Content uploaded by Andreia Garcês
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andreia Garcês on Dec 22, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
1094
Int. j. adv. multidisc. res. stud. 2022; 2(6):1094-1099
International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary
Research and Studies
The importance of Wildlife Rehabilitation Center in the conservation of wild species
1 Andreia Garcês
1 Instituto Politécnico de Viseu, Escola Superior Agrária de Viseu, Campus Politécnico, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal
1 Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB), University of Trás-os-
Montes e Alto Douro, 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal
1 Instituto Universitario de Ciências da Saúde - CESPU (IUCS-CESPU), 4585-116 Gandra, Portugal
Corresponding Author: Andreia Garcês
Abstract
Wildlife rehabilitation centres have an important role in the
conservation and rehabilitation of species. Regardless of the
large numbers of wildlife casualties rehabilitated every year
all around the world, there are few published data detailing
species, numbers treated, quality of care provided and
outcome following release. Wildlife can act as sentinels of
ecosystem health, and the data collected can provide
important information not only regarding the diseases in
their populations but also in Humans. This article reviews
the importance of wildlife rehabilitation and its role in
wildlife conservation and offers recommendations on future
policy.
Keywords: Wildlife, Rehabilitation, Disease, One Health
Introduction
Wildlife rehabilitation, according to the International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council (IWRC), is defined as “the treatment and
temporary care of injured, diseased and displaced indigenous animals and the subsequent release of healthy animals to
appropriate habitats in the wild” [1, 2].
Wildlife Recovery Centres (WRC) are widespread worldwide [3-7]. These institutions vary from large, modern and well-
equipped centres with highly qualified paid staff to small organizations with little equipment and run by volunteers with
limited resources, depending on many factors [8]. They can be managed by public or private entities, that conduct their work in
close contact with the local administrations [9].
One of the reasons why WRC exist is to attempt to offset the negative impact of man on species demographics and individual
animal welfare [1]. Species all around the world are declining due to anthropogenic factors such as pollution, hunting, habitat
destruction, poisoning, and others [10–12]. For example in the WRC in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, 40% of the
hedgehog’s admittance was provoked by road traffic collisions, garden and pet injuries, poisoning, and disturbance of habitat
(Figure 1) [13]. In the UK cats kill 90 million “prey items” (e.g., small birds, rodents, lizards) during the spring and summer
months [14]. This moral and ethical responsibility is even more significant in large man-made catastrophes such as oil spills [15].
Fig 1: a) orphan owl; 2) orphan squirrels; 3) injured fox due to collision with a vehicle
Received: 02-11-2022
Accepted: 12-12-2022
ISSN: 2583-049X
International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies www.multiresearchjournal.com
1095
The majority of the rehabilitation work is conducted with
common species that have secure populations in their
regions. The variety of the species will vary according to the
region [16]. Some species that are admitted to the WRC have
legal protection, such as threatened and endangered species
(that are very few individuals to their rarety), whereas others
are classed as a nuisance or invasive species (usually
eliminated by law) [17].
When animals are admitted to the WRC, injured, orphaned
or sick, is necessary a triage by specialized personnel
(veterinarian) to prioritize patients that are in the worst
condition. The objective is to treat as many animals as
possible with limited resources for all to be treated
immediately. Overall, the process of dealing with a wildlife
casualty can be divided into six main stages: 1) Initial
location or sighting, capture and translocation to the WRC;
2) Examination, assessment for rehabilitation or euthanasia;
3) First aid and stabilization; 4) Treatment. 5) Recuperation
and rehabilitation; 6) Release or euthanasia (Figure 2) [18].
Fig 2: Capture, treatment, rehabilitation and release of different species in wildlife rehabilitation centres
Disease surveillance
Wild animals can be considered biological indicators of
environmental health, particularly in urban and suburban
areas [9].
The wildlife casualty usually is not an isolated entity, but
part of a complex ecosystem that incorporates the
individual, other members of the population, other wildlife,
domestic animals and humans [19]. This conceptual model
embraces the ‘One Health’ principles of integrating human,
animal and environmental health (Figure 3) [1].
