Panel Members

Dr. Robert Brownell (RB) , Director of Sea Otter and Manatee Projects, US Fish and Wildlife Service, San Simeon, CA
Ms. Wanda C. Cain, (WC) Fisheries Biologist, Office of Protective, Resources and Habitat Programs, NMFS, Washington, DC
Ms. Janette Roletto (JR), Curator, California Marine Mammal Center, Fort Cronkhite, CA
Dr. J.Pete Schroeder, (JS) Naval Ocean Systems Center, Kaneohe, Hawaii
Dr. Don Siniff (DS), Department of Ecology and Behavioral Biology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Dr. Neylan Vedros (NV), School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA

Aquariums on both coasts have an overabundance of seals, sea lions and sea otters from rehabilitation programs. Fish, marine birds and mammals may have physical or medical problems that make them unacceptable for research, display or education. Where, when, and how can these animals be released?

This discussion will cover policy, loyal issues and problems associated with the disposition of aquatic animals. The special problems threatened and endangered animals will also be discussed.

Throughout this transcription of the hour and a half session, composed entirely of questions and answers, the panel member(s) responding will be indicated by his/her initials. All audience questions were repeated by the moderator and will be transcribed as such following at indicator letter of Q:.

Transcript

Q: How do you define disposition of aquatic animals? Live animals, dead animals, what specifically about disposition?

MS: We're definitely talking about the disposition of marine mammals, whether they in live or dead, the questions and decisions involved whether in deciding whether they he live or dead, whether they be they be released back to the wild, whether they be euthanized, what sort of disposition, the questions are up to you.

Q: What are the current regulations regarding captive born pinnipeds, particularly referencing sea lions.

CC: Right now there is no regulation specifically addressing the disposition of captive born animals. To date captive born animals have been classified as either post-act or pre-act, depending upon the status of their parents. That question is rapidly coming to the fore front because of the great number of captive born animals in captivity today. The bottom line is that you cannot release a captive born animal to the wild right now without coming to the Fisheries Service and requesting authorization to do so. That is because the Act (MMPA of 1972) requires that you ask for authorization to do whatever you want or need to do with marine mammals, until we get good data on acclimation of animals either captured from the wild and held for some time to be released to the wild or captive-born animals, until we get good data on what actually happens to them to them and how they acclimate, facilities are not going to be able to just drop them in the ocean. We have issued in the past two years, two permits to researchers who want to do research; one is a Seattle researcher doing work on pinnipeds, and after his research is done, these are pinnipeds who arc to be tracked, to try to tell us what happens to them; The most recent permit is for a foundation called ORCA doing some research on John Billy's two dolphins, Joe and Rosey, how they acclimate to their release to the wild. Until we get that information and more information on what happens to any animals we will not be releasing animals to the wild without authorization.

Q: What do the classifications "pre- and post-act" mean?

CC: Animals captured before the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 are classified as post-act animals, and that was early December, late November 1972. Animals captured, after that date, are classified as post-act and come under the auspices of the Act. For example, you can't capture an animal without a permit, you can't dispose of an animal without authorization to do so. The progeny of pre-act animals are classified as pro-act animals, rather that the post-act animals, and please don't ask me what happens to an animal that has one parent as a pre-act and the other parent as a post-act animal.

Q: If you have bits and pieces of a marine mammal being sent out for laboratory analysis, you have a permit to do so, and you send it to a diagnostic laboratory or special research lab, do they too have to have some special letter of transfer or permit of some sort along the line?

CC: No, they don't. You need to zerox a copy of your permit, your authorizing document, and this should accompany the parts; the regs say it should actually be attached to the crate or container to show that that part is authorized.

Q: Is that also true of endangered species under Fish and Wildlife permit?

RB: The regulations of the US Fish and Wildlife Service are virtually the same as those of NMFS. In fact, in most cases, we have adopted their regulations because they have so many more marine mammal species than we do that they put their regulations into effect before the US Fish and Wildlife Service came in to being. In most cases, we have found them to be satisfactory for the species we cover.

Q: If one has made a decision to euthanize a marine mammal, a pinniped or a cetacean, particularly a cetacean, how would one go about it?

PS: As far as euthanasia is concerned, be it pinnipeds or cetaceans, first off you have a size range from baby harbor seals up to adult elephant seals for pinnipeds in captivity and as stranders, and in cetaceans, you can get stranders the size of lags, spinners, all the way up to humpback whales. The problem is, if they look on the beach as if they're going to be healthy and could possibly live....well if you've been to any stranding network meetings headed by Joe Geraci on the East Coast, you will hear that no stranded animal will make it, they'll live for maybe three or four months sometimes and give you a boost, but in the long run, there's been so much damage, whether its the kidneys, the liver or the lungs, that its a one-way deal, so then what do you do? Do you take that as gospel and euthanize what you see on the beach or do you still try your best? Well, then you get into politics and the newspapers, and a lot of the problems that we've been facing since marine mammals have become so common in the public eye. Maybe best I can explain what we do by example, it may not directly answer your question, but it should shed some light on the problem. I think there's a time for euthanasia. A small dolphin came ashore in Hawaii and was transported to Sea Life Park. it was supported 24 hours, for 5 days, 24 hours a day, .by a great number of volunteers. I diagnosed that animal essentially as a heart-lung machine because it had lost any ability to stay upright in the water, its respirations however were fairly normal, of course it wasn't eating. In my judgment that animal was going to die, so the question was should we euthanize it now or wait for it to die on its own. Well, number one you have to get permission from NMFS people in the area to euthanize it, then you have to pick your choice or drug, then you have to pick your time so you don't have a whole lot of public around to observe, and then what I did in this case was establish objective criteria for the NMFS people and the Sea Life Park people, such that if it didn't do such and such within so many hours, it wasn't going to get any better and it probably had x or y disease. That makes it a national decision an the part of the veterinarian, it makes it an easier decision for the NMFS to give permission, and it makes it emotionally easier for both the public and the employees of the oceanarium who have poured their hearts into this animal 24 hours a day to accept. Then the mode of euthanasia, in small cetaceans, we use ketamine and valium, or inject concentrated barbiturate. The key thing is to keep this whole thing as unpublic, as smooth, and as ethical as possible. The AVMA put out a whole article on euthanasia in laboratory animals, I don't remember the year exactly, but it was several years ago, and that's a good reference to use. You need to think how you can support what you've done. Another technique we use is if you can keep the public away from some of these animals by saying it is essentially a medical emergency (you wouldn't let anyone into your ICU would you?); so ok let's just isolate this animal, do what we can do, what's best for it, and put out medical bulletin. As an example, we had a humpback whale beach itself. We took it to Sea Life Park, it lived for 10 days. On day 10 we had to decide are we going to ship this thing by air to SeaWorld, because they have the only tank big enough to hold it, or are we going to take it back out and turn it loose, it was a baby, and probably would never make it, or are we going to euthanize it. Of the euthanizing agents we were considering, then the main one was M-99. Now that's something than just isn't everywhere, so you set up a deal so you can use M-99. Essentially the decision was taken out of our hands within the next 15 minutes, because the baby just turned belly up and died. So I guess to summarize then, there's a whole range of euthanizing agents you're going to have to choose depending on size of your animal. Barbiturates will kill pinnipeds, I'll guarantee that, you can't always get them IV, so maybe, intrathoracic or even intraabdominal. You have to check with NMSF first before you do it, you have to he sensitive to the people have put their hearts into trying to save this animal, always keeping in mind that if you take an animal off the beach, it's more than likely going to die at some time or another. So the job of the veterinarian is to reduce suffering, minimize suffering, by euthanizing that animal in a proper way.

