Assessment of butorphanol-azaperone-medetomidine combination as anesthesia for semen collection and evaluation of semen quality in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).

The aim of this current study was to evaluate the level of anesthesia produced by a combination of butorphanol-azaperone-medetomidine (BAM) for semen collection by electroejaculation on captive white-tailed bucks (Odocoileus virginianus). Ten male white-tailed deer, weighing 68.2-115.9kg, ranging in age from one to four years were randomly selected from housing pens and anesthetized with the BAM drug combination at a dose volume of 2.0mL each. Semen was collected from each animal using a standard cervid electroejaculation protocol while under BAM anesthesia. Physiological data was recorded following induction of anesthesia and during semen collection. Collected ejaculates were prepared for analysis using a standard extender protocol for cryopreservation. Eleven sperm viability parameters were quantified for each sample using a Computerized Assisted Sperm Analysis system, including total seminal volume; sperm concentration and total sperm number. kinematic parameters of motile spermatozoa were also assessed. Results demonstrated that BAM provided an effective plane of anesthesia for successful collection of viable sperm. Measured physiological variables of heart rate, respiration and body temperature all remained within safe, normal limits. Data recorded on semen characteristics from all collected ejaculates correlated well with key traits determined to be important for successful fertilization through measurement of total semen volume; sperm concentration; total sperm number; and kinematic parameters of motile spermatozoa. There were no serious adverse events. This field study indicates that BAM anesthesia is suitable for semen collection in white-tailed deer.

The assessment of dangerousness and predictions of violence: recent research and future prospects.

Recent research on clinical and actuarial assessments of dangerousness leaves many important questions unanswered regarding the relative validity and utility of such assessments. Moreover, the focus that has existed on determining the false-positive and false-negative rates of predictions of violence may be fundamentally misplaced. Clinical evaluations of dangerousness should be viewed as assessments of risk rather than as predictions of violence; and future research should focus on understanding and evaluating how clinical assessments of dangerousness-regarding truly representative types of possibly dangerous patients--are (or should be) made. In the meantime, the research to date on clinical assessments of dangerousness cannot properly be taken to conflict with the Supreme Court's recent affirmations of the admissibility of such assessments in courtroom proceedings.