pain. What can we do in the absence of using chemical euthanasia? First, assess if one can shoot the bird a second time. This is effective but not always practical. If not, the researcher must rapidly capture the bird and euthanize it manually. We must have access to methods that quickly euthanize the birds but some have remained controversial. We will touch on this later. Some approved manual methods of euthanasia cannot be used to secure a quality specimen. Any that can result in decapitation or other gross damage to the specimen must be avoided. Our philosophy is if an animal is to be sacrificed for museum study we must recognize a responsibility to obtain the highest quality specimen. Carrying lethal chemicals or agents into remote areas is not always realistic and can be unsafe or even forbidden by law. Misnets generally are used to capture birds in remote research areas. Researchers need quick methods for youth humane killing that yield quality specimens and reduce time of handling. They must rely on manual euthanasia in these circumstances which are limited when considering a museum specimen. It is difficult to clearly articulate the conditions, long hours, and limitations of working remotely to IACUC members. It takes experience to understand the grilling conditions of field collecting remotely. The researcher must roam large areas to seek the species they desire. Misnets are often set remotely from base camps and it is at times impossible to bring birds back to base camp to euthanize. And we must consider if bringing birds back to euthanize at camp is the best for the bird's welfare when death is the end point. I want to address one important topic of humane killing of small birds. That is the use of rapid cardiac compression also called thoracic compression for euthanasia. Museum ornithologists view the AVMA decision to not recognize RCC as an approved euthanasia method in the field as one of the biggest challenges facing field collecting of birds and obtaining IACUC approval. It is at times the only practical method available to safely and humanely euthanize a small bird. This method is misunderstood and is not properly covered in the 2020 AVMA guidelines where recent studies have not been considered in the decision. The fact is that for those who use and clearly understand rapid cardiac compression, they know it to be fast and humane. Now there are clinical and methodological studies completed to back this perception. One of the misconceptions is that thoracic compression or rapid cardiac compression denotes suffocation which is inhumane. The clinical studies show that birds do not die as a result of suffocation but expire due to instantaneous loss of blood to vital organs in the brain. Studies show that the method rivals enterosis pentobarbital euthanasia for time to cessation of pulse and isoelectric EEG. In summary, many of the challenges presented can be addressed when collecting birds in the field. It starts with a mutual understanding of the conditions, methods, and processes amongst researchers and IACUC members. Also, clearly defining the variable options of euthanasia and proper planning are critical. Hopes are that rapid cardiac compression will be reevaluated in light of completed research. And finally, success and safety relies on training. Thank you very much for joining me during my presentation of the challenges facing field ornithologists in collecting birds. My name is Rebecca Rowe. I'm faculty at the University of New Hampshire and I'll be talking about context-dependent challenges and decisions for humane killing of wild small mammals. Free-ranging or wild small mammals are diverse, distributed worldwide, and occupy all ecosystems or habitat types. The term small mammal often refers to rodents and shrews that are relatively small-bodied, about 250 grams or smaller. Rodents are the most species-rich order of mammals, with over 2,300 species, many of which are small in size. Shrews are also a diverse group with over 370 species, all of which are small-bodied. By shrews here, I'm referring to true shrews, members of the family Siricidae. Field studies on wild small mammals are common across wide range of disciplines, including biology, ecology, and evolution. Given the great number of species and studies, there's great potential for circumstances to arise where AVMA preferred capture techniques or methods of euthanasia are not practical or may be a less than ideal choice. Free-ranging or wild small mammals are diverse, distributed worldwide, and occupy all ecosystems or habitat types. The term small mammal typically refers to rodents and shrews that are relatively small-bodied, about 250 grams or smaller. Rodents are the most species-rich order of mammals, with over 2,300 species, many of which are small-bodied. Shrews are also a diverse group with over 370 species, all of which are small in size. By shrews here, I'm referring to the true shrews or the members of the family Siricidae. Field studies on wild small mammals are common across a wide range of disciplines, including biology, ecology, and evolution. Given the great number of species and studies, there's great potential for circumstances to arise where AVMA preferred capture techniques or methods of euthanasia may not be practical or may be a less than ideal choice. Researchers use a variety of techniques to study wild small mammals in their native environments. These techniques can be non-invasive, including camera traps or hair snares, or can involve the physical capture of animals. This talk focuses on physical methods. These trap types vary in design, but can be broadly categorized as live traps or killed traps. Live traps are those that hold the animal unharmed, whereas killed traps kill the animal outright upon capture. An example of a live trap is a Sherman live trap, which is an aluminum box trap pictured in the middle here. A common example of a killed trap is a museum special snap trap pictured on the right. Pitfall traps, which are buried containers where the rim is at surface level, can be designed as both a live trap or a killed trap. Live trapping is an appropriate method for many scientific studies, and both box traps and pitfall traps can be effective in capturing a wide range of small mammals. It's important to note that the two methods often preferentially target different species of small mammals, with the smallest shrews and rodents often caught more readily in pitfalls than box traps. Under the AVMA guidelines, use of live traps