MS: Would anyone else on the panel like to address techniques or give any other comments?

Q: If you are on the beach and you have a stranded large cetacean, and you do get permission to euthanize it, then what happens?

PS: I had to consider that a couple of weeks ago. There was sick humpback whale floating along the side of the Big Island. We don't have enough drugs to euthanize a big whale. My suggestion was essentially to arrive with lidocaine so it looked like I was doing something, make an incision if I could into the thorax, get in there with a scalpel and nick an artery, hopefully the aorta or one of the chambers of the heart, producing essentially death by exsanguination, not one of the approved methods by the AVMA, but AVMA and AALAS don't deal with 45 ton cetaceans. That was my solution.

Jay Hyman: Having recently focused on this subject by request, there is a drug, I think of choice, for knocking down these large cetaceans, and you can administer this drug like many of the other drugs, IP, IT or IV if you have the opportunity.... Succinylcholine in combination with KCl (Potassium chloride) will paralyze just about anything. So maybe between 100 and 500mg tops should do the trick. You are inducing respiratory paralysis.

MS: Just to play devil's advocate, because I understand how much trouble it can we, I can imagine some physiologist saying that this would be tantamount to trying to suffocate an animal that is adapted to holding its breath for long periods of time. How would you respond to that?

Jay Hyman: It's a very valid point that you have an animal that theoretically can go 60 minutes underwater. I think if it's necessary we'd come up with this sort of drug combination. We haven't used this. I have never experienced being called to a beach with a 40 foot, 20 to 30 ton whale in such a condition that we don't want to try to do something, but I think I would use the succinylcholine-potassium combination. Particularly the potassium, I think the potassium certainly enhances the effect of the drug.

MS: That is the point I was hoping you would make, that the potassium is an alternate way to bet that would be shorter than waiting for a whale that can hold its breath for 60 minutes or so to die of anoxia. You don't have to just use the succinylcholine, you might use in order to make it safe to use another procedure. The potassium is a good idea.

Q: What do you do with the carcass now that the dirty deed is done, or if there's a carcass that floats in?

PS: Before you do anything you get permission from NMFS to do it.

Jay Hyman: Let's complicate it further. NMFS has delegated authority to a permit holder in the area. Does that permit holder have the responsibility to perform euthanasia and deal with disposal? Or do have to go to Washington and got NMFS to ok disposal?

RB: Well one comment before Candy (CC) , I know where we've had this problem before, (it's sort of complicated if its an endangered species like a manatee or a humpback whale or any of the large whales), and the problem is when I was working back at the Smithsonian, there were a number of times we were told that we couldn't dispose of the whale in any way because they were worried that we were going to be like a commercial operation, where someone was going to profit from the remains of this whale, so in most cases, we had smaller animals like manatees, incinerated with the help of vet schools; and some of the larger whales, some of the easiest ways to get rid of them were simply to have them float out to sea, let them go adrift, and hope they don't come back. But I'll let Candy say what they're doing now.

CC: I can't answer exactly what NMFS is doing now, but as far as my office is concerned, the disposition decision is one of the permit holder, in consultation with the veterinarian and the regional NMFS office of the stranding network. The final decision as to what happens to the carcass is going to have to take into account, public health problems and news melia problems and such things as that. It depends on the situation. The permit holder can make the decision in consultation with as veterinarian, and recommend to NMFS and request authorization to do it. We're not going to make the decision. Usually we say the disposition is dependent upon the decision upon the veterinarian in consultatition with the regional office of NMFS.

PS: Just to add to that, most stranding networks ae set up through NMFS leadership, and there's a list of participants. We mentioned parts a few minutes ago, and people who are interested in marine mammal parts are on that list, for eyes, livers, reproductive organs, microbiological cultures, whatever, so when there is a stranding, those people are notified they go get the samples that they want. It opens that window to the wild that we all need to look at. That's one way we have to see what's going on out there by post-mortem examination of these, animals. Jay Sweeney is doing the same thing with the animals in California, Geraci's doing the same thing in the northeast, Texas A&M is doing the same thing along that gulf coast. It's not just the straight matter of burning, blowing up or incinerating, and these are opportunities, and most stranding networks have the disposition of the parts listed to approved researchers.

JR: The California Marine Mammal Center is a rehabilitation center in northern California, and when we get a live stranding, the animal comes to our facility. If we get a call on a dead animal report, whether it be a California Sea Lion or a whale, we look at the network, the cooperators, within that network who have the authorization for collection and we do contact those people or those agencies or those universities closest to the animal. So different universities have specific jurisdiction areas within California, at least central and northern California where they have priority over a stranded animal.

