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