Non-releasable wildlife

RE: Non-releasable wildlife

Wildlife Nurse — Thu, 09 Feb 2017 07:46:44 GMT

Its all dependant on species and injury. I worked for a wildlife hospital for many many years. Each animal/bird was assessed individually. We had large natural enclosures for them to live if unreleasable. They were observed daily for issues and dependant on species/issue, health checked weekly. Signs of stress were closely monitored and action taken. The majority live out their lives as naturally as possible and to a good age.

RE: Non-releasable wildlife

Robyn — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:28:32 GMT

If they're going to be at a disadvantage when released (because of amputation or something similar) and they can't be rehabilitated for release because of injury or stress factors, and keeping them as a 'mascot' or caring for them (as with Sal's fabulous example) would be too stressful for the animal, then euthanasia's really the only option. Unless they're an at risk or endangered species, I'm not precious about them. It's certainly a shame and I'm never thrilled to euthanise, but I'm not going to advocate for an animal who's either going to live a very short life in the wild because they're now easy prey, or an animal who's temperament doesn't suit long periods of human contact, it's not fair to them.

RE: Non-releasable wildlife

Sal the 1st — Tue, 07 Feb 2017 00:03:11 GMT

[quote user="Celine"]

Feel quite strongly about this - if it's a wild animal what welfare benefit is there TO THE ANIMAL (not to our own fluffy sensitive feelings) by keeping an animal that will be constantly stressed by fear alive? Obviously after a time it will become desensitised to human presence and this may be different for different species (an adult wild bird will never be happy but a baby handreared will be fine, although that's it's own ethical question) but I don't think it's fair to force an unreleasable animal to go through this.

So I guess my gut feeling is - I'm against this, however there's a caveat there that if said animal is part of a threatened species and may be used for captive breeding for release of offspring and is kept with members of its own species with minimal human contact then I think there is a very strong argument for this.

[/quote]

100% agree with this - unless its endangered and will be accommodated properly with others of its kind as part of a breeding programme. I am not in favour of wildlife being used as some kind of novelty in a petting area - which sadly seems to be the fate of many - its a miserable existence, not only that there are non native species which to be blunt are becoming a bloody nuisance and threatening the existence of our native flora and fauna - and people will insist on trying to save them because they are cute ( eg bloody muntjac deer ).

But I'm not totally heartless - Tripod my 3 legged hedge pig that had the run of the back garden lived what I would consider to be a pretty good life, I lost him at the very beginning of the year - he was at least into his seventh year and had fathered at least 2 litters of piglets. I didn't bother him except for supplementing his food a bit as he got older and he didn't bother me. He certainly wasn't at any stage a pet or tame.Hedgies are in short supply around here and they need all the help they can get.

RE: Non-releasable wildlife

Celine — Mon, 06 Feb 2017 16:28:58 GMT

Also you may want to approach the AZEVN (www.azevn.org ) to include a questionnaire in our yearly meeting / workshop held in May this year, as there will be around 70 delegates who are VNs in exotic / zoo / wildlife practice who would be interested in any research being done regarding wildlife welfare! Obviously you may then get a bias in opinion but would be interesting to compare this with opinions of people in general practice too!

RE: Non-releasable wildlife

Celine — Sun, 05 Feb 2017 09:58:40 GMT

Thanks Ted, although should add I'm a VN in a large zoo so we are constantly trying to assess our animals' welfare / stressors etc. My viewpoint has changed so far from when I was in practice and it was "save everything at all cost"!

RE: Non-releasable wildlife

Ted Burden — Sat, 04 Feb 2017 14:02:38 GMT

Thank you Celine for an excellent response - much appreciated. You ask a good question in respect of "what welfare benefit is there to the animal" - to which many of the smaller 'no-kill' rehabbers would say "it gets to live its life". The ethical question arises as to the value of that experience if the animal cannot exhibit most or all of its natural behaviours. Also, as you rightly mention, how do we evaluate stress? We have some well known behaviours identifiable in domestics and zoo stock but it is very easy to look at a response in a wild animal that may well indicate significant stress and yet mistake that for contentment as we anthropomorphically transfer our own responses, feelings and values onto it.

I agree with the caveat you make and perhaps even extend this beyond endangered species to more common ones if all of the husbandry criteria you stipulate are met and if those animals may serve a useful educational purpose that brings greater understanding, compassion and tolerance towards some of our much maligned wildlife. Thanks again for the response.

RE: Non-releasable wildlife

Celine — Sat, 04 Feb 2017 11:01:05 GMT