Q: Is the list up-to-date and who makes the telephone calls.

CC: I can't tell you if the list is up-to-date, but what I can do and what I can get from my office tomorrow is in each regional office, there is a stranding network coordinator, and I can got you a list of names for each region, and if you were to have a stranding, what you would need to do is call that regional stranding network coordinator, and the coordinator would have or should have the most up-to-date phone list of who the participants are, and that coordinator would also tell you what to do with that animal.

Q: How many released animals actually survive, and of those survivors, what genetic impact on the wild population?

R: At least in California, the regional office is coordinated by Dana Seagar down in Terminal Island, near Long Beach, and he said that just in the case at pinnipeds, since 1980, particularly since 1982, and up to the end of 1986, there have been approximately 600 animals released in California what they do is tag them all with orange tags, and of those 600 released, they've had approximately 350 resights. Resights means live or dead. Of the 350, about 10% were dead animals, of the remainder, about 60% were Zalophis, 25% were elephant seals, 101 harbor seals and 1% fur seals. He's in the process of analyzing this information right now, and says he's going to try to prepare a paper an it for the marine Mammal Society Meeting in Miami in December. I anyone wants anymore information, I suggest that they contact Dana at the Southwest Regional Office of NMFS; and this information is from 7 centers that are participating in combining data on releasing animals over the last 5 or 6 years . In terms of the second point of genetic impact, in those populations where there are so many animals, say almost 1000,000 elephant seals, probablyom5re than a 100,000 sea lions, I don't think there's any genetic impact. I would be more concerned about some animal having some infection that could be passed on to the rest of the wild population. But I think in terms of the genetics, there's probably no problem at all in terms of the population at large.

NV: I agree with Bob. It's pure speculation to know what the genetic susceptibility to diseases are in marine mammals. We don't even know this in humans. I think the only one where there is an HLA pattern in humans is Reiter's Syndrome, although there are some scientists that believe even if you get athlete's foot, there's a genetic susceptibility! So assuming that they are stranding because of some factor, that may be only 10% of why they're stranding due to disease or some other factor. But it's the second part that is the critical one; we're trying to determine this now in the Hawaiian monk seal along with Bill Gilmartin, where he's taking samples from young male seals and sending them to me, and then those animals are brought to Hawaii, for a month or so, where no samples them again both for bacteria and fungal samples and serum, and they're being transported to Kure Atoll, they're taken from French Frigate Shoals. So the question that NMFS asked was, is that animal now going to transmit diseases to the new population where they're being transported and relocated, or are they going to acquire new organisms? The only way you can do this is to combine serological techniques with the flora from the animals, all healthy animals. The question whether these animals now are going to contribute anything to the ocean is a valid question. I have done complete microbiological screens on 142 animals now and I am surprised by the number of unusual organisms one finds. These are some that Dick Stroud found on St. George Island (AK), where we've gotten hundreds of animals, every tissue. To give you an example, you can find in these animals organisms that have never been found in anything but a rabbit (3 species of Neisseria), 2 in guinea pigs, only the pig isolates of Staph aureus, so every time you touch these animals, you come up with organisms that are very strange. Now if you take those animals, and bring them into captivity, now I've only got 4 animals sampled them on San Miguel, and sampled them every week for 6 weeks in captivity, then you find that the population of organisms didn't change, but they stabilized, and these were Tom Poulter's facility before it closed. So we think that you don't pick up diseases in captivity, but rather eliminate some of those that you brought the animal in with. Now you can assume that the fish is going to contribute something, and we have 16 different kinds of Clostridia here that we can't even identify Gram animals that are in captivity in holding. Now these are pinnipeds, no one knows anything about- cetaceans to any extent. So I think the question just simply can't be answered. I don't think there's any evidence. You have to assume that it's gotten into the food chain. We know some Gram negative like Salmonella will- last 6 weeks in salt water with no problems and with very little decay, and we are picking up Salmonella mucor routinely in the stranded animals. It's just very difficult to say what contribution that animal by being released will to the other animals. You take leptospirosis, all the things that have been followed, Al Smith with lepto, the avian influenza, some of the other diseases, these were always zoonotic, from bird to animal, or in the case of leptospires probably from two rodents to the sea lion. I don't know of any which came from an animal or groups of animals that have been on shore and released back into the ocean. So I don't think the question can be answered right now.

Q: Referring back to the information you got from Dana Seagars, how long after the animals were released, were these resightings coming in, and have there been any orange-tagged animals seen reproducing.

RB: I don't know the answer to either of these questions unfortunately. You'll have to call Dana Seagars. He's just analyzing all of this data right now to present to the Marine Mammal Society.

PB: I want to say one thing about Bill Gilmartin's study on the monk seal. These animals that are brought in from Kure Atoll a,, pups, who we think aren't making it in the wild, so he's bringing them in and then taking them back out. I just talked to him 2 weeks ago, and one of the animals he released a couple of years ago, just pupped for the first time, so one of the females, brought in, raised in captivity, and taken back out to kute, and released, had a pup about the first of April.

Q: Is there any value in tracking some of these animals in the wild, and how would you go about doing it ?

DS: Certainly there is value in tracking. It's one way to find out exactly what happens to them. We do have some technology that makes this possible today. The technology is better for some species than other species. In sea otters for instance, we have implanted radios along the California coast and it certainly works very well. We place them within the peritoneum and we've had one last as least 748 days, maximally; they last at least a year. These are radiofrequency transmitters with a range from the air of approximately 10 miles. For pinnipeds, the technology is probably the glue-on type transmitter, which is embedded with some kind of glue onto the upper back region. These last until the animal molts, and they are a standard radio frequency transmitter with the same performance. For cetaceans, the technology is probably implant type devices that art, stuck through the skin and embedded in some way or other. There have been a couple of successful trackings of large cetaceans such as ??????? in this manner. Again there are radio frequency transmitters that have been successful; but now the new technology is looking at satellite tracking, and basically that's been mostly unsuccessful in cetaceans. With pinnipeds there has been success with satellite tracking, particularly in the Antarctic seals, where packages ranging from 6 to 8 pounds, last about one year until the animal sheds. These data come through a crunch satellite, and relayed back to ????; so there has been some success. Certainly then this is one way we can find out the benefits of there rehabilitation programs, how long these animals last, where they go when they leave. I can tell you one area where I think rehabilitated animals could be used for, and the technology is probably there, and this is for physiological studies. There are some devices which can now be implanted that give information other than position, such as temperature, heart rate, etc. For animals either in captivity or free-ranging this would be most helpful.

