BENEFITS AND RISKS OF WILDLIFE REHABILITATION

The decision to rescue, treat, rehabilitate and release wildlife should be based on sound conservation and eco­logical principles requiring an appreciation not only of the benefits but also the risks.

3.1 Benefits

The primary benefit and purpose of wildlife rescue is to alleviate the suffering of an animal that is diseased, injured or orphaned. This may be through treatment or euthana­sia. It is primarily about individual animal welfare (Orr and Tribe 2018).

However, there are many other benefits as discussed by Haering et al. (2020), most of which are undervalued and underappreciated. The volunteer wildlife rehabilita­tion sector provides a significant public good that is of high value to the environment, community and govern­ment in terms of time and financial resources. More spe­cific benefits include:

• The development and improvement of diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitation and husbandry practices for wildlife - There is a vast body of knowledge and experience among wildlife carers and veterinarians regarding the care of Australian native mammals, which has developed over many decades. Although the majority of this has come from working with common species, it is readily transferable to the care of more endangered species.

• Replenishment of local populations - Where local populations of species are declining, the release of rehabilitated animals from those areas can assist in maintaining or boosting populations. This, together with the protection and restoration of local habitats, and threat mitigation such as the control of introduced predators and weeds, activities to which wildlife carers often contribute, are important conservation tools for threatened or endangered species (Tribe and Brown 2000; Guy and Banks 2012).

• Support wildlife research - This may include animal health and disease, anatomy, physiology, nutrition and ecology, all contributing to the body of knowledge on Australian mammals and the effectiveness of wildlife rehabilitation practices.

• Education - This is perhaps the greatest benefit. Wildlife rescue and rehabilitation fosters interest, awareness, compassion and caring for wildlife and the environment. This may be directly, through commu­nity involvement in the care of wild animals, local habitat restoration and protection or indirectly through promoting awareness of wildlife issues and the efforts of wildlife carers in combating them. This educational benefit has been recognised by the wildlife care organisations themselves (Siemer and Brown 1992; Coote 1994; Siemer and Brown 1994; Firkens 1999) and is starting to be appreciated by other wildlife professionals. As Lindburg (1992) explains ‘Whatever the circumstances in a given case, reintroductions may benefit in situ efforts in significant ways. They gener­ally have the built-in effect of raising awareness of the plight of the taxon in question.’

• Disease surveillance - Veterinarians treating wildlife can contribute valuable information on the incidence and spread of wildlife diseases in Australia (Cox­Witton et al. 2014) (see Chapter 1).

3.2 Risks

Despite its benefits, there are also risks associated with wildlife rehabilitation. These include poor animal wel­fare, impacts on animal and human health, adverse effects on conspecific and sympatric species at the release site and waste of money and resources.

• Animal welfare - The various phases of the rehabili­tation process (capture, transportation, assessment, treatment, maintenance in managed care, release) all have the potential for significant compromise to animal welfare (RSPCA UK 2010). It is critical that any efforts to save an individual do not perpetuate its suffering. For example: maintaining species that do not adapt well or thrive in a managed care environ­ment; long-term care; or attempts to repair or treat cases where levels of pain and discomfort are high and cannot readily be controlled. Both surgical and medical interventions have the potential to compro­mise animal welfare (e.g.

Welfare can also be compromised upon release. The British Wildlife Rehabilitation Council (1989) identified three circumstances in which the welfare of wildlife may be compromised when released to the wild:

1. If the animal is not fit (physically and behaviourally) and is unable to fend for itself.

2. If a fit animal is released into an inhospitable environment, such as one where introduced predators have not been controlled or all territories are occupied.

3. If a conspecific resident animal is displaced and it in turn suffers.

During the rehabilitation process, it may become apparent that individuals are not suitable for release (Table 4.2). It is important that wildlife veterinarians and wildlife carers adopt policies on the disposition of unre- leasable wildlife. Under rare circumstances, and with the approval of the relevant wildlife agency, individuals may be retained in permanent care. Tribe and Hanger (2003) identified three criteria for keeping unreleasable individ­uals in permanent care:

1. Quality of life is considered to be at least equal to that of wild individuals, having due regard for the physiological, psychological and social needs of the species.

