The AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) periodically updates its animal euthanasia guidelines. The latest is the AVMA 2020 Euthanasia Guidelines which now replaces their AVMA 2013 Euthanasia Guidelines. Given the weight that the animal rights protest industry (and even many parts of the wildlife management industry) give to this document, I thought it would be wise to highlight some of the main points and issues this edition raises for wildlife control operators. (I have a training class on euthanasia for wildlife control operators (WCOs). If interested in having me present it to your group, contact me.)

AVMA Definition of Euthanasia

The AVMA understands euthanasia as involving more than just the method used to kill the animal. In their understanding, euthanasia includes why the decision was made to dispatch the animal, how the animal was handled prior to and during the dispatch process and how the carcass was disposed. According to the AVMA, euthanasia must be for the animal’s interest AND done in a manner that is stress free, painless and rapid. The takeaway for WCOs is that we rarely dispatch an animal for it’s benefit. So by AVMA standards, we rarely if ever perform animal euthanasia.

Interestingly, the AVMA does recognize that using a method to kill an animal, even if it caused the animal distress, may be considered euthanasia if the situation made it difficult to use a less painful method. The AVMA understands that some situations, such as free-ranging animals, make laboratory-style implementation of euthanasia methods difficult, if not impossible. Thus even if the technique was not perfectly humane, the AVMA could consider it euthanasia.

Carbon Dioxide Induced Euthanasia

In my reading of the AVMA materials, it appears that the the Panel on Euthanasia continues to have concerns about the humanness of CO2. They point out that while CO2 exposure can suppress pain it also can cause burning in the nostrils (think soda going up your nose) as well as a feeling of air hunger to name two.  They noted that how CO2 was administered also played a role in the animal’s reaction. Animals reacted differently when placed in a pre-filled container versus being exposed gradually to increasing concentrations of CO2. Even the rate of exposure could play a role with  different volumes effecting different species differently. If you think it’s a bit complicated, you are right. It is.

Thankfully, they have not eliminated the method yet, but they did change the recommendation for use on rodents. They now recommend a chamber volume displacement rate of 30 to 70% per minute where previously the recommendation was 10-30%. As before, WCOs should ensure animals are calm and relaxed prior to placement in the chamber. Animals should be dispatched alone or in family groups. Do not place different species together and certainly not a predator with a prey.

Bottom Line

While I believe that wildlife managers and wildlife control operators have placed too much weight on the recommendations of the AVMA, WCOs who wish to claim that they are “following AVMA recommendations for the application of the euthanasia method” should be aware of these changes. Better yet, they should read the document itself, at least the sections discussing the methods they prefer to use. In the meantime, I hope the wildlife control industry gets moving and creates its own dispatch standards perhaps using those by the American Society of Mammologists.