RB: One other thing that needs to be mentioned is we've just started using a small transponder chip, a couple of millimeters in diameter and one centimeter long, and we've been using these on sea otters, each one is coded with a frequency and a pass-??? device or we can get a read-out of what the number is. We've had the problem in sea otters with tag loss and I know in pinnipeds we have this problem too, where a tag is not necessarily being lost, but worn clown to where you can't read the numbers, so it might be something to consider in pinnipeds also. It would be good for the stranded animal that is going to be released, because if you picked an area like the left hind flipper where you injected this thing in, then you could check all the carcasses. It might be that you've got so many carcasses on the beach that you wouldn't be able to check them all I suppose. If we all were doing this, it might be a way of getting some more information on these animals after they are released in case they loose their tags.

MS: In case there's a stalwart fish person out there, you can use those same tags in fish. We're using them in sharks the same way.

Q: This is a two-part question. I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of animals have been looked at on the beach, nor how many tons of various tissue parts have been carted off through the stranding networks. Are there any instances to your knowledge where anything of significance to the public's health has arisen because of this? I know some of the studies are done quite cleanly, and a lot of others are just mucked right through. Arc you aware of any situations which would spell danger to the domestic animal industry or human health through this stranding examination? And if there are, what kind of liability does one take when one starts distributing this stuff around?

NV: We think we've covered this at the California marine mammal Center, with a sure­fire safety manual, which took some doing. As I said in Chicago at the AAZV, I think liability is a time bomb in this business. To answer your question, there is a list of what I think are the pathogenic organisms that have been reported in the literature and serum as a potential danger in cetaceans, as well as pinnipeds. I think we can take this information from what's known assuming they are the same as terrestrial isolates, they do key out for the genus; take a look at them and say, what is the risk of anyone catching this, or getting infected by it, knowing three different methods: aerosol, ingestion and contact. Then you can come up with some probability of dealing with either pinnipeds or cetaceans, as a zoonotic impact. If you take the aerosol group, you have Nocardia asteroides, you've got Mucor, which is a serious problems in humans with diabetes and compromise, you have all of the dermatophytes, you have the three??? systemics, you have Neisseria mucosa; these are all aerosol infections. You have the ingestion of the Salmonollas, you've got the Acromonas, you see a Yersinia endocrinolyticus causing a lot of lot of problems, and one young lady nearly lost her intestinal tract with this. You have your cutaneous with the Vibrios, plus ingestion. That's just cetaceans, reports from the literature, people, number of papers whore this kind of work has been found. If you're dealing with the pinnipeds, it gets more extensive. You have the Chlamydia psittici, which is a serious problem and there is a new strain out in humans, which is causing a lot of Problems, Leptospira pomona, which causes infections, and then you have the viruses, calicivirus and poxvirus, and these are somewhat questionable. What I did was I took 14 marine animal handlers at Ocean Park, and I found the positions in which they worked with animals. Now all of these animals carry Pseudomonas pseudomallei, and I did this twice, and I then serologically in a blind study, did their titers to the organism. Animal handler number 5 had optical density of 1.5 (there are corrected for background), and animal handier number 12 was the second highest at 1.101. Those were the two fellows who held the animal near the blow holes. So in my experience then looking at all the isolates and what little we're able to do experimentally, the biggest danger is to animal handlers working with marine animals like this. The Erysipelothrix as you know we reported on 400 sera, 115 bites, we were able to show that you can transmit Erysipelothrix infection very easily with the bite, of pinnipeds, and we've shown this serologically etc. and it has been discussed at a previous IAAAM meeting. So to answer your question, I think that the key part of disposition, and that is the health of the people who come in contact with those animals and not so much from an animal to another animal in the wild where they're being sent to.

Q: What would be the regulations involved on an animal that was stolen, and say possibly released back to the wild by an animal liberation group.

CC: I am sure a lot of you know that that has already happened. As far as regulations go, if the animal's gone, what do you need a regulation for? As far as the facility is concerned who has lost this animal, there is no regulation regarding an animal that is gone, it's gone.

Q: What if it's recovered two years later? Do you get it back automatically?

CC: I would think that if you have the identifying mark on the animal, an animal that has been freeze-branded or tagged, and you can identify that this is an animal that was captured under permit such and such, on whatever date, and it swims back into your facility, then it is yours. It does not leave a hole in your permit. Once an animal has been collected from the wild, taken under a permit, then it is listed on our inventory, in our computer records, as captured under that permit. A permit is issued for a distinct number of animals. If you have a permit say for 4 cetaceans, and you collect those 4 cetaceans, then that permit is filled up, the quota is taken. If one of them goes somewhere, if it's stolen, you can't automatically fill that space, you have to come in and ask for a replacement permit, and go through at least the modification clause to replace that animal. You won't be filling a hole, you'll be taking a fifth animal. If by some means, that animal comes back to you, and you can identify that this was animal Joe that was stolen two years ago, then it's yours. I should qualify this by saying that this is the way I interpret an animal coming back, swimming back through a hole some group cut in a gate; this has not happened yet and thus we have not yet had to face this problem, but I would think that you would not have a problem with the animal being placed back in your facility, because it is your.

Q: Can there be some form of communication between facilities such as laboratories and stranding network numbers as to whether an animal is a rehabilitation or research facility animal if is not tagged, but comes up on a beach?