2. There is a purpose for keeping the animal, such as education, managed care breeding or research that benefits conservation.

3. A high standard of care with appropriately experienced animal caretakers and suitable husbandry standards can be guaranteed for the life of the animal.

The retention of unreleasable wildlife by wildlife carers should be actively discouraged. Although the deci­sion to euthanase animals that have been in care for pro­longed periods of time is often difficult, it is important that emotional attachments do not compromise prag­matic and logical outcomes.

• Individual and population health - The release of rehabilitated wild animals can present significant disease risks for both the individual and free-ranging populations. Animals being rehabilitated may be suf­fering from an infectious disease or they may be exposed to pathogens during rehabilitation to which they have not developed immunity and subsequently succumb to disease or act as carriers, transmitting diseases into a free-ranging population once released (Vogelnest 2008).

The majority of wildlife releases are undertaken with lack of awareness or little regard for disease risks. Even though treatment in some cases may effect a clinical cure, it may not eliminate a carrier state, allowing for pathogen transmission following release. Disease risk analysis (DRA) is an important component of conservation trans­locations and a process that is equally applicable to the release of rehabilitated wildlife (IUCN/SSC Reintroduc­tion Specialist Group 2013) (see Chapters 2 and 3). How­ever, performing a DRA presents challenges, particularly in the context of the release of rehabilitated wildlife: there are few reliable tests to detect many wildlife pathogens; in many cases there is insufficient data available on wildlife pathogens; resources to conduct a DRA on all species undergoing rehabilitation and release are limited; the DRA process is not geared towards the release of individ­ual animals; and release is often undertaken by individu­als with little access to or knowledge of the DRA process. Consequently, the application of strict biosecurity prac­tices and principles and health screening should be applied and encouraged in the rehabilitation and release of wildlife. These include quarantine/isolation, hygiene and sanitation, barrier keeping, clinical assessment, labo­ratory tests (haematology, biochemistry, serology, faecal examination and microbiology), other disease screening and appropriate preventive medicine programs and strat­egies (Vogelnest 2008).

• Human health - The close contact between humans and wildlife during the rehabilitation process increases the risk of anthropozoonosis (disease transmission from humans to other animals and vice versa) (Rabi­nowitz and Gordon 2004; Hunt et al. 2008). However, in the context of Australian mammals, zoonoses (see Chapter 16) are a greater risk than anthroponoses. Strict hygiene and sanitation and the recognition and diagnosis of zoonotic diseases in wildlife are important to minimise the risk of zoonotic disease transmission (Thompson 2011). However, studies have shown that wildlife carers and veterinarians often have few protec­tive procedures in place to prevent these diseases (Saito and Shreve 2005; Dowd et al. 2013).

• Free-ranging populations - Habitats have a maximum carrying capacity, which will fluctuate over time depending on availability of resources such as food, shelter or water, and the presence of predators and com­petitors. If a population increases above the carrying capacity, it will decline until that carrying capacity is again reached. Releasing wildlife into 'suitable habitat' may in fact be pushing the population above the carrying capacity, which may impact resident wildlife.

Similarly, the release of individuals to a geographical area from which they did not originate may pose genetic risks to resident populations. Assuming the released ani­mals survive, they have the potential to breed with free- ranging individuals resulting in a population less adapted to its environment and hence more susceptible to fluctua­tions in resources (Tribe and Brown 2000).

• Wasted resources - Several studies have shown that many translocated animals die soon after release; the primary cause in most cases is predation (Molony et al. 2006; McCutcheon et al. 2007; Ling 2014). Even if a small proportion of the released animals survive and eventually reproduce and contribute to the wild popu­lation, the question arises as to whether the consider­able suffering and high mortality rate among the others is justified and whether the resources invested into these animals is misguided. Redirecting rehabili­tation funding into conservation or research might be a better use of resources.

4.