Rehabilitation and release contribute to conservation efforts for threatened species. Ensuring that these efforts are effective requires a good understanding of the factors which determine survival and integration of released animals into wild populations. Post‐release monitoring using animal‐borne devices, including biologging or marking devices attached to or inserted inside animals, offers the opportunity to gain this information. The impacts of such devices on animal welfare are poorly researched. There is a growing consensus that researchers have an ethical obligation to reduce harm to animals. The well‐established principle of the four Rs – replacing experimental animals, reducing the number of animals used, refining protocols to reduce suffering, and refusing unnecessary experimentation – aims to achieve this. Here, we suggest a framework for applying the four Rs to ensure the ethical use of animal‐borne devices during post‐release monitoring of rehabilitated animals. To develop this framework, we consider the impact of the use of animal‐borne devices on animal welfare and survival. The framework emphasises: 1) clear definition of aims before the study begins, 2) consideration of the benefits of data obtained to conservation, 3) consideration of species and habitat specific needs, 4) continued development of protocols based on feedback during the study, and 5) transparency among the research and rehabilitation community (the DBSDT framework). As a case study, we develop a set of guidelines for the ethical use of biologging devices during post‐release monitoring of ground pangolins Smutsia temminckii .
Harvey‐Carroll et al. (Sat,) studied this question.