CC: I think the important thing here is to keep open the lines of communication between researchers and stranding network facilities. You just have to have that. Of course you have to examine animals collected on the beach carefully for identifying marks and tags before you pick up those animals. I know at least in the Southwest region, Dana Seagars, requires color coding animals. So that whenever you find a color-tagged animal, you know whose it is and where to go to find information on that animal.

PS: The transponder chip mentioned earlier would alleviate that problem in a big way. There's always a way to alter identifying characteristics and marks, you just have to nick a dorsal, or alter a tag, or nick a flipper marking to institute a change, with a transponder in there you couldn't do that. You probably couldn't find a transponder unless you had a receiver. What I want to say about released animals, however, is that this is a threat, and I think one of the reasons the question was brought up, is that laboratory animals have been released, and they've ruined researchers' life projects, they just walk in, take all the dogs out of the lab, or take all the primates out, change all the rats, or let all the monkeys loose, and the same thing maybe is going to start happening with cetaceans, it did in Hawaii in 1977, where two of Lou Hermann's highly trained animals were turned loose, in my judgment they probably died, they out of condition, they were used to being handfed, they probably didn't want to eat for a while, they were waiting for the handlers to show up; and when the time came that they were hungry, it was probably too late. What Lou Hermann did was prosecute those people. A lot of the people who have let laboratory animals loose, have not been prosecuted, they've been excused with maybe a slap on the wrist. If this ever comes up it should be known that this is a criminal offense and you need to make the effort that Hermann did to get these people prosecuted.

Q: In talking to people at this meeting who do fairly extensive research, there seems to be the impression that there is more problem in getting permission to do their research this year. What are your thoughts on this?

DS: I'm not sure that this year there is more public scrutiny of what we do. There is more pressure and public interest groups, and I do not think that this will increase in the future. I am not sure that I agree totally with the attitude that we should not tell the public what's going on, I think probably that's a bad policy. The euthanasia problem came up earlier, the idea that we shouldn't do this in the view of the public. I know there are a lot of vets in the audience and I may be treading on thin ice, but I think we have to tell the public what's going on, and be as forthright as possible. That's just my opinion, because as soon as something secret's going on, then you are in trouble. I think that there are enough people who are interested in marine mammals and groups that are interested, that if they think that something secret is going on, that something behind the scenes, that this creates a problem. Our experience with sea otters at least, in California there are about 75 tagged now, the federal permit process is, I must admit, sometimes a pain in the neck, and sometimes I get very upset, but the federal permit process and the state permit process are important. I sometimes get very upset with going to them and telling them what we're going to do, but we're always been successful doing what we want to do. We have yet to not be successful in getting permission to do any kind of transmitter studies. Now that's not to say you wouldn't be successful with some physiological work, since it gets more detailed scrutiny, but the experience so far, it takes time, and sometimes not a pleasant time, but basically we have not been not allowed to do what we want to do, and I think the technology and the knowledge have moved ahead.

NV: I haven't had any problems in terms of specimens except for the six volume thing that Candy sent me to get a permit to import two tubes of sera. I still haven't filled it out; it's worse than an NIH Grant, but I think an indication on UC Berkeley campus when I might want to use rabbits or guinea pigs to produce, antiglobulins or make monoclonal antibodies that you have to describe your research that you're using these animals for to a committee, and on that committee are two people from the community, in this case Berkeley, who in both cases where I applied to buy a hundred mice or whatever, these people questioned my research with marine mammals in great detail, two or three pages of answers I had to give them, that had nothing to do with the mice or the rabbits, so I think the time is coming, where you're going to see this animal rights thing spill into the marine mammal field very easily, from a different kind of approach, very different from Australia, very vitriolic type statements, that had nothing to do with the fact that I was using rabbits or their LD 50s or whatever.

PS: In December of 1986 new laws came into effect, amendments were made to the Animal Welfare Act. These laws are going to come into effect I believe in July, this year, that will require interested public members on animal care committees. That is going to so very difficult. I'd like to respond also to Dr. Siniff, and this ties in with the animal rights issue. I am all for telling and being forthright. I didn't want to imply other than that. Where I would want to draw the line, is the actual event of the euthanasia, it possible and probable that things might go wrong and turn into a real mess. I don't think anyone needs to observe that other than those of us who are bound to do that and we do it the best we can. I don't want to make a public euthanasia spectacle, because there is the chance that something will go wrong, and that's why I was implying that. I think the more information the public gets about everything we're going to do, the better off we're going to be.

Jay Hyman: Who has the right to decide on euthanasia? And I question whether we answer to the public in that anal decision. They have a right to know. I question whether I would publicize, yes, 1 am the veterinarian responsible for this animal and I've decided it's time to put it down, it's suffered too much - my decision, my medical opinion is there is nothing more that I can do to prolong this animal's life in the quality of life worth living. So I think it's solely a veterinarian's decision answering, if it's in the aquarium certainly to the curator or director, if it's on the beach to the NMFS representative. But, once that decision is made, then I think it should be made and done so that the public is not involved, because once you start opening that emotional decision of life, you are going to run into a lot of problems. There arc some people who think that no one has the right to take any creature's life, and that's a tough group to deal with.

MS: To summarize Jay's point if he will allow me to, he feels that the decision on euthanasia should be based with the veterinarian, and opening interaction on the decision to the public is a bad policy.

Tom Williams: Jay, I disagree. My only comment is that I think if the decision has to be made to euthanize an animal, it should be made by the veterinarian that has the expertise dealing with that animal.

Jay Hyman: I totally agree.

Q: Would it be wise to put out a position paper on the subject of research in marine mammals? I can see a time here in the near future, where someone may ask the group for that, so it seems like it would be wise to be ready for that.

MS: I think we have to address that we do have a committed that is working on position statements for our organization. If you were at the business meeting you saw that we have our IWC and CITES representatives. This is more a discussion of philosophies and methodologies right here rather than trying to develop a policy statement for the organization.

Q: My question then is, is using marine mammals for research purposes a proper disposition?

MS: My own personal prejudice here is one I have addressed to the Humane Organization Council in Washington that if we are indeed are concerned about the marine mammal's existence and their situation in captivity, we do have to do research in order to answer the questions that are being asked about marine mammals; whether they can be kept in captivity, whether they can survive in the wild, it requires research, and if you don't do the research you won't have the answers, and you can't go from there.