is a preferred survey method, and when appropriate or necessary, live trapping can be followed by methods of euthanasia. In the live trap, efforts are taken to ensure the well-being of the animal by providing food and nesting material, and depending on the environmental conditions, using covers to protect against heat, wind, or rain. Pitfall traps also have drainage holes in the bottom. Live traps are checked regularly to minimize pain or distress and decrease risk of mortality. The AVMA recognizes that there are challenges inherent in conducting work on wild animals. Researchers who conduct field surveys of wild small mammals might find themselves in circumstances where AVMA preferred captured techniques or methods of euthanasia are not practical or may be a less than ideal choice. This may include circumstances when live traps pose a risk for pain and distress, when approved measures of euthanasia can't be applied, or when scientific collecting is appropriate or necessary. These circumstances can be prompted by a range of factors including environmental conditions, logistical constraints, or species-specific biology. For example, when researchers need to travel to remote locations, travel times can make it impossible to be able to check live traps frequently. In the case pictured here, researchers need to travel by helicopter from a base camp to the site of a recent wildfire. This trip takes about an hour and a half, and that's just the flight time, not including work time on the ground. Even if access were easier, the researchers would have challenges being able to employ approved methods of euthanasia should that be necessary, because the transport of those agents would be at the discretion of the pilot. And this is assuming the researchers were able to find a veterinarian in the state to prescribe those agents in the first place. While this may be an extreme example, there are many reasons why access to a site may be limited or highly weather dependent, such as road closures due to flooding or stream crossings, which would also place the animal at great risk where the live traps to go unchecked. Species-specific differences in biology or physiology present another scenario where AVMA-preferred methods may be a less than ideal choice. For example, many species of shrews are very small in size. One example pictured here is Sorex hoii, more commonly known as the pygmy shrew, which weighs about two to four grams. For reference, that's about the weight of a dime or nickel. As a result of being so small, these animals have a very high metabolism and thus a higher risk of mortality relative to a larger-bodied small mammal, even when food and nesting materials are provided to help meet thermoregulatory demands. This is a great example of how risk for pain and distress is not uniform across all species in a given community or assemblage. And depending on the circumstances, live traps might increase that risk. When these types of environmental, logistic, or species-specific scenarios arise, it's important to recognize that the AVMA guidelines allow for flexibility where justified. Although kill traps may not consistently meet the AVMA standards for euthanasia, the technique might provide the best choice under certain circumstances and may be characterized as humane killing. When kill traps are used, quality of death is paramount. The traps must provide an efficient and quick death. Both mechanized snap traps and pitfall traps can achieve this and might thus be suitable for kill trapping of small mammals. These methods also eliminate stress associated with handling and human contact. Mechanized snap traps combine capture and killing in one act. The design of these traps is such that the bale or the square wire attached to the spring, when triggered, will immediately break the back or neck of the animal. The traps are also the proper size and strength to cleanly catch and kill the target species. Smaller and more sensitive traps are appropriate for mice and shrews, larger, more powerful traps for rats. To minimize pain and distress, pitfall traps can also include drowning fluid. One example design is the use of 70% ethanol capped with a thin layer of mineral oil and hexane. This layer serves two purposes. It limits the evaporation of the alcohol and reduces surface tension so that the small mammal loses buoyancy right away and thus death is rapid since the animal quickly submerges. Although the AVMA does not consider drowning an acceptable form of euthanasia, the guidelines do provide eye cooks the latitude necessary to consider alternatives for wildlife that may not always meet all criteria established for euthanasia. When collection or killing are appropriate or necessary, the animal can be prepared as a voucher specimen and deposited in a natural history collection. These specimens contribute to scientific infrastructure where the tissues, skin, and skeletal material are used to advance science across a wide range of disciplines including public health, ecology, and evolution. In addition, impact on wild populations of small mammals has been shown to be negligible and the numbers of researchers permitted to take are regulated. In summary, there are many species of rodents and shrews and they occupy nearly every habitat worldwide. A variety of logistical, environmental, or species-specific scenarios can arise that make it impossible or less preferred to use live traps in subsequent euthanasia. The AVMA distinguishes between euthanasia and humane killing and recognizes that kill traps may be characterized as humane killing under certain circumstances. The eye cook can approve these departures from the guidelines. When researchers find themselves in these situations where they need to request deviations from the guidelines, it's critical that they are familiar and up-to-date with those guidelines and that they provide justification for their request including referencing studies or tax-on-specific guidelines. Researchers should also consider meeting with the attending veterinarian before submitting the protocol, providing the eye cook with educational resources and offering to communicate directly with the eye cook to explain the circumstances and methods. At my university, I serve on the eye cook and I've seen a wide range of protocols from transgenic mice to net-gunning ungulates and in each case, it's always been helpful to both the researcher and the eye cook to have the researcher attend and present at the meeting. For the eye cook, it's