Why Alaska Researchers Want To Use Drones To Find Hibernating Bears

first_imgPtarmigan drone designed by UAF in Selfoss, Iceland. (Photo courtesy Steve Kibler)For the first time, Alaska researchers plan to use drones with thermal cameras to detect hibernating polar bears and grizzly bears on the North Slope.Download AudioThe University of Alaska Fairbanks team is working without dedicated funding, but is seeking industry support for the project. For now, they’re relying on UAF resources like the Alaska Center for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration.Federal law requires oil and gas companies to remain one mile away from polar bear dens and a half mile away from grizzly bear dens from November to April. Otherwise, they risk disturbing their hibernation with noise and vibration from vehicles and other off-road operations. Keith Cunningham is a research assistant professor at UAF and has worked on drone data and applications for various organizations.“On the North Slope right now, there are experts who are trained in chasing off bears that get too close to some of these oil production areas,” says Cunningham. “We call that bear hazing. There might be bean bags or fire crackers that are shot at the bear to scare it away.Cunningham says the drones will use specialized cameras to detect the bears.“These infrared cameras basically spot emitted thermal heat. A sleeping bear is actually burning calories and radiating heat. And you can pick that up with a camera.”The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game have been experimenting with artificial dens for several years. Part of the upcoming UAF research will involve constructing wooden dens and mimicking body heat using a device set to about 60 watts.Weather stations outside the dens will measure conditions like wind speed, wind direction and temperature. Another device will measure snow depth and density. As they run trials, that data should tell the researchers how effective their drone is under different conditions.The goal is to provide this technology and information to oil and gas companies active on the North Slope.Cunningham says the team is interested in both polar bears and grizzly bears in the field.“As we get closer to the foothills of the Brooks Range, we’re also interested in the denning activity of grizzly and brown bears because they’ll dig their dens about the same time as the polar bear. The polar bear is digging his den in the snow while the brown bear is going to dig his den in the dirt, like along a creek.”They will set up their first artificial den on the North Slope in early November. In the first stage, the researchers will test drones only on artificial dens. In the second stage, they’ll test the drones on bears with radio collars that send location data to a satellite.Cunningham and other researchers have experimented with thermal cameras before, but this is the first time they’ll use cameras and drones together to track bears. They’re examining camera options, and they’ve already decided on the drone they’ll use.“The university actually builds its own unmanned aircraft systems,” says Cunningham. “And we have one that is designed specifically for research and development. And we call it the ptarmigan. The ptarmigan is the state bird of Alaska. It’s got six propellers, it flies like a helicopter. It takes off vertically, and it lands vertically.”UAF sent their first drones into Alaska airspace in May with permission from the Federal Aviation Administration. The drone can fly for about 20 minutes before it needs a battery replacement. Cunningham says drones will fly lower and more quietly than manned aircraft.Wildlife biologist Anthony Crupi works for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and studies brown bears in Southeast. He and his colleagues use a variety of methods to trace large animals, including GPS collars and manned aircraft. While thermal imaging makes sense in the treeless North Slope, Crupi says it’s not a good fit for finding bear dens in Southeast.“They’re such a secretive species that they really stick to the forested environment and I think it would be difficult for us to do things like counts on brown bears in Southeast.”Cunningham says that there is plenty of interest in the bear den project from industry funders. The bear den team hopes to use the drones in the field by 2016. If it’s a success, the researchers will conduct further experimentation to optimize the method.last_img read more