CC: The law does provide for the use of marine mammals for scientific research and public display, and it is one of the six exceptions to the moratorium on the taking of marine mammals that scientific research be allowed.

Q: The question that I have then, is what is science?

MS: I think I'll keep it a little more narrow than that. What is science may be beyond the scope of this roundtable. But let's comment further on using marine mammals in research.

DS: Well, I certainly have to agree that if we're going to understand the role of marine mammals, the natural populations, then we are going to have to do research on them. Also the beached animals are a wealth of information that perhaps hasn't been tapped as much as we should tap it. From a population standpoint, beached animals probably in general do not contribute to the population in the wild. And it may be a cruel thing to say, but I suspect most rehabilitation is for the people involved, rather than the populations. It seems we could make more use of these beached animals as research specimens, I think we would be doing some good for the populations.

NV: Id like to add to this too, because you're not finding many places that will do this. There aren't many facilities that have excess animals hanging around that they have to feed. They want to got rid of them. It would be nice if someone could say, well, we'll keep these animals aside, keep them in good shape, so that somebody can do research on them. If you have a stranding center, such as the California Marine Mammal Center, you don't want to be using animals to do research that is not meaningful, because that can always be questioned. But I go along with the idea if that's possible within these facilities of which there are not that many, that have excess animals that be used with research that is well justified by whatever committee within that institution reviews it or however, rather than just exposing them to die or to get rid of them, if they have to feed them and so forth. There are people like myself who would like to do more research on marine mammals.

CC: There are scientists doing research, who in their permit applications, specifically ask for animals from rehabilitation facilities.

DS: As a population ecologist, one of the things that we don't want to forget is that some of our major problems that are going to occur in the future, are not from underpopulation, but from overpopulation. Certainly this is an area that going to become a big problem in California. We're going to have elephant seals all over the beaches out here, elephant seals inflicting injuries on people. We're working now with feral horses, for example, an overpopulation problem, and area of research we won't want to forget. Underpopulation isn't necessarily the problem, it is overpopulation now and in the future.

Laurie Gage: (here Laurie makes a comment concerning Pete Schroeder's comment of beached cetaceans being a lost cause, but I cannot hear the comment adequately, and it is not repeated. Please call her and got comments, if wanted).

Terry Samansky: As a marine mammal rehaber, and I think Jan will agree with this, most of our funding for doing this kind of work, comes from the public sector, and I think a tremendous amount of valuable information comes out of the rehab centers as a natural by-product of us simply having those animals. Being in Los Angeles, 1 can tell you, that if it ever came out that we were turning our animals over for research, not only would our funds dry up, but I think our facility would lie burned. I think thes stranding centers do provide a valuable tool for information that is gathered, and I think it's much more than just releasing the animals back to the ocean. Part of the work I am doing now is trying to find funds to reestablish the animal care facility that was at Marineland. It is a large emotional issue, but if we can tap into that emotional issue, to bring funding in, and as a byproduct we get a lot of good information.

JR: I have to agree with you, that the research that goes on at the marine mammal center is considered non-invasive, and diagnostic, and our biggest problem is getting the information out to you folks. We feel that we don't turn over animals to a strict research facility, but that they go to an aquatic zoo or an oceanarium, where they live in colonies, because that is where our membership would like to see the animals that are not going back to the wild.

Q: Candy you said some rehab animals have been sent to facilities for research, what happens to the animals once the research is finished?

CC: That animal goes back to the facility from which it came. A particular permit that comes to mind is one that says, when the researcher is finished with that animal that he comes in and requests permission to hand it over to a facility, probably the one that it came from, unless the facility does want it back.

Q: That means that it's not supposed to be re released into the wild?

CC: The interpretation of the laws governing rehabilitation and rehabilitation facilities, is that those animals are being taken in for rehabilitation and return to the wild if possible. When it is determined that the animal is rehabilitated, it either goes back to the wild, or can't go back to the wild. If it can not go back to the wild and make it on its own, at that point when a decision is made then after its been sent to a public display facility or sent to a researcher, then logically three months later, or six months later, or a year later, it doesn't all of sudden become able to make it in the wild; so the answer to your question is no, it cannot at that point be released to the wild. If it could have made it in the wild, it should have been released then.

Q: What ideas do people have for the excess California sea lions we're seeing in our breeding populations in captivity?

PS: These male pups can be castrated at a year of age, just like we do dogs in a veterinary practice. Otherwise, just keep them separated during the breeding season. We've had some experience with animals that have come to volunteers in San Diego, just a little anecdote, who want them to go away and they don't, so we've taken the animals and shipped them to San Clemente Island, and they're back on the (locks within 24 to 48 hours, and that's some fast swimming. So the disposition of pinnipeds can sometimes be more difficult than you ever imagine it could.

RB: I would suggest that more emphasis could be placed on control of breeding as is being done in terrestrial mammals. There are lots of techniques now being used that we could look at that are not permanent, such as feed additives etc.

DS: What we're working on in the feral horses is contraception. The idea of castration in feral horses wouldn't fly.

Q: How are we deciding there's overpopulation in the wild?

DS: I am not deciding. I am just saying that there are certain indications that we're going to start seeing, higher incidences of diseases, the problems of excess males, problems of competition for food and beach space, the problems of competition for beach space with people. All these things will start to be seen I think as the populations grow.

Q: How do you feel about people impinging on their environment?

DS: These are public issues. I'm not going to decide, you're not going to decide, and certainly some fellow in a public agency through hearings is going to decide on when some sort of action is going to taken on what beach where, what should we do with these animals. I have no crystal ball, but sometime in the next ten years or so, we're going to start seeing more and more of these types of hearings and types of ideas on how we deal with these issues of competition, forced space, letting the people decide what is desirable as well it should be.

