Tigers and Telazol®: The Unintended Evolution of Caution to Contraindication

Author(s): Terry J. Kreeger and Douglas L. Armstrong

Source: Journal of Wildlife Management, 74(6):1183-1185. 2010.
Published By: The Wildlife Society
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2009-186
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2193/2009-186

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and
environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published
by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of
BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries
or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research
libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.
Journal of Wildlife Management 74(6):1183–1185; 2010; DOI: 10.2193/2009-186

Commentary

Tigers and TelazolH: The Unintended

Evolution of Caution
to Contraindication
TERRY J. KREEGER,1 Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wheatland, WY 82201, USA
DOUGLAS L. ARMSTRONG, Henry Doorly Zoo, Omaha, NE 68107, USA

ABSTRACT Scientific writing depends on citing accurate sources. There can be real-world consequences for failing to do so. As an
example, several authors have stated that tiletamine–zolazepam (TelazolH) is contraindicated for tiger (Panthera tigris) immobilization. This
admonition has virtually evolved into dogma in the field of wildlife chemical immobilization and was recently used to challenge field research.
However, a literature review revealed that no author cited the primary reference that raised concern about the use of Telazol in tigers. We
conducted an internet-based inquiry of zoo veterinarians combined with personal communications and other field reports to gather data on the
use of Telazol in tigers. These data indicated that the mortality rate (1.3%) of tigers given Telazol was similar to other immobilization regimens
in other species, which suggested that, although adverse reactions may still occur, tiletamine–zolazepam should not be contraindicated in tigers.
This investigation emphasized the need to conduct thorough literature reviews before making unsubstantiated claims.

KEY WORDS immobilization, Panthera tigris, TelazolH, tiger, tiletamine, ZoletilH, zolazepam.

In scientific writing, it is critical that citations identify primary
references, that is, those publications where the information
originally appeared and was appropriately attributed to the
founding author(s). If the primary reference was not available,
then the author should acknowledge that he or she was using
secondary references. For instance, in the example, ‘‘…Smith
(2009) supports the findings of Jones (2000)…,’’ the author
should cite Smith (2009), but not Jones (2000), because the
author never directly read Jones (2000).
That said, we understand that many authors might not
expend the effort to identify, retrieve, and read primary
references, which is understandable given the time and
resource constraints facing scientists today. Citing secondary
references may accurately reflect findings of primary
investigator(s). Then again, they may not. There is a loss
in accuracy the more times a bit of information is
communicated. Given enough iterations, the original
information may become completely distorted. Inaccurate
references are probably only detected by those intimately
familiar with the literature of the specific subject matter.
Left unchallenged, inaccurate references may become fact,
or even dogma, over time.
For example, in the field of wildlife chemical immobili-
zation, it has apparently become dogma that the anesthetic,
TelazolH (Fort Dodge Animal Health, Fort Dodge, IA),
should not be used to immobilize large felids, especially
tigers (Panthera tigris). Telazol is a 1:1 combination of the
cyclohexane anesthetic, tiletamine, and the benzodiazepine
tranquilizer, zolazepam, and it is the recommended drug for
many wild felid species (Kreeger and Arnemo 2007).
Kreeger and Arnemo (2007) revised a previously published
warning (Kreeger 1996) on the use of Telazol for tiger
immobilization after those authors were unable to find
support for such a warning from researchers immobilizing
tigers in the field. Then in February 2008, an article was
1
E-mail: tkreeger@wildblue.net
published in the internet press claiming that the deaths of 2
Bengal tigers were caused by Telazol when they were
captured for research purposes in the Sunderbans of
Bangladesh (Hossain 2008). It apparently was irrelevant to
the author that one tiger died 6 months postcapture and
there was no proof that the second tiger was even dead.
Nonetheless, the resulting media storm suspended tiger
research in the region and threatened its continuation.
Hossain (2008) included several citations supporting his
statements that Telazol was contraindicated in tigers and
impugned the competence of the researchers. However,
examination of these citations failed to identify any reference
from a peer-reviewed scientific journal supporting that claim.
The Hossain (2008) article coupled with our own inability
to confirm the warnings caused us to review the literature to
validate these citations and to determine whether the
widespread belief that Telazol should not be used in tigers
had scientific legitimacy. In conjunction with our review, we
conducted an internet-based inquiry of members of the
American Association of Zoo Veterinarians (AAZV) and
contacted field researchers working with tigers to document
their experience on the use of Telazol in this species,
whether good or bad.
Our literature review revealed that the initial warning
probably arose from observations Armstrong (1990) pub-
lished in the newsletter of the Tiger Species Survival Plan.
According to Armstrong (1990:11),
These cats were immobilized one time with Telazol. The
animals were in normal health and immobilizations and
recoveries were smooth and uneventful. Two to four days
after immobilization, the cats developed symptoms of central
nervous system disease, including rear limb ataxia, front limb
extensor rigidity, disorientation, hyperventilation, hyperactiv-
ity, muscle tremors, preictal behavior and petit mal seizures.
… In two cases involving multiple immobilizations with
Telazol within a period of several days symptoms have been