Fig 3: One Health concept adapted to wildlife
Around 75% of emerging human diseases originate from
wild animals, while 77% of livestock and 91% of domestic
animal pathogens also infect wildlife species [20].
The abundance of animals that are admitted annually to
rehabilitation centres provides can provide a unique
opportunity to conduct investigations on pathogens that may
be important to the health of not only wildlife species but
also domestic animals and humans [20].
WRC records are an often unexploited source of crucial
information on species morbidity and mortality in urban and
suburban areas [8]. The data collected on wildlife mortality
and morbidity can be used in wildlife conservation projects,
reintroduction, translocation programmes and disease
surveillance.
The information obtained through the systematic collection
by WRC can be provided to national wildlife disease
networks and governments (e.g., Wildlife Disease
Association (WDA), European Wildlife Disease Association
(EWDA), World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)) and
help in the vigilance of diseases. During the West and Nile
epidemics in North, America WRC provided important data
[8, 20]. A single description of an unknown disease may lead
to the identification of novel pathogens not previously
described in that host [1].
International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies www.multiresearchjournal.com
1096
Little is still known about the transmission, pathogenicity, or
natural history of many diseases that affect wild animals.
Animals admitted for rehabilitation can provide information
regarding various pathogens and increase our knowledge.
These data can then be later used to minimize morbidity and
mortality caused by these pathogens both in free‐ranging
and captive animals [20]. Besides, this opportunistic and
inexpensive method of data collection can provide more
thorough epidemiological studies [8].
Release of animals from the Wildlife Release Centre
The main objective of WTC, when possible, is to recover
the animals, rehabilitate them and released them back to
their natural habitat. The release of the animals is a very
complex and important process, that can be an
underestimated component of the rehabilitation process with
the potential for high losses [18, 20].
The data relating to release rates from wildlife centres is
very limited since, for example, the British Wildlife
Rehabilitation Council suggested that around 42% of all
admissions were eventually released [1]. The data available
data show that the release rates are overall higher for birds
and young animals [18].
When animals are released their need to re-integrate into the
wild, acquiring again their natural behavior and breeding
habits, for the release to be considered successful. In the
cases where is necessary to translocate animals, there is a
potentially negative genetic, pathogenic and ecological
effects [21, 22].
To improve the success of release and reintegration on the
habitat some measures can be accomplished by the WRC
such as 1) reducing human contact and “imprinting” in
juveniles; 2) providing physical fitness because most
animals lose weight after release; 3) provision of naturally
occurring foods in captivity before release; 4) in birds fly
training [1, 23].
Post-release monitoring is crucial to evaluate the success of
the release process, something that many times is not
accomplished. This monitoring can be accomplished by: 1)
direct observation with recognition of individual animals
using rings, tags, fur clips, coloured dyes or tattoos; 2)
movement-sensitive cameras; 3) permanent marking by
radio frequency identification (RFID) transponders or
passive integrated transponders (PIT tags) placed as
subcutaneous chips or ear tags [18, 24]. The studies of post-
release outcomes can contribute to decisions regarding when
and how to release casualties. For example, in foxes, the
initial provision of shelter and support feeding in a
temporary enclosure within the release site has been shown
to improve post-release survival in captive-reared animals
[25, 26].
Limitations of the Wildlife Rehabilitation Centers
The information obtained from statistical analysis of WRC
databases is important to the successful management of the
institution but also for wildlife disease monitoring programs,
wildlife medicine and ecosystem health assessment [8]. The
data collected in a single rescue centre does not give us
information regarding the national level, and sometimes the
comparison between centres can be difficult due to the use
of different methods to store the data [1, 8].
WRC has limitations, as referred before, some centres are
very small and have very limited resources and access to
complementary exams. Regarding the databases from WRC,
there is an important source of information, but also they are
limited and biased. The data is considered non-random and
biased due to: 1) some species may be more represented due
to public perceptions or sentiments (ex. Hedgehogs); 2)
species that live near or within urban, suburban areas are
more commonly admitted; 3)anthropogenic causes are
overestimated; 4) natural deaths of wild animals remain
undetected because there are not admitted to WRC; 5)
injuries that cause rapid death generally are not included
data; 6)databases tend to be more incident focused (e.g.
orphaned, trauma by run over) rather than being
diagnostically orientated; 7) different volunteers recording
data into the database is a higher possibility of recording
errors [8].