Q: What are we going to do with the problem located about 100 yards due west of here, the excess sea lions on the jetty and under the piers hero in Monterey Bay? For those of as who went on the boat trip today, there were twice as many pups as there adults California sea lions on those rocks, just loaded with pups. It's easy to see that within the next 4 or 5 years going to have hundreds of sea lions out there. I was here three years ago, and two booths were selling food for sea lions. Now everyone on the wharf is selling food for sea lions. It's a pretty good deal, you got about 12 fish for $ 0.50, at Sea World you only got 3!

Q: I'd like to hear some opinion on the placing of come of these excess captive born animals in a semi-captive environment that they're used as exhibit where they're free to come and go to and from the exhibit facility. The Monterey Bay Aquarium is a good example. Specifically sea lions or harbor seals.

RB: The way the regulations are now, this is totally illegal just as it is illegal to feed the sea lions at the Wharf.

Q: Is NMFS going to do anything in terms of looking at captive born animals in the future?

CC: Yes. The problem is that these issues got addressed only pushed. I don't thing we have enough staff to follow each and every one of these bright, innovative ideas. Certainly if we did get a formal request or application to look at the problem, we would be forced to address the issue, and we'd do so far sooner than otherwise.

Q: Can you comment on the issue of feeding the sea lions?

CC: No.

Q: Is it illegal to feed the sea lions on the Wharf?

CC: Yes. This Act says that it is illegal to harass, hunt, chase, bother or attempt to do those things to any marine mammal. As I was on the boat this morning looking at the animals that being fed, and following the boat, I asked myself that question - Are we doing anything to harass those animals? And I frankly, my personal opinion, law aside, that those animals were harassing the people! I think technically, no they are not supposed to feeding those animals, but what do you do?

Q: During sport fishing season, you always hear out on the Wharf, "of the first 7 salmon I caught today, 6 were eaten by sea lions. What are you going to do about that?"

CC: That is a problem that is being addressed up and down both coasts of the United States. Fisheries in Alaska, fisheries in California, fisheries along the Gulf Coast and in New England are having the same experience, and are at this very moment alone with the government trying to figure out ways to keep the animals, the marine mammal and fisheries interaction to minimum some fishermen have figured out other ways animals away that are definitely illegal. I don't have the answers to those questions, but they are being addressed and trying to be addressed within the law.

Q: I was wondering if you saw the fish that were being sold?

CC: I didn't see anything!

Q: Is it a USDA problem? The quality of the fish fed? It sits out in the sun all day, what criteria do they have to follow ensure its quality?

CC: I've been trying not to do this, but I'll pass this to Dick (Crawford, USDA).

Dick Cranford: It is only a USDA problem if the animals are in captivity.

Q: The statement was made that released animals probably don't have an effect on the overall population. Then when you have an animal such as a sea otter, which happens to be an endangered species, and you've raised it from a pup at two days of age, is it then valid to release it out into the wild or should that animal be placed in a facility where research can be done on it, or public display or whatever, as a first preference rather than putting it into the wild?

RB: I think in the case of sea otters one of the things that we don't know yet on some of these orphaned animals that we're getting in, is after they get to about 20 pounds in captivity can they be released into the wild and can they feed on there or do they learn from their mothers. I think we need to have more experience with these post-weaned versus the pre-weaned animals to see what happens with them. If we decide that we can't reintroduce the pre-weaned animals back into the wild after some date, then I think they need to be formally kept in captivity and I would think that they could in used for exchange with public aquariums.

DS: We look at the effects of rehabilitated animals on populations. Of course, we go to the one extreme, where you endangered species, less than 100 individuals in the whole species, than every animal that you rehabilitate or try to get some reproduction started on is very valuable. On the other extreme, there is a very abundant population, and rehabilitated animals will probably not have an overwhelming effect. Sea otters fall somewhere in between as there are probably about 1500 along the California coast, so the point of whether you can raise those animals and reintroduce them so they may in fact have some contribution to the overall reproduction is something that we should look at. My guess is that it's not likely that you going to raise a pup from birth in captivity that it is going to adapt very well to its environment. Certainly we need to do a few to see whether that is true or not.

Q: Of these pre-weaned sea otters, how many do you think need to be released before you can draw a conclusion as to their survivability? So far we've released three. Can you hazard a guess as to how many more need to be done?

RB: I think I'd like to see at least 10 or 15, something like that, to get some feeling for it; certainly more than 3! It's hard to say, it's a question of what to do, like giving them live food that you think is out there, letting them play together, giving them the opportunity to forage on live food while still in captivity, etc.

Q: You mean if you released 12 and none had survived, would you still want to release more?

RB: No, that's what I mean, with something like 10 to 15, if your success was absolutely zero, then I think you would have to look at keeping them in captivity, and of course, then your next concern would be, where do you put them.

Q: Every fall on the East Coast, we have a mass stranding of whales, usually 50 animals or more, and this year we had that situation two times. Usually the animals are just buried, pushed into a massive grave. In an area so heavily populated and utilized as the Cape is, if all the carcasses buried as they are, would have an effect on the public's health?

NV: Well, I can't answer the question. I'm sure that there are a few veterinarians in the audience who have lived through and buried anthrax animals, etc. would know better than I. The only thing that you would ask yourself is, if an animal died of something like coccidioidomycoses, such as has been reported recently in seals and had been reported before, does it turn to the arthrospore? Well, it is a geophilic organism, and there are certain marine organisms that are geophilic, they will just not exist in a particular in a particular area. So you could take that animal and put it in your backyard and not get Coccidioides growing if you live in Alameda. But if you live in Bakersfield, you're seeding the ground. It's non-contagious from the animal to you unless its a virulent form. So it just depends on the nature of the organism, as to whether you can bury it, and it'll be of any danger, say, seeping into the ground, or live in the soil. Many organisms cannot live in the soil. We just don't know that much about cetaceans, although we do know enough about pinnipeds to sort of make an estimate of how to go about it. I just don't know in this particular case.

MS: Does this makes an important point in post-mortem diagnosis of stranded animals. Does it imply any particular responsibilities on the parts of veterinarian researchers or stranding networks who are involved in a such a stranding to identify the possibility of a public health problem?