Kreeger and Armstrong N Tigers and TelazolH 1183

 more severe progressing to lateral recumbency and in one case
death and the other case prolonged recovery from symptoms
over several weeks.…
That report was based on personal observations by that
author (D. Armstrong) as well as written reports either by
letter or copied medical records from veterinarians at other
zoos and oral personal communication from veterinarians at
other institutions. Some of those reports were in cats that
had complicating disease issues that made interpretation of
symptoms unclear, but other cases were in cats immobilized
for routine exams or transfers between enclosures with no
known complicating medical issues. That collection of
observational and anecdotal reports, although insufficient to
document a publishable cause and effect, provided sufficient
data to suggest a probable correlation of which the zoo and
wildlife veterinary community should be aware.
Prior to Armstrong (1990), the only printed report of
adverse effects in tigers concerned the use of tiletamine only.
Klein (1980:8) stated that, ‘‘In a Siberian tiger on two
occasions following immobilization with tiletamine, an
apparently normal and complete recovery was followed
two or three days later by a depressive and incoordinated
state. These signs progressed to hyper-responsiveness and
the animal’s state was similar to that produced by low doses
of cyclohexylamines. … In subsequent immobilizations of
this Siberian and several additional tigers, this phenomenon
did not occur when oral diazepam, 0.2 mg/kg, was
administered for five days following immobilization.’’
We examined all known published admonitions on the use
of Telazol in tigers, which revealed that every source either
lacked any supporting reference (Kreeger 1996, Nielsen
1999, Muir et al. 2000, Curro 2002, Plumb 2002, Wack
2003, Grimm and Lamont 2007) or referenced a source that
itself did not include a supporting reference (Vogelnest
1999, Miller et al. 2003, Gunkel and Lafortune 2007). In
other words, it appeared that these various authors were
simply referencing each other, if they referenced anyone at
all. Interestingly, we found no publication that referenced
the original Armstrong (1990) article.
Several AAZV members responded to the list-serve
inquiry, most reporting that they had no records on the
use of Telazol in tigers. Eight zoos reported using Telazol in
103 tiger immobilizations since 1987. Some of those
immobilizations were included in the data in Armstrong
(1990). Of those 103 immobilizations, 6 tigers had slow
recoveries, 1 had grand mal seizures 3 days postimmobiliza-
tion, and 1 Siberian tiger died acutely during anesthesia.
That death was not included in the report by Armstrong
(1990). The tiger having seizures was a Bengal–Siberian
cross immobilized with Telazol twice; seizures occurred
after the second immobilization. The Siberian tiger that
died had fulminant pulmonary edema upon necropsy.
In addition to captive tigers, we contacted field researchers
in Russia, Nepal, and Bangladesh who captured tigers with
Telazol and radiocollared and released them. Few of those
wild tigers were directly observed shortly after capture, so
researchers’ interpretations of postrecovery complications
1184
were limited to radiotelemetry movement data. At least 18
Siberian tigers and 31 Bengal tigers were captured using
Telazol (Smith 1983; A. Barlow, University of Minnesota,
personal communication; J. Goodrich, Wildlife Conserva-
tion Society, personal communication). Of those, no
Siberian tigers died of natural causes within 30 days of
capture (one was shot). Two Bengal tigers died: one from
hyperthermia and the other drowned upon induction, but
