Abstract
Marking of animals for re-identification purposes is a standard tool in ecology in order to assess home range, migration, population development amongst a broad range of other research questions, and is a common practice in the study of pinnipeds. Also in rehabilitation centers, conventional livestock ear tags are used for identification purposes. The main goals are to identify and distinguish each animal during rehabilitation, and to visually re-identify the released animal easily from a distance based on the imprinted number and color of the tags. In the light of animal welfare and practicability used tagging techniques have been assessed.1,2,3 When working with live animals, especially when using invasive methods, the main goal besides reducing the impact on the animal to the lowest possible level, should be to gain a maximum of information.4,5 The possibilities of using biopsy samples have been continuously increasing over the last years. E.g. information on genetics, infectious diseases, immune status, pollution levels of fatty acids, or stable isotopes can be extracted from these samples.6,7,8,9,10
In order to increase the gain of knowledge we assessed a new type of flipper tag which simultaneously takes a skin biopsy sample from the marked animal. The new tags were assessed in light of animal welfare and practicability in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) under rehabilitation in the Sealcentre Pieterburen (the Netherlands), in order to assess the safety of the new tags to be used in free-ranging seals. In total 12 harbor seals were tagged with "LabTag Boss 3" cattle ear tags to assess under veterinary supervision applicability and wound healing of this tag type for future use. These tags combine conventional ear tags (GEPE Q-flex®) with the "Geno Tissue Sampling System" by "Caisly Eartag Limited" which allows taking a biopsy sample while marking an animal. Seals were tagged at arrival at the Sealcentre Pieterburen during the routine admission exam. The tags were applied in the right hind flipper, in the interdigital web between toe 2 and 3. In order to monitor the development of the tag wounds, regular veterinary checkups and photos were done systematically during rehabilitation.
The presented study results show that the use of biopsy flipper tags in seals has no adverse medical impact on the animals and even is of advantage as the tissue is cut rather than separated by a thorn. This cheap and relatively little invasive method can be safely used even in long-term studies and has the important advantage of gaining additional information on wild species.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the staff and volunteers of the Sealcentre and the team of the ITAW for their support.
* Presenting author
Literature Cited
1. Testa JW, Rothery P. 1992. Effectiveness of various cattle ear tags as markers for Weddell seals. Marine Mammal Science. 8(4):344–53.
2. Jeffries SJ, Brown RF, Harvey JT. 1993. Techniques for capturing, handling and marking harbour seals. Aquatic Mammals. 19(1):21–25.
3. Khan CB, Markowitz H, McCowan B. 2006. Vocal development in captive harbor seal pups, Phoca vitulina richardii: age, sex, and individual differences. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 120(3):1684.
4. Faisal G. 2005. Introduction to the 3Rs (refinement, reduction and replacement). Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science. 44(2):58–59.
5. Putman RJ. 1996. Ethical considerations and animal welfare in ecological field studies. In: Ecologists and Ethical Judgements, edited by Nigel S Cooper and RCJ Carling. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 123–35. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-6965-3_11.
6. Twiss SD, Poland VF, A Graves JA, Pomeroy PP. 2006. Finding fathers: spatio-temporal analysis of paternity assignment in grey seals (Halichoerus grypus). Molecular Ecology. 15(7):1939–53.
7. Dietz R, Riget FF, Sonne C, Letcher R, Born EW, Muir DCG. 2004. Seasonal and temporal trends in polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine pesticides in east Greenland polar bears (Ursus maritimus), 1990–2001. Science of the Total Environment. 331(1–3) 107–24.
8. Kennedy-Stoskopf S, Stoskopf MK, Eckhaus MA, Strandberg JD. 1986. Isolation of a retrovirus and a herpesvirus from a captive California sea lion. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 22(2):156–64.
9. Fossi MC, Marsili L, Leonzio C, Di Sciara GN, Zanardelli M, Focardi S. 1992. The use of non-destructive biomarker in Mediterranean cetaceans: preliminary data on MFO activity in skin biopsy. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 24(9):459–61.
10. Hooker SK, Iverson SJ, Ostrom P, Smith SC. 2001. Diet of northern bottlenose whales inferred from fatty-acid and stable-isotope analyses of biopsy samples. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 79(8):1442–54.