important to make sure that they have relevant expertise on the committee or poll and consultants as needed, particularly for methodologies or species that are new to the committee. The eye cook should also recognize tax-on-specific guidelines that professional societies have developed and should communicate directly with the researcher to make sure they understand the methods being proposed. For reference, I've provided a few key resources on this topic. Thank you for listening. I also want to thank Julie Simpson, Dean Elder, and Linnea Morley at UNH for discussions on this and all other eye cook-related topics over the years. And I thank Bob Sykes and the ASM Animal Care and Use Committee for all their efforts in developing the guidelines for the use of wild mammals in research and education. Hello, my name is Jeff Buckel. I'm a professor with the Department of Applied Ecology at North Carolina State University, where I conduct research on marine and estuarine finfishes. Today, I'm going to be talking with you about challenges in following euthanasia guidelines and marine fisheries sampling. First, I'd like to acknowledge Bob Sykes for the invitation to speak on this important topic, and also Bob Sykes and Craig Harms for assistance in reviewing an earlier version of this presentation. I'll cover the following topics in the presentation. Why do we sample wild fish? Providing justification for using gear types that catch large numbers of fish. I'll next review euthanasia guidelines for fish. Then I'll provide an overview of gear types used in marine fisheries sampling and challenges to meet euthanasia guidelines. Lastly, I'll cover language in the ABMA guidelines related to commercial fishing gear that acknowledges the logistical constraints of applying euthanasia guidelines in these circumstances. So, why do we sample wild fish? The wild fish stocks that we are conducting research on are targeted by recreational and commercial fishers. And it's important to estimate their trends and abundance. It's also necessary to keep track of their life history attributes, such as reproduction, size and age distributions, and condition. Abundance indices and life history data are used as input into stock assessment models to determine stock status and future sustainable fishing levels. So, as a trade-off, we need to kill some fish during sampling to improve or maintain fish stocks for sustainable fisheries. The aim of the ABMA euthanasia guidelines are to accomplish death for these animals rapidly with the minimum amount of pain and distress practicable. Acceptable methods for euthanasia and fin fish include non-inhaled methods such as immersion and injection, or physical methods such as decapitation and pithing. Unexceptible methods for euthanasia and fin fish include death by anoxia and desiccation after removal from the water or by anoxia in the water. The next three slides will introduce gear types used in marine fisheries sampling. Pictures of the catches from these gear types will illustrate the challenges in meeting acceptable methods of euthanasia in fish from these catches. An illustration of a bottom trawl in action is shown on the left hand side of the slide. The bottom trawl is towed along the bottom of the sea floor. Fisher funneled into the mouth of the net and moved to the back of the net. After the tow is done, the net is brought on board and the catches dumped onto the deck of the boat and samples are sorted. As you can see in the picture on the right, the large numbers of fish that can be caught during a tow prevents the use of acceptable methods of euthanasia such as the non-inhaled or physical methods that require handling individual fish or small numbers of fish. A picture of a beach saying being fished is shown on the left. The same net is set off of the beach and encircles a section of water. The net is pulled up onto the beach and the fish are retained in the net. Catches in beach sayings can be quite large at times. Here's a catch of small juvenile fish pictured on the right. And these large catches make it impossible or not practical to apply acceptable euthanasia methods such as the non-inhaled and physical methods described earlier. The last gear type I'll describe today is a gill net. An illustration of a gill net is shown on the left of this slide. It's a wall of mesh suspended in the water column with float lines in the lead line. Fish don't see the net and they swim into it and are caught in the mesh of the nets by the bones that cover their gills plus the name gill net. A photo of a gill net being retrieved is shown on the right. Again illustrating that this gear can catch large numbers of fish and making it not possible or impractical to apply acceptable euthanasia methods. Additionally, fish often die before they are retrieved from the gill net. So what's an eye-cook committee to do when faced with reviewing a protocol that utilizes some of the gear types I described earlier or some other fishing gear type that results in large catches of fin fish? It's obvious if a large catch is encountered, fish will die by anoxia after removal from the water or in the case of the gill net by anoxia in the water. Fortunately, the AVMA acknowledges that context matters. And Dave Miller discussed this in more detail in his presentation that's part of this same session. On page 88 of the AVMA guidelines, there's a section entitled Fish Kept Outdoors and in Fisheries. And in this section, the AVMA acknowledges that field research is often on a scale comparable to commercial fishing and that the large number of fish that are caught may justify the use of harvest techniques that may not meet the criteria for euthanasia. This language is useful to eye-cook committees that are evaluating protocols that are using the gear types that I've described before or other fishing gear types that might catch large numbers of fish. To conclude, marine fishery sampling often results in large catches. And it is not possible to use acceptable euthanasia protocols that are applicable to small samples or to laboratory settings. The AVMA recognizes this and provides language that eye-cooked committees should be aware of when evaluating protocols. This language acknowledges the pragmatic realities that researchers might encounter. However, fishery scientists should clearly justify the use of these high-catch gear types and continue to explore the utility of less invasive gear that collects fisheries data that are used to ensure sustainable fisheries.