neither death was attributed to adverse reactions to the drug.
No tiger demonstrated postimmobilization complications
based on radiotelemetry data.
Summarizing events that occurred in close association
with the use of Telazol, we collected records on 152 captive
and wild tiger immobilizations and were able to document 2
tigers dying, 13 tigers having central nervous system
symptoms, and several having prolonged recoveries. If these
data were representative of Telazol use in tigers, then this
equates to a mortality rate of 1.3%. Probability of a clinically
significant complication (other than prolonged recovery,
which is seen in many other species) was 8.6%. These
statistics, however, are not proof that any problem was due
exclusively to the drug or to some underlying, unknown
pathology. It may be that many of the captive tigers were
immobilized for some medical issue, which obfuscated
interpretation.
How do these data compare to other drugs or other
species? A recent report reviewed captures of 5,959 free-
ranging moose (Alces alces), brown bear (Ursus arctos),
wolverine (Gulo gulo), Eurasian lynx (Felis lynx), and gray
wolf (Canis lupus) using etorphine or etorphine–xylazine
(moose), etorphine–acepromazine (bears), tiletamine–zola-
zepam–medetomidine (bears, wolves), ketamine–xylazine
(wolverines, lynx), ketamine–medetomidine (bears, wolver-
ines, wolves, lynx), and tiletamine–zolazepam (wolves).
Mortalities of all causes within 30 days of capture were as
follows: moose 0.84%; bears 0.99%; wolverines 2.14%; lynx
3.18%; and wolves 2.34% (Arnemo 2008). This large data
set suggested the mortality rate observed in tigers given
Telazol was similar or less than recorded in other species
given the same or other drugs.
Ultimately, we are left to contemplate a disparate
collection of medical records, anecdotal information, and
memories, but we can make some empirical observations on
the use of Telazol in tigers: 1) death rates in tigers given
Telazol are similar to or less than mortality rates observed in
other species; 2) some postrecovery complications in tigers
might be attributable to Telazol; 3) postrecovery complica-
tions appear to occur more frequently, if not exclusively, in
captive tigers as opposed to free-ranging tigers (albeit this
could be a function of the inability to continually observe
free-ranging tigers).
We do not believe that these data warrant the dogmatic
statement that Telazol is contraindicated and should not be
used in tigers (Curro 2002, Wack 2003, Gunkel and
Lafortune 2007). Based on our literature review, several
authors, somewhere, somehow picked up the idea that
Telazol was harmful to tigers and readily repeated and
propagated it without any apparent attempt to establish its
The Journal of Wildlife Management N 74(6)
validity. The tenets of critical thinking, as well as
conscientious scientific reporting, require verification of
any claim. In scientific writing, we verify claims by making
the effort to locate the primary reference supporting a
statement, which does not appear to have been done here in
the case of Telazol and tigers. Had the original report
(Armstrong 1990) been read firsthand by such authors, they
might have noted that Armstrong made no recommenda-
tion on the use of Telazol in tigers. Rather, the newsletter
editor inserted a comment at the end of Armstrong
(1990:11) that read, ‘‘Telazol should not be used to
immobilize tigers until further notice.’’ This editorial
comment evolved into dogma that has reverberated for
20 years in captive and free-ranging wildlife anesthesia.
We are left to conclude that the use of Telazol to
anesthetize tigers poses no more of a risk than do other