However, this limitation can be eliminated or reduced by
standardization of record keeping, health screening (e.g.,
ancillary diagnostic tests, regular postmortem examination),
and the use of common codes and categories in all WRC [8,
27].
Education role of the Wildlife Rehabilitation Centres
Almost all the WRC have an educational component to their
activities, they can use their clinical cases and experiences
to educate the public about the value of wildlife, how to
recognise injured animals, how to act in the presence of
animal animals and the importance of healthy ecosystems
[17].
When wild animals are found what to due
When someone encounters a wild animal, first it is
necessary to determine if it needs human help. If the animal
presents a clear injury (e.g., as a broken bone, blood, cut), if
the animal is shivering, it is a young bird without feathers,
or if the animal is brought home by a pet (cat or dog), are all
signs that the animal needs help and should be transported to
a WRC.
In the eventuality of finding mammals and birds babies
alone, the decision tree to follow is represented in Figures 4
and 5.
International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies www.multiresearchjournal.com
1098
Wild animals should be approached very carefully. Deer,
seal, wild boar, otter, badger, fox, snake, bird of prey and
nocturnal, swan, goose, heron, and gull should be
approached with special precaution. Keep a safe distance
and call the responsible authorities to collect the animals. If
it is not possible for the recurs to come to collect the animal
some steps should be followed to ensure the security of the
person and the animal. Before approaching the injured
animal weigh up the risks, and only approach when there is
no risk to yourself or others. When capturing the animal
keep him away from the face to avoid bites or scratches.
When possible use gloves or a towel to handle the animals,
in special those animals that can transmit diseases such as
rabies, and wash your hands after touching the animals. The
animals should be placed in a cardboard box or carried
covered by a towel to maintain a dark environment and
make as little noise as possible in the vicinity of the animal
[1, 18].
Conclusion
WRC are a key to the conservation and preservation of wild
animals, and a source of information regarding the outbreak
of new diseases and epidemiological vigilance. Also, they
have an important role in the education of the general
population to help to conserve species, particularly those
that are endangered.
In the future, many improvements can be done in the triage,
treatment, rehabilitation and release. For that to happen is
not only necessary to invest in their infrastructures and staff,
but also to continue to collect data in more efficient
methods.
Conflict of interests
The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by National Funds by FCT -
Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, under
the project UIDB/04033/2020.
References
1. Mullineaux E. Veterinary treatment and rehabilitation
of indigenous wildlife. J Small Anim Pract. 2014;
55(6):293-300.
2. Miller E. Standards in Wildlife Rehabilitation
[Internet]. St. Cloud, MN, USA: National Wildlife
Rehabilitators Association and International Wildlife
Rehabilitation Council, 2012 [cited 2022 Dec 12].
Available from:
https://theiwrc.org/resources/guidelines-for-wildlife-
rehabilitation/
3. Molina-López RA, Casal J, Darwich L. Causes of
Morbidity in Wild Raptor Populations Admitted at a
Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre in Spain from 1995-
2007: A Long-Term Retrospective Study. PLoS ONE.
2011; 6(9):e24603.
4. Ange-Van Heugten K, Van Heugten E, Verstegen
MWA. Sixteen-year review of the population trends and
mortality causes for captive Woolly monkey Lagothrix
spp: REVIEW: Woolly Monkey Population Trends in
Captivity. International Zoo Yearbook. 2010;
44(1):212-217.
5. Brown JD, Sleeman JM. Morbidity and Mortality of
Reptiles Admitted to the Wildlife Center of Virginia,
1991 to 2000. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 2002;
38(4):699-705.
6. Deem SL, Terrell SP, Forrester DJ. A Retrospective
Study of Morbidity and Mortality of Raptors in Florida:
1988-1994. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine.
1998; 29(2):160-164.
7. Garcês A, Pires I, Pacheco F, Sanches L, Soeiro V,
Lóio S, et al. Preservation of wild bird species in
northern Portugal - Effects of anthropogenic pressures
in wild bird population (2008-2017). Science of the
Total Environment [Internet]. 2019;650(0). Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.022
8. Trocini S, Pacioni C, Warren K, Butcher J, Robertson I.
Wildlife disease passive surveillance: The potential role
of wildlife rehabilitation centres. Environmental
Science. 2008; 5.