Audit questions US oversight of lab animal welfare

first_img Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Email Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country In 2009, a lab technician at a research facility in Missouri left a chinchilla in a cage that was run through an industrial washer. The animal died after being repeatedly blasted with jets of scalding water. Though the facility had multiple other violations, the agency responsible for overseeing lab animal welfare in the United States gave it a “good faith reduction,” slashing the size of its fine by 25%.That’s just one of many failures of oversight documented in an audit of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The report, released last month by the USDA Office of the Inspector General (OIG), also finds that APHIS wasted resources by inspecting facilities that haven’t housed animals in more than a decade, failed to properly punish labs for causing unnecessary pain to research animals, and did not conduct investigations into “grave or repeat” animal welfare violations. APHIS, the report concludes, is not making the best use of its limited resources and is not placing sufficient emphasis on animal health and safety.“The audit could damage APHIS’s reputation,” says Taylor Bennett, the senior scientific adviser for the National Association for Biomedical Research, a Washington, D.C.–based nonprofit that advocates for the use of animals in biomedical research. But Bennett, who oversaw animal research at the University of Illinois, Chicago, for decades, says that APHIS is constrained by government regulations and that, for the most part, the agency is doing the best it can under the circumstances.center_img Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) The APHIS audit is the fourth since 1995. The first of these found that the agency’s fines were so low that violators simply considered them “a cost of doing business.” Ten years later, OIG levied similar charges, stating that lax APHIS enforcement and insufficient fines had made its penalties “basically meaningless.”The 2014 audit comes to similar conclusions. OIG conducted a nationwide review of APHIS’s units, including its Animal Care unit, which inspects facilities that use, sell, or transport animals covered by the Animal Welfare Act (i.e., most warm-blooded creatures except for birds, mice, and rats). The audit included site visits to 29 of the more than 1100 facilities APHIS inspects, as well as a review of APHIS records from 2009 to 2011.APHIS conducted at least 500 inspections of 107 research facilities that hadn’t housed regulated animals for at least 2 years—and some that hadn’t housed such animals for up to 13 years, auditors found. They calculate that APHIS, a billion-dollar agency, wasted more than $115,000 on these efforts—not including employee benefits and travel expenses—and that the inspections diverted APHIS from investigating more problematic facilities.Bennett takes issue with this part of the report, noting that APHIS’s guidelines require it to inspect facilities that are registered as housing regulated animals, regardless of whether they actually have animals. “They’re hamstrung by the law,” he says.Far more concerning to him is a section of the audit that deals with APHIS’s Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES). The unit is tasked with probing serious violations of the Animal Welfare Act, yet the audit states that IES has closed dozens of cases without investigating them. One of these involved a research facility in Oregon that was supposed to euthanize a rabbit with a broken leg—but killed a healthy animal instead. The audit also found that IES’s fines for animal welfare violations were, on average, just 14% of the maximum the government allows. In response to prior complaints about APHIS’s low fines not deterring violators, Congress authorized penalties of up to $10,000 per violation in 2008. However the audit found that IES continued to slash its fines—often “without merit”—resulting in its lowest penalties in more than a decade.“It’s pretty damning,” Bennett says. “This is the third audit in a row that IES has been questioned about how it handles its investigations and fines. It looks like OIG has found that IES doesn’t do what it says it’s going to do.”The audit also found that universities themselves are not doing enough to protect animals. From 2009 to 2011, it noted violations by more than 500 Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs), which are overseen by APHIS. These include IACUCs not adequately exploring alternatives to painful procedures, misrepresenting the number of animals used in experiments, and turning a blind eye to improper veterinary care. An IACUC at a Maryland facility, for example, failed to ensure that researchers complied with a protocol for inducing tearing in guinea pigs; instead of placing chili pepper flakes on the animals’ cheeks, the scientists were dropping them into their eyes.Animal welfare and animal rights groups have long expressed concerns that IACUCs, which are supposed to be objective, are dominated by animal researchers who don’t make welfare a priority. The audit confirms these fears, says Kathleen Conlee, the vice president of animal research issues at the Humane Society of the United States in Washington, D.C. “IACUCs are not functioning properly, and they’re failing animals,” she says. “It’s too much like the fox guarding the henhouse.”Conlee gives credit to APHIS for being more transparent with its inspections than it has in the past, but she says that the agency’s lax enforcement will hurt animals—not just now, but far into the future. “They’re falling down on the job,” she says. “If they aren’t taken seriously, what’s the incentive for facilities to improve their animal welfare?”For its part, APHIS says agrees with the various recommendations in the audit, including improving its inspections and levying harsher fines. “APHIS welcomes OIG’s findings and is committed to continued improvement of our enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and inspections of research facilities,” it wrote in a letter to ScienceInsider. “APHIS has already begun addressing these recommendations and anticipates completion by the end of September 2015.”Bennett says he doesn’t expect the audit to have much impact on animal research labs. His own analysis of USDA data shows that welfare citations have been dropping each year for the past 5 years. “The veterinarians at these facilities don’t look at animal welfare in terms of whether they’re going to get dinged or fined,” he says. “They want to do a good job, regardless of an audit.”last_img read more