NV: I think that the stranding networks are like the key surveillance, 1ike the fixed macrophages in the body. They are the ones that are going to tell us what's happening and people ignore this. This is why I spend so much time on the Scientific Advisory Board at the California Marine Mammal Center. I think when you have people getting a permit to go out and give lithium as a taste aversion, if anything happens with these experiments, the first place it's going to show up is in these stranding centers. And the Center at Fort Cronkhite can just trigger what's happening. You'll see 5 or 6 or 7 come in there whether it's leptospirosis, or virus. I think they are the key surveillance and should get key support for whatever they do.

Q: Does that mean we should necropsy stranding network volunteers on a regular basis to see what they've got?

NV: Certainly standard necropsy on the animals is necessary! And I am finding that this is the best place for me to work on wild animals without having money to hire a ship and go out and capture, get a permit etc. I've got a wild animal coming in. If that animal dies, it's a wealth of material. So that we're learning more and more. But that's pinnipeds. We're still not doing much with cetaceans.

Q: I agree whole-heartedly, but my question is, you have all this stuff as indicators coming in, but where do you get this information out? From all the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of things that have been done on the beach, look in the literature and see just what percentage is being recorded?

NV: Yes, that's right. It is difficult to publish this. Leslie (Dierauf) has published a lot, but in general it's just by word of mouth and what you hear at these meetings. So I agree with you 100%, it has to be done.

PS: I think each one of us that lives in a region where there is a National Marine Fisheries Regional office should got together with the director of that region, since I know they keep data on strandings, at least in Hawaii, and I know we don't see half the number of strandings as you do in your mainland stranding networks. If NMFS will take that sort of input and catalogue it or categorize it, or whatever, I think that's the most centrally located institution that we could all use. I know when we post a strander all that information goes right back to the Hawaii office. We also have to encourage them to put it out, that's a very important job of ours and theirs.

Q: I think a lot of that information if it's collated and put together in a uniform way, then it's more accessible. I think anybody who has ever posted an animal, has their own way to do it, their own necropsy form, their own level of expertise all combined together, so you have a mish-mash of observations. I don't know where the state of the art is here, or how we could pull it all together?

Leslie Dierauf: Yes, I'd like to make a comment on that issue. If you were at the business meeting today, last year Murray Johnson through the Marine Mammal Commission suggested that we formulate a standard necropsy form. I have put that together, using 8 forms from various individuals around the country, and we are in the process of editing this form, to see if the Marine Mammal Commission finds it useful to them. We're having a discussion on it, of course, because we would, as veterinarians, prefer to put down a differential diagnosis, an opposed to a tentative diagnosis, at the time of gross necropsy until our laboratory work, histology and that sort of thing is back; and that's been the problem with the present forms for many people. The veterinarian in charge will report a tentative diagnosis down, that won't be the final diagnosis, once all diagnostic is complete, and yet the tentative diagnosis has gone into the NMFS computer, and they'll be panicking. So we're trying to alleviate that problem. A few times I've actually written to Fisheries and the Marine Mammal Commission, letting them know that I would be willing to assist with that. I think it's the most important thing on the map for marine mammal medicine right now.

CC: Let me just comment that the Marine Mammal Commission is interested in a standard necropsy form. They've tried to push NMFS to require it, and we would rather the industry develop their own standard necropsy form, where a minimum amount information is required. I see such a varying amount of information on the present necropsy forms, from no cause of death at all, not ever a guess, to a few very complete necropsy reports. It is something that is going to be, and if it is should rather that if it is going to be, that it comes from the industry.

RB: Along these same lines, there is going to a meeting in of the stranded marine mammals, possibly only on cetaceans, just the Marine Mammal Society Meetings in Miami in early December of this year. I think it's important that this group get in touch with them and try to do something together, to try to integrate what the two groups (MMS and IAAAM) are doing somewhat independently. It would be good if you could coordinate with that group. I don't know how far advanced they at in planning of that meeting, but perhaps someone here knows.

Q: In the case of the mass strandings, why weren't each of the animals that stranded fully utilized as far as parts were concerned?

NA: Basically, this is a logistical question, but it has raised irritated comments from both sides. There are the people on the beach with 90 bodies, and the person in the lab somewhere else, who wants samples of everything, and rarely do the two meet. The logistics in a stranding situation like this are inconceivable to anyone who hasn't is been involved in a stranding like this.

Nina Young: To clarify what happened, it happened two times last fall, once was a mass stranding of 50 pilot whales, and the other was one of 95 pilot whales. When you get out there to the beach, you have the inexperienced person who has never been involved in a mass stranding like this before, you have lots of volunteers whose hearts are going into this thing, first of all trying to drag these animals back out, or doing whatever they can. In the Northeast, Dr. Geraci comes down usually to coordinate the larger strandings this, but you usually just don't have the time to take samples, and once again you're in the public eye. So trying to do a gross necropsy on the beach becomes a public issue that is always questioned, and it's not that we're irresponsible in the collection of samples or what to Lake for laboratory diagnosis.

MS: It's just, how many dumptruckfuls of spleens you can deliver to the researcher!

Q: About 2 years ago, there was a small proposal for standard necropsy procedures on green sea turtles devised. I understand that someone on the East Coast did develop this. Does anyone here know whatever happened to the status of this project?

MS: Actually I saw it, but I'm trying desperately to remember who did it and where it was published, but it escapes me.

CC: I believe I can get that information for you from my office.

Q: Also on this information concerning the stranding meeting Florida, is possible that those persons attending and getting information there, put that information in our IAAAM Newsletter?

MS: You bet! We will.

Q: Is that a closed meeting? They usually keep that permit closed except to permit holders.

RR: That I don't know. I do know that the meeting is actually follow-up to one held in Athens, Georgia in 1977. I think a few of us here attended. I'll find out and let you know.

Leslie Dierauf: I'd love to work on that for IAAAM. Thank you. I'll get whatever information you can give me on the organizers of the workshop.

MS: And I thank you. The magic hour of 5 o'clock has arrived, and that concludes our Roundtable Discussion on Disposition of Animals.