9. Dessalvi G, Borgo E, Galli L. The contribution to
wildlife conservation of an Italian Recovery Centre.
NC. 2021; 44:1-20.
10. Farris ZJ, Golden CD, Karpanty S, Murphy A, Stauffer
D, Ratelolahy F, et al. Hunting, Exotic Carnivores, and
Habitat Loss: Anthropogenic Effects on a Native
Carnivore Community, Madagascar. PLoS ONE. 2015;
10(9):e0136456.
11. Ewers RM, Didham RK. Confounding factors in the
detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation.
Biol Rev. 2005;81(01):117.
12. D’Amico M, Román J, de Los Reyes L, Revilla E.
Vertebrate road-kill patterns in Mediterranean habitats:
Who, when and where. Biological Conservation. 2015;
191:234-242.
13. Reeve N, Huijser MP. Mortality factors affecting wild
hedgehogs: A study of records from wildlife rescue
centres. Lutra. 1999; 42(1):7-24.
14. Woods R, Jones HI, Watts J, Miller GD, Shellam GR.
Diseases of Antarctic Seabirds [Internet]. In: Kerry KR,
Riddle M, editors. Health of Antarctic Wildlife. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2009 [cited
2022 Jan 29]. page 35-55. Available from:
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-540-93923-8_3
15. Castege I, Lalanne Y, Gouriou V, Hemery G, Girin M,
D’Amico F, et al. Estimating actual seabirds mortality
at sea and relationship with oil spills: Lesson from the
‘prestige’ oil spill in aquitaine (France). Ardeola. 2007;
54(2):289-307.
16. Siemer WF, Brown TL, Martin PP, Stumvoll RD.
Tapping the Potential of the Wildlife Rehabilitation
Community for Public Education about Wildlife
Damage Management. 1992; 5.
17. Sleeman JM, Clark EE. Clinical Wildlife Medicine: A
New Paradigm for a New Century. Journal of Avian
Medicine and Surgery. 2003; 17(1):33-37.
18. Mullineaux E, Keeble E. BSAVA Wildlife Casualties.
2nd ed. Gloucester: British Small Animal Veterinary
Association, 2016.
19. Furness LE, Campbell A, Zhang L, Gaze WH,
McDonald RA. Wild small mammals as sentinels for
the environmental transmission of antimicrobial
resistance. Environmental Research. 2017; 154:28-34.
20. Yabsley MJ. The Role of Wildlife Rehabilitation in
Wildlife Disease Research and Surveillance [Internet].
In: Medical Management of Wildlife Species. John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2019 [cited 2022 Nov 29]. page
159-165. Available from:
International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies www.multiresearchjournal.com
1099
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/978111
9036708.ch13
21. Cunningham AA, Lawson B, Hopkins T, Toms M,
Wormald K, Peck K. Monitoring diseases in garden
wildlife. Veterinary Record. 2014; 174(5):126-126.
22. Kock RA, Woodford MH, Rossiter PB. Disease risks
associated with the translocation of wildlife. Rev Sci
Tech. 2010; 29(2):329-350.
23. Jule KR, Leaver LA, Lea SEG. The effects of captive
experience on reintroduction survival in carnivores: A
review and analysis. Biological Conservation. 2008;
141(2):355-363.
24. Kelly A, Scrivens R, Grogan A. Post-release survival of
orphaned wild-born polecats Mustela putorius reared in
captivity at a wildlife rehabilitation centre in England.
Endang Species Res. 2010; 12(2):107-115.
25. Robertson CPJ, Harris S. The Behaviour After Release
of Captive-reared Fox Cubs. Animal Welfare. 1995;
4(4):295-306.
26. Griffiths A, Brook B. Effect of fire on small mammals:
A systematic review. International Journal of Wildland
Fire. 2014; 23:1034.
27. Karesh WB. Wildlife Rehabilitation: Additional
Considerations for Developing Countries. Journal of
Zoo and Wildlife Medicine. 1995; 26(1):2-9.
