Post on 22-Feb-2016
description
A Study of the Success of Local Wildlife Rehabilitation
By: Marli Milano
Introduction
Rehabilitation is used after circumstances that have harmful effects to wildlife such as: Oil spills Human activities involving pollutants or
land clearing Rehabilitation enables animals injured
due to human activities to survive Lessens amount of endangered animals
due to human causes
Introduction Pollution released by humans causes
birth defects in animals abnormal pigmentation missing or too many limbs and/or toes missing eyes body too small for internal organs abnormal scales spinal problems such as scoliosis▪ (Bell et al. 2006)
Introduction
Animals are rehabilitated for injuries such as: shock and dehydration head trauma physical wounds musculoskeletal conditions such as bone
fractures ▪ (Casey and Casey, 2004)
Introduction
Many think that rehabilitation is too costly rehabilitation of oiled wildlife makes up
only 1% of all cleanup costs▪ (Jessup and Mazet, 1999 [Averett, 1997])
Purpose & Methodology
To find which rehabilitation strategies work best for which injuries by:
Surveying local rehabilitators through:▪ Email surveys▪ Face-to-face survey interview
Methodology 97 email surveys were sent out Email addresses were acquired from
www.wrc.nys.com 5 emails didn’t send due to incorrect email
addresses 1 face-to-face interview was conducted 3 rehabbers were unable to open survey file 4 said this season is too busy to fill out the
survey 1 said this is a “gravely flawed” paper
Survey What types of injuries were seen? Which injuries are
most common? How do the injuries come about (i.e. oil spill, human
activities, caused by other animals, motor vehicles)? What is the most common cause?
How often are animals found with these types of injuries?
How long were injured animals kept in captivity? How does the injury affect the length of time an animal is
kept in captivity? What is the longest amount of time an animal can be in
captivity? What type of animal is most frequently seen for
rehabilitation?
Survey (contd.) Were follow-ups done after release of
rehabilitated animals to find out if rehabilitation was successful or not?
If so, how often was rehabilitation successful? What animals most often have successful
results from rehabilitation? What animals do not succeed after
rehabilitation? How often do you change your rehabilitation
techniques to stay current with changing technologies?
Results Animals are most commonly
seen for collision wounds or after being abandoned
Most injuries are from human related causes i.e. vehicles, domestic pets
Animals are seen throughout the year Mostly April-November
Animals are kept for up to life depending on injury and chance of survival
Rodents, turtles, and birds are most often seen for rehabilitation
Follow-ups are not typically done
Rehab is considered successful if animal is released
Sooner the animal is found after wounded, the more successful it will be
Rabbits, deer and birds often do not make it through rehab
Techniques are changed frequently to stay up-to-date with changing technology
Commonly Seen
Most common rehab reasons: Broken bones Open/puncture
wounds Malnutrition Head traumas Orphaned
Cause of Injury
Animals are often seen for injuries caused by: Human activities:▪ Vehicle collisions▪ Improper adoption of
orphaned animals Domestic pet
attacks
Timing
Animals are mostly found from April to November
Turtles: April – October Peak: May - June
Birds: Spring
Rodents: Spring & autumn
Time Period in Rehab
Animals can remain in rehab for up to their entire lifetime
If unable to be released they will be used for education
Time depends on injury
Animal will be kept as long as necessary for healing
Commonly Seen Animals
Rodents Rabbits Squirrels
Birds Turtles Deer
Release Success
Any released animal is considered a successful rehabilitation
Rabbits are most difficult to rehabilitate
Orphaned animals are easiest to release as long as don’t imprint on humans
Changing Techniques
Rehabbers change techniques constantly
Each animal requires different technology & different attention
Conferences are held to discuss new techniques
Future Research
More time should be given for rehabbers to answer emails
Lettered answer choices should be given to increase effectiveness of study Choices make organizing answers easier
Face-to-face interviews are more productive; it is easier to understand and get straight, thorough answers
Acknowledgements
Thank you to all the New York rehabilitators who answered this
survey
References Bell, Barbara; Spolita, James R. Congdon, Justin. High incidence of deformity in aquatic turtles in
the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge. Environmental pollution (142) [ online database]. 2006 [October 7, 2005; February, 2011]: 457-465.
Casey, Shirley J. Casey, Allan M. A survey of conditions seen in wildlife admittes for wildlife rehabilitation. [online database]. 2004 [2004; February 1, 2011].
Doyle, Nancy D. Rehabilitation of fractures in small animals: maximize outcomes, minimize complications. Clinical techniques in small animal practices () [online database]. 2004 [2004; February 2,2011]:180-191.
Fischer, J. Lindenmayer, D.B. An assessment of the published results of animal relocations. Biological conservation (96) [online database]. 2000 [February 17, 2000; February, 2011]: 1-11.
Fleming, Gregory J. Clinical technique: chelonian shell repair. Journal of exotic pet medicine [online database]. October, 2008 [October, 2008; February, 2011]; Vol 17 (4): 246-258.
Jessup, David A. Mazet, Jonna A.K. Rehabilitation of oiled wildlife: why do it? International Oil Spill Conference.
Molony, Susie E. Dowding, Claire V. Baker, Philip J. Cuthill, Innes C. Harris, Stephet. The effect of translocation and temporary captivity on wildlife rehabilitation success: an experimental study using European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus.) Biological conservation (130) [online database]. 2006 [2006; January, 2011]: 530-537.
Saba, V.S. Spolita, J.R. Survival and behavior of freshwater turtles after rehabilitation from an oil spill. Environmental pollution [online database]. 2003 [14 May 2003; January 2011]126:213-223.
Shine, Richard; Koenig, Jennifer. Snakes in the garden: an analysis of reptiles “rescued” by community-based wildlife carers. Biological conservation (102) [online database]. November 16, 2000 [March 13, 2001; February 2, 2011