anesthetic regimens. Nonetheless, as with all species and all
drugs, bad things can happen under the best of circum-
stances, of which we need to be cognizant and prepared to
react competently and professionally. We also need to be
cognizant of the inherent harm unsubstantiated dogma can
inflict. In the Hossain (2008) example, it appeared
unsubstantiated information was used to add credibility to
a personal agenda to stop tiger research, and several of us
played a part in helping Hossain (2008) accomplish this.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank T. Curro of AAZV for his assistance in providing
the internet inquiry and we thank all zoological institutions
and field researchers who responded to our inquiry.
LITERATURE CITED
Armstrong, D. 1990. Adverse reactions to Telazol in tigers. Page 11 in G.
A. Binczik and R. Tilson, editors. Tiger beat: the newsletter of the Tiger
Species Survival Plan 3. Minnesota Zoo, Minneapolis, USA.
Arnemo, J. M. 2008. Capture mortalities in moose, brown bear, wolverines,
Eurasian lynx, and gray wolves: a review of 5,959 captures. Page 51 in
Kreeger and Armstrong N Tigers and TelazolH
Proceedings 57th Annual Conference of the Wildlife Disease Associa-
tion, 3–8 August 2008, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Wildlife Disease
Association, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.
Curro, T. G. 2002. Large cat anesthesia. Pages 52–53 in Proceedings of the
Western Veterinary Conference, 11–14 February 2002, Las Vegas,
Nevada, USA.
Grimm, K. A., and L. A. Lamont. 2007. Clinical pharmacology. Pages 3–
36 in G. West, D. Heard, and N. Caulkett, editors. Zoo animal and
wildlife immobilization and anesthesia. Blackwell, Ames, Iowa, USA.
Gunkel, C., and M. Lafortune. 2007. Felids. Pages 443–458 in G. West, D.
Heard, and N. Caulkett, editors. Zoo animal and wildlife immobilization
and anesthesia. Blackwell, Ames, Iowa, USA.
Hossain, S. 2008. Death of two tigers: immature science in imma-
ture hands? The Daily Star. ,http://www.thedailystar.net/story.
php?nid524368.. Accessed 15 Apr 2009.
Klein, L. 1980. Clinical pharmacology of agents used in the restraint of
felidae and hoofed stock. Pages 7–12 in Proceedings American
Association of Zoo Veterinarians Conference, 18–20 October 1980,
Washington, D.C., USA. American Association of Zoo and Wildlife
Veterinarians, Yullee, Florida, USA.
Kreeger, T. J. 1996. Handbook of wildlife chemical immobilization.
Wildlife Pharmaceuticals, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Kreeger, T. J., and J. M. Arnemo. 2007. Handbook of wildlife chemical
immobilization. Third edition. Self-published, Laramie, Wyoming,
USA.
Miller, M., M. Weber, D. Neiffer, B. Mangold, D. Fontenot, and M.
Stetter. 2003. Anesthetic induction of captive tigers (Panthera tigris)
using a medetomidine–ketamine combination. Journal Zoo and Wildlife
Medicine 34:307–308.
Muir, W. W., J. A. E. Hubbell, R. T. Skarda, and R. M. Bednarski. 2000.
Handbook of veterinary anesthesia. Third edition. Mosby, St. Louis,
Missouri, USA.
Nielsen, L. 1999. Chemical immobilization of wild and exotic animals.
Iowa State University Press, Ames, USA.
Plumb, D. C. 2002. Veterinary drug handbook. Fourth edition.
PharmaVet, White Bear Lake, Minnesota, USA.
Smith, J. L. D. 1983. A technique for capturing and immobilizing tigers.
Journal of Wildlife Management 47:255–259.
Vogelnest, L. 1999. Tiger anaesthesia. Australian Veterinary Journal
77:378.
Wack, R. F. 2003. Felidae. Pages 491–501 in M. E. Fowler and R. E.
Miller, editors. Zoo and wild animal medicine. Fifth edition. W. B.
Saunders, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Associate Editor: Gese.
1185